Reichmann Alert

[Pickett Wilson]

Ummm, I thought we were talking about M's, not S's.

 

[biggambi]

Bill,
If I may ask a question of you. What is the one biggest contention you have with the M9 as a photojournalist? Is it not suited to any of your work or is it just not suited to a particular area? If it is low light performance, can you please give a little detail: Is it too risky regarding shot potential, given other cameras available to you? Is it that images have to much noise to be printed in copy or gallery prints? Is film quality pictures just not good enough for todays market? You get the general idea of where I'm going with my questions. I hope you can shed some light on this topic. As I think it is such a rich part of Leica's history, and I would like to gain an honest perspective on it.

Kindest Regards,

 

[Trius]

Ummm, I thought we were talking about M's, not S's.

We were, but you claimed the M9 was Leica's last camera.

So, to answer the question I think you were asking ....

• New/better sensor
• Quieter operation
• Improved control ergonomics
• Improved menu structure
• Faster write speed
• I dunno ... there's always ways to improve, eh?

 

[antiquark]

Bill,
If I may ask a question of you. What is the one biggest contention you have with the M9 as a photojournalist?

I'm not Bill or a photojournalist, but I thought PJ's preferred the modern utility features like zoom lenses, autofocus, lots of frames per second, etc.

 

[gb hill]

Let me try some of this:

If people want a modernized Harley Davidson, a "four-wheel drive Toyota", that's fine.

Harleys are being made in China now like the 2009 Touring Glide. All their clothing is made in China. Harley is just a name!

As for the M10 It will most likeky be a X1 with a ff sensor & interchangable lenses +EVF. Cost will be 1/3 of what a new Harley cost.

 

[jpberger]

If you take away the live view and EVIL stuff The camera brief in Riechmann's letter sounds an awful lot like a manual focus contax g. Just saying...

 

[Keith]

Harleys made in China ... that's a laugh!

Harley adopted a world market strategy years ago and that was what kept their arses out of the fire. They use manufacturers in all parts of the world but the bike is as American as apple pie as far as I'm concerned ... they even have castings done here in Oz! 😛

 

[VinceC]

I'll wade in cautiously and just note that the Nikon RF/Contax RF mount would lend itself perfectly to autofocus. It already has the mechanism because of the thumbwheel.

 

[rxmd]

I'll wade in cautiously and just note that the Nikon RF/Contax RF mount would lend itself perfectly to autofocus. It already has the mechanism because of the thumbwheel.

No it wouldn't. A built-in motor to rotate the whole camera mount with lens attached would be slow, heavy, loud, and awkward. Not to mention what happens when you attach a big external-mount tele lens. There's a reason why they recommend the thumbweel only with internal-mount lenses.

 

[Pickett Wilson]

There's a reason autofocus lenses have a lot of plastic in them. It would take a Briggs and Stratton motor to focus old RF lenses. 🙂

 

[Arjay]

Upon first reading pass, MR's article sounds reasonable, but a second reading makes me suspect he's suggesting a camera that will not offer the main Leica M USPs any more:

1. Very short shutter lag
2. Very bright, responsive viewfinder
3. Viewfinder doesn't black out during exposure
4. Shooting the camera while bracing it against one's face for better stability/less vibrations and/or
5. Shooting "from the hip" using zone focusing

Ad 1: All EVF cameras I know need to switch from video / live view mode to high-res capture before actually performing the exposure. In other words, the imaging sensor has to reconfigure itself for another operating mode, and that takes lots of time, as can be seen on practically any current digital point&shoot camera. This shutter lag has electronic causes and appears to be very difficult to get rid of. To qualify as a "Leica" I would expect the lag to be substantially shorter than that of any state-of-the-art DSLR, wich currently is in the range of some 30 milliseconds.

Ad 2: EVFs have a viewing lag, just like any video camera, and the lag is probably in the five to ten millisecond range. That is, the EVF actually displays something that is in the past! I cannot see how this could be useful for candid photography.

Ad 3: Having used numerous digital P&S cameras as well as DSLRs, I know that both camera types share a very annoying feature: The viewfinder/Monitor/EVF blacks out during exposure (see para 1.). That's tolerable in DSLRs, but a PITA in P&S/EVF cameras, because they are even slower than reflex cameras. The very fact that an optical rangefinder doesn't black out during exposure is IMHO the most powerful USP that actually constitutes the Leica product identity.

Ad 4: If I have to watch a monitor on the camera's back, then I can't brace my camera to my body, and I will probably lose 1 to 2 EVs of shutter speed for low-light photography. An EVF might be able to cure this, but then, it would need to offer very high resolution, which again would slow down the entire camera electronics because of the high volume of data that need to be processed and transmitted.

Ad 5: I do not clearly understand MRs vision of DOF support in an EVF. Yes, you can highlight in-focus areas electronically, but owning a camera w/ live view myself, I don't particularly like this operating mode because it impairs vision. And then, how should camera electronics be capable of locating other image areas that might be within the DOF range? To do that, you'd need a lot of processing power, because that would require specifying an acceptable CoC for DOF (for a decision of what's "in focus" and what isn't), and in digital times, there's no more a set rule for this parameter. Also, this In/out of focus decision takes a lot of processing power.

Clearly, I hope Leitz doesn't take MRs opinion as the only one that would drive a decision to design the next generation Leica. They might lose their precious, and almost mythical product identity.

 

[Pickett Wilson]

I've never understood the "finder doesn't black out at the moment of exposure" thing. So I realize at the moment of exposure, because the finder doesn't black out, that I've missed the decisive moment. Unless I'm shooting landscapes, the moment I was trying to capture is already gone forever. I shoot both rangefinders and slrs, and have never felt one had an advantage over the other in that regard.

Now, the lack of some kind of optical finder that I can put my eye right up to does bother me. But it seems most people aren't as concerned with that as I would have thought.

 

[Bike Tourist]

I've never understood the "finder doesn't black out at the moment of exposure" thing. So I realize at the moment of exposure, because the finder doesn't black out, that I've missed the decisive moment. Unless I'm shooting landscapes, the moment I was trying to capture is already gone forever. I shoot both rangefinders and slrs, and have never felt one had an advantage over the other in that regard.

Now, the lack of some kind of optical finder that I can put my eye right up to does bother me. But it seems most people aren't as concerned with that as I would have thought.

As to finder blackout, I offer some of the old Pentacons, Exactas, etc, wherein the blackout continued until you advanced the film. Now that was blackout!

I also shoot with both types (as soon as my R2 arrives today) and agree they both have their advantages.

As to an optical finder, I am one of those extremely bothered by the lack of one. Technology has made strides in EVFs but as yet they just don't get the job done for me.

The article itself was well-considered, well thought out and backed by the author's years of experience. I hardly agree with anything he said. Even the point about hip shooting. What was that all about? People have produced compelling photography shooting at eye level, over their head, from the hip and, I suppose, upside down between their legs. Techniques vary. Results count.

 

[biggambi]

Arjay: well spoken points. It would appear that MR is looking to the camera from a nature photography stand point. At least the photos he uses would support this assumption. I understand how this live view with focus would be of interest in macro photography and the in the use of wide angle lenses in the field. Just to put some perspective on intend use.

While this feature could be added, it would require a transition to a CMOS sensor. The aspect of a CMOS that I do like is the fact that the electronics are on the sensor. Thus allowing for a more compact & simplified design. Also, a CMOS sensor would increase the high ISO performance. But, CCD sensors have other benefits, and I personally prefer them over CMOS sensors in this application. CCD sensors were built specifically for this purpose, and their unique qualities have yet to be eclipsed by CMOS sensors. One can google CCD vs CMOS to find many layman articles on the subject, if desired.

I agree with you, I hope Leica does not look to change the M in this manner. But, as my previous post states. I do think they have a great opportunity to develop a co-existing product.

 

[antiquark]

I've never understood the "finder doesn't black out at the moment of exposure" thing.

If you're taking pictures of people in low light (1/30 or 1/15 shutter speed) you always wonder if they blinked when the shutter was open. The LCD basically solves that problem now, but in the film days you never knew. (If you were using an SLR.)

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

Harleys are being made in China now like the 2009 Touring Glide. All their clothing is made in China. Harley is just a name!

Really? C'est la fin du monde! :bang:

If only they could imitate quality and equality, I'd be more than pleased 😀

 

[Roger Hicks]

There's a reason autofocus lenses have a lot of plastic in them. It would take a Briggs and Stratton motor to focus old RF lenses. 🙂

Still smaller, lighter and faster than a Harley-Davidson! Probably better handling too.

Ceers,

R.

 

[Bill Pierce]

Bill,
If I may ask a question of you. What is the one biggest contention you have with the M9 as a photojournalist? Is it not suited to any of your work or is it just not suited to a particular area? If it is low light performance, can you please give a little detail: Is it too risky regarding shot potential, given other cameras available to you? Is it that images have to much noise to be printed in copy or gallery prints? Is film quality pictures just not good enough for todays market? You get the general idea of where I'm going with my questions. I hope you can shed some light on this topic. As I think it is such a rich part of Leica's history, and I would like to gain an honest perspective on it.

Kindest Regards,

Although the SLR is probably the most versatile camera, the film rangefinder still had it’s place where a quieter, smaller, less noticeable camera wasn’t a constant reminder to the subject that they were being photographed. In certain situations you could use it in a way that the subject wasn’t even aware that they were being photographed. (Street photography would be an example.)

The bright line finder also had advantages in journalism. You were aware of what was just outside the frame and objects nearer and farther than the focus point could be seen sharply - all pretty important when you are photographing the uncontrollable and experiencing the unexpected.

Today, there are cameras that are smaller and quieter and cheaper. And image quality from these cameras continues to get better. So much so that even with relatively large prints, many viewers can’t see the difference between prints from the small and large sensor cameras. In good light, they have replaced the digital Leica with most of the photographers that I know.

In available darkness, where a film Leica loaded with Kodak P3200 was king, there is no digital camera, including the digital Leica, that delivers like the DSLR.

Essentially, what I see among my friends is DSLR’s and digital compacts like the Canon G10, Canon S90 and Panasonic GF1. Leica still makes inroads. A lot of folks are using Leica bright line accessory finders on those cameras. I even have an adapter that lets me screw an accessory shoe into the tripod socket of the S90, a camera that doesn’t have a built-in shoe.

 

[Bill Pierce]

Here is a slightly different viewpoint from Michael Reichmann's on future "rangefinder" cameras.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/leica-different-view.shtml

 

[KM-25]

I've never understood the "finder doesn't black out at the moment of exposure" thing. So I realize at the moment of exposure, because the finder doesn't black out, that I've missed the decisive moment. Unless I'm shooting landscapes, the moment I was trying to capture is already gone forever. I shoot both rangefinders and slrs, and have never felt one had an advantage over the other in that regard.

I feel differently about this. As a SLR user for 34 years, I could not believe how good it felt to have my life back when looking through the VF of a Leica. I too, could see the moment that others without cameras were seeing. It was very liberating and I think it actually helps in my concentration in making images. When ever I go back to my SLR or DSLR's after shooting nothing but R/F for awhile, the mirror black out feels very jarring to me. In the R/F, I see blinks, the moment the flash fired, it is almost like "Live Chimping".

I find an enormous difference in the R/F versus SLR experience.