Trius
Waiting on Maitani
"so the traditional 35 mm camera shape is obsolete and ergonomically wrong."
Well, wrong is a pretty strong term unless qualified by "for me". I happen to think the shape of a classic mechanical RF or (smaller) SLR is about perfect. Since I tend not to chimp, "cheek prints" are of no matter to me. LCD screens are for checking things. If it's a live view system, then the damn thing isn't on your cheek anyway.
I agree about DOF scales on lenses. Just because this feature refers back to an "antiquated" method of focusing doesn't mean it's useless. When I started shooting an SLR, the DOF marks actually piqued my interest, i.e., "What is this for?" and opened my mind to an aspect of image control I might not have noticed, or at least not until much later.
biggambi
Vivere!
I have no experience with the zoom viewer he describes. Can anyone speak to it's usefulness and quality? He assumes this is easy to change. Does anyone know anything about the mechanics of the two systems? Are his assertions correct? If they are correct, it does sound like a nice viewer.
As for ergonomics, there will always be those who will never want the camera to change. But, he is not alone in feeling that the camera could benefit from a stronger grip factor. I do not think this would be much of a change. As for the general form changes he is referring to, I would have to see it to know. But, I personally do like the classic lines. I just think that a simple brass, half domed ball (maybe more elliptical and elongated), that is checked, for your thumb to make contact with, would do wonders. This would be very simple to machine and set in place.
Lastly, I could not agree more with the DOF scales on the lenses.
As for ergonomics, there will always be those who will never want the camera to change. But, he is not alone in feeling that the camera could benefit from a stronger grip factor. I do not think this would be much of a change. As for the general form changes he is referring to, I would have to see it to know. But, I personally do like the classic lines. I just think that a simple brass, half domed ball (maybe more elliptical and elongated), that is checked, for your thumb to make contact with, would do wonders. This would be very simple to machine and set in place.
Lastly, I could not agree more with the DOF scales on the lenses.
marke
Well-known
Pickett Wilson
Veteran
That's two for changing the shape of the M camera. Apostasy! 
Harry Lime
Practitioner
"In many ways I think he is the photographer the M9 was created for. It will be interesting to hear what he has to say."
I'm sorry, but have to disagree with that assessment. Actually I would say quite the opposite is true.
Reichmann is technically very knowledgeable, but he shoots like a tourist. Landscapes that look like calendar shots, found shapes and colors and when he does shoot people, well, he shoots them like a tourist. I see nothing of the raw and spontaneous reportage photography that Leica shooters have been known for over past few decades in his work.
I'm sorry to be so harsh, because he does seem like a nice person, but Reichmann shoots like a hobbyist and his laundry list sounds like that of someone, who is a little too enamored by technology. I hear echos of the dpreview crowd in this article, where too much emphasis is placed on features instead of skill, practice and the content of the image.
Yes, he's right that the camera needs a better sensor and there is nothing wrong with live-view and perhaps a better metering system. But what he is describing is no longer a Leica M series camera.
But maybe that's the future of Leica photography, since the company decided that their target market are well to do hobbyists. The ugly truth is that the vast majority of talented artists or photographers are broke and can't afford an M9.
It think the perfect camera for Reichmann would be a a full frame GF-1 and I don't mean that in a condescending manner. It would be compact and packed with modern features, while still offering the flexibility of a lens mount.
I think Leica has two holes in their product line.
First and foremost they need a digital CL with a good APS-C or APS-H sensor, that is priced considerably lower than the M9. They have also mention a solution for the orphaned R-glass, that will not be a DSLR. In that case how about a full frame GF-1 type camera?
Leave the M series alone. It is what it is and trying to make it something it isn't, is going to ruin it.
I'm sorry, but have to disagree with that assessment. Actually I would say quite the opposite is true.
Reichmann is technically very knowledgeable, but he shoots like a tourist. Landscapes that look like calendar shots, found shapes and colors and when he does shoot people, well, he shoots them like a tourist. I see nothing of the raw and spontaneous reportage photography that Leica shooters have been known for over past few decades in his work.
I'm sorry to be so harsh, because he does seem like a nice person, but Reichmann shoots like a hobbyist and his laundry list sounds like that of someone, who is a little too enamored by technology. I hear echos of the dpreview crowd in this article, where too much emphasis is placed on features instead of skill, practice and the content of the image.
Yes, he's right that the camera needs a better sensor and there is nothing wrong with live-view and perhaps a better metering system. But what he is describing is no longer a Leica M series camera.
But maybe that's the future of Leica photography, since the company decided that their target market are well to do hobbyists. The ugly truth is that the vast majority of talented artists or photographers are broke and can't afford an M9.
It think the perfect camera for Reichmann would be a a full frame GF-1 and I don't mean that in a condescending manner. It would be compact and packed with modern features, while still offering the flexibility of a lens mount.
I think Leica has two holes in their product line.
First and foremost they need a digital CL with a good APS-C or APS-H sensor, that is priced considerably lower than the M9. They have also mention a solution for the orphaned R-glass, that will not be a DSLR. In that case how about a full frame GF-1 type camera?
Leave the M series alone. It is what it is and trying to make it something it isn't, is going to ruin it.
sojournerphoto
Veteran
Mmmmmm
Live view would be nice for tripod use. More pixels, probably. You'll get them whether or not you need them. Better low light performance (lower noise) likely for some people. All are OK and just steps on the digital train. But I don't want an EVF camera - I've not bought an Oly or a Pana because I don't like the viewfinder. My evf camera is a P&S otehrwise slr or rf.
Mike
Live view would be nice for tripod use. More pixels, probably. You'll get them whether or not you need them. Better low light performance (lower noise) likely for some people. All are OK and just steps on the digital train. But I don't want an EVF camera - I've not bought an Oly or a Pana because I don't like the viewfinder. My evf camera is a P&S otehrwise slr or rf.
Mike
Renzsu
Well-known
The M series of cameras is one of the VERY few cameras that people feel passionate about.. not just the way it handles and the results it gives, but the camera itself as well.
In my opinion there's enough room for Leica in their current product portfolio to explore different cameras that might perhaps cater more towards what people like Reichmann want, but I think it would be a big mistake to make those radical changes in the M series. Maybe an MX that has the same mount, but with those extras.
Somehow I do hope though that the people of Leica are a bit more out of the box thinking than this and not trusting on existing solutions to do the job when perhaps there are even better an more innovative ways to do even more. The camera market is still stuck in this sequence of slow evolutionary design. Leica hopefully is able to look beyond this.
In my opinion there's enough room for Leica in their current product portfolio to explore different cameras that might perhaps cater more towards what people like Reichmann want, but I think it would be a big mistake to make those radical changes in the M series. Maybe an MX that has the same mount, but with those extras.
Somehow I do hope though that the people of Leica are a bit more out of the box thinking than this and not trusting on existing solutions to do the job when perhaps there are even better an more innovative ways to do even more. The camera market is still stuck in this sequence of slow evolutionary design. Leica hopefully is able to look beyond this.
rbrooks
Established
I think the Leica guy (Stefan?) mentioned on the one video that they don't feel a need for a low priced M/CL since the used market is filling that niche. I see his point.
And R is as R does. Some people care alot and then there are many others who really don't care. The longer there is no new R body the more the problem solves itself actuarially.
From what I understand about the M9 I think they're getting really close to something good. Sure I can think of a few things to complain about but in general it has hit the spot.
Also Reichman is as Reichman does. Leica cannot even meet current demand so it doesn't matter too much to add features. The public is happy as is.
KM-25
Well-known
But people don't want to hear this, I know, I have the welts and scars to prove it. Before the internet, we had a couple of people who did magazine gear reviews, like the late Herbert Keppler.
But now we have a whole new flock of what I call the "Internet-Gear-Review-Hero" who's work is never anything beyond average and yet people just oooze and gush over what they write like it came from Moses.
I mean just look...really look at how many forum posts that are titled "My M8.2 review" or "M9 does the Outback". Who freaking cares what you used, it is any good, what you shot?
Sadly, often not....
Harry Lime
Practitioner
Stefan's response was more along the lines of:
"If you can't afford an M9, drop dead."
Harry Lime
Practitioner
Amen, brother.
Here's the problem and it doesn't necessarily only pertain to Reichmann, whom I really don't mean to single out, because frankly he's often one of the more reasonable ones out there.
All of these reviewers will discover some new toy a few months down the road and the M9 will no longer be the apple of their eye. The obituary posted on their blog proclaiming the passing of the prodigal son will detail some fatal technological deficiency that is rectified by a newer model and some advice to the creator of the deceased.
The only problem is that Leica may actually take some of this advice to heart and wreck the camera for the rest of us.
Fortunately, Solms moves at a glacial speed, is as stubborn as a mountain goat and suffers from a virulent case of 'not-invented-here' syndrome.
So, the odds of anything actually changing are pretty slim.
Last edited:
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
Exactly ....
biggambi
Vivere!
I started my journey into photography with a Nikon FM2. I chose it because I wanted to learn every element of taking the picture. It was latter that I moved on to a Leica M6ttl. I chose this because I wanted a more intimate relationship with my subject. I like being called upon to make each decision with regard to the picture, and I like the tactile aspect of the camera. I like how there is less between me and my subject, as the system requires me to fully understand the moment. The viewer does not push my vision through the lenses perspective, but rather allows it to remain natural. Keeping me connected to my subject, while my mind takes care of what the final image will be. I see the M8 & M9 as being logical extensions of a system that allows a very unique way of taking photographs. I see it as progression, with out the loss of the human aspect of taking photographs. It is of course easy to let machines do more and more work for us. But, it is not very rewarding to me. The digital M is exactly what it needs to be, no more and no less. Leica embraces the technology that allows it to remain true to its design, not morph into something that betrays it.