Rockwell and the 'M9 Concept', the big 'M9 losers', finder options

Robin Harrison

Robin Harrison

aka Harrison Cronbi
Local time
1:51 PM
Joined
Apr 12, 2005
Messages
446
Anyone seen this Rockwell post?
http://kenrockwell.com/leica/m9.htm

Don't worry, I washed my hands after reading it.

Ahead of the release, he's updated his blog dated 09/09/09 with info about the M9. Fair enough, you say - copy the specs from the brochure, whoop-de-doo.

But he seems to have a photo of a 'M9 Concept'. Looks like the M9 from the brochure (no lcd on topplate), but has no M9 markings or red dot. THAT'S how the production model should look! It looks like one of his normal product photos, but he doens't mention having used it per se, or how long he's had it. Perhaps he hasn't. Perhaps he just took the photo of it.

If he did have a test camera, you have to think the NDA has been broken, even considering the leaked brochre. And you have to think there are at least a few other 'big reviewers' out there who have been working on their tests already.

Anyway - just interesting that a guy who didn't buy a D3x purely because of the price is "already trying to figure out from which dealer I want to order my M9".

I have to disagree with his recommendation to M8/.2 owners: "[I would] dump it as fast as I could". If the rumoured prices are roughly right there will be plenty of people who can afford a secondhand M8 but can't aford an M9. Should be some level of demand there.

Even if the M9 would struggle to challenge the market position of the photojournalists' pro DSLRS, it could yet take a decent chunk of the pro landscape photographer's market, where high ISO, frame rate and AF aren't important, but access to top quality wide angles (WATE) and file quality (obviously TBC, but 18Mp 16bit files @ ISO 80 sounds promising) are. Look out for the M8+WATE Vs D3x+14-24mm Vs 1Ds+17-40mm tests all over the place.


On a separate note, the biggest losers in the wake of the M9 release? Those who bought the 24mm summilux hoping to use it on the next generation of digital M as a fast wide-standard. Ouch. Personally I wouldn't want to use an f1.4 lens with an external finder if I had the choice. 21mm and 24mm seemed too close when they came out, and I coulnd't help but feel 24 was chosen over 28 because of the M8.

So where are the finder options, Leica? What would be wrong with a 0.55x finder with full frame 24/35, 28/90, 50/75 lines for those who have shelled out thousands on the 24 lux? And for those who've shelled out even more thousands for the nex noct, how about a 0.85x finder to at least match the best focussing acccuracy the film Leicas offered?
 
Robin Harrison said:
But he seems to have a photo of a 'M9 Concept'. Looks like the M9 from the brochure (no lcd on topplate), but has no M9 markings or red dot. THAT'S how the production model should look! It looks like one of his normal product photos, but he doens't mention having used it per se, or how long he's had it. Perhaps he hasn't. Perhaps he just took the photo of it.
Click to expand...

Indeed it's the photo of a concept. This is not the photo of a M9 as it looks in the brochure. The new dent or notch on the topplate on the left looks different, the leather looks different. The real M9 does not have such a fixation for the baseplate. So he probably never had an M9 and just wrote with the knowledge of the brochure.
 
It's a photoshoped version of his Leica M7. Look at where the film rewind crank would be, obvious photoshop. The M9 also has a littlr window above on of the rangefinder illumination windows, his is photoshoped. Count the spaces on his shutter speed knob, they don't add up to what they should on an M9.

Ken Rockwell is just trying to show off and get some extra traffic to his site. He knows he's up high in the search engines so he figures by adding a Leica M9 page, he gets all the traffic now and when the camera is officially announced. He's already passed judgment on the quality of the product that Leica has yet to announce and claims that his biggest dilemma is to not know where to order it from as soon as it's announced, exuding of course all mention of price!

Ken did not get a special camera from anyone, he didn't get a heads up, he has no idea what the truth about the M9 is... He has read the brochure like all of us, nothing more, nothing less.
 
Robin Harrison said:
On a separate note, the biggest losers in the wake of the M9 release? Those who bought the 24mm summilux hoping to use it on the next generation of digital M as a fast wide-standard. Ouch. Personally I wouldn't want to use an f1.4 lens with an external finder if I had the choice. 21mm and 24mm seemed too close when they came out, and I coulnd't help but feel 24 was chosen over 28 because of the M8.

So where are the finder options, Leica? What would be wrong with a 0.55x finder with full frame 24/35, 28/90, 50/75 lines for those who have shelled out thousands on the 24 lux? And for those who've shelled out even more thousands for the nex noct, how about a 0.85x finder to at least match the best focussing acccuracy the film Leicas offered?
Click to expand...

I was quite surprised to find that the rangefinder was not the same as the one in the current film Leicas, I was also surprised to find no .58x and .85x finder discussed in the brochure. A 24/25mm is a very common lens and one that many photographers use. I would also assume, that a significant chunk of the users that shelled out all that money for a 24mm summilux would be quite interested in the M9. A 21mm Lux could also benefit from built in frames. CV was able to include 21mm frames in a body that will cost fractions of the M9... maybe it's time Leica rethinks it's rangefinder options:

Wide: 20/21mm, 24/25mm, 28mm, 35mm.

Normal (.72x): 28mm , 35mm, 50mm, 75mm, 90mm

Tele: 35mm, 40mm, 50mm, 75mm, 90mm, 135mm

A significant advantage could be had by having 2 M9 with different finders, much more so then the slightly different (only 1 added frame line with the .58x)
 
Anyway, I'd like a wider finder option too. If I'll be able to use properly my wide-angles on the M9 (one day) I'd like a finder similar to that of my 0.58x M6.
 
samoksner said:
Ken did not get a special camera from anyone, he didn't get a heads up, he has no idea what the truth about the M9 is... He has read the brochure like all of us, nothing more, nothing less.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's um... like... exactly what he said. ;)

Here's a quote from his site at http://kenrockwell.com/leica/m9.htm:

"Like many camera companies, Leica supposedly published full data on the M9 a few days before its release, and then withdrew it as soon as it was picked up. This helps speed the viral (mouth-to-mouth) marketing of any new camera. This report is based on this published information. I'm writing in present tense because I don't want to have to go back and re-write this all in two days when it goes public. "​

So basically, he already states he is basing his entire page off of the information available for the M9. No need to bash Mr. Rockwell for doing things that he's already been honest about. He never once claimed having used a test sample of the M9, and never even attempts to suggest or imply he has ever even seen one.

EDIT: BTW, Samoksner, I'm not really directing this towards you, but to earlier posters.​
 
Last edited:
samoksner said:
It's a photoshoped version of his Leica M7. Look at where the film rewind crank would be, obvious photoshop. The M9 also has a littlr window above on of the rangefinder illumination windows, his is photoshoped. Count the spaces on his shutter speed knob, they don't add up to what they should on an M9.
Click to expand...

OK, yep - good spot! Just surprised that he went to the effort to do that. Can't remember him doing such mockups before, e.g. when he's predicted Nikon releases. And if it was a mockup taken from else where, I'm surprised it hasn't surfaced on RFF before now.

Strange man, strange site, in lots of ways.
 
samoksner said:
I was quite surprised to find that the rangefinder was not the same as the one in the current film Leicas, I was also surprised to find no .58x and .85x finder discussed in the brochure. A 24/25mm is a very common lens and one that many photographers use. I would also assume, that a significant chunk of the users that shelled out all that money for a 24mm summilux would be quite interested in the M9. A 21mm Lux could also benefit from built in frames. CV was able to include 21mm frames in a body that will cost fractions of the M9... maybe it's time Leica rethinks it's rangefinder options:

Wide: 20/21mm, 24/25mm, 28mm, 35mm.

Normal (.72x): 28mm , 35mm, 50mm, 75mm, 90mm

Tele: 35mm, 40mm, 50mm, 75mm, 90mm, 135mm

A significant advantage could be had by having 2 M9 with different finders, much more so then the slightly different (only 1 added frame line with the .58x)
Click to expand...

The R4A/M is a little wonder, but then again CV have tiny 21/25mm lenses in their line up (little VF blockage), Leica have the summiluxes and the WATE.

Also, CV utilise manual frameline switching, whereas Leica is committed to the auto-changing lines based on the lens mount. Therefore the 24/35 are linked to the same frameline set. And I'm not sure what 21mm lenses trigger. For that reason I think 24mm as widest frame is a realistic compromise. Similarly, the 40mm frameline is not going to happen on the tele version.

UNLESS....

6-bit code triggered framelines, with secondary data coming from the lens mount position, and optional override in the menus. Have the framelines set by a servo rather than purely mechanically. So long frameline preview lever, hello to customisable framelines. If this is implemented with a single, movable set of framelines, you could choose accuracy at infinity, or 2m, or 0.7m. Screw that - the framelines could adjust size with rangefinder coupling.

(Sorry....but that was not a 'the M9 is rubbish' rant, but a hypothetical innovation rant).
 
Oxymoron

Oxymoron

"Rumors have confirmed ..." ?
Funny that: in Malaysia we often say "truth grows out of a rumour"
:D
David
 
samoksner said:
I was quite surprised to find that the rangefinder was not the same as the one in the current film Leicas, I was also surprised to find no .58x and .85x finder discussed in the brochure. A 24/25mm is a very common lens and one that many photographers use. I would also assume, that a significant chunk of the users that shelled out all that money for a 24mm summilux would be quite interested in the M9. A 21mm Lux could also benefit from built in frames. CV was able to include 21mm frames in a body that will cost fractions of the M9... maybe it's time Leica rethinks it's rangefinder options:

Wide: 20/21mm, 24/25mm, 28mm, 35mm.

Normal (.72x): 28mm , 35mm, 50mm, 75mm, 90mm

Tele: 35mm, 40mm, 50mm, 75mm, 90mm, 135mm

A significant advantage could be had by having 2 M9 with different finders, much more so then the slightly different (only 1 added frame line with the .58x)
Click to expand...
It has nothing to do with thinking or rethinking - it has to do with the combination of physical and optical parameters of the finder. Leica might want to do that at one point of time, but it would require a major redesign of the finder and/or the body.
 
'Like many camera companies, Leica supposedly published full data on the M9 a few days before its release, and then withdrew it as soon as it was picked up. This helps speed the viral (mouth-to-mouth) marketing of any new camera. This report is based on this published information. I'm writing in present tense because I don't want to have to go back and re-write this all in two days when it goes public.'

From the third paragraph. He hasn't seen it, touched it, used or abused it. Pure speculation.
 
If Leica had loaned Rockwell an actual M9 to review, he'd be under an NDA and would not have published this piece. The photo is labeled "concept" and the piece begins with "Rumors have confirmed..." Rockwell made the pic in Photoshop and he's playing with the same rumors and educated guesses as everyone else. I do suspect he's right about Leica deliberately leaking that brochure.

I don't find Rockwell as obnoxious as others seem to. Of course he goes after hits at his site. Why bother having a site if you don't work to attract readers? He's an entertaining and opinionated read, much like another site I know. Besides, isn't a good thing to have him using and writing about rangefinders and using and praising the virtues of film?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom