Jamie Pillers
Skeptic
Al,
True. But I can always hope... hoping is free!
True. But I can always hope... hoping is free!
Kent
Finally at home...
I guess there is some kind of retro hype going on. Time will show if this is only a hype which will end one das all of a sudden or a real nostalgic movement that goes on and tries to keep some "outdated" technology alive.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Al Kaplan
Veteran
"Reading his long articles"? Most people don't buy the newspaper for the comics, but they read them anyway.
Bill Pierce
Well-known
For me, personally, the heart of the Leica system is the bright line viewfinder, that unique ability to see everything in focus and to see outside the boundaries of the bright line frame. But from the first time I photographed violence I slipped bright line finders into the accessory shoes of my SLR’s to gain that option. Today I travel with a bag of bright line finders from 15 to 135 and they are just as at home in the accessory shoes of DSLR’s and and digital point and pushes as Leica bodies.
So my number one reason for using a rangefinder is transportable to a variety of gear.
Number two, accurate focus of high speed lenses is available in a rangefinder camera if you send all your lenses and bodies to someone like Don Goldberg and have him null-null them, taking out the tolerances out of rangefinder follow arms and cams so that all your lens and body combinations focus spot on. (This is worth a thread on its own.) Since a somewhat similar correction, user installed, is available for the 5D Mark II and factory adjustments are available on some other DSLR’s, this does a great deal to eliminate the focus advantage that custom adjusted rangefinders had in accurately focusing high speed wide angles and normals when manual focus was king.
So my number two reason for using a rangefinder if I’m using a DSLR that provides focus adjustment is no longer limited to a rangefinder.
Number three - a rugged, top of the line piece of gear in a smaller, quieter package than a DSLR. The M8 is bigger than the M6 and the first version is certainly noisier. Small cameras from the Olympus E-P1 to the Sigma DP2 to what will probably appear in the near future may become the stealth cameras of choice.
So my third and last reason for using a rangefinder is fading fast.
So my number one reason for using a rangefinder is transportable to a variety of gear.
Number two, accurate focus of high speed lenses is available in a rangefinder camera if you send all your lenses and bodies to someone like Don Goldberg and have him null-null them, taking out the tolerances out of rangefinder follow arms and cams so that all your lens and body combinations focus spot on. (This is worth a thread on its own.) Since a somewhat similar correction, user installed, is available for the 5D Mark II and factory adjustments are available on some other DSLR’s, this does a great deal to eliminate the focus advantage that custom adjusted rangefinders had in accurately focusing high speed wide angles and normals when manual focus was king.
So my number two reason for using a rangefinder if I’m using a DSLR that provides focus adjustment is no longer limited to a rangefinder.
Number three - a rugged, top of the line piece of gear in a smaller, quieter package than a DSLR. The M8 is bigger than the M6 and the first version is certainly noisier. Small cameras from the Olympus E-P1 to the Sigma DP2 to what will probably appear in the near future may become the stealth cameras of choice.
So my third and last reason for using a rangefinder is fading fast.
Pickett Wilson
Veteran
Bill, I think that is a fair assessment. The ability of new DSLR's to micro adjust the camera to the lens is a major step forward. Now that the size barrier is about to fall (with future incarnations of mirrorless cameras, whatever their format) it is going to get really hard to justify the RF on practical grounds.
Tuolumne
Veteran
Some bizarre stuff there, especially about auto-focus: "Anyone who has had experience with the multi-focus points in a modern slr camera will notice the frustration that the camera selects a focus point you do not want." Why would anyone other than a blithering idiot use auto-focus this way? You put it on spot auto-focus, and it focuses on what you point it at - usually an area as small as an eye. And it does it faster and more reliably than you ever will do it manually.
/T
/T
Sonnar2
Well-known
I can't see any nostalgy in manual focussing either. You point - the camera focusses. Either right or wrong, fast or slow. Compared to this, the photographer is always slow, and often wrong. DOF is a different consideration, though...
Puts mentioned the Micro 4/3 (EVF) in the beginning. To me, this is the future approach in semi professional photography. (The mass will keep use their cell phones to make pictures, though). DSLR is dead, finally. The micro 4/3 EVF is closer to the CRF (Leica M) approach as to the DSLR anyway.
Puts mentioned the Micro 4/3 (EVF) in the beginning. To me, this is the future approach in semi professional photography. (The mass will keep use their cell phones to make pictures, though). DSLR is dead, finally. The micro 4/3 EVF is closer to the CRF (Leica M) approach as to the DSLR anyway.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Not if you are pre-focussed on a spot, e.g. in a race, or for portraiture, or indeed, at a concert -- anywhere you can predict fairly accurately where the subject will be. Then, it is always faster than autofocus.
Also, autofocus is at least as often wrong as I am, even when it doesn't 'hunt' and lose the shot.
It's not nostalgia. It's just what I prefer. Much in the same way that I prefer a manual gearbox to automatic. What I query is the belief that something mass-market and all but idiot-proof (e.g. auto-focus, auto-gearbox) must always and inevitably replace the specialist product. The specialist product doesn't have to be better for everyone: it just needs to be appreciated by enough people that they buy it and keep it in production.
Tashi delek,
R.
Bassism
Well-known
There are a lot of interesting trains of thought in this thread.
I don't think there's any question in the future of the M camera as it is used today. However, as some have pointed out, the vast majority of Leica's customers are older people. This is not because young people are not interested in Leicas, but because if I were to buy an M7, M8, and a new Summicron 50, I would ring up a bill that is half of my current student loan debt. By way of comparison, my M2 and DR Cron were still quite expensive on a student budget, but something I could work into my budget.
M cameras will continue to be used for a long time, that much is certain. Whether Leica will be able to survive selling $5,000 bodies in an entirely different question.
I prefer shooting my CRF M to anything else for day-to-day photography. With the bright-line finder, coupled rangefinder, small size and simple three-knob operation, it presents a feature set that cannot be matched by any SLR or EVF camera. Even as EVF cameras become more and more attractive as a camera that can fill much of the niche of a CRF, the distinct advantages of the optical viewfinder with coupled rangefinder will remain distinct. When I need AF, I turn to an AF camera, and I could see using an EVF camera as one of my tools as well. But most of the time, the 50 year old M2 does exactly what I need.
Ultimately, I don't think Leica's camera design needs to adapt to the future. The M7 is about as technically advanced as the CRF can get without losing its essence. The M8 needs to sort out some niggling details stemming from the switch to digital, but its design is sound as well. The addition of something like autofocus would necessarily detract from what I see as the advantages of the M camera (small size, solid technical feel, simple manual operation, possibly even backwards compatibility). Nikon and Canon will probably always do better AF than Leica and for less money, so I see no reason not to turn to them when I need AF.
Ultimately, as Mr. Puts concludes, the Leica is a unique camera that offers capabilities as a tool that are unmatched by anything else. The camera doesn't need to be updated to the modern age. If Leica wants to survive, they'll need to capitalize on the strengths of their product. They need ads explaining why one would want to use a manual focus rangefinder over a much cheaper autofocus slr, not black/white affairs showing an old European guy having a love affair with his camera. Don't romanticize about precision engineering, extol the virtues of being able to see the scene in front of you so closely. Most of my friends don't even know what a rangefinder is, but are intrigued once I explain to them how it works and let them hold it in their hands. The M camera is a strong product, and it has been for the last 50 years. There's no need to be apologetic and try to turn it into something it's not going to excel at.
Once they've got a younger potential market, they'll have to come up with a new CLE so that those younger people will be able afford a Leica. I can realistically see Leica's market all but disappearing as the older users stop buying cameras and the younger prospective users haven't gotten to a point in their lives where they can justify 10k for a camera and one lens.
I don't think there's any question in the future of the M camera as it is used today. However, as some have pointed out, the vast majority of Leica's customers are older people. This is not because young people are not interested in Leicas, but because if I were to buy an M7, M8, and a new Summicron 50, I would ring up a bill that is half of my current student loan debt. By way of comparison, my M2 and DR Cron were still quite expensive on a student budget, but something I could work into my budget.
M cameras will continue to be used for a long time, that much is certain. Whether Leica will be able to survive selling $5,000 bodies in an entirely different question.
I prefer shooting my CRF M to anything else for day-to-day photography. With the bright-line finder, coupled rangefinder, small size and simple three-knob operation, it presents a feature set that cannot be matched by any SLR or EVF camera. Even as EVF cameras become more and more attractive as a camera that can fill much of the niche of a CRF, the distinct advantages of the optical viewfinder with coupled rangefinder will remain distinct. When I need AF, I turn to an AF camera, and I could see using an EVF camera as one of my tools as well. But most of the time, the 50 year old M2 does exactly what I need.
Ultimately, I don't think Leica's camera design needs to adapt to the future. The M7 is about as technically advanced as the CRF can get without losing its essence. The M8 needs to sort out some niggling details stemming from the switch to digital, but its design is sound as well. The addition of something like autofocus would necessarily detract from what I see as the advantages of the M camera (small size, solid technical feel, simple manual operation, possibly even backwards compatibility). Nikon and Canon will probably always do better AF than Leica and for less money, so I see no reason not to turn to them when I need AF.
Ultimately, as Mr. Puts concludes, the Leica is a unique camera that offers capabilities as a tool that are unmatched by anything else. The camera doesn't need to be updated to the modern age. If Leica wants to survive, they'll need to capitalize on the strengths of their product. They need ads explaining why one would want to use a manual focus rangefinder over a much cheaper autofocus slr, not black/white affairs showing an old European guy having a love affair with his camera. Don't romanticize about precision engineering, extol the virtues of being able to see the scene in front of you so closely. Most of my friends don't even know what a rangefinder is, but are intrigued once I explain to them how it works and let them hold it in their hands. The M camera is a strong product, and it has been for the last 50 years. There's no need to be apologetic and try to turn it into something it's not going to excel at.
Once they've got a younger potential market, they'll have to come up with a new CLE so that those younger people will be able afford a Leica. I can realistically see Leica's market all but disappearing as the older users stop buying cameras and the younger prospective users haven't gotten to a point in their lives where they can justify 10k for a camera and one lens.
Pickett Wilson
Veteran
I don't think they can actually sell fewer cameras and survive. They are selling only a relative handful of cameras each month, mostly in Japan. There was a video posted somewhere where they said the exact number.
I'm not sure they have time to innovate. I'm pretty sure they aren't going to create a budget camera aimed at young people.
I'm not sure they have time to innovate. I'm pretty sure they aren't going to create a budget camera aimed at young people.
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
That is a popular notion. But from a marketing perspective, it is wrong - people do not buy a product because of its strengths, but because it has some property they believe they need. Marketing tries to manipulate that belief. But whether it can make the Leica M competitive with a photographing iphone is questionable - for one person who'd pick a camera which is just a tool for skilled photographers you'll find a million who'd rather buy a camera which makes their wife/husband/children/friends look like supermodels and draws a smile into every face.
Sevo
kshapero
South Florida Man
That video says they built about 120 units a month. I would think that a number that low would pretty much spell disaster for any global company. If ever you wanted a new Leica this might be your last chance unless they can built a real low cost (we are not fooled by the re badged Panasonic's) unit, digital and film.
Plus I agree with Roger about manual focus. I know it is personal preference but I find manual focus more to my liking. probably should drop some coin for a Katz Eye split rangefinder for my D200.
taken with an IPhone.
Eric T
Well-known
Edwin Puts very elegantly and succinctly describes the advantages of the CRF M design.
Based on my experience, I believe he is correct on all points. But as others have said, will the CRF M design ever be adopted by a sufficient number of young people to maintain a large enough market to justify digital production into the future?
There are plenty of used film-based Ms and LTM cameras around but I don't see young people adopting film. The digital M is terrific but expensive. The advantages of digital are just too great - especially the financial advantages of avoiding the cost of film and development.
I believe that there needs to be a significant leap in the CRF M concept to remain viable. The new micro 4/3rds cameras come close but their compromises are too high. The EVF on the Panasonic G1 is not ideal as it draws significant battery power with its constant live view mode is odd to some. The new Olympus EP-1 is interesting but it has no viewfinder at all!
We need a CRF design that has the option of manual focusing and AF. We need a CRF design that allows easy control of apertures (one reason I don't use my Canon dSLR and EOS lenses very often). A compromise design was the Panasonic DMC-L1 that has a beautiful Leica lens. It's easy to change aperture manually or use in auto mode. AF and MF are easy to choose. But again, the problem with the L1 was its dark SLR viewfinder.
I bought a 5 MP Nikon Coolpix 5000 in 2002. It was state-of-the-art for a compact digital camera at the time it was introduced. It had terrible ergonomics but the images were nice and I liked its rangefinder-like characteristics. The viewfinder was able to zoom with the lens and you could use MF or AF.
So if we look at the designs of the recent past, we can find examples that incorporate all that is needed to satisfy current CRF MF users and appeal to those who prefer total auto exposure and AF. As others have said, the Contax G is one of those.
Based on my experience, I believe he is correct on all points. But as others have said, will the CRF M design ever be adopted by a sufficient number of young people to maintain a large enough market to justify digital production into the future?
There are plenty of used film-based Ms and LTM cameras around but I don't see young people adopting film. The digital M is terrific but expensive. The advantages of digital are just too great - especially the financial advantages of avoiding the cost of film and development.
I believe that there needs to be a significant leap in the CRF M concept to remain viable. The new micro 4/3rds cameras come close but their compromises are too high. The EVF on the Panasonic G1 is not ideal as it draws significant battery power with its constant live view mode is odd to some. The new Olympus EP-1 is interesting but it has no viewfinder at all!
We need a CRF design that has the option of manual focusing and AF. We need a CRF design that allows easy control of apertures (one reason I don't use my Canon dSLR and EOS lenses very often). A compromise design was the Panasonic DMC-L1 that has a beautiful Leica lens. It's easy to change aperture manually or use in auto mode. AF and MF are easy to choose. But again, the problem with the L1 was its dark SLR viewfinder.
I bought a 5 MP Nikon Coolpix 5000 in 2002. It was state-of-the-art for a compact digital camera at the time it was introduced. It had terrible ergonomics but the images were nice and I liked its rangefinder-like characteristics. The viewfinder was able to zoom with the lens and you could use MF or AF.
So if we look at the designs of the recent past, we can find examples that incorporate all that is needed to satisfy current CRF MF users and appeal to those who prefer total auto exposure and AF. As others have said, the Contax G is one of those.
Avotius
Some guy
I think there was nothing much profound in that article, it was all things we know either from reading or from experience. I know auto focus is faster then manual focus but the reason I dont use autofocus all the time is because I zone focus and none of my modern Canon lenses have aperture scales for zone focusing, that and after being liberated by the view through a rangefinder I find it extremely hard to use a SLR for anything but telephoto. The biggest advantage for me going with a digital RF though would be film development costs (which are getting astronomical) and scratched negatives (which are more and more lately) then you got scanning and all that other stuff.....but right now I cannot do the huge one time cost of going digital and have to stay with the incremental costs of film for now.
Oh and also because DSLR's plus those huge lenses gave me neck damage on one trip. That I dont ever want again....
Oh and also because DSLR's plus those huge lenses gave me neck damage on one trip. That I dont ever want again....
Last edited:
notturtle
Well-known
Manual focus is not nostalgia. I made a deliberate decision to return for manual focus for what I do. I could not do it with an AF SLR. This is not me defending cameras I love but explaining why I forked out on a RF system when I had a perfectly good SLR outfit. I did not want to; I needed to to be able to work the way I must to get the sort of shots I want. AF slows me down considerably, but there are tasks I will take AF for every time.
antiquark
Derek Ross
One thing Puts missed is that people will continue to use RFs for psychological and aesthetic reasons.
Some people simply enjoy using RFs more than SLRs, for reasons that are impossible to describe.
Those arguments comparing RFs to SLRs miss the aesthetic factor. It's like saying that jazz will vanish in the future because heavy metal is cheaper, has more notes, is faster, and all the young people listen to it
Some people simply enjoy using RFs more than SLRs, for reasons that are impossible to describe.
Those arguments comparing RFs to SLRs miss the aesthetic factor. It's like saying that jazz will vanish in the future because heavy metal is cheaper, has more notes, is faster, and all the young people listen to it
Last edited:
Tuolumne
Veteran
This is not really manual focus either. It is pre-focusing, as is using hyperfocal distance. You can pre-focus an auto-focusing camera just as readily as a mechanical camera, just by putting it in manual focus mode. They work the same. Unfortunately, where AF lenses do loose out is in their ability to use hyperfocal distance, because they are not marked for it. A pity, since many street shots can be taken that way.
/T
Last edited:
vincentbenoit
télémétrique argentique
Good analogy.Those arguments comparing RFs to SLRs miss the aesthetic factor. It's like saying that jazz will vanish in the future because heavy metal is cheaper, has more notes, is faster, and all the young people listen to it
Tuolumne
Veteran
Not that good an analogy. I don't know anyone who would claim heavy metal is a replacement for jazz. But many people claim that an SLR is a replacement for an RF. To prove it, note how the volume of RF sales has changed compared to the volume of SLR sales over the last 20 years.
/T
/T
Last edited: