Thom Hogan, a very wise man

Bill Pierce

Bill Pierce

Well-known
Local time
8:51 AM
Joined
Sep 26, 2007
Messages
1,407
In the Luminous Landscape essays on the possible evolution of the digital rangefinder, Thom Hogan, who many of you think of as a Nikon expert, has written an extremely intelligent piece. It's about what a digital rangefinder should be. I think he is right. I don't hold out much hope that Leitz will produce such cameras, certainly not quick enough to slow down those news and documentary photographers that are currently jumping ship. (Interesting, Thom wants to use the camera he is proposing for landscape work. Maybe our needs are not as dissimilar as we presume.)

But, if Leitz ever went in the direction he suggests, I'd be as close to the front of the line in my camera store as I could be. And I think it would be a fairly long line.

Here's the link -

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/hogan-leica.shtml
 
Bill, I agree with you that Leica needs to innovate. But it seems from reactions to Hogan and Reichman that making such suggestions gets you labeled either a fool or satan himself!
 
I think Leica is smarter than some people believe. They know their M customers want M cameras and that's what they make!
 
Hogan's ideas might result in a fine tool, a good camera, even something worthy of a Leica badge. But at their root, these suggestions would remove the essence of the Leica rangefinder ethos. An EVF, focusing aid, etc., might be nice for some folks, but the reason I've stuck with M's for 27 years is that they DON'T have these things. If a next generation M were to have them (not likely in my opinion), I'd either stick with my M8 and M2 or perhaps upgrade the 8 to an M9. Telephoto support? A 50 year old Visoflex seems to work.
 
I like Hogan's ideas. They're not new of course. These ideas have been washing around in online forums for several years now. I certainly wouldn't write off these ideas simply because his collection of ideas includes gadgets to accomodate telephoto lens, or whatever. To me, its exciting to see people like Hogan and Reichmann taking an interest of any sort! How else is Leica (or Panasonic or Samsung or ?) going to understand that their designs are still not filling the needs of a lot of us.

I'd certainly go for a high quality B&W M-mount digital rangefinder camera.. or even with an EVF that mimics the view of a rangefinder... or ? And its the ? that will be discovered if we keep the ideas coming! :)
 
robklurfield said:
An EVF, focusing aid, etc., might be nice for some folks, but the reason I've stuck with M's for 27 years is that they DON'T have these things. If a next generation M were to have them (not likely in my opinion), I'd either stick with my M8 and M2 or perhaps upgrade the 8 to an M9. Telephoto support? A 50 year old Visoflex seems to work.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Hogan might as well be saying: turn an M into an SLR or micro 4/3s. The reason why M's a) work and are b) loved so much, is because they are simple. Add all of this flim flammery would de-M the M series rip it's soul out, to boot.
I was so intimidated when I first began to shoot with my M6 and so relieved when I realised how simple and intuitive it is. Hogan really needs to think before he types. Controversy for controversy's sake, I think - probably needs a few more click throughs on his site. Meh.
 
At some point, you just have to ask: Why not go with an SLR?

Seriously, people, this "argument" has been dead an buried for almost fifty years. If people who use SLRs want to redesign rangefinders to be more like SLRs, why don't they ... er ... use something else.

While I think some of the aspects hit on in the other article have merit (especially the stupid base plate), I can't imagine buying A: a B&W only camera or B: a $7-8000 toy camera. And the minute you put "live view" in a camera it becomes a toy camera with a broken interface.

By the way, has anyone asked why it is a good idea to hold a camera at arms length when taking a picture? (this specifically refers to those cameras with the rear LCD acting as a viewfinder).
 
i think the flip up evf is as moronic as the evf only design michael came up with. all of these "viewfinder solutions" circle around the idea of attracting new customers. truth is, only a very few people will make the sacrifices necessary to buy a $7000 leica. increasing focal length capability is not going to change that.

you know what will attract a horde of new, young customers? LOWER PRICES.
 
aizan said:
increasing focal length capability is not going to change that.
Click to expand...

Can't they just put goggles on lenses to get the focal length up? The RF and VF positions have not changed in a really long time.

I don't really think that this has anything to do with using longer lenses. Leica bodies with longer lenses do have any benefit of the small body and RF coupling. You really want a pro-sized SLR if you are toting a long lens. You certainly would not want to do that with the leica "lack of grip".
 
I believe the first leicas were somewhat revolutionary in their own age , and I don't see any trouble with them pulling it off once more. Things can't stay static , its in that company's blood.
 
i'm going to suggest something silly: reduce the focal length capability.

start with the basic camera i described on LL, and make a few changes:

- the sensor should be aps-c format. make a clean break. it's small enough to distance itself from leica's full frame kodak sensor, but big enough that there are sensors with less noise, better low light capability. it's the difference between medium format film and 35mm. resolution on these sensors is creeping up, too, and removing the anti-alias filter will punch up fine detail compared to dslrs. throw in sensor-shift image stabilization, dust filter, live view, and HD video for good measure.

- make a new line of autofocus lenses for the new system that only goes from 28mm to 50mm. three lenses, 28/2.8, 35/2, 50/2 equivalent, nothing more. practically all of the great documentary photography has been done in that focal length range. leave superwide and telephoto to the slrs.

- don't make it outrageously expensive. $3000 for the body, up to $1500 for each lens. it has to be competitive with full frame dslrs like the 5dmkii and canon L primes.
 
Last edited:
I just wonder why it wasn't mentioned by both Michael and Thom. If you want to keep the M simplicity and compatibility with legacy lenses, why not go with a HUD. Instead of using EVF M could use EVF patch, a direct image from the sensor, replacing RF patch. You could still manual focus, have "the same" feel of operation, while implementing all those fancy digital aides. If you want a long lens support, the patch takes the whole viefinder space and works just like SLR viefiender. You can get the best of three worlds here, RF, digital and DSLR/Micro.

Probably only the price would make S2 a bargain...

I would still buy the M9 then :)
 
I tell you this is always walking on holy ground. First, suppositions and differing needs are a mix for discontent. The M9 is what the community has been asking Leica to make, and before it is even widely available and put to use by many. It is declared to be insufficient and lacking. It is always easy to be a critic, but it is not so easy to actually create something.

I chose the Leica M system 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.

That being said, I do believe there is room for another camera that takes advantage of the M lenses and other technology. I see nothing wrong with Leica offering such a system in conjunction with the traditional M. Why not broaden the market and diversify it's systems. It would probably be a wise business move. If it made Leica stronger, this would be good for everyone who looks to them for their choice in cameras. So, I believe instead of asking for the digital M to morph into something contrary to it's intrinsic design. People should be asking for another choice in camera bodies within the M system. It perplexes me why none of these critics have seen this issue for what it is, and voiced it in the proper context.

Just my thoughts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom