keithdunlop wrote:
An electronic viewfinder may be part of the upcoming Leica EVIL system, but it would never be integrated into the M system. M shooters would revolt in droves if Leica changed such a fundamental design element of the M system.
The real diehards are still refusing to shoot digital Ms altogether But I agree, they would probably fight it (before even trying it) so Leica might have to introduce a hybrid model offering both focusing methods. Once people have accepted the new tech, they can drop the rangefinder. It is so obviously the weakest point in the system. I believe the M9 was a runaway success in spite of it due to quality of lenses and sensor all in a very compact and elegant package, not because of the rangefinder focusing.
311erin wrote:
I am selling my m9 and one of the reasons is focusing. The others are, availability of new lenses, close focusing distance is too far, the LCD is useless, and high ISO is terrible. But really it is a personal decision because given time I could overcome these issues and really enjoy the m9.
I also felt like you, my 1DMKIV and 24 1.4, 50 1.2, 85 1.2, and 70-200 II are an awful lot of weight to lug around. The m9 does fit the bill as far as taking my Canon kit and condensing it into a highly portable high quality and attractive little full frame camera. Although the limitations and learning curve were too much for me. The m9 would be an excellent companion camera, but the guilt of having that much $ tied up in two systems with my growing family, just didn't seem right. I will try again when Leica updates the m9 to the m10, maybe the differences will be less and I could move 100% to Leica, but not now. ...Show more →
I hear this sort of comment with enough frequency that it worries me about my upcoming m9 purchase
I haven't shot with an M9, but I've owned an MP, M6TTL and some other brand rangefinders. They are not replacements for a DSLR and you should not buy one just to save weight. If you want a smaller, lighter kit, consider adding a smaller DSLR body, or a second micro four thirds/NEX style system.
Also, consider that the M9 is all metal with brass top and bottom plates. The lenses are also all metal. The whole set probably doesn't weigh what your DSLR kit does and is less bulky, but it's certainly not a kit you stuff in a jacket pocket. Food for thought. Don't forget the significant cost of an M system--ridiculous investment if you're not sure the shooting style suits you.
Now, you may just try it and fall in love and never look back. So, I second the rental option to help you decide. I'm a recovering Leica junkie that will probably relapse, but the D3s is making me forget about its bulk with the files I get--and my lens kit is very small.
(1) Finding the money to buy one
(2) Finding lenses in stock to buy
(3) Telephoto---for telephoto keep a Canon Crop camera with a longer lens (like 200mm and up) if u need it.
Image quality is immaculate...Leica lenses are SHARP
I take the M9 everywhere, unlike the larger DSLRs. I have even shot many events and my focus rate is a lot higher than from AF DSLRs for some reason.
That being said, I do miss the Canon 1DS2/3 series of cameras for their ease of use.
Similar story here Last year finally migrated fully from the 5DII/7D and L and ZE series lenses to solely the M9's. Weight, size and ergonomics with FF IQ, has always been an important for me, even with film. I could be happier with the decision. If I need a FF DSLR, for an action event, I can hire or borrow one.
Range finder focusing I prefer over the MF with the 5DII and ZE lenses. I will mention that as Luka, has noted, that focusing with a RF is easy, but the M9/Lens combo, must be well calibrated, with the correct eye dioptor to maximize the detail in the focusing square. I have no problems focusing, the 50 Lux/75 Lux or 90 Cron, for portraits or landscapes. In fact I prefer the M9/75 Lux for portraits over the 5DII/85L or ZE85/1.4 combo's. Again, having a well maintained and calibrated M9 combo is important, but so is a 5DII/85L shooting at f/1.2.
As LL has noted, pricing can be an issue, as it is a large investment. Personally I thought I was nuts, when I made the leap, as I had never spent so much on camera gear ever!!!
Seriously, the M9 is brilliant. Amazing FF IQ, in a tight neat package that I take everywhere with me.
Graham Mitchell wrote:
Once people have accepted the new tech, they can drop the rangefinder. It is so obviously the weakest point in the system.
Jack White once famously said, "technology makes it easier and you get home sooner. But, it doesn’t make you a more creative person.”
The focus system in the Leica M is not a "weak" point. I find it just completely stupid to say that if a photographer that can't focus with a rangefinder camera, it means that there is a fundamental flaw with the camera. If a photographer can't focus a Leica M camera (and I don't care if your talking about a 1954 M3 or a 2011 M9), then it's the fault of the photographer, NOT the camera.
keithdunlop wrote:
Jack White once famously said, "technology makes it easier and you get home sooner. But, it doesn’t make you a more creative person.”
The focus system in the Leica M is not a "weak" point. I find it just completely stupid to say that if a photographer that can't focus with a rangefinder camera, it means that there is a fundamental flaw with the camera. If a photographer can't focus a Leica M camera (and I don't care if your talking about a 1954 M3 or a 2011 M9), then it's the fault of the photographer, NOT the camera.
if the photographer doesn't like manual focus i agree, but in a lot of cases people can't focus rangefinders because the lens or rangefinder has gotten out of calibration (or the length of the physical rangefinder is not long enough to accurately focus a given apeture/distance/focal length). when it takes weeks to months to get calibrated (and that other problem always exists), i'd say it is a legitimate problem. if there was a second method to manual focus when needed (say liveview) that would make the camera much more attractive to me.
Graham Mitchell wrote:
Once people have accepted the new tech, they can drop the rangefinder. It is so obviously the weakest point in the system. I believe the M9 was a runaway success in spite of it due to quality of lenses and sensor all in a very compact and elegant package, not because of the rangefinder focusing.
Dude......wow...., the whole reason people shoot a Leica is because its a rangefinder. Plenty of great AF DSLR's for much, much less that take equally great photos and under a wider range of conditions and with lenses that are far more available and cheaper as well.
It would be like saying the new Harley should be an inline 4 and with an automatic transmission because that old V-twin is so outdated.
Thats the very reason people want a Harley, because they want the experience of a Vtwin, shifting gears etc. People that want a touring bike have plenty of options on the market already. No one is wishing their Harley had a CD deck and heater.
Riding a Harley, playing a guitar though a vacuum tube Marshall amplifier, listening to an album on vinyl and shooting a RF... all some of lifes great choices
You really think we should embrace the new tech and use AF everything, mp3's, quiet electric motorcycles with no roar, digital modeling direct recording instead of moving real air in a speaker cabinet etc ??
sebboh wrote:
if the photographer doesn't like manual focus i agree, but in a lot of cases people can't focus rangefinders because the lens or rangefinder has gotten out of calibration.
Seriously? I have to qualify my post by saying that a Leica M rangefinder will focus properly IF it's in proper calibration. OK, so I'll speak real slow . . . assuming that the rangefinder mechanism is in proper calibration . . . oh nevermind.
This kind of logic is like saying, my car runs really great as long as I remember to put oil in the engine and replace the spark plugs when they go bad. When I forget to do those things and my car runs like shit, and therefore it's the fault of the car.
Yes, I'm a Leica shooter and have a certain bias, but I find that most people who find fault with rangefinders have no practical experience of actually working with them.
plasticmotif wrote:
Mostly, I've found people who shoot rangefinders are hobbyists with too much money.
A completely false and ignorant assumption.
There are a significant amount of professional photographers using the M system for professional work. Riccis Valladares, Daniel Milnor, Otto Schultz, Jan Grarup, Junku Nishimura, Todd Korol, countless Magnum photographers, and humbly myself.
A too high tech camera almost killed my interest in photography before it got properly started. I bought a Canon 7D in late 2009 and used it exclusively for video. At some point in early 2010 I got the idea to get to know my lenses (Sigmas & Canons in the budget category) a bit better by doing still photography. The 7D was good for video but it was bloody amazing for photography. I was also a bit fed up with the video shooting as it required an excessive amount of gear ranging from heavy duty tripods to follow focus, external monitors etc
So I transitioned to still photography and what I started with was wildlife and action photography. The 7D with its brilliant AF and 8 frames per second invited you to take that path. I blasted away at full frame rate generating a huge number of images. For a safari trip to South Africa I got myself a 5DII as a secondary camera and I started doing landscape photography in addition to the wildlife. It was however just as quick paced and without reflection. At some point I just got tired of it. I felt I had no part in the image creation. The whole thing was just a variation of ‘spray and pray’ with the camera doing all the work.
Fortunately around that time my Canon 16-35/II crapped out on me producing one too many shot with unacceptably blurry corners. So I got the Zeiss 21 after looking at sample photos and reading a couple of reviews. Manual focus saved my interest in photography. I got a bunch more Zeiss ZE lenses and quickly transitioned from handheld ‘spray and pray’ to tripod+live view based, slow and considered landscape photography. It was really a turning point.
I can’t quite remember why I got the M9. Partly it was certainly because I had grown tired of carrying around a 10+ kg bag with the lenses. I think it was also partly because I was very curious about the whole rangefinder thing. I believe the even more manual process had a certain appeal as I followed it up by buying a film medium format camera and later two small format film cameras. My film output hasn’t been all that great but I still keep on using them on occasion. I’m more satisfied with a good film image than with a good digital image – and it has nothing to do with the image itself. In fact I don’t particularly like the film look, but I feel somehow that I’ve been more involved in the creation process than with digital. It’s more of a challenge.
And I know I’m not unique in that respect. I have a number of friends from my generation that have the same ‘medievalist’ tendencies. One is for instance a hobbyist blacksmith using medieval techniques. What we all have in common is that we’re engineers working with various forms of automation. My company works with neural networks – i.e. software that is loosely based on the human brain. The practical use is always to make computers do better stuff that traditionally only humans could do. So in a way I think this ‘going back to basics’ primitivism is a sort of quiet revolt against the steadily increasing automation that we encounter in our lives. I think Jeff indeed has a point.
Having said that, romantic primitivism is not the primary reason why one uses a rangefinder camera. It has in certain aspects clear advantages over a TTL SLR. I would not say that one is better than the other, but they are different. With a rangefinder you have a much wider field of view. You don’t get the tunnel vision that you get with an SLR. You see the whole thing and pick out the frame you want for the image. This is immensely valuable for composition as you simply get more to choose from when having a wider field of view. You can even have both your eyes open. It’s not entirely unlike shooting a DSLR from a tripod using live view – you use your eyes to scan the scene and adjust the camera to include a desired framing. The difference is that with a rangefinder you get this benefit when shooting handheld.
The price of this is accuracy in framing. At larger distances the framelines tend to be wildly inaccurate. It is however not as much of a problem as it might first seem as they are consistently so. So it takes surprisingly little time before you learn how to interpret them and to get an accurate framing.
The bottom line for me is that I prefer a rangefinder for hand held use while I prefer a DSLR with live view for tripod based shooting. Should the Leica M10 include live view then I’m probably ready to give up DSLRs altogether. Perhaps I’ll keep one with some AF zooms and longer lenses but for most of my photography I think a digital M with live view would be more than enough.
Oops, didn’t realize this would turn into an essay
Maybe not directly applicable, but I was in love with Leicas ever since I first saw an M5 in Frankfurt airport, in a glass display, soon after it was released. Not wanting to risk a divorce at that time, I bypassed the opportunity to max the credit card and buy it. I was hooked on Nikons back then. In the following years, family matters took priority and replaced all my equipment with a Sony P&S. Finally, my interest in photography returned about three years ago, and I got several new cameras and lenses, all Nikons.
At that time, I decided that I could finally satisfy my Leica lust and got myself an M6 and three lenses. A disaster! I shot maybe three rolls with it, before deciding it was not for me. The main issue was that my Nikon lenses and the M lenses had the controls positioned in the wrong way and operated in the wrong way. Focus at the rear, aperture at the front (Nikons have the aperture at the rear, focus at the front). Going from wide-open to f/16 is done counter-clockwise on the M lenses, vs clockwise on the Nikkors. I couldn't adjust the camera quickly enough to shot a picture of my kids. I was trying to focus and was changing the aperture. I was trying to change the aperture and changed the focus. By the time I had the camera ready, the kids got bored and and moved away.
I spend quite some time trying to get used to the M6, until I finally realised that I could do whatever I wanted to do, with my FE (if I didn't want to use the F2 or the F5, or the D700/D300 digitals), without the frustration. An FE with a Nikkor prime is a little larger than an M6, but not by much. And I didn't have to relearn everything to use it.
I sold the M6 and the lenses and never looked back.
What I am trying to say is that, while I still admire Leicas for the technology and aesthetics, these cameras are not for everyone. You can grab equally good pictures with other cameras as with the Leicas. I can never see myself getting a Leica again, especially an overpriced M9. Maybe a Fuji X100, at least its controls are laid out in the way I expect them to be.
keithdunlop wrote:
I find it just completely stupid to say that if a photographer that can't focus with a rangefinder camera, it means that there is a fundamental flaw with the camera. If a photographer can't focus a Leica M camera (and I don't care if your talking about a 1954 M3 or a 2011 M9), then it's the fault of the photographer, NOT the camera.
weakness (noun) - a quality or feature regarded as a disadvantage or fault (Oxford American Dictionary)
If something doesn't work on all focal lengths, or on certain subject matters, then it's a weakness, especially if there are already better working solutions out there, which there are. I don't know how anyone could possibly refute this except perhaps a real diehard Leica fan
But don't just take my word for it, there are countless authors of the same opinion. Examples:
millsart wrote:
Dude......wow...., the whole reason people shoot a Leica is because its a rangefinder. Plenty of great AF DSLR's for much, much less that take equally great photos and under a wider range of conditions and with lenses that are far more available and cheaper as well.
You make the Leica cameras sound like a historical curiosity, and yes I'm sure some customers just want to be different, but if there's one thing Leica stands for it isn't rangefinder focusing, it's lens quality. Leica would be nothing without its quality lenses, many of which are simply the best available in their focal length and format, from the M lenses to the new S2. The rangefinder lenses are especially good because they can be designed for a close focal plane.
The M series is also offering the advantage of being mirrorless and prismless and is therefore rather compact. The M9 offers the best image quality available from any camera even up to twice its size. THAT's what gets most people excited about the M9. You're literally the first person I've ever heard of who seems to *prefer* the rangefinder focusing.
Check out the focus masking and live view technology available now - no focus system whether traditional AF or a calibrated RF can beat the sensor itself showing you areas of highest contrast/focus.
Graham Mitchell wrote:
The M9 offers the best image quality available from any camera even up to twice its size. THAT's what gets most people excited about the M9. You're literally the first person I've ever heard of who seems to *prefer* the rangefinder focusing.
Then you don't know many rangefinder users. You can include me, so now you've heard of two people that prefer rangefinder focusing.
Check out the focus masking and live view technology available now - no focus system whether traditional AF or a calibrated RF can beat the sensor itself showing you areas of highest contrast/focus.
Live view is great for tripod based shooting but sucks for handheld use whereas rangefinder focusing is great for handheld use and sucks for tripod use. TTL manual focusing has the advantage that you can focus anywhere on the frame but it has the disadvantage of not having the feedback mechanism of the rangefinder system. AF lenses have the benefit of being automatic but the disadvantage of limited reliability in low light and increased size and complexity of the lens.
All the existing systems have their advantages and disadvantages. That's why there are multiple systems available and the focusing schemes that had no advantages have gone out of existence.
denoir wrote:
Live view is great for tripod based shooting but sucks for handheld use
I wouldn't recommend live view either, I was talking about focus masking in conjunction with live view. You have instant feedback on areas of critical focus:
denoir wrote:
Then you don't know many rangefinder users. You can include me, so now you've heard of two people that prefer rangefinder focusing.
Live view is great for tripod based shooting but sucks for handheld use whereas rangefinder focusing is great for handheld use and sucks for tripod use. TTL manual focusing has the advantage that you can focus anywhere on the frame but it has the disadvantage of not having the feedback mechanism of the rangefinder system. AF lenses have the benefit of being automatic but the disadvantage of limited reliability in low light and increased size and complexity of the lens.
All the existing systems have their advantages and disadvantages. That's why there are multiple systems available and the focusing schemes that had no advantages have gone out of existence....Show more →
I like rangefinder focusing from 18 about 50mm and for centered or relatively centered objects, I always get insecure when I have to focus recompose a lot though :P
But I agree, they would probably fight it (before even trying it) so Leica might have to introduce a hybrid model offering both focusing methods. Once people have accepted the new tech, they can drop the rangefinder. It is so obviously the weakest point in the system. I believe the M9 was a runaway success in spite of it due to quality of lenses and sensor all in a very compact and elegant package, not because of the rangefinder focusing.
Last year finally migrated fully from the 5DII/7D and L and ZE series lenses to solely the M9's. Weight, size and ergonomics with FF IQ, has always been an important for me, even with film. I could be happier with the decision. If I need a FF DSLR, for an action event, I can hire or borrow one.