p.3 #1 · Leica M9 review in this weeks AP mag (UK)
Right after playing with a pre-production S2 as Samy's Camera on Friday (separate reply to separate thread) I then shifted over to the M9 lying next to it - and spent about 15 mins fuddling through menus, ergonomics, overall ID, etc. Impressed in some ways, nonplussed in others. But, it begged to be taken into the real world, outside the camera shop.
p.3 #2 · Leica M9 review in this weeks AP mag (UK)
My thoughts on the M9: I really like the discrete shutter mode. Almost sounds like an M6 shutter. In the normal mode the motor noise for re-cocking the shutter is the loudest motor I have ever heard in a camera. Seems ridiculous that they can't engineer something near silent for this. The LCD is utter crap. If Leica are in partnership with Panasonic, why can't they get Panny to make them a decent LCD for the 9? Build quality is superb and the user experience very close to a film Leica. Given that IQ is nearly as good as a D3X, it is a very tempting camera despite the minor flaws noted above. Think I will get one next year.
Oct 18, 2009 at 05:09 AM
brainiac Offline [X]
p.3 #3 · Leica M9 review in this weeks AP mag (UK)
Lotusm50 wrote:
Ummm. I'm not sure what you mean by this. I don't think you really mean "simplistic".
He may not have meant simplistic, but he surely hit the nail on the head. Leica's current troubles have arisen primarily because Leica builds simplistic equipment. Simplistic means "treating complex issues and problems as if they were much simpler than they really are". If you ever wanted a description of a rangefinder focussing system and viewfinder, there it is.
p.3 #6 · Leica M9 review in this weeks AP mag (UK)
brainiac wrote:
He may not have meant simplistic, but he surely hit the nail on the head. Leica's current troubles have arisen primarily because Leica builds simplistic equipment. Simplistic means "treating complex issues and problems as if they were much simpler than they really are". If you ever wanted a description of a rangefinder focussing system and viewfinder, there it is.
Actually, I agree with James' clarification that Leicas are "simpler to operate". I don't think "simplistic" is appropriate at all. Rather n it is straightforward and direct, It is manual focus not automatic. It does not attempt to supplant the users knowledge understanding and experience with layers of complex electronics that can only guess at what the photographer's intent is. With the Leica you are in control of the focus. You decide where to focus - not the camera. The rangefinder is a focusing aid to be used with your brain. It is not a simplistic solution to a complex problem. I wouldn't say it even attempts to treat a complex issue or problem in any way. Leica lets the photographer treat the complex issue of focus. With it's rangefinders, Leica merely provides a straightforward, precision tool to provide the photographer with information to assist in that task. Whether one finds this useful or likes to (or even can) work this way is the decision of the photographer. Leica (and a few others) provides welcome products for those that do.
p.3 #7 · Leica M9 review in this weeks AP mag (UK)
The rangefinder mechanism itself is a very complex mechanism that requires precise calibration to be accurate. It is not uncommon for rangefinders to become misaligned. Given the inherent inaccuracy of the rangefinder compared to the slr regarding composition and the compromises in using various focal length lenses (at least for the Leica implementation of the rangefinder), precision is only achieved with wide angle lenses. Mount a normal to long lens on an M rangefinder and you have no idea what the actual point of focus is! For me, the word "simple" does not come to mind at all when I think of the mechanical complexities of a rangefinder, particularly in todays electronic, computer based world. Precision made...yes. Precision in use...no.
p.3 #11 · Leica M9 review in this weeks AP mag (UK)
ulrikft wrote:
" Mount a normal to long lens on an M rangefinder and you have no idea what the actual point of focus is!"
If you by normal to long mean lenses longer than 90mm, I can agree..
Yes. But if you rarely use lenses over 90mm, and with lenses over 90mm are barely even available (thee is one, a 135mm) what difference does it make? Again, if it meets your needs and suits the way you like to work, buy it (if you can afford it, of course).
p.3 #12 · Leica M9 review in this weeks AP mag (UK)
"when I think of the mechanical complexities of a rangefinder, particularly in todays electronic, computer based world. Precision made...yes. Precision in use...no."
Easy to say but it does not reflect my experience. I've never had a rangefinder go out of alignment. On the other hand I have had SLR's go out because of a move in the mirror position.
On the whole, I would say that my rangefinders give me far more accuracy of focus than using MF lenses on a Canon 5DII. The RF is even very accurate on a 90 mm unless things are moving back and forth in low light, but on that note I was recently photographing a woman who moved her head backwards and forwards as she was talking and the Canon 5D II on autofocus was also hopeless.
The nice thing about the clarity of an RF and no mirror flip, is that not only do I know I've got the moment, I also know when I've got the focus - not always the case with the autofocus Canon. Don't get me wrong, I love autofocus for many situations, but also, sometimes feel frustrated with its limitations, as I do with RF.
p.3 #13 · Leica M9 review in this weeks AP mag (UK)
wolfloid wrote:
"when I think of the mechanical complexities of a rangefinder, particularly in todays electronic, computer based world. Precision made...yes. Precision in use...no."
Easy to say but it does not reflect my experience. I've never had a rangefinder go out of alignment. On the other hand I have had SLR's go out because of a move in the mirror position.
On the whole, I would say that my rangefinders give me far more accuracy of focus than using MF lenses on a Canon 5DII. The RF is even very accurate on a 90 mm unless things are moving back and forth in low light, but on that note I was recently photographing a woman who moved her head backwards and forwards as she was talking and the Canon 5D II on autofocus was also hopeless.
The nice thing about the clarity of an RF and no mirror flip, is that not only do I know I've got the moment, I also know when I've got the focus - not always the case with the autofocus Canon. Don't get me wrong, I love autofocus for many situations, but also, sometimes feel frustrated with its limitations, as I do with RF. ...Show more →
I think we have sort of ascertained that the Canon 5D SLR viewing system, when used with manual focus lenses - particularly wide angle ones - is not the current state-of-the-art, paradigm of what an SLR can be. By contrast, Leica has one of the best rangefinders available.
As far as normal to long lenses, even if you are shooting with a normal, wide aperture Summilux or Noctilux at F2 or faster, would not the rangefinder patch cover up enough of the subject that it would be difficult to know if the actual point of focus was say, on someones eye or back of head with the limited dof one would be working with? Seems like with fast glass, the rangefinder patch simply would not be able to indicate what part of your scene you are actually focusing on even using normal lenses. Subject and distance would come into play here but it is easy to imagine many situations that focus error could occur. Certainly with a medium telephoto lens, this would be the case given how much of the subject woud be covered by that patch. With wide lenses, the opposite would be true and the rangefinder would excel.
Rangefinders are beautiful yet delicate mechanisms and, at least from my research, they require a bit more maintenance/calibration than a typical SLR in order to ensure long term accuracy.
p.3 #14 · Leica M9 review in this weeks AP mag (UK)
Tariq Gibran wrote:
As far as normal to long lenses, even if you are shooting with a normal, wide aperture Summilux or Noctilux at F2 or faster, would not the rangefinder patch cover up enough of the subject that it would be difficult to know if the actual point of focus was say, on someones eye or back of head with the limited dof one would be working with?
No. If we are talking about a 50/1.4 wide open, SLRs will probably have a harder time focusing EXACTLY where you want, especially on AF (what did the AF decide to latch onto?). Even though the RF patch might span several features, you can see exactly what the focus is in the middle of the patch. The real problem is that at longer focal lengths, the patch takes up more and more of the image, making it harder to discern what is going on, especially as the features get smaller. Also, DOF reduces at longer focal lengths. But this isn't a problem with a 50/1.4.
I've really had no problems focusing a 50 at f/1.4 at minimum focus distance (.7m).
Some have issues with 50/1.0. The most difficult lens on RF to focus is a 75/1.4. 75/2 is fine, most 90s are fine. 135 is probably tricky, but they tend to have max apertures of 3.4 or 4, which helps some. They also aren't that popular - better off just picking up a cheap Canon + 135/2.
p.3 #15 · Leica M9 review in this weeks AP mag (UK)
kidtexas wrote:
No. If we are talking about a 50/1.4 wide open, SLRs will probably have a harder time focusing EXACTLY where you want, especially on AF (what did the AF decide to latch onto?). Even though the RF patch might span several features, you can see exactly what the focus is in the middle of the patch. The real problem is that at longer focal lengths, the patch takes up more and more of the image, making it harder to discern what is going on, especially as the features get smaller. Also, DOF reduces at longer focal lengths. But this isn't a problem with a 50/1.4.
I've really had no problems focusing a 50 at f/1.4 at minimum focus distance (.7m).
Some have issues with 50/1.0. The most difficult lens on RF to focus is a 75/1.4. 75/2 is fine, most 90s are fine. 135 is probably tricky, but they tend to have max apertures of 3.4 or 4, which helps some. They also aren't that popular - better off just picking up a cheap Canon + 135/2....Show more →
That's good to hear about the use of a 50 1.4. I would have thought there would be issues wide open.
p.3 #19 · Leica M9 review in this weeks AP mag (UK)
I've posted this before but I tend to have no issues focusing wide open and f/1.1 on my 50, and it has a very short focus throw.
Pic 1
The next two are cross processed, but you can still see the accuracy of focus. Pic 2 Pic 3
Oct 18, 2009 at 06:45 PM
brainiac Offline [X]
p.3 #20 · Leica M9 review in this weeks AP mag (UK)
Lotusm50 wrote:
Actually, I agree with James' clarification that Leicas are "simpler to operate". I don't think "simplistic" is appropriate at all. Rather n it is straightforward and direct, It is manual focus not automatic. It does not attempt to supplant the users knowledge understanding and experience with layers of complex electronics that can only guess at what the photographer's intent is. With the Leica you are in control of the focus. You decide where to focus - not the camera. The rangefinder is a focusing aid to be used with your brain. It is not a simplistic solution to a complex problem. I wouldn't say it even attempts to treat a complex issue or problem in any way. Leica lets the photographer treat the complex issue of focus. With it's rangefinders, Leica merely provides a straightforward, precision tool to provide the photographer with information to assist in that task. Whether one finds this useful or likes to (or even can) work this way is the decision of the photographer. Leica (and a few others) provides welcome products for those that do....Show more →
As long as your subject is stationary, in the centre of your image, and the detail is not horizontal lines or a repeating pattern, and accurate framing isn't necessary, and precise depth of field doesn't matter, and there is no need for long telephoto, ultrawide, image stabilisation, or close-focus. That's why I think the rangefinder is simplistic. It presents focus and composition as much more simple issues than they really are.
