p.4 #1 · Leica M9 review in this weeks AP mag (UK)
I have yet to find a motive that I have a hard time focusing on with my yashica/canonet rangefinders, and they have inferior focus patches compared to a leica. And ultrawide? 12mm on a M9 is, as I see it, ultrawide, but I might be mistaken? And precise depth of field? How often do you use stop-down-checks Richard? I have _never_ used the stop down button on my d700, I have a pretty much instinctive way after a while, of knowing how 1.2, 1.8, 2.8 etc looks. I think most that have shot more than 1000 images do..
Rangefinding has it's limitations, but you are "kind of" overplaying those a tad bit I think.
p.4 #3 · Leica M9 review in this weeks AP mag (UK)
Hm, somehow I find it strange in this thread that a lot of issues are discussed and are thrown at the M9 that are not about the M9 or are a clear thing whit regard to this camera type. First, there is the price : well, it is in a region where the top-of-the-line Canon or Nikon cameras are. Then, that for this price it is not a life-long investment. Let's see: Canon 1Ds announced in Sept.2002, 1DsII announced in Aug. 2004, 1DsII announced in Aug. 2007. That makes it 2-3 years, in a time when technology evolved at high speed, at least according to this "obsolete" whining. So, the Canon flagship is obsolete and is replaced every 2-3 years, not counting the competition, but a Leica at the same price - that's another storry. And, as a rangefinder, the Leica has at this time no real competition. Only when Zeiss or Cosina/Voigtlander come to the digital ranagefinder playground they will have direct competition. Until then, they can release a new camera at will, just barely keeping up with technology. Because people buy a system, are happy with the advantages and don't care about disatvantages that are not important for their line of work ( like the use of long lenses or the fps that is pretty irrelevant for a lot of people ). I would like to have one, but simply don't have the cash, as I don't have the cash for a 1DsIII, but when I can have a full, full frame camera system for less weight than my 1Ds alone - that is a very tempting proposition.
p.4 #4 · Leica M9 review in this weeks AP mag (UK)
slungu wrote:
Hm, somehow I find it strange in this thread that a lot of issues are discussed and are thrown at the M9 that are not about the M9 or are a clear thing whit regard to this camera type. First, there is the price : well, it is in a region where the top-of-the-line Canon or Nikon cameras are. Then, that for this price it is not a life-long investment. Let's see: Canon 1Ds announced in Sept.2002, 1DsII announced in Aug. 2004, 1DsII announced in Aug. 2007. That makes it 2-3 years, in a time when technology evolved at high speed, at least according to this "obsolete" whining. So, the Canon flagship is obsolete and is replaced every 2-3 years, not counting the competition, but a Leica at the same price - that's another storry. And, as a rangefinder, the Leica has at this time no real competition. Only when Zeiss or Cosina/Voigtlander come to the digital ranagefinder playground they will have direct competition. Until then, they can release a new camera at will, just barely keeping up with technology. Because people by a system, are happy with the advantages and don't care about disatvantages that are not important for their line of work ( like the use of long lenses or the fps that is pretty irrelevant for a lot of people ). I would like to have one, but simply don't have the cash, as I don't have the cash for a 1DsIII, but when I can have a full, full frame camera system for less weight than my 1Ds alone - is a very tempting proposition....Show more →
That about sums it up. Except the brainiac has informed us that there are very few shooting situations where an RF can take a compelling pic. Leica should pretty much shut down their operations.
p.4 #5 · Leica M9 review in this weeks AP mag (UK)
brainiac wrote:
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.
You're making the assumption that the camera is responsible for all focusing issues. That might be reasonable with AF cameras, but the Leica is a manual focus camera. The user is responsible for focusing not the camera. You focus the camera and as with all manual focus cameras you need to know what you are doing and how to focus in different situations. The rangefinder is not a substitute for knowing how to focus, it is merely an aid. It is not "simplisitc" as the camera does not presume to solve the complex issues of focusing. That is your job, Leica merely adds a tool (the rangefinder) to help you. It is up to you to use it appropriately and correctly in any given situation. It is, more accurately, "simple" to operate, as suggested, and not "simplistic" in design.
p.4 #6 · Leica M9 review in this weeks AP mag (UK)
ulrikft wrote:
I love that shot nice work!
Thanks!
Yes a rangefinder is limiting in some respects. Most who have used one for at least 60 seconds is pretty much aware of most of those limitations, so it seems kind of silly to keep harping on them.
And I have no problems with center point focusing, SLR or RF. It's all I ever use, even in AF land.
p.4 #7 · Leica M9 review in this weeks AP mag (UK)
When you read of a number of people, wowed by the M9's iq, speak of dumping their DSLR's in exchange for a rangefinder, one has to wonder if they are fully aware of the compromises they are about to enter into. Sure, there are some who's shooting style and subject matter fit perfectly with a rangefinder but I feel it's worth mentioning that we are speaking of a rangefinder here and all that goes along with one, both positives and negatives. As alluded to earlier in the thread, the majority of people would likely be much better off adding a rangefinder to an SLR kit rather than replacing one altogether. For me, if I could afford to buy an M9 and glue a 28mm lens onto it permanently, it would fit nicely in my bag alongside my DSLR. It would be a rather expensive, single purpose tool for my uses. Otherwise, I'm not willing to deal with the multitude of compromises associated with using other lenses. But, to each their own.
p.4 #9 · Leica M9 review in this weeks AP mag (UK)
Tariq Gibran wrote:
When you read of a number of people, wowed by the M9's iq, speak of dumping their DSLR's in exchange for a rangefinder, one has to wonder if they are fully aware of the compromises they are about to enter into. ... But, to each their own.
Well, that is the point. If you don't use macro, and hardly use something over 100mm, than most of the spoken limitations are gone. A 28-50-90 combination on a RF is perfectly valid and would work great. Now, if this is what you shoot with a DSLR, would it not make sense to get a M9 ( of course, if you can afford it )? Or, you could have a RF kit and a DSLR with your preffered long AF lenses for sports/kids/wildlife. That would be complementary and not overlapping.
p.4 #10 · Leica M9 review in this weeks AP mag (UK)
Tariq Gibran wrote:
When you read of a number of people, wowed by the M9's iq, speak of dumping their DSLR's in exchange for a rangefinder, one has to wonder if they are fully aware of the compromises they are about to enter into.... But, to each their own.
I'm not aware of many willing to sell their kits to finance a RF. That certainly would be a mistake for me. The long waiting list is a good thing for those with no RF experience. I imagine the euphoria will pass before the waiting lists are depleted, saving those inexperienced money.
p.4 #12 · Leica M9 review in this weeks AP mag (UK)
slungu wrote:
Well, that is the point. If you don't use macro, and hardly use something over 100mm, than most of the spoken limitations are gone. A 28-50-90 combination on a RF is perfectly valid and would work great. Now, if this is what you shoot with a DSLR, would it not make sense to get a M9 ( of course, if you can afford it )? Or, you could have a RF kit and a DSLR with your preffered long AF lenses for sports/kids/wildlife. That would be complementary and not overlapping.
Cropping an already small viewfinder image by using longer lenses than the widest the finder is designed for is a major compromise in usability alone. It almost looks too silly to be true when you stop and consider it: http://simon.clubsnap.org/gallery/albums/album36/leica.jpg
p.4 #13 · Leica M9 review in this weeks AP mag (UK)
ulrikft wrote:
And ultrawide? 12mm on a M9 is, as I see it, ultrawide, but I might be mistaken?
Yes - but you must use an attachable viewfinder which also doesn't show focus or d.o.f.. Using two viewfinders, one for focussing and one for framing is perfectly doable, but let's not pretend it's ideal. SLR is a boon for UWA use.
And precise depth of field? How often do you use stop-down-checks Richard?
Actually I use a lot of alt lenses, and stopped down with an S screen is my preferred way of viewing the picture, so I'm in stop-down-check most of the time.
I have _never_ used the stop down button on my d700, I have a pretty much instinctive way after a while, of knowing how 1.2, 1.8, 2.8 etc looks. I think most that have shot more than 1000 images do..
I think that d.o.f. is such an important ingredient of the picture that if you don't see it in advance, very often the picture itself is a surprise, and I've been doing this for more than 20 years. There's a lot to be said for WYSIWYG viewfinding.
Rangefinding has it's limitations, but you are "kind of" overplaying those a tad bit I think.
I agree that some of the limitations are major, and some minor, but there are a lot of them, and for those of us who do not have an unlimited budget for multiple camera systems, they are cumulative, i.e. a lot of limitations for one system to have all at once.
p.4 #14 · Leica M9 review in this weeks AP mag (UK)
Tariq Gibran wrote:
When you read of a number of people, wowed by the M9's iq, speak of dumping their DSLR's in exchange for a rangefinder, one has to wonder if they are fully aware of the compromises they are about to enter into.
True. Then again, anyone considering selling there DSLR system for a big loss, only to spend $15-20k on a camera system of a type they've never used... Well, they have it coming if they don't know what they are getting into. They resist the good advice to go buy a used Ikon and a CV lens to see if they like the system. I don't ultimately care what their experiences are - throwing around that much money without trying an RF out in the first place is silly. So what is the point to continually harp on those limitations? They've been stated.
And yes, on some of these forums, I hear people considering such a move.
I started out on a DSLR. I shot a lot of macro. I now shoot almost exclusively on a film RF. I don't really miss the DSLR or the macro. The 'limitations' as outlined by brainiac aren't limitations to me because I rarely if ever have the urge to do any of the things he outlined. And if I do, I have a 1V that I bought for a song. Which I last shot in April.
A common thread I see in these forums is to assume that just because you have needs for your photography, everyone else has the same. Look at high ISO. For some of you guys, it's your bread and butter. Others have never shot anything but ISO 100. 10 fps? Heck, some large format shooters are happy with 1 shot a day.
p.4 #16 · Leica M9 review in this weeks AP mag (UK)
Tariq Gibran wrote:
Cropping an already small viewfinder image by using longer lenses than the widest the finder is designed for is a major compromise in usability alone. It almost looks too silly to be true when you stop and consider it:
Maybe Leica, or somebody else, should pick up on the zooming rangefinder used in the Contax G2...
p.4 #17 · Leica M9 review in this weeks AP mag (UK)
Lotusm50 wrote:
Maybe Leica, or somebody else, should pick up on the zooming rangefinder used in the Contax G2...
Exactly! That would be one sweet camera. It probably would be considered sacrilegious to a lot of rangefinder users that like to see the action coming into their shot beforehand. The system could still zoom and still allow for this though.
p.4 #18 · Leica M9 review in this weeks AP mag (UK)
Tariq Gibran wrote:
Cropping an already small viewfinder image by using longer lenses than the widest the finder is designed for is a major compromise in usability alone.
A lot of RF users actually like that, and curse the 28mm framelines because they are so far out to the edge of the finder. Being able to see what is outside of the framelines can let you know what is going on outside of the frame, alerting you to other compositional choices. Not saying you can't achieve the same with an SLR by keeping your non-shooting eye open or other techniques, but with an RF, this is seen as a feature, not a limitation.
As far as focusing wide lenses, RFs do tend to focus wide angle lenses with more precision than SLRs. At some point, this becomes a totally overblown advantage in my opinion - I barely even focus my 15 mm lens. And on SLR, I could never tell what my 17mm lens was focused on wide open, unless I was focusing 6 inches from my camera.
But whatever. The point is that some people like shooting RFs. I have gotten way more enjoyment, and more keepers shooting 15mm on my RF, with it's guess focus and separate finder, than I ever did at 17mm with my AF SLR. The 17 was huge, and AF was kind of pointless on it for me. The 15mm on RF is F**KING awesome. Put it at 1m and f/8 and blast away. The whole kit ends up being about 2" from the back of the camera to the front of the lens. It's relatively cheap for an ultrawide angle lens, and pretty damn good.
p.4 #19 · Leica M9 review in this weeks AP mag (UK)
Like most things in photography, one size does not fit all.
These threads may appear that it is case of SLR guys ganging up on RF guys, but I think the discussion is useful. There are compromises and differences. I am pretty sure there was chatter about people selling off their SLR gear to afford the M9 system. This is what caught my attention as I began to wonder if everyone that were rushing towards RF nirvana had even tried one before?
I have not used any of the digital Leicas, but I have shot assignments with the M6 film body. I did not find the experience that rewarding to be honest. Focussing on anything that moved was a pain. I only had the 35mm lens at the time though.
But I really do sense that some shooters here are a match: they shoot with moderate focal lengths on mainly stationary subjects. They have no concern for motor drive rates, high ISO, or flash photography.
Some of the reasoning was the reduced weight and bulk. This I really don't get. I have seen the M8. When you consider what people will be paying is the weight reduction that significant over an SLR and prime lens?
The other thing worth mentioning is using more than one camera. Lots of people own and use just one body. But tons of people shoot with two, three or more bodies. This is another area where the SLR system shines. You can buy a 1D, 5D, 40D etc series and use them for different things one at a time or all at once. Bodies come in all sizes and price points but they work with everything else in your system. I know shooters who will use a Rebel underwater, in the rain or while rock climbing. If they break, then "oh well". Getting a 5D repaired is fast and easy. I have no idea what is involved with servicing a M9.
What it should come down to is image quality. In my personal case I would need to be blown away by demonstrable leaps in image quality, ruggedness, quietness (something the Leica was known for), and reliability to get me interested. Even if I did I could not sell my SLR gear has it can do so much more things than the Leica can.
But for those shooters who have determined that this is THE system that matches their shooting style and needs I say go for it. I wish you all great success.
p.4 #20 · Leica M9 review in this weeks AP mag (UK)
PhotoMaximum wrote:
Some of the reasoning was the reduced weight and bulk. This I really don't get. I have seen the M8. When you consider what people will be paying is the weight reduction that significant over an SLR and prime lens?
If the SLR stays at home because I do not feel like going out with some kg of gear, then it is significant. Ex: 1Ds+Z28/2.0= 1200 + 530 = 1700g. This is the combination I usually shoot, so it stays glued to my hand with a hand strap. Now a M9+ZM35/2.0= 585 + 240 = 825g. Now, that is half the weight to hang on your neck or on your wrist. Ithink it does make a great difference on a all day long walk trough town.
And precise depth of field? How often do you use stop-down-checks Richard? I have _never_ used the stop down button on my d700, I have a pretty much instinctive way after a while, of knowing how 1.2, 1.8, 2.8 etc looks. I think most that have shot more than 1000 images do.. 
