Mark Dubovoy's Leica M9 Rejoinder

[Mark D Segal]

Hi Mark,

A really good essay - thanks. Several thoughts:

(1) Lens hoods. Couldn't agree more. It constantly boggles my mind how we can pay very large sums of money for camera systems that are supposed to be properly engineered down to the last detail and they allow shoddy design of such details to stick. And to add insult to injury the manufacturers are often immune to criticism - because it will cost them to fix it. I also think, like you, this is a non-trivial matter. It's astounding how little things like this can make a difference to the whole experience of making photographs. You're in the field, switching lenses, taking cameras in and out of the camera bag, and frequently having to attach the hood or remove the hood. When they don't work smoothly, get jammed, etc., it's just a time-consuming, distracting p.i.t.a. to get them on and off properly. The ones on the Phase lenses are only slightly better.

(2) The focusing system: In the old days there were some 35mm cameras with the focusing indicator being a dot in the middle which clarified when the image came into focus and went blurry when the object pointed at was out of focus. I forget which cameras were designed this way - may have been Pentax - (we are talking the 1950s and 1960s when I was retailing this equipment part-time to pay for school and holidays), but I remember this feature being really easy to use and reliable.

(3) The viewfinder: Your suggestions are well-founded, but they raise another topic altogether: choice of lenses. It would really be nice to see a camera like the M9 have a Leica zoom lens like the Canon 24-105 L; this lens has exactly the right range of focal lengths for about 90% of the work I do with a DSLR, and there's every reason to believe that Leica could design one at least as good. If the focal length range of this lens were integrated into the optical viewfinder so the FOV changed with the zooming, the convenience of this would be truly fantastic - and the less often one needs to change lenses, the less risk of dirt on the sensor.

(4) Will they listen? Prospects are improving. The international economic crisis is nowhere near coming to a conclusion and these companies will need to do things to keep their customers happy and attract new ones. There has never been a better time for consumers to get a hearing than under the kind of distress conditions we are now facing. Sad to say it is like this, but c'est la vie.

[JohnBrew]

Sorry Mark, but I have to disagree with you and Michael on the base plate. It is simply not an issue. Instead of two flimsy plastic doors as on most DSLR's, you have one "door" on the Leica M that is made of metal, uses a completely mechanical closing and locking method and is virtually fail safe. Oh, and for those who complain about the so-called hassle of removing this door - I timed myself for individually changing the battery and then separately the SD card - about five seconds for either one. If that amount of time is a "hassle", then go cry on someone else's shoulder.

FWIW, I personally don't care what Leica does to the M as long as I can still use those wonderful lenses  

[NikoJorj]

To go on with MarkDS' list...

5) The § about exposure and ergonomics is alas just too true!
What is even more astonishing is that mfgrs actually did experiment with new form factors and ergonomics in the beginning of the 2000's (remember the coolpix two-part articulated body eg?), but then went back to the FFFF-obsolete film-container-like bodies.
And yes, the lack of ETTR matrix metering is another unfathomable interrogation...

About the "will they listen" question mark, maybe we can hope that if Leica doesn't listen, Cosina will not let pass this great opportunity?
To temper such a reckless optimism, one can also remark that the DOF problem cited by the article has been brought among others by a lens manufacturer, Zeiss, more than 12 years ago (yeah, that was back in the film age)... And today (D-)SLR Zeiss lenses still do have that dumb last century's 30µm-based depth of field scale engraved on it. Go figure.

edit : ooops, corrected  the link for ETTR exposure metering

[schrodingerscat]

To go on with MarkDS' list...

5) The § about exposure and ergonomics is alas just too true!
What is even more astonishing is that mfgrs actually did experiment with new form factors and ergonomics in the beginning of the 2000's (remember the coolpix two-part articulated body eg?), but then went back to the FFFF-obsolete film-container-like bodies.
And yes, the lack of ETTR matrix metering is another unfathomable interrogation...

About the "will they listen" question mark, maybe we can hope that if Leica doesn't listen, Cosina will not let pass this great opportunity?
To temper such a reckless optimism, one can also remark that the DOF problem cited by the article has been brought among others by a lens manufacturer, Zeiss, more than 12 years ago (yeah, that was back in the film age)... And today (D-)SLR Zeiss lenses still do have that dumb last century's 30µm-based depth of field scale engraved on it. Go figure.

Just for grins, I stuck a Zeiss ZE 50/1.4 on a 5D and used the "dumb" DOF scale to check out how usable the setup was for hyperfocal shooting.

Worked quite well.

[tyurek]

Actually the DOF scale feature can easily be moved from lenses to the camera body. Provided that you are using a lens fully compatible with the camera body, the camera body already knows the focal length, the aperture and the focusing distance set. All it needs to do is display the DOF scale in the viewfinder/back LCD. It follows logically that there would be a circle of confusion setting in the camera menu to change the default value as one pleases. This shouldn't be hard to do, since there are free DOF calculator applications even for my cell phone.  The Contax RX film body had a rudimentary DOF scale in the viewfinder back in its day. Unfortunately, many useful ideas are routinely not followed up on. Sigh!

[imagico]

While reading the commendable plea for an exposure/metering system suited for digital i realized that such a feature will most likely not be pioneered by a company like Leica, at least not at this point.  The reason is Leica - much more than the DSLR makers - addresses photographers with the M9 who still use film at the moment and a lot of them want to hear they can use it just like a film Leica.  The reason why all digital camera makers pretend exposure works just like with film is when digital came up they thought this is a good idea to convince more photographers to switch to digital.  For Leica these switching customers are still extremely important for success on the market i think and this is why they are probably the last to initiate such a change.

Reading Michael's and Mark Dubovoey's ideas about Leica i am not sure if they sufficiently considered Leicas motivations for such design decision.  Of course it can be argued that these motivations are short sighted and Leica could be more successful by embracing the new possibilities of digital photography.  But i would guess this underestimates the importance of customers with tightened traditional, old-fashioned if you want, non-technical views for the company.

Greetings,

Christoph

[kers]

The M9  Photo in the article " The Swirl" by Mark is a good example of a photo that could benefit from lifeview for precise focussing...

I guess now you make e few photos and choose the best...

Exposure dot... I find it not good enough ( nikon D3x) when it concerns an object at a distance with small details- photos made with the lens wide open clearly shows the problem
But then I guess the leica lenses have a fixed and precise infinity stop...?  ( like the Zeiss ZF lenses have)

- About exposure metering- Also my Nikon 3dx could be improved a lot if it could automatically make exposures without clipping  hightlights...
I thought Canon already had such a setting?

[Mark D Segal]

The post below appears as #45 in the other Leica thread, where I posted it yesterday by mistake:

"There's one further point in Mark's article I forgot to comment on - expose to the right (ETTR). Yes, it's time the manufacturers understood how to use their own equipment for optimal image quality. BUT - here's the catch. The way most of them are doing it now (and Nikon less so than Canon), they are trying to avoid having us clip highlights, because if those are gone and they held wanted detail, the photographer is s.o.l. I would call this the manufacturers's conservative approach to auto-exposure management. It becomes really problemmatic when this system conserves specular highlights in which there is no wanted detail and the rest of the image is vastly under-exposed. SO, what's the compromise: in my mind I agree with you that they should have ETTR as the default option. THEN, in those situations where the manufacturer's implementation of ETTR clips highlights with wanted detail, there would be a button to push programmed to revert the exposure calculation to the conservative approach. I think this would be really elegant. "

[Mark D Segal]

While reading the commendable plea for an exposure/metering system suited for digital i realized that such a feature will most likely not be pioneered by a company like Leica, at least not at this point.  The reason is Leica - much more than the DSLR makers - addresses photographers with the M9 who still use film at the moment and a lot of them want to hear they can use it just like a film Leica.  The reason why all digital camera makers pretend exposure works just like with film is when digital came up they thought this is a good idea to convince more photographers to switch to digital.  For Leica these switching customers are still extremely important for success on the market i think and this is why they are probably the last to initiate such a change.

Reading Michael's and Mark Dubovoey's ideas about Leica i am not sure if they sufficiently considered Leicas motivations for such design decision.  Of course it can be argued that these motivations are short sighted and Leica could be more successful by embracing the new possibilities of digital photography.  But i would guess this underestimates the importance of customers with tightened traditional, old-fashioned if you want, non-technical views for the company.

Greetings,

Christoph

Christoph, I don't completely buy this reasoning. If you make this point about the look and feel of the camera, no argument - film photographers who think of Leica M would have an easier time buying a camera whose shape and handling is very much like what they are accustomed to. When it comes to exposure technique, however, if this is how Leica is thinking, they're mistaken. Digital isn't film. It is a different technology with a different "characteristic curve" and there is an onus on the manufacturer, which none of them have addressed, to bring the imaging practices of their clients into conformity with what works best for the technology they are selling them. You drive a car differently than you peddle a bike, don't you, even both get you there? I see no reason why Leica, or for that matter any of the other camera makers, couldn't be at the forefront of adjusting their firmware to expose images in the way their technology works best.

[Christoph C. Feldhaim]

Sorry Mark, but I have to disagree with you and Michael on the base plate. It is simply not an issue. Instead of two flimsy plastic doors as on most DSLR's, you have one "door" on the Leica M that is made of metal, uses a completely mechanical closing and locking method and is virtually fail safe. Oh, and for those who complain about the so-called hassle of removing this door - I timed myself for individually changing the battery and then separately the SD card - about five seconds for either one. If that amount of time is a "hassle", then go cry on someone else's shoulder.

FWIW, I personally don't care what Leica does to the M as long as I can still use those wonderful lenses  

The baseplate is covering the tripod mount screwhole. I wouldn't like to take the camera from a tripods quick plate
just to change an akkupack or card. I don't like the flimsy plastic covers of other cameras either, but I'd prefer to
be able to change card/akku without any impact on tripod mounting.


Concerning the viewfinder: If Leica manages to make the ideal / optionally zoomable optical viewfinder with overlayed electronic focus confirmation - they couldn't sell the additional viewfinders for their wide angles anymore.

[Mark D Segal]

There's nothing flimsy about the card door on a Canon 1Ds Mk3, and the battery slides in and out at the base of the camera without a door. This is satisfactory, workable design which doesn't interfere with the "L" plate and allows the camera to remain on the tripod while changing batteries or cards. Perhaps Leica could replicate this approach without fundamentally altering the overall design of the M9 by having a small door in the bottom left for the battery, and a hinged door on the right back for the memory card, preserving the same shape of the camera. This would leave the base-plate intact while changing either the battery or the card. If I can think of this, presumably they did too - usually there are reasons behind design decisions. Perhaps in this case it was just a philosophy to remain as faithful to the film camera as they could, but perhaps there are other considerations.

It would also be good to see manufacturers' reps participating in forums such as this for a free exchange of ideas - doesn't mean they need to commit themselves to anything or reveal company secrets, but just show they are listening and communicating. This is a general thought applicable to Leitz as to any of the others. It could actually reward them.

[JohnBrew]

The baseplate is covering the tripod mount screwhole.

I suggest you actually look at one! The tripod mounting has always been incorporated into the base plate of every M.

[Alan Goldhammer]

I question whether DOF markings are as important for digital camera versus film.  We face the diffraction problem which makes it difficult to stop down in order to get increased depth of field.  I pretty much don't go any lower than f8 whereas with film, I never hesitated to stop down to the smallest aperture.  Regarding lens hoods, I have a Nikon 16-85 DX zoom and the lens hood snaps into place with a quarter turn.  Sure it has to be reversed for storage but if I'm in the field shooting and need to switch to another lens, I'll just remove the hood and put it in the camera bag until finished shooting or the lens is needed again.  I don't find this problematic.

[Christoph C. Feldhaim]

I suggest you actually look at one! The tripod mounting has always been incorporated into the base plate of every M.

I meant - you need to remove the camera from the tripod or quick fastening plate to change akkupack / card.
Thats what I wouldn't want. Maybe I wasn't exact enough in my words, but thats what I saw in the shop
if I'm not completely mistaken.

[imagico]

Christoph, I don't completely buy this reasoning. If you make this point about the look and feel of the camera, no argument - film photographers who think of Leica M would have an easier time buying a camera whose shape and handling is very much like what they are accustomed to. When it comes to exposure technique, however, if this is how Leica is thinking, they're mistaken. Digital isn't film. It is a different technology with a different "characteristic curve" and there is an onus on the manufacturer, which none of them have addressed, to bring the imaging practices of their clients into conformity with what works best for the technology they are selling them. You drive a car differently than you peddle a bike, don't you, even both get you there? I see no reason why Leica, or for that matter any of the other camera makers, couldn't be at the forefront of adjusting their firmware to expose images in the way their technology works best.

I agree, indeed all camera makers should change their metering this way - but as you can see they don't.  What i am saying is that Leica has fairly strong reason for this since film is still common among their customers and many of them would need to newly learn this even if they have been into photography for many years.  And Leica probably thinks that this would discourage them from going digital at all and therefore from buying a digital Leica M.   Now they (like other camera makers previously) solve this by pretending digital exposure is no different from film exposure.  

The sad thing is by doing this they deny those who want to expose correctly the help of useful tools like a suited light metering and raw histograms.  And in the end it is probably not so much easier for Canon and Nikon to make this step since most of their digital customers already got very used to using film style exposure on digital.

Greetings,

Christoph

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Regarding DoF-markings I'd suggest that the approach Michael Reichmann suggests, having a focus mask indicating what is in focus, makes sense. Or we could have some kind of DoF indication on the LV display on the limits of sharpness. Both could take diffraction limitation into account.

My solution to the diffraction issue is that I normally use f/8 (I have a preset for it), if I need it I can stop down to f/16. If I need to stop down further I feel uneasy.


Best regards
Erik

I question whether DOF markings are as important for digital camera versus film.  We face the diffraction problem which makes it difficult to stop down in order to get increased depth of field.  I pretty much don't go any lower than f8 whereas with film, I never hesitated to stop down to the smallest aperture.  Regarding lens hoods, I have a Nikon 16-85 DX zoom and the lens hood snaps into place with a quarter turn.  Sure it has to be reversed for storage but if I'm in the field shooting and need to switch to another lens, I'll just remove the hood and put it in the camera bag until finished shooting or the lens is needed again.  I don't find this problematic.

[barryfitzgerald]

Interesting article..

Agreed about the OVF and keeping it.

However I found this odd...
"As some of you may know, I have been telling folks for a long time that the flat and wide 35 mm shaped bodies came about because of the need to transport film from one reel to the other, while exposing the section in-between the reels.  This is no longer necessary with digital cameras, so the traditional 35 mm camera shape is obsolete and ergonomically wrong"

I disagree 100%, and that's not due to my film use, but simply this.
Many of the controls are the same as film models, in fact there are very few differences, bar obvious ones, WB, menus in the main LCD etc. Cameras have to be controlled, and used, and held in hands! Just because something is old, ish, does not make it useless. I'd not even look at an oddball design. If it works (and it def does work), don't fix it. Change for the sake of it is not a good move. What would you replace it with? A round design, a square one? Comfort counts, DSLR's handle well, mostly. Strange comment to make. And there have been examples of oddball film camera designs, and all were flops.

[Nemo]

The only possible direction for an evolution of the M system is the simplest one: live view and accessory electronic viewfinder on a classical M camera similar to the M9 (more versatility); and maybe a second type of camera with EVF and no optical viewfinder or rangefinder (more compact, cheaper, new possibilities for future developments, like AF, etc.).

I think this isn't easy. The technology is here (you can see it on japanese cameras: CMOS, live view, high resolution clip-on EVFs... etc...), but Leica may find difficulties in accessing these technologies at this moment, and they cannot deliver second rate technologies.

The most important thing is to separate the reasonable and practical ideas and discard the impractical ones.

With all due respect, Mark Dubovoy's suggestions at The Luminous Landscape are a mess: a zoomimg optical viewfinder and rangefinder isn't doable; focus confirmation with LEDs on the viewfinder is too complex and you need contrast evaluation on the sensor anyway; etc.

Michael Reichmann's suggestions goes too far in some points, but he brings good ideas (MF system).

[dseelig]

For me I have to have an optical viewfinder anything else is a waste for me. But i use the Leica for shooting street life and not landscapes. A zoom viewfinder might be fine, if it does not make the image in the viewfinder smaller. I hated the contax g 1 viewfinder too small.  Focus confirmation fine Better high iso a must. I could care less for live view. Made in Japan to cut costs fine. A different shape no. David Seelig

[Rob C]

Well, I think Leica are probably doing it the right way.

I have had to own all manner of cameras during my career and the only important one in my genre that I never did buy was a Leica M. The reason was simple: a groundglass provides control of the image that is not available to RF cameras. All this chat about seeing more than is in the actual frame is fine, but in any real situation that I can imagine I faced, the opposite was the need: precise control of the image area.

Now, retired, the world is a different place. Though I do still have a Nikon film camera and two digital ones, I find that the weight of these things is a huge disincentive, actually, to taking any camera for a walk. There, I think, the attraction of a lightweight M camera. However, the difference is now not so much to do with precise framing but with purchasing costs. I simply can't justify buying into the system and do not fancy the used route (even though I have bought a used 105mm Micro Nikkor and am very happy with it!). Justification of a purchase is something that comes with it being part of your business: it ain't that easy to shelve that outlook later in life, post-business - perhaps just as well!

Looked at from that perspective, I am willing to believe that Leica will generally remain the province of the richer members of our world. And why not? It is my problem if I can't comfortably afford one, not Leica's!

Rob C