Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: Rob C on January 20, 2010, 05:24:15 pm
-
Michael
I read your article with interest, not least of all because I sense a kind of disappointment in your Gomera photographs.
This may be entirely in my own head and you could be as happy as a sandboy with what you got there; however, I can't lose the notion that Gomera is your Sardinia, which in my case was quite upsetting. I had long held high hopes for the place, yet when the time came and I did the recce and then the shoot, it just didn't give me what I had hoped it would. I have Marco Glaviano's sirens of costasmeralda (sic) and though I think very highly of his oeuvre, I think Sardinia beat him too, which is surprising, because it is quite dramatic and beautiful. It just seems to have the knack of stopping you from going home with that part of itself.
Was your experience in/of Gomera in any way similar and perhaps behind your feelings towards the M9?
Rob C
-
No not at all.
We had a great time in La Gomera, and though it was a vacation, I ended up producing at least three portfolio grade images. Not bad.
I have been so pleased with the M9 that I have been using it extensively for the past few months. My P65+ was at the factory for a firmware upgrade, so I ended up using the M9 more than I might have otherwise.
Consequently, because I was using it for some types of shooting (landscape) for which I otherwise might have preferred to use an non-RF camera, some of its flaws and hassles shone a bit brighter than they might have otherwise. Also, a vacation is a good time to do some thinking about fundamentals.
Michael
-
Great article Michael. I hope they listen...
A comparable story is that of the Merc S class in the 1990s: it became both incredibly over-engineered and obsolete at the same time and painted itself into an evolutionary corner just when Lexus and Infinity were becoming affordable alternatives.
For those who don't remember each new Merc was longer and heavier than the previous one - to the point where they had to use titanium chair frames to lighten the load! The 1991 model (the W140) really bombed because it was becoming irrelevant even to the rarefied market for very large luxury cars. This near-death experience resulted in the car being totally redesigned, coming up with a lighter, shorter, faster more reliable car in 1997 (the W220) that was actually larger inside. In other words evolution had reached a dead-end and the engineers had started another branch of the family tree...
You can see the parallels: Kodak can sell sensors to other people, the Leica M lenses are widely available in all sorts of mounts, etc. Having seen the ability for, say, Sony to break into the very competitive 'proper' SLR market, it is only a matter of time before somebody goes after Leica's lunch.
François
(with apologies for the many mixed metaphors!)
-
If I understand Michael's thinking, he's advocating a whole new direction for Leica - a body with no viewfinder other than a live view screen. (Almost a very upscale P&S!) I agree that, if Leica wants to move away from what must be a diminishing market of nostalgic folks with healthy bank accounts, they will have to come out with something different.
If there is to be no viewfinder, then there is no reason to lift the camera up to eye level, yet a camera as light and thin as an M has to be braced against something for steadiness. Holding it out in front where the LCD can be viewed (if it is mounted on the rear panel of the body) is not a steady position.
How about an entirely different form factor, perhaps like a smaller, 35mm version of a Hasselblad-style box, with the LCD on top? A flip-up hood and all the usual and familiar 6x6-style amenities could work.
Or, this could be an opportunity to completely re-think what the ideal shape for a digital camera should be.
-
Ah Michael,
You should visit the Leica forum's reaction to your article, more than here.
How big are you enlarging your M9 images?
Said another way, I know you sell very large prints. How large are you willing to go with the M9?
Sure the P65+ is the max but for a much heavier load.
When you get the P65+ back, and have a choice of what to carry, how often will you take the heavier kit?
10% 50% what do you think?
-
I could be a future user of M camera and lenses ! but I am not a nostalgic and as it is now (the M9) for sure I shall never buy it
-
I could be a future user of M camera and lenses ! but I am not a nostalgic and as it is now (the M9) for sure I shall never buy it
I am by no means a nostalgic. Frankly, I couldn't care less about that (which is probably the main factor (besides the snobby attitude) why I have problems with a lot of typical Leica M owners). I don't even care about the RF thing, or how one is supposed to use it or even what to use it for traditionally.
Yet, I just ordered a M9 (and I'm by no means rich). Why you ask? Simply because it has the damn best lenses available.
Otherwise, it's to me a tool like any other camera.
I agree with Michael Reichman's open letter. Frankly, I believe Leica should have broken the M mold already with the M9.
-
I agree with most of Michael points except one, loosing a optical finder. I am a better photographer with a M than any other camera, even the Contax G, although great image quality just was not as good. I see better with a M, resulting in a better composed image than anything else I have ever used. There is just something about the way you look through a M.
As a side, I was out for a short hike the other day and thought about how great it would be if the M9 had live view. I would no longer need a SLR with a long lens for sunset shots, just mount it to the M and use the LCD
-
Yet, I just ordered a M9 (and I'm by no means rich). Why you ask? Simply because it has the damn best lenses available.
Otherwise, it's to me a tool like any other camera.
I agree with Michael Reichman's open letter. Frankly, I believe Leica should have broken the M mold already with the M9.
I have more or less the same point of view , I am 100% interested by the lenses but not at all by a RF
-
Leica was innovative when they introduced the first 35mm camera. The form was a result of a very compact layout. The M Gestalt has always been a great solution for a film camera. I wish Leica would be innovative again. Use the advantage of digital to create a new layout, a forward looking platform. The M9 is beautiful but to be innovative you have to break the mold. At some point you will be trapped by the boundaries that you have established.
-
I'd like to put a slightly different conceptual frame around this issue.
I've felt for a long time that Leica should not try to compete either by banking on the appeal of their brand name, on being able to fast-follow Japanese technology, or, on the basis of the digital M.
I think they should reconceptualize the compact high-quality camera using the best conceptual and design expertise they can bring to bear -- just the way they created the compact high-quality camera itself in the first place. I think Leica's strong suit is to draw on an impressive brain trust with a unique engineering and design sensibility.
Surely the Leica Way will survive a transformation. But to say that EVIL is the way to go is premature, which is not to say that very high resolutions LCDs or OLEDs won't play a big part. One could imagine a number of ways to reconceptualize the optical viewfinder to work in conjunction with a live CMOS sensor. For example, one could superimpose a kind of heads-up display in the viewfinder providing guides to AF/MF and other scene variables. One could of course go pure EVIL, but the difficulty is that Leica will be competing against the Japanese and Koreans who will all have access to the same technology with the same uses intended. And then we're back to Leica banking on their past prestige without genuinely groundbreaking original work. [Of course an advance in making super high resolution displays will be necessary to achieve the requisite user experience.]
Luke
-
Dirk
the S2 was the new format
-
A M10 without the optical range finder wouldn't be a M10 but the EVIL10, it's missing the M, the Messsucher. Yes, the lenses are great, but so are many others. I am using a m9 because it works like I want a camera to work. its size is perfect, but it is way too heavy. It is fullframe and the quality of the files are great, but I hardly ever get it right out of camera, every picture needs PP, compare that to a Canon 5Dmk2, where often the heavily postproduced image isn't far off the enbedded jpg.
Live view would be great as an additional feature, if you don't like it, don't use it. and please I want tether support (with tethered live view). only then I can see it as a professional tool for anything but reportage. the times are over where the client peaks over you shoulde to glimpse at the shitty screen. they have to show up on the big computer screen not more than 5 seconds after they are taken.
I am earning my living with Canons, but my photographic passion is fulfilled with the m9
and: the m9 is the most beautiful looking camera out there. looks are important, don't change it. it is the only current camera that I know of which is worth looking at.
-
Michael, thanks for a thought provoking article. I've been waiting for the M9 for years, although I haven't saved enough to buy one yet.
Since I went digital I've taken a lot less pictures, particularly on the street. This is because I found I used my Voitlander Bessa (I couldn't justify a Leica back then as the Voitlander worked fine) far more than my SLRs. I composed better (probably because the viewfinder was bright and the whole process of picture taking was more involving) and I felt more at ease pointing the camera at people, it was far more discreet.
I tried a Canon G10, which is pretty good, but I find the pokey viewfinder is limiting.
I'm sure that you are right about a diminishing audience for RFs and the need for Leica to protect their business. I'm going to keep looking forward to my M9, but as I'll probably not buy anlother camera for at least 10 years afterwards the likes of me will not sustain Leica camera production.
-
Dirk
the S2 was the new format
Yes, the S2 is a new format but not for the same customer group that has bought the M cameras. It is more of an upscaled approach to the R system. I would like to see that for the "M class" as well. Don't get me wrong. I think the M9 is a beautiful camera and it takes superb images. I might even get one. The question is if this concept is still the right concept for future generations of M models. With great lenses and higher resolution sensors you will detect user errors more easily than you do with film cameras. An optical range finder might not be able to provide necessary precision. With film cameras it was fine to neglect most technologies. In the end the film is the same as the film in any other camera and the lenses made the difference. With digital the image quality will improve from year to year and at some point it will demand tools to help us achieve ultimate image quality. Larger screens and electronic viewfinders might be the answer. The M3 is a good example of form follows function. The M9 is function follows form. That creates limits. I wonder how a 7k X1 could have been.
-
Since I went digital I've taken a lot less pictures, particularly on the street. This is because I found I used my Voitlander Bessa (I couldn't justify a Leica back then as the Voitlander worked fine) far more than my SLRs. I composed better (probably because the viewfinder was bright and the whole process of picture taking was more involving) and I felt more at ease pointing the camera at people, it was far more discreet.
I tried a Canon G10, which is pretty good, but I find the pokey viewfinder is limiting.
I'm sure that you are right about a diminishing audience for RFs and the need for Leica to protect their business. I'm going to keep looking forward to my M9, but as I'll probably not buy anlother camera for at least 10 years afterwards the likes of me will not sustain Leica camera production.
I will probably never get a Leica. I think it would be a great mistake to get rid of the rangefinder. It is a brilliant concept that Leica brilliantly implemented. I could see autofocus and liveview, even though I never used liveview. I also think that when they replace the pentaprism in SLRs with evf it will be a great loss and a step down. I see evfs as the equivalent of mp3s when compared to LPs or even CDs which are the rangefinders and SLRs of the camera world, dumbed down and implemented just because they can be and are cheaper. It doesn't matter to the marketers whether something is worse, just as long as it can be sold with a higher profit.
-
In the article "An Open Letter to Leica: A Modest Proposal For Reinventing the M Series" Michael Reichmann suggests, essentially, a complete departure from the RF concept. In fact, what he suggest would be a Micro-3/4-th camera with a full frame sensor and a Leica lens mount. Samsung has just introduced an APS-C "mirror-less-DSLR" (presumably with Schneider designed lenses), so we are almost there. I agree that such a camera would be very useful, but it would not be an M-type Leica.
At the old days of film and no autoficus, people used RF cameras because they were faster to compose and focus than SLRs. Fast AF changed all that. Leica had one attempt in breaking the mould of the M-series in the M-5 camera. It was almost reinventing the RF camera - it was much better than the traditional M camera, with vastly improved erogonometeric. In the market it was a total failure - people insisted on having a Leica M that looks like a Leica M.
The other thing about RF cameras is their large direct-view viewfinder - best for composing fast action images. In fact, there was an RF camera that was even better than the Leica M - the Nikon SP rangefinder camera. It was based on the Zeiss Contax (the original Contax) lens mount and, appart from the fact that the lenses were completely incompetable with Leica's, there were two basic additional differences:
- Its direct view viewfinder has 1:1 magnification. That meant that one could use it with both eyes open - a geat advantage for photojournalism.
- The Contax heritage lens mount was focused from the body. There was a wheel on the camera BODY for focus, rather than a ring on the lens. This was a matter of personal preference back in the days of manual focus, but it is VERY significant today - 50 years old Nikon SP lenses can be used with auto-focus with no change to the lenses - all you need is to replace the eye-based rangefinder with an electronic one (using triangulation and digital correlation - faster than modern DSLR "phase detect" AF) and add a focus drive motor in the CAMERA BODY.
So what do I say? let Leica design the next M camera any way it wishes - it would either be a slightly improved M9 or perhaps an X-1 with full frame sensor and M-mount lenses. Let's ask NIKON to revive the SP line - I am waiting for the Nikon D-SP electronic rangefinder camera!
Yours,
Shelly G.
A M10 without the optical range finder wouldn't be a M10 but the EVIL10, it's missing the M, the Messsucher. Yes, the lenses are great, but so are many others. I am using a m9 because it works like I want a camera to work. its size is perfect, but it is way too heavy. It is fullframe and the quality of the files are great, but I hardly ever get it right out of camera, every picture needs PP, compare that to a Canon 5Dmk2, where often the heavily postproduced image isn't far off the enbedded jpg.
Live view would be great as an additional feature, if you don't like it, don't use it. and please I want tether support (with tethered live view). only then I can see it as a professional tool for anything but reportage. the times are over where the client peaks over you shoulde to glimpse at the shitty screen. they have to show up on the big computer screen not more than 5 seconds after they are taken.
I am earning my living with Canons, but my photographic passion is fulfilled with the m9
and: the m9 is the most beautiful looking camera out there. looks are important, don't change it. it is the only current camera that I know of which is worth looking at.
-
Its direct view viewfinder has 1:1 magnification. That meant that one could use it with both eyes open - a geat advantage for photojournalism.
Huh. I had to go and check my M4 when I read this. I've been using it with both eyes open for 40 years, with no problem. Amazing what the brain can adapt to...
The Contax heritage lens mount was focused from the body.
Yep, this would make a big difference. I don't think I'd be buying a new Leica body if I couldn't use my old M lenses.
-
As I write in another post, I think the Ricoh GRX idea of an intechangeable unit would fit perfectly
the M without having to reinvent basic design.
Of course: with interchangeable lenses...! (not like Ricoh) and electronic viewfinder
Imagine what it means: your M body would never get obsolete, with incredible versatility .
Leica would put a unique product on the market with simply no competition.
AS THE M BODY DESIGN IS PERFECT IN ITSELF, it is not the design that has to be changed but the elements
of the design. So, you would get a perfectly designed body for life, with always the lastest technology
and performance available. Want to shoot pro video?: a special module conected to the viewfinder for example, etc...
M design is well adapted to such a system, as Ricoh show.
Why not?
-
I am one of the older users you refer to. I have been using M Leicas since 1972. I find the M focusing so instinctive, I can't imagine changing it. Those who wouldn't buy a Leica M because of the RF system should rent one for a day and give it a try. I certainly don't want to be looking at a camera a foot away from my face to check focus. What you described seemed really slow, if I understand it correctly. My other oddity is that I have no trouble holding my M8 without a Thumbs-Up or optional grip. The lens is always in the palm of my left hand.
-
Ah Michael,
You should visit the Leica forum's reaction to your article, more than here.
How big are you enlarging your M9 images?
Said another way, I know you sell very large prints. How large are you willing to go with the M9?
Sure the P65+ is the max but for a much heavier load.
When you get the P65+ back, and have a choice of what to carry, how often will you take the heavier kit?
10% 50% what do you think?
Such reactions always happen, specially in communities. Remember the hostile reactions when Michael reviewed the Pentax K7 ?
I'm also a Pentax user and didn't buy the K7 because I came exactly to the same conclusions as Michael. Instead, I upgrade with
a KX, cheap entry-level camera that actually delivers better pictures quality and is more fun to use...
Communities have no free minds (like football supporters), Michael has, and that is why I like and trust his reviews or comments in TLL.
I think he might have had good reasons to put online such a letter, and looking in Leica website recently, it didn't take too long to smell
something is wrong: when marketing department starts to sell golden M8, or the China's revolution model...
They may want to exploit their image for some Emirates clients, as you would buy a vintage Bordeaux wine for ten
thousand dollars. OK, they have the right to do it, they are the only ones who can do it, but it smells the beginning of a decadence.
Quite frankly, a debate about Leica's future in photography and for photographers seems to me more healthy than "diamonds M"
for rich collectors wifes. A little bit more of this marketing and we will see Leica gear in satin box with fois-gras and champagne.
It won't surprise me at all if it would happen soon or later. Seriously,
I hope Leica will take in considerations the points in Michael letter and will hear the voice of users in the benefit of all.
Fred.
-
Theresa,
There are a lot of disadvantages to the SLR concept. In short:
The mirror needs a lot of space. This mean that wide angle lenses need to be inverted telephoto designs (to make place for mirrors), optically this design may not be optimal. Also, all the components like lens, mirror, view screen deflection prism on mirror and AF-sensor need to be perfectly aligned within a few microns to achieve optimal quality. This makes SLRs complex, heavy, hard to build and very sensitive to chock, With EVF you would have cameras that were:
- smaller
- more robust
- cheaper
Regarding lens performance, wide angles would probably be sharper but have more vignetting.
The other side of the equation: will an electronic viewfinder work in the dark?
Best regards
Erik
I will probably never get a Leica. I think it would be a great mistake to get rid of the rangefinder. It is a brilliant concept that Leica brilliantly implemented. I could see autofocus and liveview, even though I never used liveview. I also think that when they replace the pentaprism in SLRs with evf it will be a great loss and a step down. I see evfs as the equivalent of mp3s when compared to LPs or even CDs which are the rangefinders and SLRs of the camera world, dumbed down and implemented just because they can be and are cheaper. It doesn't matter to the marketers whether something is worse, just as long as it can be sold with a higher profit.
-
I have been so pleased with the M9 that I have been using it extensively for the past few months. My P65+ was at the factory for a firmware upgrade, so I ended up using the M9 more than I might have otherwise.
Consequently, because I was using it for some types of shooting (landscape) for which I otherwise might have preferred to use an non-RF camera, some of its flaws and hassles shone a bit brighter than they might have otherwise. Also, a vacation is a good time to do some thinking about fundamentals.
Michael
Michael - thanks for the thoughtful article - my only cavil with it is that I have the feeling you're asking the M to be all cameras to all people - and in my experience that's not the way I'd want to go.
I've used Ms for a long time - and now have 2 M9 bodies with a range of lenses. I also use 5 series Canons + zooms and longer lenses. The Ms come out for travel, documentary, personal work. The Canon's come out for theatre / music performance and some corporate work where I know I'm going to need flash or to have the flexibility of auto-most-things when I need it. If I'm travelling light it's the M set up. If I have a car or know that it's not going to be too long a walk when I'm hauling the Pelican, it's the Canons (and sometimes both). As I don't work with assistants and don't have major studio commissions, that's enough of a system for me. If I did the work that you do, I'd want large format + tilt and shift and all the rest of it - and that would mean a third system - not the remodelling of either the RF or SLR system.
What I'd really like to hear now, I suppose, is the field report you mentioned earlier on your experience of working with the M9. I am interested to hear about how you get on with the Apo Telyt 135 (a lens I have and love using) and what your evaluation is of prints made from M9 files processed with LR3.
My two cents - and thanks for the stimulating discussion and the ever useful web site.
Best
Chris Tribble
-
Hi,
When asking for innovation we may keep in mind that Leica is not exactly flush with money. Would Leica have been a normal company they would probably not be around any more. Anyway they need to earn money.
Best regards
Erik
Great article Michael. I hope they listen...
A comparable story is that of the Merc S class in the 1990s: it became both incredibly over-engineered and obsolete at the same time and painted itself into an evolutionary corner just when Lexus and Infinity were becoming affordable alternatives.
For those who don't remember each new Merc was longer and heavier than the previous one - to the point where they had to use titanium chair frames to lighten the load! The 1991 model (the W140) really bombed because it was becoming irrelevant even to the rarefied market for very large luxury cars. This near-death experience resulted in the car being totally redesigned, coming up with a lighter, shorter, faster more reliable car in 1997 (the W220) that was actually larger inside. In other words evolution had reached a dead-end and the engineers had started another branch of the family tree...
You can see the parallels: Kodak can sell sensors to other people, the Leica M lenses are widely available in all sorts of mounts, etc. Having seen the ability for, say, Sony to break into the very competitive 'proper' SLR market, it is only a matter of time before somebody goes after Leica's lunch.
François
(with apologies for the many mixed metaphors!)
-
What I'd really like to hear now, I suppose, is the field report you mentioned earlier on your experience of working with the M9. I am interested to hear about how you get on with the Apo Telyt 135 (a lens I have and love using) and what your evaluation is of prints made from M9 files processed with LR3.
Chris,
Depending on my time over the next few weeks I may write something about using the M9 in La Gomera. As for the 135mm APO Telyt, it's a stunning lens. I haven't used it enough to have more than superficial experience, but every shot with it has been satisfying. My real issue is that 135mm is just too long for a rangefinder. With more than 40 years of M Leica use, I have never used a 135mm prior to this, and can't say that it's a happy combo. But for travel, when a reach longer than 90mm is needed, the lens delivers. The 1.4X viewfinder magnifier is a must though for accurate focusing.
As for overall M9 image quality, it's everything that one could want. The closest thing to medium format that I've yet seen from 35mm. Canon, Sony and Nikon full frame cameras offer somewhat higher pixel count, and certainly lower high ISO noise, but not better overall image quality. And of course in terms of size, weight, and lens quality the Leica simply shines.
Doing some printing of shots from La Gomera this past week, I have found myself able to make 20X24" prints with IQ that stands up to visiting photographers pressing their noses against the glass.
Lightroom 3 Beta does a very fine job on M9 files. So does Capture One 5.x, and I haven't decided which is better from an IQ perspective.
Michael
-
There are a lot of disadvantages to the SLR concept. ...
... all the components like lens, mirror, view screen deflection prism on mirror and AF-sensor need to be perfectly aligned within a few microns to achieve optimal quality.
Agreed, and I will add that rangefinder focusing systems have the same or greater critical alignment problems. "Direct from sensor" focusing and composition tools (like EVFs) will almost surely become the most precise, compact and efficient approach in time.
Another disadvantage of SLR VF's: the secondary image off the frosted glass/plastic has far lower resolution than the lens or sensor delivers, whereas direct from sensor VFs can potentially show full resolution (and already do when used with magnification modes.)
Regarding lens performance, wide angles would probably be sharper but have more vignetting.
There is no sense in which "non-SLR" lenses need suffer more vignetting or any other optical quality disadvantage, since one design option is to use exactly the same optical designs as in an SLR lens. Any optical performance disadvantage would only be a design choice for the sake of cost and/or size advantages, as with many current Micro Four Thirds lenses.
-
Hi,
You are slightly wrong on this issue, IMHO. Inverted telephoto designs have an advantage regarding vignetting but tend to have significant problems with corner sharpness. So I guess that more symmetric design would be chosen for wide angles, which have the disadvantage of light fall off in the corners. Many extreme wide angles for for mirror less designs require a center spot ND filter for that reason.
Best regards
Erik
There is no sense in which "non-SLR" lenses need suffer more vignetting or any other optical quality disadvantage, since one design option is to use exactly the same optical designs as in an SLR lens. Any optical performance disadvantage would only be a design choice for the sake of cost and/or size advantages, as with many current Micro Four Thirds lenses.
-
I think the M should remain an optical RF camera perhaps with more accurate LED frames. The body shape is clean and compact and I would not mess with it much.
I think Leica should focus it's development of a truly modern reportage camera on the X platform. Something lighter, smaller, cheaper and not constrained by the M's legacy and customer base. A specialized camera for wide to normal fast lenses geared to discreet documentary photography. A Barnack camera for the 21st century.
-
I see a city somewhere not too far in the distance. It has an optical viewfinder at full sensor resolution, and 60+ frames per second. And if it can do this, with some additions, it is a movie camera at full sensor resolution. No doubt this is the same city Red sees. Many roads lead there.
My question is this. How much resolution does an EVF need to have and at what frame rate in order to qualify for critical users of traditional Leica rangefinders?
-
Inverted telephoto designs have an advantage regarding vignetting but tend to have significant problems with corner sharpness.
Erik, you have missed my main point: those inverse telephoto designs can still be used with mirrorless systems, if advantages like less vignetting are important enough. To repeat: removing the SLR mirror box only adds some lens design options, it does not take any away.
Them again, a small amount of vignetting is easily correctable with digital photography, whereas corner sharpness problems are not, so I would bet on a dominance of lenses designs that sacrifice a little vignetting if it leads to improved corner to corner image quality in other respects.
-
As for overall M9 image quality, it's everything that one could want. The closest thing to medium format that I've yet seen from 35mm. Canon, Sony and Nikon full frame cameras offer somewhat higher pixel count, and certainly lower high ISO noise, but not better overall image quality. And of course in terms of size, weight, and lens quality the Leica simply shines.
Doing some printing of shots from La Gomera this past week, I have found myself able to make 20X24" prints with IQ that stands up to visiting photographers pressing their noses against the glass.
Lightroom 3 Beta does a very fine job on M9 files. So does Capture One 5.x, and I haven't decided which is better from an IQ perspective.
Michael
Michael - thanks for the comments - your experience confirms mine - both in terms of the 135 (great to have but tough to work with on a range finder) and also the IQ from the M9. In the end (for me) it's this combination of small size + fully acceptable IQ + the range of glass available that makes the M9 such a worthwhile tool.
I look forward to reading the essay if you have time - and regret that London UK's a long way from Toronto, so I can't come and press my nose against the glass.
Thanks for the stimulating piece - I may not agree with it, but I like being made to go back and think about fundamentals. More power to you and your projects!
Best
C:
-
Hi!
Yes, you are right on the issue. In my view the present SLR systems are anachronistic in a sense. The major issue I see with EVF that hey may not work in the dark.
Another reflection I have is that once when looking in the finder on my DSLR I couldn't say if what I saw was a bull or a boulder, so I took a picture with AF and enlarged the view so I saw it was a deer with a fine rack. That much for manual focus!
Best regards
Erik
Erik, you have missed my main point: those inverse telephoto designs can still be used with mirrorless systems, if advantages like less vignetting are important enough. To repeat: removing the SLR mirror box only adds some lens design options, it does not take any away.
Them again, a small amount of vignetting is easily correctable with digital photography, whereas corner sharpness problems are not, so I would bet on a dominance of lenses designs that sacrifice a little vignetting if it leads to improved corner to corner image quality in other respects.
-
:
:
:
My question is this. How much resolution does an EVF need to have and at what frame rate in order to qualify for critical users of traditional Leica rangefinders?
An EVF that matches the resolution of the human eye in full color for an 1:1 magnification with 50 mm lens should have about 5.5 mega-pixels.
-
A comment about the idea of replacing RF with a "focus confirmation" feature. To implement this, it would be necessary to keep the shutter open prior to the shot so that the sensor can 'see' and evaluate the image projected by the lens. Then, when the user presses the shutter release, the shutter would have to close, then re-open for the 1/250 of a second (or whatever) during which the image is captured. The result: a delay of a few tenths of a second while all this mechanical stuff takes place.
IMHO, one of the most appealing features of the film Leicas that I have used has been their remarkably quick reflexes. With a leica, you have a fighting chance of capturing 'the decisive moment', not 'a moment after the decisive moment'. This has been especially important in portraiture or stage photography when you can pre-focus, then watch your subject carefully to capture a telling gesture or fleeting facial expression. My concern would be that implementing a system that uses the sensor to determine/confirm focus would result in a slowness of response that would undo a core leica virtue!
For me, one of the most disappointing things about P&S cameras has been the palpable delay between pressing the shutter release and getting the shot! I haven't had the opportunity to work with a 'state of the art' EVF camera like the Pansonic GF1 or GH1. Can anyone comment on how well these cameras work when 'the decisive moment' is critical?
-
....... To implement this, it would be necessary to keep the shutter open prior to the shot so that the sensor can 'see' and evaluate the image projected by the lens. Then, when the user presses the shutter release, the shutter would have to close, then re-open for the 1/250 of a second (or whatever) during which the image is captured. The result: a delay of a few tenths of a second while all this mechanical stuff takes place. .......
Though the idea looks valid on the first sight, I can't imagine how a shutter which is able to perform exposure times of 1/250 flash syncronization should use tenths of seconds for such an operation. I'd like to hear an engineers voice about this.
A personal reaction time of 1/10 of a second is usually pretty good.
Which anticipation from watching a scene maybe less.
I also wonder if the sensor would really need a fully open aperture for such a feature - maybe someone can answer this.
Thank you
~Chris
-
I guess it would really be a niche item, but I bet they could make a really great black and white only version of the M9. Like that special phase one back that is available. no bayer filter higher base ISO. would probably produce really beautiful grayscale files. That would fit in with the classic black and white look that you think of with the Leica. I guess it would be extra expensive and most people could not justify the expense. I like the idea though.