The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

An Open Letter to Leica – what should the Leica M10 be like?

RichA

New member
Businesses that don't modernize die, simple as that

I thought the letter was nonsense. What does ANY of that have to do with the "M aesthetic?" Go buy a GF1 if you want an EVF. I sure don't.
There have been a lot of really bad mistakes made by camera manufacturers in the past. Nikon's slowness to get into the AF realm, Olympus's ill-fated foray into it with completely incompatible lenses in the 1980's. If Leica fails to modernize, they will be faced with an ever-dwindling group of aging enthusiasts.
 

PeterA

Well-known member
Business graveyards are full of companies who turn their backs on what made them succesful in the first place. The MR article made me laugh - fortunately my film Ms are still there and when I manage to source an M9 to go with M8 I will be set.

it is a BIG mistake to think that Leica's success is only lenses - the lenses and the body type are hand in glove.

if peopel want gee wizz japanese type gizmos ther are plenty to choose from and frankly Leica couldnt do that kind of thing better.
 

Woody Campbell

Workshop Member
I see the path forward quite differently than MR. I would counsel sicking to the rangefinder design but incorporate electronic focus confirm and electronic frame lines. The wide range finder base should permit very accurate electronic focus - much more accurate than I can do at present, especially in poor light. It also would permit focus to by customized by the factory for each lens model, and might permit user adjustment of infinity focus.

Electronic frame limes could be continuously variable in size.

If electronic focus confirm were available I'd buy a Nocti in an nanosecond.
 

Double Negative

Not Available
Re: Businesses that don't modernize die, simple as that

There have been a lot of really bad mistakes made by camera manufacturers in the past. Nikon's slowness to get into the AF realm, Olympus's ill-fated foray into it with completely incompatible lenses in the 1980's. If Leica fails to modernize, they will be faced with an ever-dwindling group of aging enthusiasts.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for progress and modern tech. Just not in an M;

Many people choose the M system for the very opposite reason. I know I sure did. It also seems to be making a resurgence by similarly disaffected DSLR shooters. It has clearly worked for Leica for a long, long time (granted, they're not raking in millions).

But you're absolutely right. Leica does need to "keep up" and modernize. And I do believe they are. They adopted digital - thus the M8. They've partnered with the likes of Panasonic and introduced products together. Now we've got the LUXes, X1, M9 and let's not forget - the S2.

The problem I see is if Leica, a small company - just getting into the digital thing, long standing for some very key principles, etc. starts stretching itself too thin and diversifying too much. It's all too easy to get distracted and stray from your principles - and make a lot of products that all more or less suck.

Besides, why should Leica get involved in that mess? Let Canon, Nikon and the others duke it out over megapixels and video and image stabilization and EVFs and who knows what's next... I just want to take a picture!

...I would counsel sicking to the rangefinder design but incorporate electronic focus confirm and electronic frame lines...
That's a good idea, actually - and easily done IMO. A sensor for the confirmation and a HUD setup for the VF.
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
one vs many
form vs matter
light vs shadow
plane vs depth
uniformity vs individuality
intactness vs brokenness
moment vs lifecycle
technique vs nature
microcosm vs macrocosm
realism vs symbolism
signifier vs signified
outer perceptions vs inner emotions
etc.

a thought-provoking photo
thank you as always, HansAlbert! I very much appreciate your commentary.
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
I see the path forward quite differently than MR. I would counsel sicking to the rangefinder design but incorporate electronic focus confirm and electronic frame lines. The wide range finder base should permit very accurate electronic focus - much more accurate than I can do at present, especially in poor light. It also would permit focus to by customized by the factory for each lens model, and might permit user adjustment of infinity focus.

Electronic frame limes could be continuously variable in size.

If electronic focus confirm were available I'd buy a Nocti in an nanosecond.
Right there with you Woody and been saying this since the M8. Electronic frames lines and even the chance to magnify it to the full viewing. So the 90mm say would get magnified up so you can see it bigger but still leave a little outside the frame line viewing. Oh wait that is a SLR almost. LOL
 

monza

Active member
How about a brighter Contax G2 style viewfinder? Parallax-corrected, zooms from 28mm to 90mm, automatically set as the lens is mounted. Add electronic focus confirm, which could be done via electronic rangefinder as in the Contax, except with manual focus.
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
How about a brighter Contax G2 style viewfinder? Parallax-corrected, zooms from 28mm to 90mm, automatically set as the lens is mounted. Add electronic focus confirm, which could be done via electronic rangefinder as in the Contax, except with manual focus.
I owned a Contax G2 kit for a while. Its lenses were brilliant, but its viewfinder and general operating behavior were so frustrating I sold the whole shebang and bought another Leica M. Really didn't like the viewfinder and focusing behavior at all in practical use, although they seemed very nice when I first bought it.
 

monza

Active member
I have never had any issues with the viewfinder (or the rest for that matter -- I still shoot a G2) although two ways to improve the VF would be to make it brighter, and make the exit pupil larger so the eye doesn't have to be placed in exactly the right place. The G2 can focus in low light or even in the dark up to a certain distance. With an electronic RF driving LED arrows in the VF, focus could be absolutely nailed even in low light.
 
I tried a G1 and just hated using an EVF, even a good one. Watching the world on TV is as far from the aesthetic I want as a photographer as can be. Optical VF only for me. All I'd like is a electronic indicator, (dot) that signals focus along with the RF, and the ability to move the focus point anywhere in the frame. 90% of the time, at least, I wouldn't use it. But for the fastest lenses and shallowest DOF images where the critical focus is a matter of inches (or less) this sure would be welcome. best...Peter
 

fotografz

Well-known member
I hope Leica doesn't think he speaks for everyone.

I also think it is anything but "A Modest Proposal".

Personally I do not want my favorite photographic tool of all time to become yet another circus act. I have more than enough "electronic clowns" pouring out of my gear vault as it is.

I can understand the points being made for focus confirmation, but little else. Even that I couldn't care less about, but I understand the desire for it.

M Rangefinder's aren't for everyone ... trying to make it appeal to everyone will make it something else.

Here is my "Modest Proposal" to Leica:

Real Black Chrome & Real Chrome Chrome. Offer short lived, velvet boxed painted versions with Lama skin covering as a special order. I use this camera to make a living, and really do not like coddling it, or wiping the sweat shmear off it every 5 seconds.

Put the hard LCD glass on the damned thing for $7000.

Offer a .085 option for 50mm and above, especially Nocti, 75/1.4, 90/2AA and 135APO users. Please accept my order for one here and now.

Keep updating the firmware to squeeze every bit out of what's already there.

Sink M camera R&D cash into improving quality, service and turn around time ... pros that can prove they are pros should be get it even faster.

Make the warranty longer ... believe in your product and prove it.

Call it the M10 if you want ... I don't care.

the M9 is there as far as I'm concerned ... so make some already, and get it out in the market!


Thank you,

Marc Williams
FOTOGRAFZ, LLC

M9, 24/1.4 ASPH; 28/2 ASPH, 35/1.4 ASPH, 50/0.95 ASPH, 75/1.4 old school, 90/2.8 old school ... thinking 21/1.4 ASPH and 135 APO

P.S., Where is my freaking second M9? I need two bodies to do my work ... NOW, not 1 year from now!
 

Ben Rubinstein

Active member
Methinks MR takes himself rather too seriously, I think his 'inside track' to Leica is all in his own mind. Companies do not pay heed to journalists, they pay heed to their customer base and Leica seem to know exactly what their customers want - not a DSLR.

What I think there is room for is pany to make a FF GF1 style camera designed for M mount lenses, they can market their own versions with AF included but it would give both pany and leica a huge boost in the market that MR seems to be recommending.

It does seem a shame to me that for the lack of LV, the M9 could have stopped being just a rangefinder and have opened far larger horizons for itself without in any way being untrue to what enamours so many people to what an M camera is, i.e. a simple picture taking machine. If you don't want to use it you never switch it on.
 

beamon

New member
Well done, Marc! Well done, of course, because it mirrors my thinking, exactly! :D

Now, send it to Leica because Leica WILL see and read MR's open letter since he was one of those sent to Solms to do the first "look see". How much dissenting opinion they will see is unknown. In fact, anyone of similar mind should also drop a line to Solms and let it be known that MR does not speak for them.

MR's thoughts are fine for a firm that wants to markedly increase sales in a short time, but shows little appreciation for niche markets which can be very comfortable and rewarding for those who do niche well.
 

emmawest72

New member
Yawn....

I think we all need to go out and take more photos with what we have instead of reading all this " if only,I wish,etc..".
 

Chris C

Member
Business graveyards are full of companies who turn their backs on what made them succesful in the first place....
What made the 'M' line successful was the small camera form, the design advantages of rangefinder camera lenses, a whisper quiet shutter, and the 'direct' part of the viewfinder system.

However, Leica may be turning it's back on otherwise future customers with their adherence to the 'classic' viewing and image framing design of the 'M' line. That is of course unless one thinks that the current distractions of twinned framelines, external magnifiers and dioptre corrections, inaccurate framing, broken-up image framelines etc., are excellent design solutions for now rather than half a century ago. Personally, I think it's an anachronistic design solution long past it's retirement as a clever museum piece, but one I am obliged to use in order to get the other design advantages of rangefinder camera lenses, and small 'M' camera form.

.............. Chris
 

D&A

Well-known member
Chris wrote >>> "What made the 'M' line successful was the small camera form, the design advantages of rangefinder camera lenses, a whisper quiet shutter, and the 'direct' part of the viewfinder system.

However, Leica may be turning it's back on otherwise future customers with their adherence to the 'classic' viewing and image framing design of the 'M' line. That is of course unless one thinks that the current distractions of twinned framelines, external magnifiers and dioptre corrections, inaccurate framing, broken-up image framelines etc., are excellent design solutions for now rather than half a century ago. Personally, I think it's an anachronistic design solution long past it's retirement as a clever museum piece, but one I am obliged to use in order to get the other design advantages of rangefinder camera lenses, and small 'M' camera form."<<<

Hi All,

This is why I wrote in my two posts (above), that for the near future, Leica should (within the bounds of their resources) have a line of two Digital M camera....one along the current traditional route like the M9, M10 etc, where traditional herritage combined with feedback on acceptable technological improvements will be readily acceptable by those that prefer the classical rangefinder concept. The other M digital line would implement quite a bit of the excellent suggestions put forth here and elsewhere, that such a camera should not be constrained by what some observe is half a century old technology....and incorporate a more open form design concept. I think Leica by virtue of having both a film "M" and Digital "M" already emulates such a "two line" approach and its possible due to the economic realities, that someday it will turn into a two line approach having the two lines of Digital M cameras, I outlined. I think Leica by having a single Digital M today is trying to straddle a fine line, trying to incorporate some 21st century technology but at the same time not offending those who prefer as much a tradition M in a M Digital body. Sooner or later with more and more advances being made in electronics and associated concepts....the ability to exclude much of this is going to be difficult for those who want to use a Leica Digital M, but don't want to be left out in the cold regarding whats available and offered on many other cameras..including compact 4/3rd ones. If R&D money exists, I think there will be room for these two lines of Digital M's. If sales of the traditional Digital M line slowly dies out (from lack of sufficient sales)...this will automatically tell Leica that the time has come to concentrate resources on their other Digital M line. No different when the time came for Nikon to realize it was the end of the line for manufacturing film SLR's. The market will dictate.

Please don't get me wrong....as much as I prefer the Traditional Digital M concept, this may have more to do with my current DSLR use...and as Double Negative aptly pointed out....there is that system (Large DSLR's and their associated pro lenses) and many others cameras for all the latest technology, if and when required...abeit at the cost of often of lugging around 25 lb backpacks. Both concepts have their place and when the opportunity presents itself in that I do have a choice...I always reach for the Leica. This is due to both weight of the M system, its simplicity and that I focus more on adeliberate spects of creativity as opposed to "getting the shot".

Dave (D&A)

Dave (D&A)
 
Last edited:

vieri

Well-known member
Very interesting discussion. I agree with most about the viewfinder vs EVIL point; I wouldn't want a M full of gadgetry and stuff, of course; however, a couple of things popped out of the whole discussion here:

...
I for one will continue to buy their products BECAUSE they're unique (and of extremely high quality in this day and age of cheap, disposable crap).
...
I think this is in fact one of the major problem Leica is facing today. With the advent of digital, a camera IS disposable, almost by definition; the only variable here is not IF it is to be replaced, but WHEN. Very different than the paradigm Leica used to live with during the film age. How many times we heard something like this: my M2 works perfectly after 40 years, will the M8 do the same? And if it will, will it be possible to read the files, etc etc... Yes, we heard it many times but that doesn't make it less true. The second dangerous part of the problem is that Leica's QC seems to be very iffy of late - granted, they customer service & repair is getting better, but their ratio of failure and problem is way too high IMO for this day & age. Not a new problem for Leica either: when they started to introduce electronics in their camera (M6, especially M7) they started having these troubles, and it seems to me they aren't getting up to speed with this fast enough. Yes, I know Canon has is problems too, Nikon had it too, etc - I am not saying they didn't, I am commenting on the "extremely high quality" point.

What made the 'M' line successful was the small camera form, the design advantages of rangefinder camera lenses, a whisper quiet shutter, and the 'direct' part of the viewfinder system.

However, Leica may be turning it's back on otherwise future customers with their adherence to the 'classic' viewing and image framing design of the 'M' line. That is of course unless one thinks that the current distractions of twinned framelines, external magnifiers and dioptre corrections, inaccurate framing, broken-up image framelines etc., are excellent design solutions for now rather than half a century ago. Personally, I think it's an anachronistic design solution long past it's retirement as a clever museum piece, but one I am obliged to use in order to get the other design advantages of rangefinder camera lenses, and small 'M' camera form.

.............. Chris
Agreed. To me the solution, however, is not "get rid of the rangefinder" as much as "make it work". What I definitely agree with MR though is the baseplate: there is something that needs to go... :D
 

Double Negative

Not Available
...With the advent of digital, a camera IS disposable, almost by definition; the only variable here is not IF it is to be replaced, but WHEN....
That is a sad truth, I totally agree. And it seems almost at odds with the whole high quality, built like a brick sh!thouse principle behind Leica's products.

This is why the "Perpetual Upgrade Program" for the M8 made so much sense. You keep the body but upgrade it along its lifespan... Now granted, it's not the way to maximize profits, having customers buy a whole new camera every other year just to "keep up."

In this brave new digital world, it's hard to say "but it does everything I need - I'll never need another camera!" And the M9, dare I say, comes very close to that ideal. It's full frame, got plenty of resolution. The feature set is relatively basic. What more do you want? But of course we all know that resolution will continue to increase, as well as dynamic range, noise (especially at higher ISO ratings) and so on.

It does seem contradictory. "Why should I spend $7k on a camera that could survive a nuke, when I'm just going to replace them every year anyway?" Depends on your needs (and wants) really. I'd rather shoot with something like an M than a plasticky camera that creaks and groans when you pick it up. For a working pro, there's no question which camera would stand up to rough daily use. Then there's the folks that just like shooting with a fine instrument. All valid reasons.

As for the baseplate, gawd yeah. Time to move on. Or does the ol' "keeps the film plane flat" line still apply to the LCD out back? :p
 
Top