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

[johnastovall]

Excellent article at Luminous Landscape to Leica on the future direction of the M-Line.

A Modest Proposal For Reinventing the M Series

 

[Terry]

I read that earlier. I too thought it was excellent. Surprised it took so long for someone to post it here

 

[RichA]

Author suggest radical overhaul of Leica design

Makes some interesting points, I think the EVF is likely going to replace optical viewfinders in many cases, especially with entry-level DSLRs.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/leica-open-letter.shtml

 

[s.agar]

Re: Author suggest radical overhaul of Leica design

http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?t=13577 also seems to refer to the same article.

I find using RF focusing to be very accurate compared to EVF etc. so even if CMOS, Live view etc are to be used, the existing system must remain. AF is the only other option, but as the author suggests that's not required. I'm using some M lenses with GF1, with the excellent zoom view when focusing manually, and I still prefer the RF focusing.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

I merged the threads

 

[jklotz]

There is a pretty lively thread going on over on the "other" forum about this. Adding live view would pretty much require going to a CMOS sensor as I understand it. I prefer the look of CCD cameras with weak IR filters personally. I'd think the ideal solution would be to produce a hot shoe mounted EVF that could do live view, insert histogram, etc, that the traditionalists could remove or use at will.

My thoughts are that Richman's article is primarily focused on the needs of landscape shooters, and despite the fact that I do shoot landscapes with an M9, it's not the ideal tool for the job. It certainly has advantages (mainly the lenses and size/weight), however, I don't see RF as the ideal tool for that job.

 

[Double Negative]

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.

 

[D&A]

Hi,

I mostly agree with Double Negative (above). There is a reason the M camera has kept its heritage all these years. Although change has come slowly, its not only due to limited resources and or available technology at times...but the level of acceptance of it's core group of dedicated users.

I think if resorces allowed, it might be worthwhile for Leica to consider making a camera, incorporating some of MR's sugestions but this would be a seperate "additional" model aside from the current M9, M10 or whatever traditional M digital camera is current at the time. This way those who seek out the latest in technology or are transitioning from currently advanced DSLR's, will feel they have made a worthwhile transition to the Leica system. For those that are more "traditionalists", they too will continue to have the camera they expect, with the types of advances they feel, still represent why they continue to shoot with Leica M's. There's room for both (in a ideal world).

Dave (D&A)

 

[monza]

I think they need to figure out how to build M9s at a faster pace, and then maybe they can think about the future. How about getting fundamental things like manufacturing down first?

 

[Double Negative]

Hi,

I mostly agree with Double Negative (above). There is a reason the M camera has kept its heritage all these years. Although change has come slowly, its not only due to limited resources and or available technology at times...but the level of acceptance of it's core group of dedicated users.

I think if resorces allowed, it might be worthwhile for Leica to consider making a camera, incorporating some of MR's sugestions but this would be a seperate "additional" model aside from the current M9, M10 or whatever traditional M digital camera is current at the time. This way those who seek out the latest in technology or are transitioning from currently advanced DSLR's, will feel they have made a worthwhile transition to the Leica system. For those that are more "traditionalists", they too will continue to have the camera they expect, with the types of advances they feel, still represent why they continue to shoot with Leica M's. There's room for both (in a ideal world).

Dave (D&A)

Spot on Dave. I started life with an RF almost 30 years ago and took the long road of SLRs and DSLRs until about two years ago... When I promptly returned to my roots and picked up a Zeiss Ikon and a Leica M8. I chose these cameras specifically because they were so "anti-technology."

And you know what? If I manage to pull an extra $7k out of my @ss, I might just pick up an M9!

In another fit of anti-technology, I've also acquired a Mamiya 7II and Hasselblad 503CW as well in the recent years. The latter doesn't even take a stinkin' battery! Cool, huh?

There's a reason the M has survived all this time. Sometimes you just want a CAMERA. Not something that needs a 100 page instruction manual, four batteries, various adapters, plugs, cables and who knows what else. I like the direct, almost animal-instinct nature of a black box. You look through a peep hole, fiddle with four basic controls and you're off to the races. Granted, the M8/M9 is pushing the technology angle, but there's no escaping that with a digital camera, after all. But at least the original intent is still behind every aspect!

I could have upgraded my Canon 1D Mark IIn. Instead, I chose to go the other way. And I've never been happier. The results from the M8 have been universally better than all the Canon gear I've been schlepping around the globe for the last decade.

 

[Godfrey]

Note to self:

Make photographs. Don't waste energy arguing about equipment aesthetics and opinions. Equipment often gets in the way of Photography.

 

[D&A]

Double Negative....I agree with you on all counts! I suspect it's what brought a lot of DLSR users back into the Leica fold recently....the ability to have their (a) "digital" camera as well as why they used to shoot Leica in the first place...size of the entire system, quality of M optics in general (doesn't necessarily have to be Leica brand), relatively compact body and even through "digital"...a mimimal of controls..at least as minimal as one can expect from a digital camera at this level. Beisdes these former rangefinder shooters coming back to Leica...as you say, there are many DSLR shooters who feel too many things are now presented in their DSLR that get in the way of the picture taking experience. That may be why some Nikon users have been clamering for a camera like a Nikon FM2 digital...a well built sort of Spotmatic camera thats basic in controls but has the necessary digital options to make it a userable experience even for advance use. This of course brings us close to what the M8/M9 is today.

I think at some point, some of the current Digital M users are going to want more innovative things incorporated into the Digital M and thats why I feel sooner or later, if money for development costs exists, Leica is going to have to diverge the M digital line into two...the traditionalist line as well as the line I'll refer to as the MR line. One can see from the many posts here and elsehwhere...that what's desired in the next M digital varies greatly...so much so...that a single camera isn't going to bridge that gap.

I think talking about the merrits of equipment can be important (a nod to the post directly above) as even for profesional use situations...one wants to be able to have the features they desire or feel most comfortable with. Race car drivers may love to drive their cars fast....but they still need to be on top of what goes into their cars...so all aspects of discussion are important...within reason, and if it doesn't get in the way of the ultimate objective...taking pictures.

Dave (D&A)

 

[jonoslack]

Dave and Double Negative
I'm right with you - Michael Reichmann's article made me yawn. (everybody knows what an M SHOULD be . . and if you add everyone's opinion together you get an SLR).

The whole crux of the M is the rangefinder with the framelines . . and the simplicity.

There are lots of sensible high tech alternatives which Leica could make (including live view, evf, video mode etc. etc.), but they should be made AS WELL AS the M9, not instead of it.

all the best

 

[Vivek]

I am a little confused...

If I get invited to go see the production of M9 and X1 would I be telling those hosts what I think they should be doing in private or blog it?

 

[Double Negative]

Dave/Jono, I think that's the key... Trying to shoehorn everybody's whim into an M camera is the wrong approach. A separate, new product to expand on Leica's offerings sounds much more reasonable and they are trying - witness the X1.

But I'm left wondering if it's worthwhile (or even possible) for Leica to do this; certainly not without the help of say, Panasonic. Leica has a loyal following for various reasons; simplicity of the camera, the utmost in quality whether it's a lens or a camera, etc. Do they really want to get involved in the trench warfare that has ensnared Nikon and Canon (and others)? If it wasn't the megapixel war, now it's about video. The menu system of modern DSLRs has gotten so ridiculous and utterly out-of-countrol. Now you need software on your computer to manage your camera even.

Don't get me wrong, I love technology as much as the next person (heck, it's what I do professionally). There will always be the camp that wants the latest-and-greatest. They won't be happy until they have a device that makes phone calls, takes pictures and video, plays games, surfs the Web... Oh, wait...

Leica should by all means stay competitive - but I think their underlying principles have served them well so far. Okay, so they're not as huge as some other manufacturers - but is that a bad thing, necessarily? As long as Leica stays in business and makes enough profit to ensure sustainability - 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).

If I didn't have such a huge investment in Canon gear and the fact that I like to shoot all kinds of things (things where, let's face it, M cameras don't excel) I would ditch it all and stick with Leica film and digital Ms. I've schlepped around 25lb+ backpacks enough for one lifetime! They might not be everyone's cup of tea, but I for one am happy to be back!

 

[Godfrey]

... I think talking about the merrits of equipment can be important (a nod to the post directly above) as even for profesional use situations...one wants to be able to have the features they desire or feel most comfortable with. Race car drivers may love to drive their cars fast....but they still need to be on top of what goes into their cars...so all aspects of discussion are important...within reason, and if it doesn't get in the way of the ultimate objective...taking pictures. ...

A discussion of photographic equipment from an objective standpoint ... What Is, What Is Useful, Why It Is, When It Is and How To Use It... is of course important, otherwise I wouldn't be on this and other forums. Photography is a deep, technologically-based endeavor, even film photography is, and as such understanding and sharing information about the technology is important.

But the incessant and obsessive "I like this, this is good and that is bad" opinionated BS I read over and over and over and over and over and over again, on every forum discussing photographic technology, is a distraction and a waste of energy.

For the record, I wrote a camera brief much like MR's "open letter" in late 2006. I sent it to Olympus, Panasonic and Leica. In 2008, when the Panasonic G1 was announced, it so closely mirrored what I wrote as my thoughts about 'a future camera that would be useful' I was amazed. Certainly don't mean to take credit for any ideas ... after all, I know they were well into the technology development phase of the project before I mailed my brief to them ... But the thing that interested me was that at the time I wrote my brief I considered an electronically coupled, optical RF system (instead of mechanically coupled as the Leica M RF system is) to be an ideal "hybrid of types" to pursue. I'd had EVF cameras before that and was disappointed in their responsiveness and utility value. The G1 changed all that for me: I find it a FAR better viewfinder for the purposes of focusing and framing, for the vast majority of use situations, than any of the RF and SLR cameras I've owned (30+ years with Nikon SLR and Leica M film cameras here, never mind medium format SLR/TLR and large format cameras).

Even for me there are some niches where present technology EVF is surpassed by a pro SLR viewfinder (sequence shooting is one of them) and where it might prove easier to use an RF (very very very low light framing and focusing), but these are rare and far between IMO ... and I keep an SLR around for that express purpose and have constructed my camera kit such that I can share my choice in lenses freely between the camera I use most of the time (petite, quiet, small and unobtrusive G1), and the SLRs that suit the other occasions, whether it be for weatherproofing or sequence work or other situations.

Picking up a Leica M8 again at the camera shop the other day, my fingers were happy to hold it, my hands knew exactly where to go, the aesthetic of simplicity gave me great security. But when I put it to my eye I immediately said, "No, this is no longer where I want to be. What I have now works better for me."

If it is where you want to be, if optical RF or even film capture satisfies you, then with all good intent and encouragement, go for it. Enjoy it, make beautiful photographs. But why the insistence on trying to convince others, over and over again, that your opinion is right one, that it is "The Right Way That Must Be", I simply do not understand and cannot spare the energy to debate.

De gustibus non disputandem.

 

[tom in mpls]

There is a long list of small items that could be added; in my opinion the simpler the better. To quote Albert Einstein, "Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler." Strip it down to what is needed then stop. A good deal of the beauty of the M is it's simplicity.

However, there are two enormous issues that must be faced; it is foolish to avoid them simply by saying that it's the M way and to change it would be heresy. Honestly confront the questions, look at possible new answers, and perhaps the current solutions will remain the best solutions.

Autofocus. I love autofocus. I do not know all the technical problems that an autofocus M would face, but clearly the lenses will change. I can accept that these changes may destroy what is good about the M. Simpler (manual focus) may be better for the M. But maybe it's possible? I can get along without autofocus, but what would REALLY help is...

...a better manual focusing system. Here I think the answer is less clear. I find the current system to be challenging, especially when DOF is very thin. I would love a technology that allows me to continue looking through the optical viewfinder but presents me with a method to confirm accurate focus. This strikes me as less technically daunting.

Live view? Moving focus points? HD video? Etc, etc, I agree, get a DSLR.

 

[Vivek]

Godfrey, I appreciate your posts here- all of them.

 

[Double Negative]

I guess it's really best to just agree to disagree. Clearly, there will never be ONE camera that will make everyone happy. Arguing back and forth over which is better, is indeed silly as Godfrey alludes. In the end, as long as you have your choice of tools and it makes pictures that you (and hopefully others) are happy with is all that should matter because that's what it's really about, isn't it?

 

[HansAlbert]

Note to self:

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