Leica M9 "The Good Life"

sixfootandstocky

sixfootandstocky

Messages
61
Name
Andy Brown
Edit My Images
Yes
Why ?

M9.jpg
 
References to a big pr**k maybe???...
 
I too am wondering why a French magazine would have an English title.
 
True but I think whatever Fuji come out with will be rangefinder-esque enough and (more importantly perhaps) cheap enough, to tempt some people away from the M9.

There should be a term for not-quite-rangefinder-but-definitely-not-compact-or-slr cameras.
 
Doesn't really roll off the tongue though eh? and I presume the IL part is for interchangeable lens? So won't apply to the 2 cameras I use :(
 
fixedimage said:
Doesn't really roll off the tongue though eh? and I presume the IL part is for interchangeable lens? So won't apply to the 2 cameras I use :(
Click to expand...

Indeed! None of the acronyms ever really do though. I just tend to think of them all as cameras and get on with taking mediocre photos!
 
Rangefinder styling is great, analogue controls and lots of space for a viewfinder as well, but do we need the split image rangefinder? In my opinion no. The job is much better done with a single autofocus point and with cameras like the Fuji X10 you can still twist away with the manual zoom till your heart's content.

I've done several training sessions with the M9 and M8 and lovely as they are I find the appeal of the rangefinder focusing system has faded over the years. I wouldn't expext those clever chaps at Fuji to introduce that technology at this late stage, I would expect it to be a better bet that at some point Leica might drop it.

I wouldn't be suprised if Fuji were to introduce a larger sensor camera, after all they have a bit of a reputation among Film-loving landscapers.

Perhaps the Fuji Xpan!
 
phototuition said:
Rangefinder styling is great, analogue controls and lots of space for a viewfinder as well, but do we need the split image rangefinder? In my opinion no. The job is much better done with a single autofocus point and with cameras like the Fuji X10 you can still twist away with the manual zoom till your heart's content.
Click to expand...

I suppose with focus peaking MF would be fine without an RF, but then you lose out on having an optical viewfinder... and seeing the entire scene in focus. I think the next step for Fuji would be to find a way to create a digital version of the RF patch with their hybrid VF tech.

As for the magazine cover, interesting piece of photomanip.
 
phototuition said:
Rangefinder styling is great, analogue controls and lots of space for a viewfinder as well, but do we need the split image rangefinder? In my opinion no. The job is much better done with a single autofocus point...
Click to expand...

Surely a single focus point will not give the same level of accuracy as the split image system. Would it just be a blinking light like you get on a DSLR viewfinder?
 
FruitFlakes said:
I suppose with focus peaking MF would be fine without an RF, but then you lose out on having an optical viewfinder... and seeing the entire scene in focus. I think the next step for Fuji would be to find a way to create a digital version of the RF patch with their hybrid VF tech.

As for the magazine cover, interesting piece of photomanip.
Click to expand...

If that and a sensible manual focus actuation ratio ever make their way into an x100 firmware update I'll be extremely happy.
 
fixedimage said:
True but I think whatever Fuji come out with will be rangefinder-esque enough and (more importantly perhaps) cheap enough, to tempt some people away from the M9.

There should be a term for not-quite-rangefinder-but-definitely-not-compact-or-slr cameras.
Click to expand...

It's not a rangefinder, so it isn't going to tempt someone that wants a rangefinder. People buying this Fuji won't be deciding between it and an M9. More like the Fuji and other Compact System Cameras like the NEX etc.
 
I'm sure there must be a market for someone who wants a compact full frame body that will accept leica or voigtlander lenses, and has a proper marked shutter speed control.

The lenses would be a long term investment but my worry about the M9 body is that it will soon become out of date in terms of sensor performance. ISO 3200 is not that great when 6400+ is the norm.
 
Laudrup said:
It's not a rangefinder, so it isn't going to tempt someone that wants a rangefinder. People buying this Fuji won't be deciding between it and an M9. More like the Fuji and other Compact System Cameras like the NEX etc.
Click to expand...

But as discussed, who really wants a rangefinder these days?
How many people who say they want an M9, do so because of the rangefinder patch?
 
fixedimage said:
But as discussed, who really wants a rangefinder these days?
How many people who say they want an M9, do so because of the rangefinder patch?
Click to expand...

The entire production planned for the M9's whole life cycle sold in 9 months, so I'd say quite a lot want it. You've got 6-12 months waiting lists on some Leica glass, the supply can't keep up.

I'd get an M8 or M8.2 ahead of any hybrid 'rangefinder styled' camera.
 
fixedimage said:
But as discussed, who really wants a rangefinder these days?
How many people who say they want an M9, do so because of the rangefinder patch?
Click to expand...

I shoot rangefinders because I like the way they work. Any real photographer would have sold a Leica on if they didn't get along with the way it worked, and considering how few M9's there are on the used market (people usually either sell them because they're facing tight times but love the camera, or just don't get on with an RF), I think a fair few people quite like having the advantages of an RF. While its form factor advantage is pretty much non existent nowadays with EVIL cameras, the simplicity that the M9 has compared to other digitals must be quite an attraction too. Personally I think that Leica will eventually shift towards an electronic system in the future, the M9 Titanium with its LED lit brightlines is a sign of this, the next logical step would be for a completely electronic replacement of the RF system, much like the one I outlined earlier. I think the demand for a simple (keeping automation as minimal as possible), well built camera that can deliver in terms of IQ will always exist.
 
phototuition said:
Rangefinder styling is great, analogue controls and lots of space for a viewfinder as well, but do we need the split image rangefinder? In my opinion no. The job is much better done with a single autofocus point and with cameras like the Fuji X10 you can still twist away with the manual zoom till your heart's content.
Click to expand...
I'd have to agree with that. I fully understand the pleasure and nostalgia value of the old style rangefinders, but for practical purposes that technology was passed a long time ago by quicker and more accurate systems.
 
FruitFlakes said:
I shoot rangefinders because I like the way they work. Any real photographer would have sold a Leica on if they didn't get along with the way it worked, and considering how few M9's there are on the used market (people usually either sell them because they're facing tight times but love the camera, or just don't get on with an RF), I think a fair few people quite like having the advantages of an RF. While its form factor advantage is pretty much non existent nowadays with EVIL cameras, the simplicity that the M9 has compared to other digitals must be quite an attraction too. Personally I think that Leica will eventually shift towards an electronic system in the future, the M9 Titanium with its LED lit brightlines is a sign of this, the next logical step would be for a completely electronic replacement of the RF system, much like the one I outlined earlier. I think the demand for a simple (keeping automation as minimal as possible), well built camera that can deliver in terms of IQ will always exist.
Click to expand...

I totally agree with what your saying about loving how a rangefinder works but is the rf patch focusing the most important part of "how a rangefinder works"?

Has anyone ever bought a rangefinder camera purely because they wanted patch focusing?

In my opinion I'd see form factor, quietness of operation and appearance as much more important in the battle to win customers and Fuji can easily compete on those fronts.

Obviously the legacy of the Leica name has a lot to do with attracting customers but remember this isn't a newcomer to the camera market like Sony we are talking about, Fuji have a heritage of their own and they have pulled an important sector of customer away from more established names before, the S3 and S5 DSLRs were very popular with wedding photographers. It could be/has been suggested that the reason there was no successor to the S5 is that Nikon saw how many customers they were losing and terminated the partnership. If Leica really have nothing to fear then will we be seeing an M mount on the Fuji offering? I think not.
 
I think we should all be grateful that we have choices that satisfy all of us. ;)

I's prefer a Leica type RF in the Contax G2 rather than the electronic version which is a bit flakey in use. It's definitely a rangefinder despite what some argue - just not a rangefinder in the traditional form.

EDIT,

Just to be clear - I'd like it alongside the auto focus option please. :D
 
Last edited:
fixedimage said:
I totally agree with what your saying about loving how a rangefinder works but is the rf patch focusing the most important part of "how a rangefinder works"?

Has anyone ever bought a rangefinder camera purely because they wanted patch focusing?

In my opinion I'd see form factor, quietness of operation and appearance as much more important in the battle to win customers and Fuji can easily compete on those fronts.

Obviously the legacy of the Leica name has a lot to do with attracting customers but remember this isn't a newcomer to the camera market like Sony we are talking about, Fuji have a heritage of their own and they have pulled an important sector of customer away from more established names before, the S3 and S5 DSLRs were very popular with wedding photographers. It could be/has been suggested that the reason there was no successor to the S5 is that Nikon saw how many customers they were losing and terminated the partnership. If Leica really have nothing to fear then will we be seeing an M mount on the Fuji offering? I think not.
Click to expand...

It's a bit of a chicken or egg question really, manually focusing via superimposed patches is an important part of the Leica appeal, personally I prefer it over using a ground glass when manually focusing as it feels a lot more objective and snappy when you overlap the images perfectly. I think the design requirements of a combined RF/VF system as seen in the M contribute greatly to the overall feel of using one, yes. But at the same time, I see what you're getting at. I think it all boils down to how much you want that barebones experience, as even when I use my Hexar (which as you know is a very simple camera) there's still a bit of doubt in my mind on whether I've focused on the correct thing (various things can throw it off, the AF point in the VF isn't accurate enough, is it smoky/foggy? etc.). The same happens with my Fuji S5 - I'm always wondering whether the AF point is seeing things correctly. With the Leica I always know what the camera is doing because I'm in complete control over it. That's the crucial thing: technically every AF camera has a form of rangefinding, but they don't capture the spirit of being able to control every step of the capturing process as well as Leica have done. A Leica, like any other good camera, can't be justified on a single selling point: there's always going to be a combination of reasons as to why. Personally, I love rangefinders and I love the way M's look. The latter point is shallow, yes, but it happiness is a powerful psychological aid in photography.

Now, on to Fuji, I know that they're pretty big. Not just big, but capable of producing amazing bodies and lenses. I'm sure that their ILC will be amazing, and will certainly attract potential Leica buyers away from them. As to why it isn't an M-mount, Fuji want to target a wider audience, and they want to sell a complete system that will be compared to m4/3 and NEX. An M mount only body would be of interest to a very small portion of photographers. There'll probably be loads of adapters anyway. The M mount has been out of patent too - Fuji may be doing it out of respect too, Japanese companies tend to not release products that will absolutely destroy their competition. Fuji are targeting a different spectrum of buyers compared to Leica. Of course, there will be some overlap between the two, but I don't think it will affect Leica too greatly - they cater to control freaks (like me) and medical professionals. :p
 
Last edited:
fixedimage said:
True but I think whatever Fuji come out with will be rangefinder-esque enough and (more importantly perhaps) cheap enough, to tempt some people away from the M9.
Click to expand...

I didn't think you could have M9 and cheap in the same paragraph?
If you can afford an M9, you won't really be concerned about a cheaper alternative, after all, it won't be a rangefinder and more importantly it won't be a Leica!

Allan
 
FruitFlakes said:
It's a bit of a chicken or egg question really, manually focusing via superimposed patches is an important part of the Leica appeal, personally I prefer it over using a ground glass when manually focusing as it feels a lot more objective and snappy when you overlap the images perfectly. I think the design requirements of a combined RF/VF system as seen in the M contribute greatly to the overall feel of using one, yes. But at the same time, I see what you're getting at. I think it all boils down to how much you want that barebones experience, as even when I use my Hexar (which as you know is a very simple camera) there's still a bit of doubt in my mind on whether I've focused on the correct thing (various things can throw it off, the AF point in the VF isn't accurate enough, is it smoky/foggy? etc.). The same happens with my Fuji S5 - I'm always wondering whether the AF point is seeing things correctly. With the Leica I always know what the camera is doing because I'm in complete control over it. That's the crucial thing: technically every AF camera has a form of rangefinding, but they don't capture the spirit of being able to control every step of the capturing process as well as Leica have done. A Leica, like any other good camera, can't be justified on a single selling point: there's always going to be a combination of reasons as to why. Personally, I love rangefinders and I love the way M's look. The latter point is shallow, yes, but it happiness is a powerful psychological aid in photography.

Now, on to Fuji, I know that they're pretty big. Not just big, but capable of producing amazing bodies and lenses. I'm sure that their ILC will be amazing, and will certainly attract potential Leica buyers away from them. As to why it isn't an M-mount, Fuji want to target a wider audience, and they want to sell a complete system that will be compared to m4/3 and NEX. An M mount only body would be of interest to a very small portion of photographers. There'll probably be loads of adapters anyway. The M mount has been out of patent too - Fuji may be doing it out of respect too, Japanese companies tend to not release products that will absolutely destroy their competition. Fuji are targeting a different spectrum of buyers compared to Leica. Of course, there will be some overlap between the two, but I don't think it will affect Leica too greatly - they cater to control freaks (like me) and medical professionals. :p
Click to expand...

Good points well made. I know what you mean about knowing exactly what is in focus, not that I think SLRs fall down on this but the Hexar does occasionally and the x100 does very often (partially correctable -well not correctable but at least you know it's happening - by using the evf).

My next question however would be, if the Fuji offering has some sort of focus confirmation system that works as well as (measure 'as well as' by accuracy, ease of use etc) an RF patch - I'm thinking an electronic overlay over an optical vf - would it tempt you/anyone else away from a 'true' range finder.

2nd question, would/could an electronically overlayed rf patch focus indicator ever be accepted by purists as a 'true' rangefinder?

allanm said:
I didn't think you could have M9 and cheap in the same paragraph?
If you can afford an M9, you won't really be concerned about a cheaper alternative, after all, it won't be a rangefinder and more importantly it won't be a Leica!

Allan
Click to expand...

For the majority of M9 buyers, yes you are probably right but I don't think that everyone who has that kind of money to spend does so without considering alternatives, it's more just that right now there is no alternative and yes I know that in YOUR opinion the Fuji camera won't be an alternative because it won't be a true rangefinder but in MY opinion a huge bunch of people won't give a crap.

It'd be MY belief that the number of M9 owners who don't know or give a crap about what qualifies a camera as a rangefinder in the eyes of purists and whether their camera is or isn't and why the x100/Hexar/Contax G/new Fuji offering are or aren't wouldn't be exactly insignificant.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top