Sunday musings: random thoughts about Leica and its cameras

<p>The M240 is like the Fuji X cameras. Technically great, but subjectively not so great. Both produce thin images by default. The M9 is still the benchmark, but I don't think it will be forever.</p>

<p>It follows that many photographers would love to see an upgraded M-E: a newer CCD but with the same rich output.</p>

<p>The Q really should be a system camera, like the M. They're sitting on something very, very big here. The Q is in huge demand. Think: a camera with a fixed 28mm lens is a bestseller!<br>

<br />Sony has currently the best sensors. Leica arguably has the best cameras and lenses for 24x36mm sensors, and this will be more so if the Q becomes a system (IMHO).</p>

<p>Leica really should let Sony handle video. There's no point trying to compete in that market. Focus on making the best still cameras in the world.</p>

<p>Are physical shutters really necessary? Will the next M have a totally electronic shutter? How about a tessive shutter? http://nofilmschool.com/2011/06/tessives-time-filter-brings-films-dreamy</p>

<p>From what I have seen, the Q produces beautiful images. It deserves its success but it would not suit my AOV preferences.</p>

<p>I currently do not use Leica cameras as they don't suit my work, such as it is. I use out-dated, simple cameras for work, and my phone if I'm walking around.</p>

<p>I see no point to the M-A (or the M60). But the M7 and MP would make a terrific pair. I love RF cameras but I have not yet become confident with them. It's like driving an automatic and then learning a manual. It will take time.</p>

<p>The M is too big. Slim it down.</p>

<p>The M9 has better high ISO performance than many people - even its most fervent users - know. ISO 2000 seems to be the maximum, based on my limited observations and tests. It may not sound like a very high limit, but it wasn't too long ago that many photographers were happy with ISO 50 slide film. The base ISO of the M9 is 1 2/3 stops more than that and has a wider margin for exposure error (more towards underexposure, though).</p>

<p>The M8 was underestimated by everyone, me included. Same for the Digilux 2.</p>

<p>The resale value of the Digilux 2 is better in outright dollars and percentage of retail price than many DSLRs of the time.</p>

<p>The DMR was a mistake. Not the sensor itself, just the concept.</p>

<p>Will there be an M zoom? Should there be? A 28-75/4 M would be much more compact than a similar SLR lens.</p>

<p>I'm not sure that a normal Bayer array should be without a low-pass filter. There are reasons why those things exist, and they're very good reasons.</p>

<p>It is clear that an M Leica, film or digital, is not the best camera for the OP. Still there are some unanswered questions.</p>

<p>Is a physical shutter necessary? Yes, in some cases. The Sony A7 is perhaps the best example of a camera which has both. A CCD is well suited for an electronic shutter, because the entire image area is handled as a unit. CMOS sensors are replacing CCDs for various reasons, however they sample rows of the sensor in succession, creating a rolling shutter effect which distorts moving objects (e.g., moving helicopter rotors appear crescent shaped). Sony warns that blooming and smearing may occur in bright light. From a psychological standpoint, a mechanical shutter gives necessary feedback to the subject of a portrait. A totally silent shutter, not even with the chirp of an iPhone, is almost unnerving, but a real boon for plays and classical concerts. The Sony A7s and A7Rii have this option. I've found not unwanted artifacts so far.</p>

<p>M9 ISO performance is pretty grim above 400 or so. I consider 800 only marginally useful, and 2000 a waste of time and oxygen (consumed by the photographer).</p>

<p>Zooms are impractical without a full-time live view (or optical SLR finders). They also tend to be slow, heavy and bulky compared to the lenses most adored in the Leica realm. The two Tri-Elmar lenses are almost, but not quite zoom lenses, priced out of reach for mere mortals. Zooms for the Sony A7 are kept light by allowing more distorton than would be tolerated for film. That's because distortion is easy to correct in firmware or Photoshop.</p>

<p>The higher the resolution, the less the need for an anti-aliasing filter, because Moire patters are less likely to develop, and are much less intrusive when they appear. Landscapes with minimal hand-of-man intrusions, benefit greatly from the gain in resolution. My experience with the 18 MP M-9 is that its resolution, sans AA filter, is almost identical to a 24 MP A7ii, which has one.</p>

<p>What would a Leica Q "system" be? A trio (or more) of $4200 cameras with fixed lenses of different focal lengths?</p>

<p>As an aside, Leica 90 and 135 mm lenses are REALLY sharp on a Sony A7, wide open. I never cared much for them on an M.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I think the Q comes not a moment to early - and I do believe that the next step will be to use it as a base for a M-mount system and starting a set of AF lenses. Not sure if it will have a native M-mount or that an adapter will provide that functionality - but one thing it won't have any more is the outdated rangefinder. What I've read so far about the Q has impressed me - and it's the first Leica in a long while I would actually consider purchasing. If it turns out that the Sony A7RII indeed won't have problems with wide-angle M-mount lenses, then I believe the M camera days are indeed numbered and the "Q system" will step in to save Leica's bacon.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The M240 is like the Fuji X cameras</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not in my book - the hybrid finder in the X100T is a modern evolution of the outdated rangefinder that no longer offers any advantage over any other system at all.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Leica arguably has the best cameras and lenses for 24x36mm sensors</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Arguably being the operative word here. Some lenses, yes. Cameras, no (with a maybe for the Q).</p>

<p>Obviously, everything in the photo industry is in flux. Technological change, and capricious consumer demands are happening so fast that it must be a nightmare for planning future products … especially for a company like Leica with it's historical and on-going adherence to certain traditional approaches (i.e., optical rangefinder, and manual focus M system).</p>

<p>However, there are still plenty of photographers that do NOT view the M rangefinder as outdated or obsolete. Nor feel the need for 36, 42 or 50 meg sensors for the type of photography they engage in … in fact, to many meg could be a disadvantage for the more spontaneous work that lends itself to an M Rangefinder. </p>

<p>From my personal perspective, I used a Leica M for decades, overwhelmingly with B&W film … my current M Monochrome has proven to be a perfect successor to those film Ms. I will watch closely how the new CMOS M Monochrome performs with an eye toward adding it to the current CCD MM.</p>

<p>I still believe that an optical rangefinder offers a distinct photographic experience … which, contrary to Dieter's opinion, could be seen as an advantage (depending on your photographic applications).</p>

<p>The Leica Q looks to be an interesting camera … but I have no interest in it at all because it is a fixed focal length, and one I do not use all that often. To be a system I'd need 3 lenses like the Leica CL had. Preferably a 30mm, 50mm, and 90mm.</p>

<p>The DMR was a mistake only in retrospect. It was a transitional camera in a time when film and digital sort of co-existed. Unfortunately, Imacon and Hasselblad merged and that ended the collaboration between Leica and Imacon … arguably spelling the end of the line for the R system … and probably led Leica to innovate the S system with its dual shutter feature, dual capture cards, and superb AF lenses. … which is my personal favorite digital camera ever.</p>

<p>BTW, I use Sony cameras with EVF, (mirror-less and DSLR/SLTs). I do not agree that they have the best sensors because I do not like the characteristics they deliver OOC all that much (the MacDonald's of Sensors made to please the majority?) . I especially do not like the ergonomics and complex controls which I think are distractions at best, and akin to video gaming at its worst. Nothing feels better than picking up my Leica MM after shooting with a Sony camera for a few hours : -)</p>

<p>- Marc</p>

<p> </p>

<p> </p>

<i>"The M240 is like the Fuji X cameras. Technically great, but subjectively not so great. Both produce thin

images by default. The M9 is still the benchmark, but I don't think it will be forever."</i><p>

 

Don't know why you think this. What is a thin image? I've used both the M9 and M240, and there's

no significant difference in level of image quality except that the 240 looks better as you go up in ISO. Not

sure why you think the M9 is the benchmark. It's a step behind in the Leica M category now.<p>

 

The Q is a cheaper version of the M, with autofocus for people who think they need that.<p>

 

<i>"M9 ISO performance is pretty grim above 400 or so. I consider 800 only marginally useful</i><p>

I don't know what you're shooting. Maybe your exposures are off. The M9 should at least do ISO 1250 no

sweat.

Every camera is a compromise. It just depends which compromises you want to make and what you can

afford.

 

My understanding from a couple people and from looking at images is that Sony color tilts toward blue. Do you find that

to be the case?

<blockquote>

<p>Not in my book - the hybrid finder in the X100T is a modern evolution of the outdated rangefinder that no longer offers any advantage over any other system at all.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br />Can't say I like any standard EVF as much as I like the X100T hybrid finder. Great in optical mode, especially in bright light where EVS often struggle, with the ability to see outside the framelines, and instant switching to a full EVF, zoomed EVF, or the clever new inset EVF 'patch'. The Q looks nice, but with a fixed (and slightly too wide) lens for the price of a decent secondhand M240 it's not very high on my wishlist.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>ability to see outside the framelines</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The only thing I grant the rangefinder as an advantage - though it has never been important to me - I rather have a more accurate representation of what actually makes it onto the film or sensor than what the framelines (or fragments thereof) indicate. I can barely see the 35mm framelines (not to mention the 28mm ones); what's outside them - even if I was interested - would not be in my field of view anyway.<br>

Or to put it simple - a rangefinder is just not for me.</p>

<p>Reviews I've read of the Fuji hybrid finders say the EVF automatically engages after each shot for a 1-2 second review of the image. If true, I would find that highly distracting. The EVF in the Sony A7 freezes for a fraction of a second then blacks out for less than an eyeblink in total. It's no more distracting than the flap of a mirror, and actually shows you what point of the action was captured. With the silent shutter engaged, that's the only indication you have that something happened when you pressed the shutter release.</p>

This quote from Steve Jobs seems to me to pertain to this topic and Leica:<p>

 

<i>"I think most people in the technology world don't pay attention to design. They don't know anything

about design, they don't care about it."</i>

Whoa Marc: <i>"(the MacDonald's of Sensors made to please the majority?)"</i><p>Cannot confirm or

deny from personal experience, but...... Ouch! <p>

 

<i>"The M is too big. Slim it down."</i><p>I thought that might be the case at first, but no, not an issue at all. In fact it handles and carries great.

<p>Edward, does you A7 or A7II do well with s Leica 35m lens?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Reviews I've read of the Fuji hybrid finders say the EVF automatically engages after each shot for a 1-2 second review of the image. If true, I would find that highly distracting.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br />You can switch off auto chimping (the challenge is finding where they've buried the relevant menu entry!).</p>

<p>I have an A7ii, and more recently acquired an A7Rii, but just getting started with the latter.</p>

<p>I have a Leica Summaron 35/2.8 which does very well on an M-9, but smears rather badly in the extreme corners on the A7ii. I see a certain amount of corner smearing with a Summicron 50/2 (c1964). I purchased a Zeiss Biogon 28/2.8 and 35/2.8 in order to improve performance on the M9 without breaking the bank. They are sharper throughout than the ancient Summaron, but still show some smearing in the corners. In all fairness, however, their performance on the A7ii is better than any Nikon f/2.8 zoom lens I've used on a D3.</p>

<p>My answer must be anecdotal, because I basically abandoned the Summaron in favor of a Zeiss Biogon 35/2.8 ZM with an M9 well before I got the A7ii. I continued to use the Zeiss lens with the Sony, but for people rather than landscapes, for which the corners are of little consequence. I took some group shots of orchestras I record, which were okay at the edges, but not as sharp as I would like. After getting the Loxia 35/2 and 50/2, I haven't looked back. These are designed specifically for the A7 cameras, and are everything I could hope for.</p>

<p>Here is a test of the Summicron 50 at locations throughout single image and several apertures. You can compare the center results with the edge and corner. This and related photos are in my Photo.net portfolio under 50mm Lens Tests, which include a Zeiss Loxia 50/2 and Nikkor 50/1.4 AIS. The Nikon lens does very well at f/2.8 or smaller, but handles like a tank on the little Sony.<br>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/18045164-md.jpg" alt="" width="680" height="306" /></p>

<p> </p>

<p>Thanks Edward. I'm not sure these cameras are the best platform for legacy Leicas. </p>

<blockquote>

<p >Whoa Marc: <em>"(the MacDonald's of Sensors made to please the majority?)"</em></p>

<p >Cannot confirm or deny from personal experience, but...... Ouch!</p>

</blockquote>

<p ><em> </em></p>

<p >RAY, based on years of Sony use, I'm not a fan of the "Out Of Camera" files from the A/FE series cameras, nor my current A99 SLT verses the original A900 DSLR I once used (both 24meg FF). </p>

<p > </p>

<p >For some reason Sony is allergic to uncompressed RAW, and the OOC color/contrast recipe lacks any defining signature … so, it is often something significant to overcome. I just takes more post work. <em> </em>In contrast, the original Sony A900 imagery was quite distinctive, and to this day the OOC files are still prized by many, (the way I also happen to feel about the M9 files).</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Regarding the imagery itself: I feel that in the rush to be all things to all people, many of these camera companies are becoming homogeneous … increasingly led by Sony. Sony dazzles with features and consumer buzz words, but in the end it is the image qualities that define one's likes or dislikes … at least that's how I feel about it.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >But who knows what will spill out of the Sony Cornucopia … a "Cavalcade of Cameras" that rivals MacDonalds' fast food … LOL! </p>

<p >- Marc</p>

<p > </p>

<p>After playing with the Q I'm very impressed. I'm hoping they will do what they did with the X...bring it out in a fixed lens and then when they saw how well it did, bring out the zoom version.<br>

A Q with a 35-90 equivalent zoom would be, in my mind the proverbial cat's ass.<br>

But this is coming from someone who, over the last 5 years has divulged himself of a full R3 kit, a lllg, M4 (and lenses for both) and now does most of my shooting with a V-Lux 4 (and am totally happy with the results)...so what do I know ;)</p>

<p>"But who knows what will spill out of the Sony Cornucopia … a "Cavalcade of Cameras" that rivals MacDonalds' fast food" Marc.</p>

<p>Bless you and Ray for bringing some soul and character into this forum...it has been a long time coming.</p>

<p>"The M8 was underestimated by everyone"</p>

<p>I have a M8, apart from its poor low light performance, I have yet to see any M which offers superior performance...but if you think so fez up with an image.</p>

Yes, agree the M8 performance is stunning up to 320, maybe 640 ISO.

<p>Personally, when I shot with a M8, and then the M9, I rarely set anything other than ISO 640 regardless of the light. Coming from a film M, ISO 640 delivered the character I was accustomed to using ISO 400 Tri-X set to ISO 320. The M8 was particularly good camera for B&W conversions IMO. Not until I got the MM did any digital camera deliver B&W that equalled the M8.</p>

<p>For me, the only advantage of the M9 was that it was FF, and didn't require IR filters for color work (in most cases). I was shooting weddings back then, and the non-natural fiber tuxedos were a real problem with the M8 without the IR filters in place.</p>

<p>It should be said that it took time to realize the full potential of the CCD Ms. With many folks changing cameras like their underwear, perhaps that potential was often never reached? </p>

<p>- Marc</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>As an aside, Leica 90 and 135 mm lenses are REALLY sharp on a Sony A7</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I won't doubt it, but the A7 and A7r do not do the M lenses justice if we're talking 75mm and shorter, based on the evidence I have seen. Even if you stop down, they don't work.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I still believe that an optical rangefinder offers a distinct photographic experience</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I agree. SLRs are no more a universal solution than the RF, but for some reason people tell other people, "get an SLR." Yeah, okay, sure. Nothing wrong with SLRs at all, but the best advice would be, "try them all, see what you think."</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Don't know why you think this. What is a thin image?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You truly don't know what I'm talking about?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The Q is a cheaper version of the M</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The sensor is different. And it is not a version of the M - it's a different camera altogether.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>many of these camera companies are becoming homogeneous</p>

</blockquote>

<p>IMHO, the 'big two' are the homogenous products. Making what the market will bear, basically. They take 35mm cameras and stick a sensor where the film used to be. The Sony cameras are arguably the best value on the market today. The Leica T is definitely not your everyday half-frame digital camera. The Fujis are unique in design and output, and the lenses are superb.<br>

<br>

Bob, I'm happy with the iPhone, FWIW. :-) But at the price it sells for, I bloody well should be happy with it!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The M8 was particularly good camera for B&W conversions IMO</p>

</blockquote>

<p>A lot of people believe so. And its secondhand price is quite remarkable given that it's almost 10 years old!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>It should be said that it took time to realize the full potential of the CCD Ms. With many folks changing cameras like their underwear, perhaps that potential was often never reached?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>There's a lot of truth in that.</p>

<i>"You truly don't know what I'm talking about?"</i><p>No, why don't you just explain it?

<blockquote>

<p><em>"You truly don't know what I'm talking about?"</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>On film, a "thin image" to me means one that lacks density. I have no clue what you're talking about in relation to a digital image, unless you mean an extremely low-contrast image that suffers from quantization or other issues related to using too little of the available dynamic range of the image format.</p>

<p>One thing I like about the modern EVFs is that the exposure is right at your eye. I don't mean numbers, but how the picture will look. Using these cameras in spot mode for instance with an exposure lock, you move the spot around, get the look you want and then use the shutter for focus, or with manual lens the focus peak, with the exposure locked in. It seems really practical way to shoot.</p>

<p>I had an M9 for awhile, I loved the low ISO files but above 640 things went south quick. I also agree that they had a unique look to them. Then I had issues pop up with it ( lockups while in silent mode, the regular shutter was far too loud ) and the X100 came out, the perfect storm to exit Leica digital and only use it for film.</p>

<p>Fast forward to January of this year, I buy an X100T and within the first 5 minutes of using it, think it is broke because the menu items fail to show up o the rear LCD when I hit the menu button. Long story short, Fuji made the camera totally useless for me in making the menu viewing on the LCD an exercise in keeping track of button pushes. That ended my love affair with Fuji cameras and my claim that the X100 killed my desire for a digital M.</p>

<p>So while attending Look3 in VA in June, I give the M240 a spin. First thing I don’t like is the size…it is portly. But the handling, the shutter sound and especially the files, wow! Even though they had gobs of wonderfully pliable dynamic range, if I did my job in assembling good light with tone and texture, they just did not need that much.</p>

<p>I have since bought a 28 Elmarit Asph, 50 Zeiss Planar and the incredible 35mm 1.4 FLE and put some 8,000 faultless frames through my M240 since finding one mint used for 4K in late June. Getting the M240 and good glass has turned out to be a fantastic move for my corporate photojournalism and long term projects, thin is the last thing I would use to describe the photos I am getting from it.</p>