Comments on: Leica M9 Digital Rangefinder

By: Jeremy

Jeremy — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 09:15:20 +0000

Its the lack of anti-alias filter that’s the prize piece on this “toy”. seamless pixels flowing into each other. marvellous!!

By: PRH

PRH — Sun, 20 Sep 2009 00:13:32 +0000

@K. Praslowicz
on your first point…
I don’t think it had a collapsible lens but I don’t have the camera anymore to check. Tragically, I lost the camera in a move a number of years ago. Even with the focus issues that I had with it, it held a lot of sentimental value being my first camera. Everything on it was manual so it taught me all about the relationship between light and exposure.

on the second:…
I actually prefer the frame lines when shooting spontaneously and hand held…

I don’t remember the frame lines but it goes to show that one person’s disadvantage is another’s favourite feature

By: K. Praslowicz

K. Praslowicz — Sat, 19 Sep 2009 21:08:25 +0000

@prh, again.

On a rangefinder, the image would be exactly the same so you would have to guess at how much of the scene you are actually capturing. I don’t know whether the modern rangefinders have some sort of compensation for this.

Most rangefinder’s built since 1950 will have appropriate framing lines that pop up to match the field of view of whatever lens is on it. Not as precise as an SLR, but the root of the old SLR – Rangefinder debate point of “I like to see exactly everything as the lens sees” vs “I like to see outside the frame lines to anticipate action”

I actually prefer the frame lines when shooting spontaneously and hand held, and prefer the full view of an SLR system when working slower and more thoughtfully on a tripod

By: K. Praslowicz

K. Praslowicz — Sat, 19 Sep 2009 21:01:20 +0000

@prh: I wonder if per chance the came had a collapsible lens on it, you didn’t realize it. Many of the Leica lenses between the 30′s-60′s where designed to collapse into the body for more compact transport. Failure to realize this, and then shooting with the lens while collapsed, or not properly extended pretty much guarantees that nothing will ever be in focus.

By: PRH

PRH — Sat, 19 Sep 2009 05:54:25 +0000

Hi John, here are the differences…
Rangefinder:
if you look at the image of the M9 you’ll notice that there is a small window next to the M9 label and a larger viewfinder window on the top right hand side of the camera. When you look through the viewfinder the image from the smaller window is overlapped onto what you can see. You manually rotate the focus ring until the two images align.

DSLR and film SLR:
use a system of prisms and mirrors to redirect the image that’s coming through the lens itself through to the viewfinder. What you see is essentially what you get.

In my opinion the biggest advantage of an SLR is that when you change lenses (or focal length when zooming) you will see this through the SLR’s viewfinder. On a rangefinder, the image would be exactly the same so you would have to guess at how much of the scene you are actually capturing. I don’t know whether the modern rangefinders have some sort of compensation for this.

By: PRH

PRH — Sat, 19 Sep 2009 05:37:46 +0000

I used to own a film Leica rangefinder many years ago that my mum gave to me when I was 11 or 12. I never took a single in-focus shot with it! I don’t know if that was because the camera was already 30yo when I got it and the rangefinder optics were out or if it was something I was doing wrong. I did love the retro look of it though.

By: john b pettitt

john b pettitt — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 16:59:00 +0000

hello there would you explain the difference between rangefinder and dslr. by the way leica cameras
are the rolls royce of all cameras, i have a leica r9 camera luvs it
cheerio for now john b

By: rich

rich — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 23:11:36 +0000

Yes, it might be a good camera, but it’s a silly thing from another age. If you put Leica images in a basket with any other digital cameras images – I defy you to tell which ones were shot by a Leica. A rangefinder???
Wow! How about a re-make of a Hudson Hornet? Exactly what would make a person spend 7K on a camera like this, other than making a fashon statement?

By: Silverzz

Silverzz — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 19:01:49 +0000

Not something I would buy, even if I had the spare money to do so.

It seems more of a novelty and for $7000 I don’t think it really offers anything special.

By: Jurie

Jurie — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 16:00:16 +0000

*drool*