It was just over a year ago, that I made my foray into the world of digital Leica M cameras. Admittedly, I was rather late to the party. But when it comes to photographic equipment, I tend to be a creature of habit. I began with analogue SLRs as a teen in the 1990s, then by default transitioned to DSLRs. And for the next two decades, that was that. I can’t say that I found my equipment exciting. But it never occurred to me that excitement was a factor to consider when it came to camera gear. Neither did it occur to me to question whether it was ‘the best’ system for me. It was logical, affordable, familiar. Most importantly, it did the job.
It was my husband who rocked the boat and disturbed my tranquil, stagnant world of good-enoughness. He received an offer he couldn’t refuse on a well-loved Leica M9, bundled with a 50mm Summarit lens. Being more gear-curious than I, he decided to take the plunge. At first I stayed away from his new acquisition, like a skittish cat from a new piece of furniture. It took some coaxing and prodding, but I finally deigned to give it a try.
The outcome? I have not used a DSLR since…
No pun intended, but the M9 and I ‘clicked.’ It had nothing to do with the Leica name. Or with its famously minimalist design language. Or (and I struggle to even write this whilst keeping a straight face) with the so-called ‘Leica look’ of the photos the camera produced.
No. The feature that converted me was the rangefinder.
As someone for whom an optical, manual-focus experience is a non-negotiable part of photography, I was of course aware that rangefinders existed. I had used analogue rangefinders before; I had owned a few Zorkiys and even a Leica IIIF. But somehow I failed to make the cognitive leap to the idea that maybe, just maybe, I should try a digital rangefinder system as an alternative to the DSLR. To be honest, I had a hard time accepting that the two concepts (digital and rangefinder) were even compatible! I had assumed the Leica thing was an overpriced gimmick.
It was both exciting and terrifying to be proven wrong. Exciting, because the digital rangefinder was such an ideal fit for me, that using it felt as if we were viscerally integrated. The frame-lines fused with my field of vision. The focus-patch was so easy to use, I wasn’t even aware I was doing it. My eyes no longer grew tired, and I stopped getting migraines after long photo shoots. My out of focus rate decreased dramatically. And I do believe my images improved – not because Leica takes better photos, but because I, the photographer, was fortified with a new-found sense of comfort, wonder and optimism.
Of course, the terrifying part was… I would now need to sell all of my worldly possessions, to get a digital M of my own. (Okay, I exaggerate. But only slightly!)
Today I am the owner of a Leica M10 and a small collection of M lenses. It’s a system that works perfectly well for me. Which, considering my preference for optical focus, 50mm lenses, and natural light, is hardly surprising. I am basically the ideal candidate for a digital rangefinder.
But let’s face it: For the very reasons it’s perfect for me, the digital M isn’t for everyone. Most photographers tend to appreciate electronically-assisted focus. Most photographers don’t want to limit themselves to a neutral focal range. Most photographers want at least the option of using macro, and perhaps off-camera flash. For such applications, a rangefinder is far from ideal.
And yet… The digital Leica M is popular. More popular than it should be, considering what it’s designed and not designed to do. This was something I could not help but notice when I plunged into the online Leica universe whilst deciding which body and lenses to purchase.
At the time, the release of the M11 had just been announced, and the internet was buzzing. On an almost daily basis, there was a glut of new Leica M content, in the form of reviews, comparisons, discussions, analyses, and future predictions.
I consumed it all with the earnest enthusiasm of a newcomer, and observed a recurring theme that soon began to alarm me: The focus (no pun intended) seemed to be disproportionally on non-M-ish aspects of the digital M cameras. And I don’t mean just the techie things like the number of megapixels, improvements to dynamic range, low-light performance, and so on. No, I mean truly non-M-ish things (in fact, anti-M-ish might be a more fitting term), like… the Visoflex (external EVF accessory), which Leica introduced several years ago to the delight of M users. And new M lenses, which offered a reduced minimal focusing distance when used with live-view and Visoflex. There were excited rumours that the new M11 might in fact have an internal EVF.
It was at this point I began to feel as if I had taken a wrong turn and ended up in the Twilight Zone. Was I that late to the party, that the party was effectively over? As I was discovering the joys of the digital rangefinder, were others casting it aside in favour of electronic-assisted focus? And if that was indeed the case, why did they want an M camera in the first place, when Leica already offered a perfectly good mirrorless full-frame EVF model, aka the SL?
In attempts to unravel this mystery, I reviewed quite a lot of content and took part in some heated backchannel discussions. And what I’ve gleaned does not bode well for my newfound digital soulmate. I will try to summarise it here in a way that I hope does not come across as aggressive or overly critical, but rather reflects my understanding of what is happening… But in any case, here goes:
1. A considerable subset of Leica M users does not actually want, or need, a Leica M.
What they really want is a mirrorless camera with an electronic viewfinder, that has the aesthetics, ergonomics, and user interface of a Leica M. (I suspect that some also want the cachet of a rangefinder camera, without actually having to use the rangefinder feature… but that is a topic for another time.) I do not know how else to explain that so many M-shooters I’ve spoken to admit they tend to focus via the Visoflex attachment and the live-view mode, as opposed to the optical rangefinder. In the same vein, much of the online content pertaining to M cameras seems to be centred on finding solutions, workarounds, and ‘hacks’ for the various limitations of a rangefinder. Of course, the obvious solution would be to choose a different camera. And yet there is a palpable attachment to the idea of the Leica M that supersedes practical considerations.
2. The Leica SL range offers all the features Leica users want. Alas, it is uncool.
Conversely, I find it intriguing that while SL series actually does offer the features Leica users want, it is persistently shunned. It appears that the aesthetics, ergonomics, and size of these cameras (as well, as, arguably, its associations with Panasonic and Sigma), make it less desirable for the type of customer who gravitates toward the M.
3. The above two points combined put pressure on Leica as a company, to evolve the digital M range towards something it is not…
…Namely, toward an electronic mirrorless camera with vestigial rangefinder features. Unfortunately, there is evidence of Leica starting to yield to that pressure. While the new M11 does not have a built-in EVF, the rangefinder-incompatible features of some new M lenses are worrying, as is the amount of attention dedicated to the Visoflex .
For that small subset of digital M users who actually prefer, value, and want the optical rangefinder specifically with as little electronic clutter as possible, none of this feels like good news.
Moreover, considering that the ‘M’ in Leica M stands for messsucher, which literally means ‘rangefinder’ in German, it is hard to ignore the absurdity of this development.
Would Leica not benefit, I wonder, from keeping the M series a pure rangefinder, whilst dedicating resources to a redesign of the SL series? Make the SL more ergonomic, sexier, more Leica-esque… make it out of brass… rename it if they have to!
Alternatively, perhaps a new hybrid M-E line can be launched, offering that blend of rangefinder and electronic-assist features that many find desirable. That way, characteristics of the original M bodies and lenses can remain protected.
As I write all this, I can readily anticipate the obvious retorts. ‘Don’t you think that Leica knows what they are doing?’ and ‘Who are you exactly, to opine on this topic?’ And in fairness, I can’t argue with either point. Nevertheless: The rangefinder changed my relationship with digital photography. And therefore, I do feel invested in what happens next.
At the moment, I cannot help but wonder – is the digital rangefinder an endangered species? Considering the uncompromising and artful way in which Leica managed to stay true to the rangefinder design through the precarious transition into the digital era, it would be a shame if all this were lost. It would be a shame if the digital M became a messsucher in name only.
___
NOTES
Header image: The Leica M9 and M10. Photo taken with a Leica CL and a Voigtlander 90mm 3.5 APO-Lanthar lens.
Ailbíona McLochlainn is a photographer, knitwear designer, and recovering academic, based in Ireland. For additional information and lots of pictures to look at, visit www.ailbiona.com
Share this post:
Comments
thorsten on The Digital Rangefinder: an Endangered Species? – by Ailbíona McLochlainn
Comment posted: 17/01/2023
Comment posted: 17/01/2023
Stephen Hanka on The Digital Rangefinder: an Endangered Species? – by Ailbíona McLochlainn
Comment posted: 17/01/2023
Comment posted: 17/01/2023
Bruno on The Digital Rangefinder: an Endangered Species? – by Ailbíona McLochlainn
Comment posted: 17/01/2023
Comment posted: 17/01/2023
Comment posted: 17/01/2023
Comment posted: 17/01/2023
Comment posted: 17/01/2023
Comment posted: 17/01/2023
Wouter Willemse on The Digital Rangefinder: an Endangered Species? – by Ailbíona McLochlainn
Comment posted: 17/01/2023
I kind of get your point on the stuff they did with the M11 that make it less range-finder-y. But consider, in the M10, they also removed movie-making (definitely not very range-finder) which did exist on the Typ 240. As for live-view... my DSLR has it, never used it. The mere fact it's available doesn't make the DSLR any less SLR to me. If I'd have a digital M, it would be just the same. An additional feature that's not for me.
My one beacon of hope, is that I think that Leica knows what it's doing, and that that doesn't always results in them doing what the masses think they should be doing. If the collective internet wisdom is anything to go by, I don't believe they'd ever would have gone digital to start with, but once they did, they'd never had made new film cameras nor Monochroms. So perhaps the vocal masses on the internet are not all that predictive of what Leica ends up doing.....
Comment posted: 17/01/2023
Comment posted: 17/01/2023
Comment posted: 17/01/2023
Stephen Fretz on The Digital Rangefinder: an Endangered Species? – by Ailbíona McLochlainn
Comment posted: 17/01/2023
And Leica made the M10 M-D that didn't have a digital screen, so you couldn't see what you'd shot until you were home and downloaded them to your PC.
Still, I think this is the golden age of digital cameras; in the future, everyone who's not a pro will either shoot film or use their cell phone; look at how quickly scanners disappeared as consumer items - when cell phones get better, expect something similar.
Comment posted: 17/01/2023
Comment posted: 17/01/2023
Comment posted: 17/01/2023
Comment posted: 17/01/2023
Comment posted: 17/01/2023
Mike Jones on The Digital Rangefinder: an Endangered Species? – by Ailbíona McLochlainn
Comment posted: 17/01/2023
PS the ZI was not good, mine failed twice. The rangefinder was easily knocked out of alignment, and it felt and sounded like what it was… an old Cosina SLR with the top taken off. Aesthetics do matter.
Comment posted: 17/01/2023
Kevin Lord on The Digital Rangefinder: an Endangered Species? – by Ailbíona McLochlainn
Comment posted: 17/01/2023
I am no expert on rangefinders but I have had an interest in them for a long time. Right now I am waiting for the first roll from my FED 5B to be developed and I had an Olympus rangefinder in the 80's. So barely even dabbling so far. A rangefinder has two main qualities to me: 1) it removes autofocus from the equation and replaces it with a very accurate but manual process - that is good becuase to me, managing the autofocus system is a major distraction when composing a thoughtful image - I want to decide where the point of focus is and once I have decided, I want it to stay there until I change it! and 2) it forces you to imagine the final image becuase you don't have "live view" in an lcd or EVF to help you.
Most photographers who require speed, certainty and instant feedback are going to go a different path (even though some photojournalists and war correspondents have used Leica M cameras successfully for years).
One other comment: not to distract from your overall point, someone who uses a digital rangefinder every day sometimes needs some technology to make sure they have captured something they can use for a client or for publication. So in my opinion, some digital evolution is necessary for digital rangefinders to survive commercially. Photography is full of compromises and this is just one of them.
Comment posted: 17/01/2023
Karen on The Digital Rangefinder: an Endangered Species? – by Ailbíona McLochlainn
Comment posted: 17/01/2023
Comment posted: 17/01/2023
Clive on The Digital Rangefinder: an Endangered Species? – by Ailbíona McLochlainn
Comment posted: 17/01/2023
As for film Leica M cameras, the tanks are the M3 and M2, which were designed for rugged press use even in war. Once serviced they cannot be beaten. Later M cameras are fine but not as tough.
As for the digital M, my personal preference is for the cameras which behave most like a film camera with a digital back. Also, any model without a red dot gets preference. (Red dot models get black electrical tape!) The EVF is a nice accessory for checking focus coupling adjustments but a true mirrorless body surpasses a workaround for such things as close-ups with a rangefinder.
Thanks for your excellent thought provoking article.
Comment posted: 17/01/2023
Comment posted: 17/01/2023
Comment posted: 17/01/2023
Agata Urbaniak on The Digital Rangefinder: an Endangered Species? – by Ailbíona McLochlainn
Comment posted: 17/01/2023
Comment posted: 17/01/2023
Theo on The Digital Rangefinder: an Endangered Species? – by Ailbíona McLochlainn
Comment posted: 17/01/2023
Comment posted: 17/01/2023
Nick on The Digital Rangefinder: an Endangered Species? – by Ailbíona McLochlainn
Comment posted: 17/01/2023
As an aside, Point 2 is an interesting one for me. There's constant interwebs chatter about a a Leica M with an EVF and AF lenses, and I always think - isn't that just an SL with a rangefinder-styled body? I've never understood the desire to 'modernise' the M-mount, when Leica already has the L-mount up and running.
Comment posted: 17/01/2023
JK Lockwood on The Digital Rangefinder: an Endangered Species? – by Ailbíona McLochlainn
Comment posted: 17/01/2023
Comment posted: 17/01/2023
Röd White on The Digital Rangefinder: an Endangered Species? – by Ailbíona McLochlainn
Comment posted: 17/01/2023
Comment posted: 17/01/2023
Phil Harrison on The Digital Rangefinder: an Endangered Species? – by Ailbíona McLochlainn
Comment posted: 17/01/2023
Daniel Castelli on The Digital Rangefinder: an Endangered Species? – by Ailbíona McLochlainn
Comment posted: 17/01/2023
The fabled "Leica Look' died long ago. It was a combination of film, enlarging paper, chemicals and lenses tuned for film. The new 'Leica Look' is achieved by software, image sensors, and lenses tuned for digital capture.
If you want to create the traditional Leica Look, they buy a (film) Leica M, a lens made before 1985, some Tri-X, D-76 and go for it.
Not a snob comment, but it will be taken as such: A Leica M is a specialized piece of equipment. It is not for the vast majority of photographers or hobbyists. The design and usage of a Leica M requires the person holding it to accept the intended methodology of a rangefinder. It invites you to be in the middle of the action, or to interact with people (mostly strangers) almost in an intimate way. You need to talk, to spend more than a fleeting moment with them. Not everyone is wired like this. It doesn't stop people from buying Leica's, it's just that you might be better off buying DSLR. Try this exercise: Get a Leica M and a 50mm or 35mm lens. film or digital. Now, ride the subway/Tube/T, etc. Approach strangers and ask if you could take their photo. For most people, this is a terrifying experience. But this is what the Leica M evolved into; a quiet unobtrusive camera.
A generation of people have grown up with the effortless ease of cell phone photography. Could it be people exploring high end digital photography are looking for that same effortless experience they've gotten used to with their cell phones? I don't know.
I do know that good photography takes work. Lots of work. Much of the work should be done before you make an image. Too much reliance of the "I'll fix it later in Photoshop" rather than getting it correct at the time of making the photo.
But, different strokes for different folks. I'm happy with my M2 and 35mm lens. I've got a well-stocked darkroom, and I'll never love long enough to print all I want. If the digital M appeals to you, and it helps you find your voice or vision, go for it.
Comment posted: 17/01/2023
Comment posted: 17/01/2023
Matthias Rabiller on The Digital Rangefinder: an Endangered Species? – by Ailbíona McLochlainn
Comment posted: 18/01/2023
Dirk Saeger on The Digital Rangefinder: an Endangered Species? – by Ailbíona McLochlainn
Comment posted: 18/01/2023
it's always nice to read a post by a female photographer and especially about the "M" topic. I'm glad that the rangefinder changed your approach to photography. The rangefinder certainly has its flaws but who doesn't enjoy the rather light bag to carry it.
Where might Leica go with the rangefinder? We will find out. I wouldn't mind an EVF like on the Q with the size of the M. Would then the M be a Q? No.
Up above appeared the thought that the rangefinder might not be precise enough for the 60MP of the M11. I think it will, except for exotic lenses like the 50 f/0.95 or the 90 f/2 at close range. And even the live view won't do it, because your body might sway.
So that's an argument I do not go along with.
I'm happy with my M10 as well.
Greets
Dirk
Comment posted: 18/01/2023
Comment posted: 18/01/2023
Comment posted: 18/01/2023
Comment posted: 18/01/2023
Comment posted: 18/01/2023
Comment posted: 18/01/2023
Lee on The Digital Rangefinder: an Endangered Species? – by Ailbíona McLochlainn
Comment posted: 18/01/2023
Comment posted: 18/01/2023
Comment posted: 18/01/2023
Comment posted: 18/01/2023
Ondrej on The Digital Rangefinder: an Endangered Species? – by Ailbíona McLochlainn
Comment posted: 18/01/2023
Comment posted: 18/01/2023
Clive on The Digital Rangefinder: an Endangered Species? – by Ailbíona McLochlainn
Comment posted: 18/01/2023
Reproduction limits of digital cameras are meaningless in isolation. The resolution of the lens, its calibration, the user's skill, care, and ability, atmospheric conditions, the camera's condition and calibration, tripod use (and its quality), are just the tip of the iceberg.
The end result of photography is pictures. The intended end product dictates sufficient resolution and reproduction. Internet photos require even less quality than a 4x6 print. A well used 12mp camera can easily produce quality (uncropped) 16x24 inch prints. By extension by at 48mp 32x48 are possible with outstanding clarity. However, as the print size increases so the viewing distance should also increase and therefore the ppi ratio can fall making even larger prints possible. This is easily demonstrated by old slide projectors. Five and six foot screens were commonly used to project slides in the film era. Viewers raved about the results from appropriate distances from the screen. The same still happens in the movies. Get too close and the result pales.
If the camera and lens are well adjusted by a professional, or skilled amateur, NOT by following a youtube diy video for cheapskates, and sufficient time practising the skill of accurate critical focusing, longer lenses (90 and 135) as well as fast normal lenses can produce consistently excellent results. There will be errors. No system is always infallible. By the way, the close but not quite phots can make lovely smaller sized prints too. As far as cameras constantly coming out of adjustment is concerned, once a proper set up as described above is done one should be good for years. My father's Linhof never went out of adjustment in its 60 plus years of use. Keep in mind rangefinder focus setup is a compromise at best. 50mm and longer lenses should be set up so that the most commonly used focus distance is spot on (usually 2-3 m). Everything else will be close enough. This is the nature of the physics of optics. We may not like to admit it but the laws of physics are some of the only things in life which do not change. Also, the rangefinder system used by even the newest Leicas has only minor changes from the 1950's design used in the M2. Even the M3 purists have the M2 system if they have a later M3.
As for my admiration of the Tank aspects of early Leicas, I have seen battle scarred cameras that should not be working but are. I am not suggesting abusing equipment but a camera is a tool and not a piece of modern art sculpture for the mantel. It is rather like admiring the tatty old Land Rover that soldiers on and will pull its modern day relatives to the breakers when their time has come. I have no doubt that my M2 will outlast my digital. It has recently been fully serviced and will likely run another 70 years before needing another go. I won't be around to worry about that.
One entire aspect of rangefinder cameras has been missed so far and that is zone focusing. Particularly for family snaps and high speed action photography zone focusing is outstanding. I realize that the rangefinder system and therefore its use is the principle focus of your article. Rangefinder cameras do offer this as another modus operandi. You mentioned not really liking wide angle lenses on the Leica but this were they shine. A 35mm, f8, set 15' and you're set from 8' to infinity! Frame and shoot. (The best article can be found in the book The Leica and Leicaflex Way)
Kind regards
Comment posted: 18/01/2023
Comment posted: 18/01/2023
Comment posted: 18/01/2023
Comment posted: 18/01/2023
James Evidon on The Digital Rangefinder: an Endangered Species? – by Ailbíona McLochlainn
Comment posted: 18/01/2023
Robert Stacy on The Digital Rangefinder: an Endangered Species? – by Ailbíona McLochlainn
Comment posted: 19/01/2023
The M is not for everyone, but Leica as a company is doing very well indeed. Are they hyper-focussed on marketing Visoflex ? Absolutely - why - because that is just a margin rich add on that also very few people need and use. Everything you that can be festooned upon a Leica, made by Leica, is insanely expensive and that is also allows M's to keep being made because without doubt of all the camera brands, it is the most margin rich for the manufacturer. But let me also remind you that Leica has been doing this since time began, by offering external viewfinders for all manner of focal lengths for focal lengths that don't have frame lines, as well as many that do. It's very profitable.
As for myself, 3 years ago, I stumbled upon the Leica M10 Monochrome on its day of release. Like you, I realized that I would have to sell all of my worldly possessions to own this system, which by every metric is completely crazy to own, has so many limits, constraints, and an archaic rangefinder to boot. And that is entirely the point for me. The constraint forces me to be so mindful and intentional, and yet at the same time, it is so intuitive. It is nothing less than a appendage, like my hand, and arm, directly attached to my brain. Because it is like this for me, I am always with this camera, in a way that I never was with my Nikons ( my F4 might be an exception ) or my Fujis, which were very capable beasts. But because I am always with this tool, this work of art, this magic device, I never miss an opportunity to always try new concepts, capture unexpected moments, and refine and hone my craft.
Who knows what the future holds - perhaps your vision will come to pass but so what really. The first digital rangefinders like the Epson RDX1, and the M8 are still being used by their original owners, providing the same longevity their film counterparts have done. For if you are satisfied with the image you are getting from your present M10, outside of outright mechanical, electrical failure, theft or destruction, what reason would you have for an M11 over a M10? Every mechanic of how you use the camera is the same. What's different is the battery system, the handgrip, the visoflex, the cases etc., I can honestly that when the M11 came out, there was nothing that made me feel compelled to own one over what I had and I do not have fomo for those that made this choice. I imagine there will be an M11 M soon - maybe this week even, but I see no need. I beyond happy with what I have been lucky enough to find.