Is there a future for the CRF concept? (May 4, 2009)

Reflections on the future of the Manual focus coupled Rangefinder camera.



The roots of the Leica rangefinder camera

It is fitting in this Darwin year to review the status and development of the coupled rangefinder camera (CRF) of which the Leica M series is the best known example. The current trends in the camera evolution are not favorable for the CRF concept. The two main camera species are the DSLR and the EVF (electronic viewfinder camera). The most promising branch is a new concept by Panasonic, the Micro Four Thirds, a camera type that can be defined as a camera without a mirror box but with interchangeable lenses and a finder that looks through the lens. 
Let us look for a brief moment at the historical evolution of the 35mm CRF camera. The original Leica camera was designed with a simple framing device, that helped the photographer to frame the scene that was being photographed. At the start of the production the cameras was fitted with a viewfinder with the same function but easier to use. You had to guess the distance from camera to scene and Leitz introduced a series of additional range finders for users who needed a more exact method of focusing. At a later stage the coupling mechanism between the finder and focusing actions was designed. With the expansion of the lens range with different focal lengths, the need for a flexible framing device was evident. And again Leitz created a range of universal optical viewfinders with selectable frames, including one with frame lines for 35, 50, 73, 90 and 135mm lenses. Focusing and framing continued to be two separate activities and the optical and mechanical requirements and engineering limits placed a natural limit on expansion and flexibility. 

Barnacks challenge: to improve on the big slr and large format camera

It is an Interesting historical question why Barnack did not start with a reflex system for use with his compact camera. SLR cameras were known and used since 1884 and Barnack must have been aware of their existence. The characteristics of these models (large format cameras, mechanically vulnerable and quite cumbersome to use) did convince Barnack to select another route. The mechanical simplicity of the Leica camera, Its compact format and the speed of operation proved his point. The Ermanox from 1925 showed that photojournalism was not outside the realm of the SLR camera.  
In the period between 1936 and 1953 the design and construction of reflex cameras for the 35mm format improved significantly and began to show its inherent advantages of combined framing and focusing with one Integral component consisting of the reflex mirror and pentaprism finder. Leitz responded to this challenge with the introduction in 1954 of the M3 model. With this design Leitz pushed the engineering and the usability of the CRF concept to a new height, that has never been surpassed. The current line of M cameras (M7, MP, M8, M8.2) is a direct descendant of the M3 and switching between an M3 and one the current models does not require any adaptive relearning. The basic functionality and the implementation of the CRF concept are almost Identical.

The imcremental development of the M series

The main difference between the M3 around 1960 and the M7/M8 around 2010 Is the vastly changed photographic environment and culture, or as biologists would say a biotope or habitat. 
Around 1960 the Leica M3 was the camera of choice of many serious and professional photographers and was universally acclaimed as the best tool for 35mm photography in a wide range of applications and assignments. Nowadays the M camera is a niche product, recognized by a select group of photographers as a finely honed instrument used for a specific type of photography. During this half century of Leica M system evolution we have seen a marginal adaptation of the camera to outside challenges and a gradual shrinking of the habitat of the CRF system. The M8 and M8.2 are very fine instruments, but their orientation is fundamentally backward looking, not forward looking.                

Can the M camera once more claim a significant place in the photographic universe?

Is the M camera at the end of its natural evolution and is now an endangered species in a collapsing biotope? Or is the M camera in its current incarnation of a DCRF (digital coupled rangefinder camera) and film loading CRF a successful adaptation to the main challenges of the photographic environment.    
That is the valid question we have to find an answer for.
If we wish to make a clean assessment of the M as an effective photographic instrument, we have to disassociate ourselves from the collector’s emotions that are so prominent in discussions about the Leica cameras. 
There is nothing wrong with the feeling of admiration for the engineering, manufacturing and optical accomplishments of the Leica cameras. In fact it is a very legitimate emotion. But not one that is exclusive for Leica products. A Nikon F or a Canon F1 can also evoke the same kind of feeling. 
Nor should we limit our view to the photographs of the great masters of Leica photography, from Cartier-Bresson to Lebeck, as the guiding light for the culture of Leica photography. There is no doubt that we can find inspiration from these iconic pictures and the way they were made with the Leica CRF.  
The Leica CRF became the tool of preference for several generations of photographers because of its effectiveness in taking pictures in situations and under conditions that were not possible with other types of cameras. The camera was fast handling, accurate in its functions, combined unobtrusive operation  with durability and followed the eye of the photographer without any restriction. What you see is was you get might be a modern dynamic translation of the classical Leica slogan: watch and wait, a prosaic reference to that elusive construct of the Decisive Moment. 

It is no good to look to much into the past

With these characteristics the Leica CRF could claim its superior position in the photographic world for a long period. But the competition and technology forged ahead and piece by piece the advantages became smaller and are in danger of vanishing. The SLR bodies became marvels of ergonomic design, the autofocus is faster than the manual operation of the lens, the auto-exposure is quite accurate, motordrives allow up to ten pictures per second, the finder screens are 100% accurate and offer a good clarity of viewing with every possible focal length, including zoomlenses. With good sound engineering, several modern cameras are quieter than the famous Leica shutter click. 
Many Leica analysts refer to the, in my view, hackneyed phrases of the great Leica masters who discuss their relation to the camera in almost anthropomorphic terms. Cartier-Bresson for example said that it felt like “a big warm kiss, like a shot from a revolver, and like the psychoanalyst’s couch.” And many others described the handling of the camera and their emotional relationship to the instrument in comparable words. 
It is an undeniable fact that the Leica M camera evokes strong feelings of passion and that the handling of the camera is pure joy. These feelings are genuine and belong to a select class of tools and instruments  like cars, watches, and guitars.
If the Leica M camera would stop being a tool one can get passionate about, the product is certainly doomed. While being a necessary condition, it alone is not sufficient. 
A genuine instrument however must be used, not only admired. As soon as the Leica M camera would stop being competitive in its picture taking performance, there is no reason to buy one and use one. Then indeed it is only a collectors item.

The factual characteristics of the CRF, M style


How competitive and capable is the Leica M? Let us start with some remarks in the deconstructionist tradition. The Leica M is no longer the quietest and fastest camera on the market. It still has the best lenses one can buy, and the quality difference with other high-end lenses from the best of competition is now greater than in the past. This is now mainly a virtual advantage because the ubiquitous habit of post processing will enhance the apparent visual quality of the image. Optical performance, quiet operation, fast handling are associated with the M camera, but are in fact not directly related to the unique capabilities of the CRF concept. The rangefinder offers two characteristics that are second to none: one is the immense clarity of the finder that literally draws you into the three dimensional scene and the other is the great accuracy of focus. The location of the rangefinder patch in the center of the finder forces the photographer to focus on the most important part of the composition. While the photographer’s eye is limited to focus on this selection, there is the valuable advantage that you can select any part of the scene in depth as the focus plane immediately. Anyone who has had experience with the multi-focus points in a modern slr camera will notice the frustration that the camera selects a focus point you do not want. With the Leica CRF the photographer’ mental eye waits for the moment to capture and the simple two finger coordination (one finger on the shutter release button and one finger on the focus tab) does not detract from the scene enrolling in front of the photographer. Painters will recognize this idea: while involved in the act of painting there is nothing between the imagination and the canvas but the brush and paint. This direct relationship between vision and tool is part of the magic of painting and instrumental for the result. The same is true for photography with a CRF.

The finder is a true extension of the eye

The clarity of the finder is the direct result of the optical principle involved: the Leica M CRF is basically a reversed Galilean telescope viewfinder, one of several types of direct vision finders. When viewing a scene with our eyes, the scene appears to be sharp from near to far distance. Ground glass focusing on the other hand only shows one narrow sharpness plane while the rest of the scene is blurred. This view represents what will be recorded on film (or a sensor surface). Such a vision supports composition and selection of the scene elements. The disadvantage is the loss of sensitivity for the subtle changes in the experience of reality. Almost every Leica CRF master of photography had positive comments about the way the Leica camera inspired the user to get visually and emotionally involved in the dynamics of the scene. This ‘rapport’ is the immediate result of the direct vision and the haptic technology of the camera. It belongs to the foundation of CRF photography. Many Leica students are inclined to assume that it is enough for a camera like a Leica CRF to be different to be valuable. The truth is more complicated: any tool (and a camera is basically a photographic instrument) should have functional efficiency for its intended purpose: a watch is only useful as a time keeping device, a mountain-bike is only useful when the pedaling energy of the legs is optimally transmitted to forward speed of the bike, a lens is only useful when the distribution of luminance differences in the subject is exactly recorded on the capture device.

Why is it sensible to use a Leica M camera?

The art and science of photography is subject to that classical pendulum swing between a representational and interpretational approach. Famous Leica photographers have been active in cities (notably Paris and New York) and on the road actively recording life as it happens. Weston has commented on this approach: “the very substance and quintessence of the thing itself, whether it be polished steel or palpitating flesh”.
The Leica style of photography is often linked to classical photographers like Cartier-Bresson and Frank and many other photographers whose images have become icons of the photographic craft. The basic question here would be whether the photographs reflect more on the personality or character of the photographers than on the instrumental interplay between camera and person. There is a danger in equating Leica (CRF) photography with the past that it is seen as an obsolete craft for a particular time frame and area of space. It is true however to note that hardly any modern photographer works in this style.
The Leica CRF is an excellent tool if one wishes to do just this: recording life and the direct vision supports the focus on life itself, exactly as the photographer’s eye sees it. The Leica CRF is not the ultimate tool for manipulative photography, as one would interpret the current mainstream of digital post-processing. For recording life (be it emotional or factual) on film or sensor the CRF is unequalled, but limited in scope. The inherent limitation is not a problem as tools are most effective as specialized instruments designed for a narrow range of goals.

Haptics rules!

An important derivative of the CRF function is the compact size of the body in relation to the capture area and the lens mount. There are smaller bodies on the market, but these do not offer the performance of the 35mm format. The Leica M body offers a very efficient relationship between total volume and capture area, at least in the film-loading version. The current M8 (8.2) sensor size has a less optimal ratio for body volume and sensor size. The bodies of the M5 and the M8 may be considered as the limiting sizes for CRF systems. Some would say that the M8 is already in danger of becoming an Über-Leica.
The small size and weight are the consequence of the design choices made long ago in the Leitz workshops. These choices are valid even today. Helen Levitt,an ardent Leica CRF user who captured life second to none, had to stop using the Leica at old age because the camera became too heavy for daylong photography in action.
The size and weight are caught in a balancing act: too small is unpractical, too large is cumbersome. The CRF does not need a mirror box and a prism and the design can be projected onto the shape of the hands of the user. The camera can hang on a strap over the shoulder, the photographer uses his eye to scan the environment and when the scene develops into a worthwhile shot, the camera can be brought quickly to the eye, the scene framed, the distance focused and the shutter release pressed in one fast moving action. The camera can be securely held in a triangle construction with the forehead, the arm for the manual focus and the hand for the shutter release.

Is manual focusing the defining characteristic of the Leica M?

There is no inherent technological reason why the lens for a CRF system should require a manual focus mechanism. The Contax G is proof that an AF mechanism in the lens can be integrated with some success in a rangefinder body.

Manual focus is however a necessary condition for the concept of a CRF as defined above and implemented by Leica. The current and conventional assumption that any manual act or movement can be improved upon or made obsolete by machine automation is too superficial as a general truth. “ Fingerspitzengefühl” is still actual as a mode of operation. A sensitive touch paired to an equally sensitive eye can support a very efficient operation. The direct vision paired to manual focusing that the CRF concept demands does produce photographic images with an unique pictorial and qualitative character.
Manual focus assists in designing small lenses. I have often noted that the combination of small size and excellent image quality is quite unique. This is not only a matter of design principles, but also of harmonious proportion. The relationship between sensor size, body size and lens size in the EVIL and 4/3 formats is extremely lopsided. This verdict holds also for the APS-C fitted slr cameras.
The linkage system for the mechanical coupling between lens mount and camera body does require only a very small footprint, but the mechanism needs to be of extreme precision to be useful at all. The mechanical mount is needed for precision alignment of the lens elements too. In fact the whole volume of the lens mount is filled with glass and the mechanical components for focusing and the accurate and durable positioning of the glass elements. If one would wish to incorporate an autofocus mechanism into the lens, the choice would be a bigger lens and/or a reduced performance.
In the CRF design the ratio between film/sensor size, lens size and camera size is optimal when maximal image quality is thrown into the equation. Here we have the four cornerstones by which the CRF success and usefulness should be measured.

Rangefinder view is independent form focal length of the lens used


The Leica stable of lenses offers a range of apertures from very wide (1:0.95) to moderate (1:3.8/4). The lens designer can select the size of the aperture purely on the basis of size and performance. The CRF does not need the lens for viewing or focusing. The brightness of the finder and the accuracy of the focusing are independent from the maximum aperture of the lens on the camera. This persistence of vision regardless of the lens used is an often overlooked but very fine aspect of the CRF concept: the artist’s eye can concentrate on the content of the scene and does not need to readjust every time another lens is selected.

Leica lenses with sturdy mounts can be adapted for autofocus


The Leica S2 platform camera demonstrates that AF and sturdy mechanical mounts can be combined. It also gives material evidence that the speed of AF decreases and the size and volume of a lens increases when this combination is implemented.
The Leica M lens scuderia encompasses some of the finest lenses ever designed and manufactured.

Is the current M camera body obsolete?


It is sometimes asserted that the current match between modern lens design and (presumed) antiquated camera body design is a bit uneasy. Paired to a more modern design of the body, the lenses could offer the photographer additional advantages. I would not accept the premiss of this argument, namely that the current M7/M8 body is dysfunctional for the lens performance. In fact the current CRF mechanism is optimized for image quality within the limits of the concept. The design and construction of the M lenses is based on manual precision focusing. Looking at the M8 body, as this will be the chassis for the near digital future, I see a few defects, but these are not related to image quality or the inherent optical performance of the lenses. There is a some talk to Apple-ize the Leica M culture. This approach might work as the basic ingredients of Apple philosophy are understood: exquisite design, superb user interface and the concept to deliver professional results with a simple learning curve. The M body can be improved upon: change of layout, let the display become flush with the back and throw away the thick bayonet ring as examples, more dust- and waterproofing and so on.

Back to simplicity in the photographic workflow

A simple interface is not limited to the ergonomics of the camera operation (the menu could become more simple when you chop away the unnecessary JPEG options and shift the ISO and exposure compensation options to proper shifters on the body where they belong!). But a simple interface in the sense of Apple design implies too a simple processing chain and a much shorter and lower learning curve for post processing as we have today. My experience with AgX tools show how simple it can be. Select for a film/developer combination a processing time and an exposure index and the rest is fixed. No need for extensive and laborious post processing software.
If the idea to modernize the M body implies a change to autofocus and more automation (like the Snapshot program in the M8.2), I would have stronger reservations. With AF, the whole concept of CRF is erased from the M system. You do not need a coupled range finder mechanism when focus automation takes over. The finder (zooming or not) retains its direct vision function and operates as a framing device, but the active involvement of the photographer in focusing the lens is gone. A Leica M with AF is no longer a CRF but a hybrid between EVIL (electronic viewfinder interchangeable lens) and DSLR.

Is the M camera fit for the future?


The question then is whether the manual focusing CRF system can hold its position as a viable and productive camera system for stand-alone imagery in the future multimedia landscape where the capture of images is one of possible options for integrated and multifunction capture and recording tools.
In my view the manually focusing coupled rangefinder camera with interchangeable lenses has capabilities to take pictures with a unique fingerprint. It is a technical concept that is less universal as it once was in the past and it is also a concept that needs to be explained to prospective users. The M range, and let us stay future oriented, in particular the bodies fitted with the digital sensor, could become the true interpretation of the AgX technique in a digital era combining the advantages of digital capture and the advantage of simple and clean processing of the digital negatives.
The core characteristics of the M camera in the AgX domain (coupled range finder, compact lenses with manual focus, clean interface and simple processing with a fixed relation between the captured scene and the represented image) need to be preserved and enhanced to create the so called Unique Selling Points.