Leica M9 + X1: Fake or real?

[leica007]

photos are back on flickr - find it here : Flickr: Sushicam's Photostream

[jquimby]

It clearly states who edited the post and put that comment in. look at the bottom of your post. I really doubt they are *censoring* because they are bored or have nothing better to do. There are rules, things need to be verified, and they are going to error on the side of caution. Don't get so worked up, deep breath if they can put them up they will.

-peace

Originally Posted by leica007

Guys, it's not me. I don't know who is moderating this thread and has put this 'blue line'.
Who the hell are you? why don't you reveal your identity?

the more you censor, the more you confirm that the photos are of the real thing.

those who want to see the 'leaked' photos - check here:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/foru...29#post1129129

and can someone tell the guy who runs Leica Rumor not to lift photos from elsewhere, without acknowledging [we acknowledged our source], and put his/her website name all over the photos.

[wattsy]

Originally Posted by leica007

photos are back on flickr - find it here : Flickr: Sushicam's Photostream

I don't doubt that the M9 will be announced (and available to buy) next week but this photo looks fake to me. That said, it's bound to look something like that.

As for the second camera, I'm not sure about it at all. It could well be the "other thing" that a lot of people seem to be expecting but it looks too ugly to be a Leica product. Either way (real or not) it's of no interest to me personally.

[delander]

Andy needs to be cautious but on the internet once they are out that is it.

They look correct to me and probably from Leica so someone has sneaked something out.
The admin on Leicarumors says that they were sent by email.

Jeff

[tgray]

Originally Posted by sdai

On technical grounds, once one person broke the NDA, it doesn't bind the rest anymore because then what was revealed becomes second hand.

Yeah, I wanted to second this. NDA's are only binding for the folks who sign them. Copyright infringement on the other hand...

I think they look real enough to me.

[futureancient]

They look fake to me.. the top right hand corner shows the drop off which was in the video, but in order ot do this they've made a really bad photoshopping attempt. The angle on the top of the camera on the right of the shoe is badly out of allignment with the left side..meaning a wonky camera! Very poor job. I don't believe either of them tbh.

[leica007]

Originally Posted by jquimby

It clearly states who edited the post and put that comment in. look at the bottom of your post. I really doubt they are *censoring* because they are bored or have nothing better to do. There are rules, things need to be verified, and they are going to error on the side of caution. Don't get so worked up, deep breath if they can put them up they will.

-peace

okay, sorry Andy, for the out burst.
but, there's no point in holding up the photos on the pretext of validation - validation with whom? call up Leica and ask ,'hey, are these real stuff?'

it's internet as Jeff as mentioned - once out, it's out; if not here, then elsewhere. censorship is an old Victorian relic, when one could have controlled the means of dissemination.

internet is electronic samizdat and intifada combined together.
school like class monitoring doesn't work.
peace, from me too.

[jquimby]

Nice vocabulary, mine not so encompassing, for anyone else who had to go look that up (from wikipedia):


Samizdat (Russian: самиздат; Russian pronunciation: [səmɨˈzdat]) was a key form of dissident activity across the Soviet-bloc; individuals reproduced censored publications by hand and passed the documents from reader to reader, thus building a foundation for the successful resistance of the 1980s. This grassroots practice to evade officially imposed censorship was fraught with danger as harsh punishments were meted out to people caught possessing or copying censored materials. Vladimir Bukovsky defined it as follows: "I myself create it, edit it, censor it, publish it, distribute it, and [may] get imprisoned for it."[1]

[Bo_Lorentzen]

Looks pretty legit to me.

Checked the images in photoshop and don't see anything shockingly "photoshop" about them, but the resolution is too small for real knowledge. ha ha.

a new digilux seems very believable in that Leica have a thing with panasonic and the image looks much like a oly pen in dimentions.

[dpattinson]

Originally Posted by futureancient

They look fake to me.. the top right hand corner shows the drop off which was in the video, but in order ot do this they've made a really bad photoshopping attempt. The angle on the top of the camera on the right of the shoe is badly out of allignment with the left side..meaning a wonky camera! Very poor job. I don't believe either of them tbh.

I agree, it probably does look like this - but this image appears to be an M8 that has been PS-ed to include the rebate on the top-plate, so as to match the teaser video from Leica. If it had appeared before the teaser - it would have been more interesting

[jaapv]

I don't trust the X1. It looks more like a design study than a real camera.

[tgray]

Originally Posted by jaapv

I don't trust the X1. It looks more like a design study than a real camera.

I agree. Still looks like it could be the real thing. Even if it does look like an amateur rendering

Didn't leaked pictures of the M8 get poopooed for having a directional pad to the right of the LCD that looked photoshopped on?

I don't know, it makes sense to me. FF M9 to make everyone happy, a Sigma DP2-style camera done right to make the 'novices' happy, and maybe even Leica cinema lenses to make the really big spenders happy. And this X1 camera is a great reason for Leica not to be too interested in the µ4/3rds business.

I guess we'll find out next week. Well, I won't, I'll be off the grid for a week, but everyone else will

[adli]

Originally Posted by Bo_Lorentzen

Looks pretty legit to me.

Checked the images in photoshop and don't see anything shockingly "photoshop" about them, but the resolution is too small for real knowledge. ha ha.

a new digilux seems very believable in that Leica have a thing with panasonic and the image looks much like a oly pen in dimentions.

Take a close look around the 9 in "M9"

[thrid]

Hmmmm, take a look at the size of the lens mount compared to the body of the X1. If that is an M mount, then the camera is tiny. Could be. THe strap lugs are either massive or the camera is tiny.

Maybe it's an R-mount, but then the flange focal distance looks a little short... Maybe it's a new mount that is flexible enough to use M and R lenses with an adaptor.

The X1 also appears to be only EVF. Rats.

Unless that EVF is faster than anything else on the market I guess I'll have to grab a used M8.2 or save up for an M9 after all.

[Peter D Lux 2]

Geez, this X1 looks ugly. I really hope this is fake. It looks clumsy like an underwater camera and X1 sounds cheapish. I agree with Jaap it looks more like à design study.

[thrid]

Originally Posted by Peter D Lux 2

Geez, this X1 looks ugly. I really hope this is fake. It looks clumsy like an underwater camera and X1 sounds cheapish. I agree with Jaap it looks more like à design study.

I bet that grip is removable. Without it, it looks a little like a Leica LTM.

But it is off silver, which is something that was mentioned in one of the early rumors...

[thedudeistoocool]

Doesn't the SN# on the X1 lens being 1234567 ring any alarm bells ?

It does for me but I know nothing about the whole deal

and yes there does look to be something wrong with the bottom of the 9 of the M9
but again, could just be me

[rosuna]

Originally Posted by jaapv

I don't trust the X1. It looks more like a design study than a real camera.

It is not real, but I think there is something similar in Leica's plans.

[adli]

Originally Posted by rosuna

It is not real, but I think there is something similar in Leica's plans.

Oh, they showed you their plans?

[adli]

Originally Posted by leica007

and can someone tell the guy who runs Leica Rumor not to lift photos from elsewhere, without acknowledging [we acknowledged our source], and put his/her website name all over the photos.

Why don't you tell us the original source of the photos then, so we can end the discussion on wether they are real or not?