pico Posted June 2, 2016 Share #21 Posted June 2, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) I hear people complain about the bottom plate. Check leicatimes.com looking for M9 bottom plates. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted June 2, 2016 Posted June 2, 2016 Hi pico, Take a look here New Leica M9 owner. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
TIV Posted June 2, 2016 Author Share #22 Posted June 2, 2016 Here's the strange thing - I have an M8.2, and an M9-P. The M9-P seems to have a slower buffer for each photo taken, when compared to the M8.2. And it also seems to lock up a lot more than the M8.2, ie. after taking a couple of shots the shutter doesn't re-cock immediately. In actual fact, my M8.2's shutter has never locked up in the 6 years I've had it. I would've thought that the M9 is an improvement on the M8 with things like these. Interesting.... The M8.2 is a crop camera isn't it? Could it have something to do with this? Smaller files I mean. Since I got mine I have shot all photos in compressed mode. Have you? On your M9-P I mean. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lax Jought Posted June 3, 2016 Share #23 Posted June 3, 2016 Has your M9-P always behaved like this? Or is this something recent? I'm a new M9 owner too, only had the camera for a week. I don't think the issue is a broken camera, it is working fine and looks very well looked after. Just seems a bit slower than my M8 in terms of the buffer and the shutter. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lax Jought Posted June 3, 2016 Share #24 Posted June 3, 2016 Interesting.... The M8.2 is a crop camera isn't it? Could it have something to do with this? Smaller files I mean. Since I got mine I have shot all photos in compressed mode. Have you? On your M9-P I mean. I did consider that the M9 is producing 18MP files from a full frame, as opposed to 10.1MP files from a 1.33 crop M8. In the years that passed between the first release of the M8 and the M9, I thought that the buffer processing would have improved somewhat. It kind of feels like an M8 engine running larger M9 files. What do you mean by 'compressed'? I always shoot in raw, is that what you mean? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TIV Posted June 3, 2016 Author Share #25 Posted June 3, 2016 What do you mean by 'compressed'? I always shoot in raw, is that what you mean? You can adjust the M9 to shoot RAW compressed/lossless. I know opinions may differ on this, but my view is that there is no point in saving "nothing". You can read about this option on the Leica Forum and at the Leica website. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lax Jought Posted June 3, 2016 Share #26 Posted June 3, 2016 You can adjust the M9 to shoot RAW compressed/lossless. I know opinions may differ on this, but my view is that there is no point in saving "nothing". You can read about this option on the Leica Forum and at the Leica website. Oooo ... I did not know about this, maybe I should read the manual, thanks! I'd be happy to compress it, unless there are overwhelming reasons why I shouldn't.... 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pop Posted June 3, 2016 Share #27 Posted June 3, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) Oooo ... I did not know about this, maybe I should read the manual, thanks! I'd be happy to compress it, unless there are overwhelming reasons why I shouldn't.... The M9 compresses the raw image by a manipulation of the color depth. All we be well until you happen to greatly enlarge the contrast of your image, in which case you might observe some pixellation. 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lax Jought Posted June 3, 2016 Share #28 Posted June 3, 2016 ah dammit, I guess that would be a good reason. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
John McMaster Posted June 3, 2016 Share #29 Posted June 3, 2016 You can adjust the M9 to shoot RAW compressed/lossless. The M9 is lossy compressed, the M(240) is lossless compressed. john 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lax Jought Posted June 3, 2016 Share #30 Posted June 3, 2016 The M9 is lossy compressed, the M(240) is lossless compressed. john I guess that explains it. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TIV Posted June 3, 2016 Author Share #31 Posted June 3, 2016 Found this explanation http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/lossless-and-lossy-compression 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lax Jought Posted June 3, 2016 Share #32 Posted June 3, 2016 Found this explanation http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/lossless-and-lossy-compression That's the one I found too. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snap Happy Posted June 28, 2016 Share #33 Posted June 28, 2016 I purchased my M9 a couple of months ago. It's great. I prefer it to the M240 (which admittedly I only had 48 hours with). I don't need Liveview. I don't want movie mode. I don't like the little holes in the top plate of the M240. The M9 is lighter than the M240 (the same weight as my M6). Coming from film, the low light performance is brilliant - I don't need my camera to "see in the dark" with a stratospheric ISO performance. No sensor problems at this stage and only 2200 actuations at purchase. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted June 28, 2016 Share #34 Posted June 28, 2016 The M9 is lossy compressed, the M(240) is lossless compressed. john Are you sure? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pop Posted June 28, 2016 Share #35 Posted June 28, 2016 Are you sure? I don't know if he's sure, but it's certainly true or - failing that - it's what the data sheet says. The M9 stores the DNG either without any compression or with a lossy compression scheme (by applying a square function to the z value). The M (Typ 240) supports lossless compression. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TIV Posted June 28, 2016 Author Share #36 Posted June 28, 2016 I have been experimenting with the M9 and some photos from it can be seen here, at the top of my gallery on Flickr. https://www.flickr.com/photos/sirthrostur/ Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snap Happy Posted June 30, 2016 Share #37 Posted June 30, 2016 I love my new (to me) M9. I was given an M240 for a short trial, and found it heavy, whereas the M9 weighs the same as my M6. Also, I don’t like the little microphone holes in the top plate, and I don’t need movie mode or Liveview. The M9 takes great photos. The better high ISO performance of newer cameras like the M240 is an improvement - but coming from film, obtaining usable exhibition quality files at 1000 ISO is terrific. As a poor artist (cliché I know) I can’t afford the new gear anyway, but I can’t imagine wanting anything better than the M9. For me it hits a performance and aesthetic sweet spot. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Lss- Posted July 8, 2016 Share #38 Posted July 8, 2016 Just seems a bit slower than my M8 in terms of the buffer and the shutter. Isn't the buffer the same size in these cameras? With larger files of the M9, it will much more easily become a practical limit. I have read many complaints about the M8 buffer, but it has never been a problem for me. (Considering specifications, I would not allow buffer to become even a theoretical limit, but these two cameras are not really modern digital cameras to begin with.) Sluggishness of the shutter may relate to firmware. I don't know what the status is, but you may want to check some older threads on the topic. There were issues with the discrete mode at least. One of the first things I did with my M8 years ago was selecting the discrete shutter, and I have never since changed that setting. This takes away most of the gripes I have avout the noisy shutter recock in practical use. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted July 8, 2016 Share #39 Posted July 8, 2016 Are you sure? He is right. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lax Jought Posted July 8, 2016 Share #40 Posted July 8, 2016 Isn't the buffer the same size in these cameras? With larger files of the M9, it will much more easily become a practical limit. I have read many complaints about the M8 buffer, but it has never been a problem for me. (Considering specifications, I would not allow buffer to become even a theoretical limit, but these two cameras are not really modern digital cameras to begin with.) Sluggishness of the shutter may relate to firmware. I don't know what the status is, but you may want to check some older threads on the topic. There were issues with the discrete mode at least. One of the first things I did with my M8 years ago was selecting the discrete shutter, and I have never since changed that setting. This takes away most of the gripes I have avout the noisy shutter recock in practical use. I have no idea what the buffer is between the M8 and M9, but from my experience using the M9 it seems to make sense that it's the same as the M8, hence the M9 appears to be struggling with the 18MP files more than the M8 with its 10.1MP files. Regarding the shutter, yes I have it permanently set to discreet. I worked out that after I press the shutter and take a shot, it would hold off on re-cocking the shutter until the buffer finishes... buffering. It doesn't seem to do it all the time, just occasionally. I don't tend to take multiple shots in quick succession so it can't be because the buffer is overloaded, and my concern is that it will do it to me when I really need to take a crucial shot. I have the latest firmware installed though. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.