What would happen if the M9 was a flawed camera?

[arthury]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

In all honesty the M{1...9} are all flawed cameras in much the same way that all rear engined Porsche 911's & variants are flawed automobiles.

 

Good energy but poor comparison.

 

It is funny the comparison is made between one of the most profitable and industry-leading German car-maker and a small German camera-maker which was almost bankrupt and now just learning to stand on her feet (still wobbly) in the digital world.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[gwelland]

Good energy but poor comparison.

 

It is funny the comparison is made between one of the most profitable and industry-leading German car-maker and a small German camera-maker which was almost bankrupt and now just learning to stand on her feet (still wobbly) in the digital world.

 

I wasn't actually comparing Porsche the company with Leica the company but obviously the analogies of the car and the camera. Nobody in their right mind today would design the 911 as an ideal performance vehicle with it's traditionally bad weight distribution and on the limit handling (both of which have been tamed through engineering over time). Similarly the rangefinder today isn't what you'd design as the ultimate camera solution either.

 

Now I'm not saying that either isn't any good - of course they are. Excellent in fact. But both are fundamentally flawed however you look at them.

 

Btw, I don't think you'll find Porsche's financial situation so rosy at the moment either after their recent leveraged takeover attempts of VW back fired.

[marknorton]

The goings-on at Porsche were down to a CEO who forgot he was in the business of making cars and playing a high risk David and Goliath takeover of VW might just end in tears for him as indeed it did, though whether a severance payment of €50m counts as tears, I'm not sure.

 

The question of whether the M9 is flawed is nothing to do with it being a rangefinder but to how good an implementation of a rangefinder it is. That the camera was introduced at breakneck speed, the smallest delta from the M8 possible, seems clear, maybe down to the financial imperative of keeping Leica afloat. If so they are forgiven because a flawed M9 is infinitely preferable to no M anything, no Leica.

 

I hope firmware upadates will fix the clunky user interface, colour problems, banding problems, hanging problems, card write speed and so on but we will still be left with a camera which is gasping for CPU cycles.

 

Nikon and Canon have shown the way to good operational handling is a dedicated processing chip set and Leica's Maestro was to be their equivalent. Spreading the considerable development costs across both the S2 and M might have helped both by keeping the cost of the S2 down and the M processing performance up.

 

I still hope that, one day, Leica will be brave enough to update and reinvent the viewfinder and rangefinder instead of dishing up the same dreary old design with its limited lens coverage and eye comfort.

[Guest BigSplash]

I certainly wouldn't say the M8 was a complete product - in many ways, it was toe-in-the-water, deeply flawed. The M8.2 addressed some of the issues - accurate framelines, a quieter shutter, sapphire glass - but the M9 has changed the rules on even those three improvements - more messing with the framelines, a different sounding shutter and no glass. It has a FF sensor, true, but virtually everything else is the same or similar. It's a sluggish old thing to use and there's still the question mark over the red banding which Leica do not seem to wish to comment on, still less fix.

 

I think the camera should be more correctly thought of as an M8.3. It's too early to call it an M9, there hasn't been enough progress to think of it in those terms.

 

You have a point. I do believe that the FF was clearly something many people absolutely wanted and despite technology difficulties Leica achieved this in such a small package, and just in time to make an impact on their difficult P&L. I think that is a huge achievement.

 

Rather than saying it is flawed.............. I would say it places them well ahead of anyone else for the next step in an evolving product. The results of the images as shown in LFI compared to a Canon 5DII are excellent so suggesting that it is flawed is in my view much too harsh, and simply not representative.

 

When Leica fix for free via firmware the magenta and other issues you mention does that make the camera go from flawed to best in the world in your view? I guess yes.

[carstenw]

I haven't bought an M9 yet, although I am on a (non-deposit) waiting list for one, and might get the opportunity to buy one in mid-December.

 

Thinking of the M9 as a flawed camera doesn't really make a lot of sense to me. Many cameras are flawed and still wonderful. We should rather think of the M9 in terms of what the camera will do for our photography in the next 3-4 years while Leica prepares the M10. However flawed the M9 is, the M8 was much worse, yet since mine was sent to Leica for the initial fixes in winter '06, this camera has been a real work-horse, and regularly wows me with the quality and look of the results. Any other camera I could have used in the same period of time, like the Canon 5D my M8 replaced, would not have brought as much enjoyment. Weight, size, the Kodak CCD, and those lenses are what make the camera for me.

 

I am ready for the M9 now, with its much higher resolution, full-frame sensor, extra stop of usable high ISO, improved IR sensor filter, the return of the full lens signatures, and a bonus, the extensive exposure bracketing system.

 

The only thing which still gives me pause and makes me wonder if I should wait a little is the whole left-side-pink issue. I might wait for Leica to solve that first.

[Shootist]

I haven't bought an M9 yet, although I am on a (non-deposit) waiting list for one, and might get the opportunity to buy one in mid-December.

 

Thinking of the M9 as a flawed camera doesn't really make a lot of sense to me. Many cameras are flawed and still wonderful.

 

Yes, as with the M8. But that does not diminish the flaws in either camera.

But with the M8 that was the only game in town, if you wanted a Leica.

With the M9 there are glaring flaws and there is another option, a M8. Which at this time is a proven photography platform with most of the original flaws corrected.

 

We'll have to wait and see if the flaws in the M9 are corrected in a timely manner. At thi point we are working on 2 months since release and nothing has been corrected, no new firmware.

[stunsworth]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

With the M9 there are glaring flaws and there is another option, a M8. Which at this time is a proven photography platform with most of the original flaws corrected.

 

And yet every dealer seems to have a long waiting list of M9 buyers and Leica are selling every one they can make.

[Shootist]

And yet every dealer seems to have a long waiting list of M9 buyers and Leica are selling every one they can make.

 

So what's your point?

 

At this time the M9 is the only, ONLY, full frame M digital.

 

If I didn't have a M8, really wanted a M digital with full frame sensor and had $7000 to spare I'd probably buy one myself. That does not diminsh the flaws in the camera.

[stunsworth]

So what's your point?

 

You were saying that the M8 was a proven alternative to the M9, I was stating that the M9 has been a great success for Leica, and that the buying public do not seem to think it's the deeply flawed camera that some like to present it as.

 

This isn't aimed at you at all, but the M9 debate is similar to that when the M8 was launched. On the one hand there were those who didn't own the camera saying that it was a waste of money and a rich man's plaything, while on the other there were those that did own the camera and liked it. I do remember at one point members of the first group saying that the opinions of the second should be ignored as they were just trying to justify their purchase.

 

My opinion of the M9 forum at the moment is that most of the negativity regarding the camera comes from people who either don't own one, or have no intention of owning one, while in general the people who have bought the camera are more than happy with it.

 

That isn't to say the M9 couldn't be better, everything in life could be better. The trick is in learning to use what you have to best of its, and your, ability.

 

To be frank I find this subsection of the forum the most tedious at the moment, and yes, that's probably my problem.

[Shootist]

If I had the $7000 to spare and had found one early on I probably would of bought it.

If I did have the cash and had bought one, like most other that have bought one, I probably would gloss over the flaws, justifying my expenditure of the $7000. But none of this has anythinig to do with the real problems the M9 has. They are real even if the current owners don't want to acknowledge them.

Could & should it be a better camera then it is, especially for the $7000 price tag? IMHO you bet.

Will this stop me from buying one "IF" I ever have the $7000, in todays economy for me it is doubtful, to spend on one and I feel I need a FF sensor. Not sure as that day it's here.

 

The only way to let Leica know they have fallen short is to point out the flaws in the basic operation of the camera. Not to gloss over them and praise Leica for this camera.

[Guest EarlBurrellPhoto]

Is anyone really saying the M9 is seriously flawed? Not me, surely. I assert that it's not much improved from the M8 however (1 stop of noise reduction in an era when other cameras are 2-3 stops ahead; and incomplete resolving of the IR issue), and actually lacks a few of the M8.2's progressive features such as the top display (which only needed illumination and a 4th column for the shot counter), sapphire glass LCD cover, and the so-called "2m" framelines. But the M9 offers 24x36mm sensor size for those people who have an aversion to a crop factor, and that I believe was Leica's predominant mission. Now that that's accomplished, they can eliminate the other niggles one by one in increments over the next few models, which I anticipate will follow in much closer succession than the M9 followed the M8. But the M9 seriously flawed? Not at all.

[arthury]

And yet every dealer seems to have a long waiting list of M9 buyers and Leica are selling every one they can make.

 

Sorry to say this but, not having to sound like a skeptic, the overwhelming sensationalism from the press (which has done very little testing) caused the number of believers to increase. What sells news :

 

1. sex
   
2. weirdness(non-mainstream)
   
3. fear.
   

The waiting list is conjured mainly out from [2] and some dimensions of [1] due to its retro-ness. A highly non-mainstream rangefinder now has a FF sensor. That's the mainly selling point.

 

I am pretty sure that if more people report problems; especially, the frequent writers, [3] will kick in and there will not be a waiting list anymore.

[arthury]

[...]

My opinion of the M9 forum at the moment is that most of the negativity regarding the camera comes from people who either don't own one, or have no intention of owning one, while in general the people who have bought the camera are more than happy with it.

[...]

 

Not sure if you have read the thread but who is saying the M9 is flawed --- owner or non-owner?

[Guest EarlBurrellPhoto]

 

My opinion of the M9 forum at the moment is that most of the negativity regarding the camera comes from people who either don't own one, or have no intention of owning one, while in general the people who have bought the camera are more than happy with it

 

I can't help but agree with your statement, but not what you appear to be attempting to imply. I'm a little negative on the M9, I don't own one, and I have no intention of owning one, however I came upon that negativity and made the decision not to own one based on having used one belonging to a colleague, for the better part of a week, for several professional jobs. And I'm not surprised that "in general the people who have bought the camera are more than happy with it". Hopefully they made sure the M9 met their standards before they bought it. After all who would want to admit amongst intelligent company that they'd made an impetuous mistake to the tune of $10,000CDN?

 

I'm not soured at Leica, in fact I will surely replace my M8 with a future model just as soon as one appears which offers back the features which were deleted on the M9 (top display, sapphire screen, "2m" framelines), and perhaps a substantial improvement in IQ. I suspect an updated model will appear as early as next spring, and at latest Photokina 2010. Now that full-frame is a done deal, Leica will concentrate on making other improvements.

[ArtZ]

Well, I think 'IR-absorbing cover glass broken' and 'magenta cast on the left' issues could be considered as serious flaws... especially for a camera that costs USD 7,000! (or 5 500 €)

 

If, as Mark Norton suggested, the 'magenta cast on the left' problem comes from the sensor not being in the right place, this could also explain the reason of the IR filter broken glass...

 

I hope Leica will give us some explanations soon.

[andybarton]

How many cases of the IR glass breaking have there been?

 

One to my knowledge.

 

Let's keep things in perspective.

[wattsy]

How many cases of the IR glass breaking have there been

 

Four, I think. Quite a few in my opinion.

[jamriman]

Got to wait for those newer batches I hate to say.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[andybarton]

Four, I think. Quite a few in my opinion.

 

Four too many, but let's keep this in perspective.

 

My daughter bought an iPhone yesterday. The microphone doesn't work, so it cannot be used as a telephone. Is the iPhone a flawed product? No. Is that particular example flawed? Yes.

 

Orange will replace it, just as Leica will replace the four M9s with cracked filters.

[Guest BigSplash]

How many cases of the IR glass breaking have there been?

 

One to my knowledge.

 

Let's keep things in perspective.

 

Andy are you asking a question or being supportive of Leica? If one broken glass is reported here is it not likely that many people who do not contribute to the forum have had the same issue? Is a failure of this type within the protected confines of the camera acceptable? Should the forum not try to capture reports of faults of any type and then OK keep things in perspective unless they are happening often?