frank_dernie Posted November 2, 2009 Share #1 Posted November 2, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) I thought a tongue in cheek alternative to the endless list of proposed improvements may be fun. I, for one, am delighted by my M9. I used Kodachrome 64 before, so shooting at 160 iso is -fast-. Less noise at higher speed? I would probably never notice. Thanks for keeping it small and light. Thanks for keeping that great viewfinder. Thanks for keeping the menus intuitive and simple. I really can not think what could be added which would make it better rather than worse! I am off to take some pictures. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted November 2, 2009 Posted November 2, 2009 Hi frank_dernie, Take a look here M9 non-issues and areas which I would hate to see changed :-). I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
chris_tribble Posted November 2, 2009 Share #2 Posted November 2, 2009 Ah - a man after my own heart. My only real frustration has been the delay on getting the second body! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonoslack Posted November 2, 2009 Share #3 Posted November 2, 2009 My sentiments exactly. Of course, we all have our little wants, but if you start with one of them, before you know where you are you have a D3x! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosuna Posted November 2, 2009 Share #4 Posted November 2, 2009 Agreed. Many suggestions are only minor details... minor improvements. Some of these improvements will appear when technology matures, but are mere secondary details (LCD screen, form of the buttons, etc.). The only central element susceptible to improvements is the sensor. You know, electronics evolves very fast. But the camera is great just as it is. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricC Posted November 2, 2009 Share #5 Posted November 2, 2009 Absolutely spot on. Well said. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mby Posted November 2, 2009 Share #6 Posted November 2, 2009 Couldn't agree more! And I'm also excited about evolution vs. revolution: less quirks, it just works here! Best regards, Michael Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
noah_addis Posted November 3, 2009 Share #7 Posted November 3, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) Yes, I was thrilled that the M9 was basically an M8 with a bigger sensor. I don't want more features and in many cases I want fewer, but the extra junk on the M9 which for me involves most anything with the word 'auto' in it (A mode, S mode, auto iso, etc.) pretty much stay out of the way. I would hate auto focus, or having to send in my lenses for expensive modifications for some complicated process just so my pictures of my dog display what aperture I used. I would hate an EVF, or live view if it required a cmos sensor that may not offer the same look as the kodak CCD. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoppyman Posted November 3, 2009 Share #8 Posted November 3, 2009 Hate to see changed: Rigid, precision calibrated sensor mounting with no IS nor sensor shaking nor aa filter Manual focus with rangefinder and the current frame set Fixed eyepiece to avoid additional bulk, cost and complexity for when not needed standard. M mount interface with 6 bit optical detection. No chips or electrical contacts or compromise on compatibility of past and current lenses Form factor to anything larger to accommodate 'improvements' SDHC card standard DNG native Raw Non-issues Base plate design Black paint over brass LCD cover material (where it would increase camera price) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted November 3, 2009 Share #9 Posted November 3, 2009 I would like to have a smaller "M9" logo on the front! I couldn't agree more with the previous posters. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonoslack Posted November 3, 2009 Share #10 Posted November 3, 2009 I would like to have a smaller "M9" logo on the front! Boo - I want a BIGGER one . . . but I want it in pink! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
biglouis Posted November 3, 2009 Share #11 Posted November 3, 2009 A sensible thread. I like this one. LouisB Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill Posted November 3, 2009 Share #12 Posted November 3, 2009 Me too. Can we make it a sticky? Can I also suggest a rallying cry for those of us who would rather take pictures than add bloatware modifications and DNA transplants to an already highly evolved tool: If it ain't broke... don't stick another chip in it... Regards, Bill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ulrikft Posted November 3, 2009 Share #13 Posted November 3, 2009 Me too. Can we make it a sticky? Can I also suggest a rallying cry for those of us who would rather take pictures than add bloatware modifications and DNA transplants to an already highly evolved tool: If it ain't broke... don't stick another chip in it... Regards, Bill Yes, all those that have preferences differing from yours, want to add bloatware and are not interested in taking pictures. What an arrogant attitude... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisC Posted November 3, 2009 Share #14 Posted November 3, 2009 .... that great viewfinder....I really can not think what could be added which would make it better...... Frank - I'm delighted you are off to make pictures. That's what I do too, and when I make good pictures with my M I do so despite the fairly awful viewfinder and not because of it. I'm one of those 'off-message' modernisers here who really want the viewfinder improved and be brought screaming up to date for, let's say, 1980s standards. The digital 'M' framing is woefully inaccurate, the twinned 'other' frameline can be a perpetual distraction for tight image construction, the wasted space around the in-use frameline varies from a tiny wee bit to rolling acres depending on which lens is in use, the [non-variable] dioptre correction filter off, [non-variable] magnifier on, dioptre lens back on solution is frankly a pathetic one. This is not the 1950s, and what were good design solutions for post war cameras then are now anachronisms. I'd love an M9, and I enjoy my M8 for it's imaging, it's size, and the design advantage of rangefinder lenses. I am not in any way anti direct viewfinders, but the current 'M' one is decades past it's time for a redesign. So; I can think of how the camera would be more photographer friendly, more alluring for greater sales, and less of a distraction in use. For me, the current framing/magnification/dioptre/twinned frameline arrangement is by far the weakest aspect of the 'M' line. .............. Chris Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted November 3, 2009 Share #15 Posted November 3, 2009 Yes, all those that have preferences differing from yours, want to add bloatware and are not interested in taking pictures. What an arrogant attitude... Ummm.. Not really - Isn't it a bit like going onto a Canon forum and insisting Canon add a rangefinder viewfinder to their 1DsIII, don't you think? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill Posted November 3, 2009 Share #16 Posted November 3, 2009 Yes, all those that have preferences differing from yours, want to add bloatware and are not interested in taking pictures. What an arrogant attitude... Yup. About as arrogant as those who assume they speak for us all in DEMANDING changes that "EVERYONE" wants. Back on my ignore list you go, there's a good chap... Bye bye Regards, Bill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted November 3, 2009 Share #17 Posted November 3, 2009 I'm one of those 'off-message' modernisers here who really want the viewfinder improved and be brought screaming up to date for, let's say, 1980s standards. But what is 1980s standards? I've owned or used many rangefinders (Mamiya 7, Epson RD-1, Xpan and many others) and none are as rock solid and reliable as the Leica rangefinder. Take away the Leica rangefinder and you take away most of the point of the camera. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ulrikft Posted November 3, 2009 Share #18 Posted November 3, 2009 Ummm.. Not really - Isn't it a bit like going onto a Canon forum and insisting Canon add a rangefinder viewfinder to their 1DsIII, don't you think? If that were the actual case, yes, but that is not the kind of changes that people talk about, and this strawman you are creating is a bit sad. Just as bill above here is a bit sad when he creates the "those who want changes make statements on behalf of everyone"-strawman. You guys (both of you) seem unable or unwilling to argue factual reasonable things, and keep using tactics like these. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted November 3, 2009 Share #19 Posted November 3, 2009 The keyword being reasonable.... a number the changes being proposed would turn the M camera into a G10 or D700 clone. If that were the case, there would be no customers to buy it, I can assure you. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted November 3, 2009 Share #20 Posted November 3, 2009 You guys (both of you) seem unable or unwilling to argue factual reasonable things, and keep using tactics like these. Bill and Jaap are just expressing their opinions and their preferences, it seems to me that you are the one who's throwing the insults when you describe someone who disagrees with you are being arrogant. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.