My feelings about the M9

[Printmaker]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

My bet is on Photokina 2012 for the M10.

 

Lucien

 

I read somewhere that the sensor for the X1 was the same Sony sensor used in the Nikon D300. If that is indeed the case then perhaps Leica is looking at putting the D3 sensor in an M body and call it the M10. Imagine the low light capabilities of that combo!

 

It is possible, after all the M3 and the M2 were both in production at the same time. Each offered a solution to the needs of the day. Jump to the present and offer the Kodak sensor in the M9 and the Sony in the M10. So a M10 released on October 10, 2010 is possible.

 

Tom

[jonoslack]

I read somewhere that the sensor for the X1 was the same Sony sensor used in the Nikon D300. If that is indeed the case then perhaps Leica is looking at putting the D3 sensor in an M body and call it the M10. Imagine the low light capabilities of that combo!

 

It is possible, after all the M3 and the M2 were both in production at the same time. Each offered a solution to the needs of the day. Jump to the present and offer the Kodak sensor in the M9 and the Sony in the M10. So a M10 released on October 10, 2010 is possible.

 

Tom

 

HI Tom

I think the problem would be the angled microlens design. You can't just dump a D3 sensor (or an S2 sensor come to that) into a digital RF body.

 

The big deal has always been the problem with the short registry distance and the angle of light hitting the sensor near the edges. Whatever sensor they use is going to have to be designed especially for the camera. perhaps they are a long way down the road to this, but it's one thing buying an 'off the shelf' sensor to put in an X1, quite another to have a specially designed sensor for an M10.

 

I don't doubt that there will be an M10 sometime down the road - but there aren't too many unhappy M9 users at the moment - why spend lots of money and resources just to bug existing customers by bringing out a replacement 12 months later. Especially when you don't have any competition.

[adan]

I'd also say that this issue took around a month after release to surface (the red left issue)

 

Well, actually, it was apparent in images I shot 9/9 and the day after with a demo camera - and posted the day after that: http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m9-forum/98128-m9-report-salt-lake-city.html

 

But with the 15 c/v, which I (we) didn't necessarily expect to be supported fully by Leica's firmware.

 

I noticed it with my own M9 and a 21 f/2.8 within a day or so of purchase (9/17) - but was involved in a rush design job and then a 3-week vacation, and I'm sure other users had similar situtations, so it did take a while for consistent reported instances with Leica's own lens designs to be posted here.

[marknorton]

I'm trying to think which 1/3 of leica lens range are now outside the scope of the rangefinder?

 

Well, lets count them. WATE, 18mm SE, 21mm Summilux, 21mm Elmarit, 24mm Summilux, 24mm Elmarit, 24mm Elmar. 7 lenses out of about 21 M lenses produced by Leica and all of them wider than the M9 viewfinder can handle. Still no viewfinder magnification options, just a jumble of (expensive) auxiliary finders.

 

Surely marketing any product which people want, and which is going to sell, is a financial lifeline to any company? But that's hardly grounds for criticism.

 

I have no issue with a company pursuing a revenue stream but I do if the product's not ready. I cut Leica a lot of slack over the M8 problems - as their first DRF - but I'm less inclined to do so with the M9. It annoys me intensely that I have no way of knowing if the camera is sleeping when I raise it to my eye to take a shot and risk missing it, I've had more battery out resets than I ever have on my M8s and the latest shots with the 18mm SE are pretty awful.

 

The other camera I've bought this year - a D3x - just delivers, all the time.

[Printmaker]

HI Tom

I think the problem would be the angled microlens design. You can't just dump a D3 sensor (or an S2 sensor come to that) into a digital RF body.

 

The big deal has always been the problem with the short registry distance and the angle of light hitting the sensor near the edges. Whatever sensor they use is going to have to be designed especially for the camera. perhaps they are a long way down the road to this, but it's one thing buying an 'off the shelf' sensor to put in an X1, quite another to have a specially designed sensor for an M10.

 

I don't doubt that there will be an M10 sometime down the road - but there aren't too many unhappy M9 users at the moment - why spend lots of money and resources just to bug existing customers by bringing out a replacement 12 months later. Especially when you don't have any competition.

 

Good Morning Jono,

 

That makes sense.

 

Sensor noise at high ISO seems to be the only major complaint with the M9 and the only significant improvement a M10 would require. Its not a big deal for me as I rarely shoot over ISO 320 and my Summicrons have served me well, but were I shooting in the concrete canyons of New York or shooting available light weddings, I would dream of a D3 like sensor in a M10.

 

BTW, can you or anyone confirm the D300 sensor in the X1?

 

Tom

[JohnSchoie@aol.com]

Hi Louis,

Thank you for that, you are helping my mental wrestling. Please now tell us how the return to the M7 has been and aid my exhausted brain.

Very best wishes,

John.

[jonoslack]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Well, lets count them. WATE, 18mm SE, 21mm Summilux, 21mm Elmarit, 24mm Summilux, 24mm Elmarit, 24mm Elmar. 7 lenses out of about 21 M lenses produced by Leica and all of them wider than the M9 viewfinder can handle. Still no viewfinder magnification options, just a jumble of (expensive) auxiliary finders..

 

Sorry Mark - I thought you were comparing to the M8 . . . Do you need more than the frankenfinder (I don't think I do, but I may be missing something here . . . it gets me from 16 - 28 without issue). It isn't pretty . . but it is accurate!

 

In terms of FOV, without an additional viewfinder . . .

M8: 32-120 (just)

M9: 24-135 (easily).

 

choose your poison

 

 

I have no issue with a company pursuing a revenue stream but I do if the product's not ready. I cut Leica a lot of slack over the M8 problems - as their first DRF - but I'm less inclined to do so with the M9. It annoys me intensely that I have no way of knowing if the camera is sleeping when I raise it to my eye to take a shot and risk missing it, I've had more battery out resets than I ever have on my M8s and the latest shots with the 18mm SE are pretty awful.

 

The other camera I've bought this year - a D3x - just delivers, all the time.

 

I agree there are issues with the 18 SE . . . but I've not had problems with other Leica lenses or with it hanging. Nikon don't have to deal with the complications of the angle of incidence of these RF lenses . . . I always half press the shutter before I bring it to my eye.

 

Of course, you don't have to like it!

[jonoslack]

Good Morning Jono,

 

That makes sense.

 

Sensor noise at high ISO seems to be the only major complaint with the M9 and the only significant improvement a M10 would require. Its not a big deal for me as I rarely shoot over ISO 320 and my Summicrons have served me well, but were I shooting in the concrete canyons of New York or shooting available light weddings, I would dream of a D3 like sensor in a M10.

 

BTW, can you or anyone confirm the D300 sensor in the X1?

 

Tom

 

Hi Tom

I think the clue to the D300 sensor is the pixel dimensions . . but it was perhaps made by Sony anyway (not well up on this stuff). I certainly can't confirm it.

 

I think that the only real way to improve the ISO significantly would be to go to big processing and a CMOS sensor . . . Just Like Nikon did. But it seems that there is no free lunch with this stuff.

 

If you stick a Nocti on an M9, then you're pretty much into D3 territory anyway (if you're good at focusing!!). My needs are similar to yours, but I've found the M9 to be pretty good at weddings.

[adan]

Well, lets count them. WATE, 18mm SE, 21mm Summilux, 21mm Elmarit, 24mm Summilux, 24mm Elmarit, 24mm Elmar. 7 lenses out of about 21 M lenses produced by Leica and all of them wider than the M9 viewfinder can handle. Still no viewfinder magnification options, just a jumble of (expensive) auxiliary finders.

 

And this is different from 50 years of film Leicas - how?

 

Not sure what viewfinder magnification has to do with it, since any magnification Leica has offered other than the standard (since 1967) .72x has REDUCED the number of frames available, without adding any to compensate:

 

M3 .91x - lacked anything wider than 50mm

any M prior to M4-P - nothing wider than 35mm

M6 .85x - lacked 28mm or wider

M6 .58x - lacked 135 frames

 

The M8, as we know, managed to include lines for a cropped 24mm lens by chopping off a quarter of the image all around - not a real 24mm FoV finder.

 

Shoot a 24 x 36 Leica M (film or digital) with lenses wider than 28mm and you need an accesory finder. T'was ever thus. I suspect you know your Leicas and actually understand this, but are just seeking a "casus complainus."