A Sane Attitude to Rededge

[Jerry_R]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

People start to realize, that we started to talk more about professionalism, customer service, being serious, etc. More than pure technical aspects. And here is an accent!

 

People become frustrated because:

- nonone informed them before buying OR misinformed them

- first manufacturer reaction took 6 months

- after above happened - no-one from manuafcturer addressed that seriously, no signal that it controlls its own products

 

I also expected higher standards from company with such broadly known reputation...

 

PS: And pls remember, that Leica offer is not only addressed to M8 users or this forum readers.

[lct]

We all knew very well that a full frame DRF would be difficult to achieve did not we? Remember our last year's discussions. We were not sure at all that a full frame M9 would be feasible. Would be fair to recall that there are compromises to accept in the real world.

[charlesphoto99]

People start to realize, that we started to talk more about professionalism, customer service, being serious, etc. More than pure technical aspects. And here is an accent!

 

People become frustrated because:

- nonone informed them before buying OR misinformed them

- first manufacturer reaction took 6 months

- after above happened - no-one from manuafcturer addressed that seriously, no signal that it controlls its own products

 

I also expected higher standards from company with such broadly known reputation...

 

PS: And pls remember, that Leica offer is not only addressed to M8 users or this forum readers.

 

Put a 35 on and go take some of the most beautiful pictures one can with a 35mm digital camera. Simple as that. Have some fun.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[UliWer]

We all knew very well that a full frame DRF would be difficult to achieve did not we? Remember our last year's discussions. We were not sure at all that a full frame M9 would be feasible. Would be fair to recall that there are compromises to accept in the real world.

 

Yes, I do agree with you.

 

I was caught by surprise when the first information about a FF M9 leaked late summer last year - and even more when they proved to be true. For all I knew there was a problem of a very small distance of the lenses' rear elements to the sensor. Though it seemed to be solved. When the problem of red edges became obvious I was sure that it was to be solved by firmware. When the firmware did take half a year, I was confident that this was necessary to make sure it worked well and solved the problems completely.

 

Now we are learning that we have to accept compromises. I know that I have to accept that a digital M doesn't have the least noise with high ISO settings. I know that I have to accept some influence of IR if I use the M9 without filters. I know that I have to accept more moiré because there is no AA-filtering for the M-sensor. I can accept all this for I believe that all those features help to deliver deliver the best files I can exspect in most of the cases. And most important, I can accept this, as I know using Leica-lenses will guarantee me the best results.

 

Now we are asked to accept compromise on colours in the M9 files. We are also asked to make compromises as not every Leica lens gives acceptable results on the M9. This means the compromises are to be made on the field of the very reasons why I was able to compromise on other topics.

 

What does all this say about the question whether the M9 solved the problems of a FF digital M? From what I see I can only say the answer is open. If the problem had been reduced on the level of the M8, I'd say: So what; nobody noticed the problem of red edges with the M8 - even if it was already there, so I could live with this as well. I could forget that I even hoped for an improvement for the M8. Now - after the firmware which should improve the compatibility of the M9 with some lenses - it is still much, much worse with the M9.

 

I'll wait and see. From what I have seen yet in the Leica description of the firmware and in some results shown over here, I can only say, that I'll stay away from any waiting lists for the M9. Too many compromises for too much money. Perhaps I'll see something different from Leica or in this forum, which makes me think twice. The answer is up to Leica, I can only wait, see and react.

[k-hawinkler]

UliWer,

 

It seems to me you describe what it's like to be at the cutting or bleeding edge of technology. It takes time to make it work.

 

Cheers, K-H.

[Jerry_R]

We all knew very well that a full frame DRF would be difficult to achieve did not we? Remember our last year's discussions. We were not sure at all that a full frame M9 would be feasible. Would be fair to recall that there are compromises to accept in the real world.

No, first time I hear. I was not on forum year ago.

 

I saw some M9 advertisements, first reviews (made on focals >= 35mm). Nowhere it was stated M9 is good for >= 35mm. Nowhere was written M9 is not designed for wide lenses. Everywhere was glory to micorlenses and info that wide is possible now. I also read Leica marketing - exalting its special microlenses allowing usage of wide angles, etc. which... Doesn't work...

 

PS: I am happy using 35mm and longer focals. I also workaround CV 15mm. But can't understand when someone tries to make excuses for the manufacturer. Maybe long time Leica userrs will buy it. Maybe people who only use Leica will buy it. Me not.

[mjh]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

No, first time I hear. I was not on forum year ago.

Ever since the M8 some people have been clamouring for a full-frame M. There were those just saying (repeatedly) how much they wanted a FF M, but there were also those trying to argue that Leica just had to introduce such a camera. And then there were the voices of reason explaining time and again how difficult that would be and that the obstacles would be nearly insurmountable, at least within a short time frame. When Leica announced the M9 on 9/9/2009, it came as a surprise. Few people knowing about the issues to overcome had expected the FF M to come so soon. Even with some color shifting the M9 is still no mean feat. It isn’t really that surprising that there are still some extant issues; what is surprising is that there is an M9 at all.

[charlesphoto99]

No, first time I hear. I was not on forum year ago.

 

I saw some M9 advertisements, first reviews (made on focals >= 35mm). Nowhere it was stated M9 is good for >= 35mm. Nowhere was written M9 is not designed for wide lenses. Everywhere was glory to micorlenses and info that wide is possible now. I also read Leica marketing - exalting its special microlenses allowing usage of wide angles, etc. which... Doesn't work...

 

PS: I am happy using 35mm and longer focals. I also workaround CV 15mm. But can't understand when someone tries to make excuses for the manufacturer. Maybe long time Leica userrs will buy it. Maybe people who only use Leica will buy it. Me not.

 

Sorry, in a way I was kidding, a bit. But it's important to keep in mind the legacy of the M line. M's have never been synonymous with ultra wide angle lenses. Why the digital M, which is pushing some serious sensor boundaries, should be any different is beyond me. Yes, it is unacceptable that lenses like the 28 cron don't work as well as they should. But c'mon C/V 15's and 21 Angulon's etc just muddle the discussion. So lets keep it on track with what Leica says they did improve and whether it has really improved or not.

[charlesphoto99]

Okay, that said here are a couple of shots from yesterday with M9 and new FW. Red edges? Maybe a slight bit on the left with the 28.

 

First is 28 cron at around f3.5 iso 400. Second is Zeiss 18mm coded as a 21 pre-asph. at around f4.5. Lr 3 beta with a strong contrast curve and a few minor tweaks.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[charlesphoto99]

Another Zeiss 18 coded as 21 pre-asph (it has a Milich bayonet). iso 800 f4

 

Kinda grooving on this lens. First time out with the M9.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[UliWer]

...

It seems to me you describe what it's like to be at the cutting or bleeding edge of technology. It takes time to make it work.

...

 

Perhaps I tend too much to look at present developments from a historical point of view.

 

In the beginning there was the Leica and then the Contax. The Contax was much more advanced - at the bleeding edge of technology. It was not stable, not reliable, it was overdone. Leica was backward, but it worked - for some time until the the backward aproach of Leica didn't work anymore.

 

Now it seems that Leica has gone to the bleeding edge - for the first time in their history.

 

I'll wait and see if it works.

[Jerry_R]

But c'mon C/V 15's and 21 Angulon's etc just muddle the discussion. So lets keep it on track with what Leica says they did improve and whether it has really improved or not.

Agreed. Would be nice, if there wouldn't be users having issue with WATE.

(I have read about CV 15mm on analog Leicas, only very positive comments).

 

OK, let's keep on track.

[Maximus]

Ever since the M8 some people have been clamouring for a full-frame M. There were those just saying (repeatedly) how much they wanted a FF M, but there were also those trying to argue that Leica just had to introduce such a camera. And then there were the voices of reason explaining time and again how difficult that would be and that the obstacles would be nearly insurmountable, at least within a short time frame. When Leica announced the M9 on 9/9/2009, it came as a surprise. Few people knowing about the issues to overcome had expected the FF M to come so soon. Even with some color shifting the M9 is still no mean feat. It isn’t really that surprising that there are still some extant issues; what is surprising is that there is an M9 at all.

What is surprising is that Leica do not make it clear there are problems with certain combinations of bodies and lenses to prospective customers. If you look at LEICA M9 - Passion for the perfect picture you will not find the slightest hint of this.

 

The fact the some here say "we all knew how difficult it would be" and should therefore stop whinging is arrogant in the extreme. This may come as a total shock to some but not all Leica users are members of this forum! They have a reasonable expectation that their investment in top quality photographic equipment should not be fraught with such problems.

 

Yes, Leica have learnt a lesson from the shameful M8 debale, but they still have a lot to learn if they are to gain the trust of more people.

[lct]

...The fact the some here say "we all knew how difficult it would be" and should therefore stop whinging is arrogant in the extreme. This may come as a total shock to some but not all Leica users are members of this forum!...

Why arrogant? How could we warn you if you did not come here? Those problems have been discussed at lengths on the LUF and other forums.

[DennisK]

I have to agree with Jerry_R's sentiments. I'm almost exlusively a wide angle shooter, 35mm and below. Prior to buying the M9 I did some research but obviously not enough before selling off my 1Ds III, 16-35, 24L and 35L. I was convinced that it would be easy to rebuild a similar setup for an M9. Well, it isn't.

 

Some of the disappointments I had have been caused by my jumping ship to early without realizing the...ahem...quirks on the wide angle side of Leica M, for example the need for external VF for anything below 35mm(!) if exact framing is of importance, and even with a VF it's not possible to get exact framing when the subject runs from 1m to infinity. Then there's always a strong barrel distortion in the VFs, even in the €800,- Frankenfinder, which btw also negates the size advantage.

 

But you could argue that these shortcomings are a trade-off for smaller size and/or increased resolution. What is totally inacceptable to me though is the lack of color consistency even for lenses like the 28 f/2. How people can accept that an 8000,- Euro camera/lens combo can't produce a color neutral shot of a sky or a beach or an empty parking lot is beyond me.

 

I still like my M9 for what it is: a small, beautifully built and freakishly expensive manual focus camera with excellent resolution, so-so high ISO performance, mediocre AWB and a battery worth 200 shots which is suitable for a few fantastic but equally expensive fast prime lenses from 35mm to 90mm.

 

Personally I can live with the 90mm/135mm limit but the wide angle weaknesses really make the high price hard to justify.

[jaapv]

You are right about the red edge problem, but not even looking at an (expensive!) system to find out the need for external viewfinders below 28 (not 35) mm lenses, the theoretical limited accuracy at all but one distance of the viewfinder of the framelines on a rangefinder system is an -ahem- surprising lack of research.

[giordano]

What is surprising is that Leica do not make it clear there are problems with certain combinations of bodies and lenses to prospective customers.

 

There may be something in this. There's certainly precedent for warning customers against certain combinations.

 

The best example is how Leitz warned people not to use the Leica CL lenses (40mm Summicron-C and 90mm Elmar-C) on M bodies because their rangefinder coupling is subtly different from the M standard - even though in practice the C lenses seem to perform perfectly well on M bodies.

[Baptiste]

Another Zeiss 18 coded as 21 pre-asph (it has a Milich bayonet). iso 800 f4

 

Kinda grooving on this lens. First time out with the M9.

 

Nice pic!!! I don't see any red edge trouble on your pics!

[DennisK]

You are right about the red edge problem, but not even looking at an (expensive!) system to find out the need for external viewfinders below 28 (not 35) mm lenses, the theoretical limited accuracy at all but one distance of the viewfinder of the framelines on a rangefinder system is an -ahem- surprising lack of research.

 

Hmm... so you can see all sides of the 28mm framelines at once without drilling your head into the camera? You can get a precise view at a relaxed position? That's good for you because I can't and I don't even wear glasses. When doing my "research" I read a lot of comments (also from you) how using even 24mm without a viewfinder was no big deal. Well, compared to what I'm used to it is a big deal regarding framing precision. But I realise (and already conceded) that it is my fault alone not trying the system in question before and instead going from the experience of others.

 

Glad we agree on the well known but unadvertised color consitency problem, though.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[jaapv]

I didn't say no big deal, I said you really had to move your eye around, (which can hardly be called comfortable). And yes, I can, just, see the 28 mm frame, but it is a tight fit to get in one glance.