bill Posted May 21, 2010 Share #161 Posted May 21, 2010 Advertisement (gone after registration) Well, thank goodness Leica listened to the whiners, complainers and armchair CEO's who asked for a full-frame M, with better high ISO and without an IR problem. Strange as it may seem to you, I was one of those saying that the M8 was not acceptable. I neither whined nor complained, simply stated that the M8 was not good enough. I certainly didn't tell Leica how to run their business. What I did was remember that Leica was - and is - on a journey; that full-frame would come one day, when it was technically feasible. The M8 was an evolutionary dead-end, but it gave Leica valuable experience and revenue. Regards, Bill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted May 21, 2010 Posted May 21, 2010 Hi bill, Take a look here Telegraph's M9 Review. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
diogenis Posted May 21, 2010 Share #162 Posted May 21, 2010 You know what? It is funny when I hear all those "hitech aficionados" playing the same tune all day long, again and again like broken records, while at the same time, Leica cannot keep up with demand with the M9. Even now with a second even more serious economy crisis. I don't know... Leica must have done something right to sell such a low tech camera the way it does. What do you believe Dubois? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted May 21, 2010 Share #163 Posted May 21, 2010 Well, thank goodness Leica listened to the whiners, complainers and armchair CEO's who asked for a full-frame M, with better high ISO and without an IR problem. Because Leica listened, many people who wouldn't buy the M8 have now bought the M9 or plan to. There was a time when Leica defenders and status quo-ers portrayed every deficiency of the M8 as some sort of virtue: "We don't need higher ISO." "Excess IR sensitivity is good for black & white photos." "A cropped sensor uses the best part of the lens." "I don't care about good auto white balance; real photographers always set it manually." "Ten megapixels is enough for 40-inch prints, just as good as 4x5." So glad Leica didn't listen to them. P.S. RickLeica, yes I do have it. Actually Leica listened to a group of a few dozens of serious forum members in an open meeting - insofar as that was needed. Fortunately they are not the bunch of ignorant hicks some make them out to be - in reality the company comprises of a bunch of pretty shrewd individuals who know their stuff and have a clear view of the path they want to take. Would you point out the posts where the statements you quote were made - they bear little to no resemblance to the arguments as they were made in the discussions you seem to refer to. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted May 21, 2010 Share #164 Posted May 21, 2010 Strange as it may seem to you, I was one of those saying that the M8 was not acceptable. I neither whined nor complained, simply stated that the M8 was not good enough. I certainly didn't tell Leica how to run their business. What I did was remember that Leica was - and is - on a journey; that full-frame would come one day, when it was technically feasible. The M8 was an evolutionary dead-end, but it gave Leica valuable experience and revenue. Regards, Bill I disagree, Bill. The M8 was an essential part of the evolution in the digital M series. Without the M8 the M9 would not have been possible. That is my idea of evolution. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted May 22, 2010 Share #165 Posted May 22, 2010 At this point, I'm ready to turn the question around. What is it that is wrong with Nikon or Canon or Sony equipment, that drives some to want an "improved" Leica instead - "improved" usually meaning "more like a Nikon/Canon/Sony?" Why do you care? Why are you not happily using N/C/S SLRs (if the features they offer are so important), getting on with your life and your photography - and ignoring Leica completely (and coincidentally not cluttering up this particular forum)? As came up in another thread, Leica rangefinders have behind the Japanese SLRs in features and "advancement" for 50 years. Yet, somehow, until digital came along, no one got all upset at Leica for not keeping up. They just bought something else. So what is the draw that makes you yammer for an "improved" M over the multitude of SLRs already offering those advancements? Size? Weight? "The glass?" The Red Dot? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
zlatkob Posted May 22, 2010 Share #166 Posted May 22, 2010 Would you point out the posts where the statements you quote were made - they bear little to no resemblance to the arguments as they were made in the discussions you seem to refer to. They are not real quotes — the quotation marks are used facetiously. Though not actual quotes, they do bear a strong resemblance to arguments made then. I'm exaggerating just a little in the "quotes". I realize the technology to make the M9 wasn't available in 2006, but when people wrote reviews and comments critical of the M8, they were lambasted for being armchair CEOs, for not "getting" the Leica ethos, for being dSLR users at heart, for being in the wrong forum, etc. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
zlatkob Posted May 22, 2010 Share #167 Posted May 22, 2010 Advertisement (gone after registration) Strange as it may seem to you, I was one of those saying that the M8 was not acceptable. I neither whined nor complained, simply stated that the M8 was not good enough. And you were right! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
zlatkob Posted May 22, 2010 Share #168 Posted May 22, 2010 What is it that is wrong with Nikon or Canon or Sony equipment, that drives some to want an "improved" Leica instead .... Why do you care? Size and weight are certainly issues. And efficiency. I have to carry a lot of gear and edit a lot of photos. And there were many good reasons for wishing for an improved M8. Efficiency is important. For example, Photo Mechanic is the fastest software for editing good photos from bad. But Leica doesn't include a high res jpeg preview in its raw file (as Canon does). So Photo Mechanic has to be set to render the raw file just to see a decent preview (or the camera has to be set to write jpeg and raw at the same time, thus doubling the number of files). So I can zip through Canon files fast, but have to go though M9 files a little slower. When editing a lot of photos, that little bit of inefficiency adds up. Likewise anything else that needs to be fixed (white balance, moire, dust, etc.) really ads up when editing a lot of photos. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted May 22, 2010 Share #169 Posted May 22, 2010 Size and weight are certainly issues. And efficiency. I have to carry a lot of gear and edit a lot of photos. And there were many good reasons for wishing for an improved M8. Ugh, improved M8? You're on the M9 thread. That leaves you with the following statements of what is wrong with Nikons and Canons: They are heavy, big, inefficient, require you to carry a lot of stuff, and you take too many pictures with them. You nailed that one! Now, let's turn it back around: M9 is light, small, efficient, requires nothing to be carried except yourself, and you take only a few pictures. Only what is essential and simple - Leica M. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
zlatkob Posted May 22, 2010 Share #170 Posted May 22, 2010 They are heavy, big, inefficient, require you to carry a lot of stuff, and you take too many pictures with them. You nailed that one! No, you misunderstood that. The camera don't make me take too many pictures. My work requires me to make and edit a lot of photos. I would do the same regardless of the camera system. So, if I'm going to make and edit a lot photos, I want the system to be efficient. By efficient, I'm referring to what I have to physically carry all day and to what I have to do during many hours of editing. And one more point about efficiency. Someone wrote that automatic sensor cleaning was for photographers who are "lazy". I check my cameras before each assignment and have cleaned enough sensors. Cleaning sensors is not especially productive or fun for a creative person. It just increases the prep time before an assignment. Automatic sensor cleaning has made this task easier as there's rarely anything to clean. So why not ask for that in an improved M camera? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted May 22, 2010 Share #171 Posted May 22, 2010 zlatkob - thanks. Looking for others to add to your comments. I guess to me the improvements that the M8 needed (and that the M9 mostly provided) were, in a sense, (hmm how to say this clearly?) restorations to steps backwards the M8 represented compared to film Leica M's. In other words, they were things the M line already did (features, I guess one could call them) for 50 years - until (necessary, at the time) digital compromises took them away. Freedom from filters for color photography, a 24 x 36 image area, shooting at ISOs above 640 without streaks, ability to cover a 21 FoV @ f/2.8 or faster. These are all things a 1954 M3 or 2010 M7 can do, and so they aren't additional features - they are just the digital M line getting back to par with the film Ms. Anyway, I look forward to additional responses. ___________ Edit: OK - it was me who said "lazy". And I'll admit that one did not have to worry as much about dust in the camera in film days (just on the negatives ). If Leica can add ultrasonic sensor cleaning without taking up more room or compromising the sensor positioning, I have no problem with that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ho_co Posted May 22, 2010 Share #172 Posted May 22, 2010 ... IS is stabilzation by moving the sensor. ... No, unless you define it that way. IS is the standard abbreviation for Image Stabilization, and most companies that offer IS aren't sensor-wigglers. ... Alan... Jesus man... doge--Are you sure about that? I don't think I've seen that epithet applied to Alan before. Well, thank goodness Leica listened to the whiners ... You're implying that if people hadn't made suggestions for improvements, Leica would never have developed another camera. IMHO, Leica is one of the most photographically-oriented companies around, and will always find something to improve. ... Leica must have done something right to sell such a low tech camera the way it does... "Low-tech camera"? Technologically, making an M body work well with 50 years' worth of lenses is a pretty big achievement. No one else has come close. Really, isn't it tiring to rehash the same arguments again and again? Thanks, Rick, for the bear story. Funny and apropos. I was just about to skip this thread when you proved there is still some intelligence lurking. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pop Posted May 22, 2010 Share #173 Posted May 22, 2010 ....Efficiency is important. For example, Photo Mechanic is the fastest software for editing good photos from bad. But Leica doesn't include a high res jpeg preview in its raw file (as Canon does). So Photo Mechanic has to be set to render the raw file just to see a decent preview (or the camera has to be set to write jpeg and raw at the same time, thus doubling the number of files). The component most easily fixed in that issue would be the PP software. I can't see why Photo Mechanic doesn't include a function which collects previews from a batch of raw files, if that's needed for more efficient processing. Have you yet called this to the attention of the users of the Photo Mechanics User Forum? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
markowich Posted May 22, 2010 Share #174 Posted May 22, 2010 At this point, I'm ready to turn the question around. What is it that is wrong with Nikon or Canon or Sony equipment, that drives some to want an "improved" Leica instead - "improved" usually meaning "more like a Nikon/Canon/Sony?" Why do you care? Why are you not happily using N/C/S SLRs (if the features they offer are so important), getting on with your life and your photography - and ignoring Leica completely (and coincidentally not cluttering up this particular forum)? As came up in another thread, Leica rangefinders have behind the Japanese SLRs in features and "advancement" for 50 years. Yet, somehow, until digital came along, no one got all upset at Leica for not keeping up. They just bought something else. So what is the draw that makes you yammer for an "improved" M over the multitude of SLRs already offering those advancements? Size? Weight? "The glass?" The Red Dot? andy, there are just two main issues with the (japanese) DSLR: lens quality and weight. other than these two i could not care less about a leica rangefinder. but clearly compromises have to be made, at the moment the M9 is my favorite compromise. that does of course not mean that things cannot be brighter on oth ends of the spectrum. peter Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted May 22, 2010 Share #175 Posted May 22, 2010 There is nothing wrong with DSLRs They are marvellous machines. But they are different. That is the whole point of the argument. That they should stay different. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
diogenis Posted May 22, 2010 Share #176 Posted May 22, 2010 "Low-tech camera"? Technologically, making an M body work well with 50 years' worth of lenses is a pretty big achievement. No one else has come close. Really, isn't it tiring to rehash the same arguments again and again? Erm.. Howard I was joking pal. You will never hear me saying this. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
zlatkob Posted May 22, 2010 Share #177 Posted May 22, 2010 You're implying that if people hadn't made suggestions for improvements, Leica would never have developed another camera. IMHO, Leica is one of the most photographically-oriented companies around, and will always find something to improve. I don't want to imply that they would never have developed another camera. While they will always find something to improve, improvements can head in different directions. Thankfully, the M9 addressed some core concerns and critcisms. I fear that if they only listened to people who are adoring fans of the brand, they would focus more on making cool collectors' items that don't address photographers' needs all that well. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
zlatkob Posted May 22, 2010 Share #178 Posted May 22, 2010 The component most easily fixed in that issue would be the PP software. I can't see why Photo Mechanic doesn't include a function which collects previews from a batch of raw files, if that's needed for more efficient processing. Photo Mechanic (PM) already does exactly what it should. It renders a high res preview from the .dng file. And it does so relatively quickly (depending on the computer). This rendered preview fills the computer screen and is perfect for editing good photos from bad. (PM is not for adjusting the files.) However, PM can be set to instead show the jpeg preview already created by camera and stored with the raw file. For most cameras, the already-made built-in preview is big enough to fill the computer screen. This is even quicker as no time is needed to render the raw. Unfortunately, M cameras store a very small jpeg preview in their raw files, about 200x300 pixels, not enough to be useful for editing. So one has to set PM to do the rendering. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Artichoke Posted May 22, 2010 Share #179 Posted May 22, 2010 I don't want to imply that they would never have developed another camera. While they will always find something to improve, improvements can head in different directions. Thankfully, the M9 addressed some core concerns and critcisms. I fear that if they only listened to people who are adoring fans of the brand, they would focus more on making cool collectors' items that don't address photographers' needs all that well. I find your notion of adoring fans offensive Leica has new management & has pretty much shed its Hermes legacy under the present ownership, they have direction clearly guided towards photographer's needs consider the M9's discreet & soft release modes which I think are unique to the camera & features added for serious photographers also note the much improved Auto ISO and the greater number of ISO steps available on the M9, which are features not for dilettantes they even have included an electronic counter in the VF when in bulb mode, something my D3X does not include & very useful for long exposures part of Leica's history includes special designer editions, but I think the folks at Solms now emphasize making the best possible photographic tools within its limits, I think they succeeded with their M9 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted May 22, 2010 Share #180 Posted May 22, 2010 No, unless you define it that way. IS is the standard abbreviation for Image Stabilization, and most companies that offer IS aren't sensor-wigglers. I speciifally said "sensor based IS" Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.