Leica M9-P ????

[rosuna]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

That is true. The LCD should be a lot better on this camera.

 

I agree but there is a physical constraint regarding the M camera: you cannot place a much larger screen at the back because the height has to be limited to the magnesium part of the body. It may be much better in 1) resolution, 2), contrast and visibility under sunlight, 3) scratch resistance, 4) power consumption, and 5) thickness. But it does not depend on Leica. I assume they need a supplier for a good OLED screen specifically made for the M camera, and then a new design involving new processor units.

[Advertisement]

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

[Dabow]

I'll agree with the fact that the LCD is poor at the price point, the real estate might be well be used for an iso dial i can reach with my right hand without putting the camera down. that would resolve the auto-iso weirdness. the histogram could be shown on a smaller led type screen that doesn't suck as much power.

 

And the focus? Wait... I think we're coming to that...

 

Better not believe two people then. I've just closed an exhibition where 30 pictures where exhibited, all done at 0.95, chosen from some 1600, all shot at 0.95, and yes, not a single one of them missed the focus point. Getting to know the lens/camera combo has something to do with intuition maybe, vagaries of an RF system included.

 

Quite happy to. Not believe two people that is. Add a third and you can tag that one on the list as well. Just because two of you have stepped forward and said you hit perfect focus every time with your Noctilux's doesn't make it so. Likewise, being a politician doesn't make you an honest guy. If you're trying to tell me that you shot 1600 frames in total and none of them are slightly out with a Noct/RF combination... sorry Stand in front of me with the camera and bang off frame after frame of someone's portrait and hit the eye in focus every time then I may sit up and take notice, but that isn't likely to happen now, is it? Seriously though, what you consider acceptable levels of focus may well differ from mine. I've had similar discussions with a number of photographers who've tried to convince me some of their images were sharp at the critical point. They haven't been in some cases, so it's a matter of taste and what you consider acceptable. Even slight bodily movement on a portrait wide open will introduce shift, so in my book the odds are seriously stacked against your claim. Can't be proved easily, so it's a moot point. Congrats on your exhibition though

 

See above, an iso dial would be pretty easy to twiddle.

 

Yes, and you may have a point on this, but not at the expense of the LCD.

[Dabow]

I agree but there is a physical constraint regarding the M camera: you cannot place a much larger screen at the back because the height has to be limited to the magnesium part of the body. It may be much better in 1) resolution, 2), contrast and visibility under sunlight, 3) scratch resistance, 4) power consumption, and 5) thickness. But it does not depend on Leica. I assume they need a supplier for a good OLED screen specifically made for the M camera, and then a new design involving new processor units.

 

I don't see any reason why the resolution can't be improved over the current poor quality. It doesn't have to be bigger, just higher in quality. Doesn't seem so much of a stretch given the quality that's widely available on current brands. Even the lower end compacts have better screens

[rosuna]

I don't see any reason why the resolution can't be improved over the current poor quality. It doesn't have to be bigger, just higher in quality. Doesn't seem so much of a stretch given the quality that's widely available on current brands. Even the lower end compacts have better screens

 

The problem is how to get from a supplier a better screen of 2,5 inches. There are not many 2,5 inches screens in photo cameras at this moment, and all of them have/had 230,000 dots of resolution (I remember a micro 4/3 camera from Olympus). Maybe a custom made screen specifically made for Leica is possible, but much more expensive (the S2 camera has a small OLED screen). I agree that at the price of the M9 camera this should not be a problem.

[jaapv]

I agree but there is a physical constraint regarding the M camera: you cannot place a much larger screen at the back because the height has to be limited to the magnesium part of the body. It may be much better in 1) resolution, 2), contrast and visibility under sunlight, 3) scratch resistance, 4) power consumption, and 5) thickness. But it does not depend on Leica. I assume they need a supplier for a good OLED screen specifically made for the M camera, and then a new design involving new processor units.

I know - several people that are in the industry and are on this forum have told us those screens are difficult to source/nonexistent. Still, one can wish...

[mooky]

So we have an old camera design that is basically at it's technical limits unless the tech gets smaller to squeeze into it. Leica has been hanging it's hat on for years and years because they are afraid to, or reluctant to change - which doesn't make it an unuseable product - because it still is.

 

So, how do you address the flaws, satisfy it's base, and provide new, more technically and use-friendly product and design for the future? Well, you could still have the M design for the traditional, you could have a new camera that would be a fresh start, allow current M lenses and why not a AF lens line, be physically bigger, have multi-frame capability, be weather sealed, maybe have a finder like the Fuji X100 (but improved) have a design with built-in, not add-on grip.....etc.

 

Or, they could come out with another blunder-kill-part-of-your-base-S-type-idea, or be smarter and satisfy, design, and build a camera that is still 'kind of' affordable, be more useable and new-tech relevant, and allow the traditonal element to use it's glass. Or they could continue to have aren't we special product parties at the next photokina.

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Or, they could come out with another blunder-kill-part-of-your-base-S-type-idea, .

That is really a gobsmacking remark. The S2 is selling like hot cakes and is a major contributor to Leica's current pleasant cashflow. More of those blunders please

[mooky]

That is really a gobsmacking remark. The S2 is selling like hot cakes and is a major contributor to Leica's current pleasant cashflow. More of those blunders please

 

Well gee, I hope Leica isn't offended. Do you have an S2?

 

I never said it wasn't selling. It's great to know that the S2 is selling like hot-cakes and Leica is making some money on it. By the way, how is that yet-to-be-complete-S Lens line doing? Yes, they dumped the R base to build the S, and killed a traditional part of it's customer/user base and as an R and M user, that constitues a blunder. I wonder if anyone has calculated just how much that may cost them in the long run?

 

Too, just how does the S prove to be a tool for those who spend M-like $$$? How much user cross-over is there between the two systems? How much has the decision to build the S taken away from Leica being able to provide new product to what remains of it's core base?

[adan]

On the M9 LCD:

 

1) It is different than, and IMHO not as good as, the M8 LCD. Especially for checking shadow detail.

 

2) I suspect Leica changed the gamma, increasing contrast to make things a bit more visible when bleached out by daylight viewing. Better daylight visibility of the LCD was a feature Leica specifically mentioned among M9 changes/"improvements" over the M8. Alternatively or in addition, Leica supposedly set the default black point higher to clip the shadows and hide shadow noise - easy to undo in RAW shots, but the on-screen preview jpegs use the default and deliver inky shadows.

 

In either case, that is likely something in the firmware (just as one can set one's computer-screen gamma and BP via software), and I agree with those who's like to see it improved. Preferably restored to the settings used for the M8.

 

3) I suspect Leica may also have specced a cheaper LCD as a place to cut costs and hold the M9 to a price point (without affecting actual picture quality).

 

It may seem a cheap screen in an "expensive" camera - but then again, the M9 now costs the same (street) as a Sigma SLR (when was the last time THAT happened!? )

 

4) I don't think the fuzziness at full zoom is due to the LCD itself - more likely lower-res preview jpegs to save time and space with the bigger files the M9 produces over the M8.

[chris_tribble]

I've followed this with interest, but do feel bemused that the screen has so consistently come in for criticism. In my practice it's a great resource for reviewing camera settings (the Leica menu system is still the clearest I've ever worked with) and plenty sufficient for checking the histogram. I've never relied on zooming in on a JPEG preview for critical focusing, and I don't want to use it to assess the dynamic range of an image. Framing / Exposure. That's it. And then only when it's really necessary.

 

For me the greatest thing about the M9 firmware changes has been the "on-demand" preview. Most of the time I don't bother with a preview. When I do need it I just hold keep the shutter release held down after the shot and check frame and exposure - and then move on to the proper business of taking photographs.

 

Just my 2 cents! .

[adan]

"Yes, they dumped the R base to build the S, and killed a traditional part of it's customer/user base and as an R and M user, that constitues a blunder."

 

(Sigh - here we go again!)

 

Leica was on the verge of bankruptcy most of the years between 1996, when they went public and began reporting figures, until 2009. When they killed the R system, they suddenly began making money.

 

That is not a blunder - where it counts.

 

Leica didn't kill off the "R customer/user base". The R customer/user base was killing off Leica, until Leica got smart and said "The heck with THIS!"

[mjh]

How much has the decision to build the S taken away from Leica being able to provide new product to what remains of it's core base?

Nothing has been taken away. On the contrary, the development of the S2 and the experience gained in the process places Leica in a much better position to develop, say, a next generation M model.

[jaapv]

Well gee, I hope Leica isn't offended. Do you have an S2?

 

I never said it wasn't selling. It's great to know that the S2 is selling like hot-cakes and Leica is making some money on it. By the way, how is that yet-to-be-complete-S Lens line doing? Yes, they dumped the R base to build the S, and killed a traditional part of it's customer/user base and as an R and M user, that constitues a blunder. I wonder if anyone has calculated just how much that may cost them in the long run?

 

Too, just how does the S prove to be a tool for those who spend M-like $$$? How much user cross-over is there between the two systems? How much has the decision to build the S taken away from Leica being able to provide new product to what remains of it's core base?

Not difficult to calculate. The R line has been a money pit from beginning to end. It is a marvel it was sustained for so long. And no - I do not have an S2. I have a DMR and a stable of R lenses. What I don't have is a grudge against Leica for an understandable business decision. It is after all a business, not a religion.

[jaapv]

I've followed this with interest, but do feel bemused that the screen has so consistently come in for criticism. In my practice it's a great resource for reviewing camera settings (the Leica menu system is still the clearest I've ever worked with) and plenty sufficient for checking the histogram. I've never relied on zooming in on a JPEG preview for critical focusing, and I don't want to use it to assess the dynamic range of an image. Framing / Exposure. That's it. And then only when it's really necessary.

 

For me the greatest thing about the M9 firmware changes has been the "on-demand" preview. Most of the time I don't bother with a preview. When I do need it I just hold keep the shutter release held down after the shot and check frame and exposure - and then move on to the proper business of taking photographs.

 

Just my 2 cents! .

The on-demand preview has been in the M9 firmware all along

[mooky]

"Yes, they dumped the R base to build the S, and killed a traditional part of it's customer/user base and as an R and M user, that constitues a blunder."

 

(Sigh - here we go again!)

 

Leica was on the verge of bankruptcy most of the years between 1996, when they went public and began reporting figures, until 2009. When they killed the R system, they suddenly began making money.

 

That is not a blunder - where it counts.

 

Leica didn't kill off the "R customer/user base". The R customer/user base was killing off Leica, until Leica got smart and said "The heck with THIS!"

 

I think it was Leica's lack of a timely decision to go digital that killed the R. Leica says "the heck with this!" Let's dump the R user base - and build the S. I love how this site has turned more and more into a Leica defenders group for a select group. Leica's R failure is their own fault, not the R users. As are all the decisions NOT to build and evolve product.

 

Oh, and forgive me for not drinking your Leica-koolaid that says they are perfect in their new business/customer model. I'm entitled to my oppinion as you are yours - but I won't shoot you down because you have an oppinion. It's interesting though how someone up the Leica chain agreed with me - not that that makes you wrong - after all, he's entitled to his oppinion too - or is he?

[mjh]

Leica says "the heck with this!" Let's dump the R user base - and build the S.

At that time they were still convinced they could use the S2 technology to build an R10. As it turned out they could not; it wasn’t a viable product. There was a short time when it had looked like the development effort that went into the S2 could save the R line; the R system had to be pronounced dead in spite, not because of the S2.

[adan]

The difference is, I'm quoting facts, not opinion.

 

Leica's financial situation 1996-2009 is a matter of record. Read their annual results. Not opinion.

 

Leica changed financial situation after the elimination of the R line is a matter of record. Read their annual and quarterly results. Not opinion.

 

"This is not a blunder - where it counts." OK, perhaps opinion, I guess there may be a universe in which moving from losses to profits IS a blunder - is that your opinion?

 

"forgive me for not drinking your Leica-koolaid that says they are perfect ..."

 

Find the word "perfect" in my post and I'll buy you a DMR. But don't worry about forgiveness - I treat all unsupported opinion as "noise" anyway.

 

"It's interesting though how someone up the Leica chain agreed with me...." - Ahh, the anonymous "someone." Got a name, quotation and source?

[cbretteville]

I don't see any reason why the resolution can't be improved over the current poor quality. It doesn't have to be bigger, just higher in quality. Doesn't seem so much of a stretch given the quality that's widely available on current brands. Even the lower end compacts have better screens

 

My 2004 Digilux 2 has a better screen. 5k more pixels an what is more important it is trans reflective something the M8/8.2/9 screens are not.

Carl

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[chmilar]

It is after all a business, not a religion.

 

Sacrilege!

[AlanJW]

At that time they were still convinced they could use the S2 technology to build an R10. As it turned out they could not; it wasn’t a viable product. There was a short time when it had looked like the development effort that went into the S2 could save the R line; the R system had to be pronounced dead in spite, not because of the S2.

Even if the S2 technology had been usable for a R10, I question whether Leica could have had a profitable R10. Competing against Canon and Nikon on high end DSLR is not easy. Even Sony with its resources has not been able to steal much market share. Yes there are legacy R users with lenses, but how many R bodies would it have taken to break even and over what time period? Leica chose to put its resources into products (M and S) that have some unique attributes that can command a price. It is very easy to second guess but not on this decision.

 

The Solms decision I'd quibble with is the X1 where it will face stiff competition from other large® sensor small cameras, including Fuji of course already but likely also others who will see an opportunity to upsell their current P&S customers.