Leica M9-P ????

[roydonian]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

That's not to say that there isn't room for Leica to develop a new AF system down the line, but to simply replace the M with a new AF system camera (which would invariably use an EVF) then yes, they would be alienating the vast majority of their current customers.

 

But a new model of EVIL camera able to operate with new autofocus lenses and having some form of electronic rangefinder that would allow the use (via adaptors) of existing manually-focussed R lenses (or even M lenses) could give the company a medium-price product able to occupy a position between the M series and the point-and-shoots, allowing it to establish a wider user base.

 

If Herr Daniel is right, and the era of the mechanical SLR is coming to an end (except presumably at the top end of the professional market), a new market for cameras based on high-definition electronic viewfinders is emerging – a level playing field in which Leica would be starting on the same footing as the ‘giants’ such as Canon and Nikon, giving it Leica a chance to becoming a significant ‘top end’ player in this new category.

 

That may be way that Leica’s mind is working. When Daniel was asked during his meeting last year with the LHSA how the company hoped to create a product that would distinguish itself from rival high-definition EVIL cameras created by the big players, his response was that perhaps the Leica offering could have some form of rangefinder.

 

Best regards,

 

Doug

[Dabow]

Hahaha - this is fun, let's see, how long you can keep me interested in this game ;-)

 

How quaintly condescending of you, even with the faux-wink.

 

I was actually going to give a proper reply to this until I read the poorly disguised flippant tone. As such, I've thought better of it.

 

Just FYI though, adding a at the beginning and end of a post to try and disguise condescension doesn't work. Instead, in my book, it gets you a label.

[jaapv]

I doubt the playing field would be level. In R&D, deep pockets do count. Leica would do - and does- better by exploring niches.

[rosuna]

But a new model of EVIL camera able to operate with new autofocus lenses and having some form of electronic rangefinder that would allow the use (via adaptors) of existing manually-focussed R lenses (or even M lenses) could give the company a medium-price product able to occupy a position between the M series and the point-and-shoots, allowing it to establish a wider user base.

 

If Herr Daniel is right, and the era of the mechanical SLR is coming to an end (except presumably at the top end of the professional market), a new market for cameras based on high-definition electronic viewfinders is emerging – a level playing field in which Leica would be starting on the same footing as the ‘giants’ such as Canon and Nikon, giving it Leica a chance to becoming a significant ‘top end’ player in this new category.

 

That may be way that Leica’s mind is working. When Daniel was asked during his meeting last year with the LHSA how the company hoped to create a product that would distinguish itself from rival high-definition EVIL cameras created by the big players, his response was that perhaps the Leica offering could have some form of rangefinder.

 

Best regards,

 

Doug

 

Doug,

 

that points to some type of CL digital (or Contax G digital, if you prefer). I have heard that before, as an ongoing project at Leica.

 

I would avoid a new system in Leica's catalogue (new mount, new format) though.

[earleygallery]

When Daniel was asked during his meeting last year with the LHSA how the company hoped to create a product that would distinguish itself from rival high-definition EVIL cameras created by the big players, his response was that perhaps the Leica offering could have some form of rangefinder.

 

Best regards,

 

Doug

 

Apologies to Mr Daniel, but that sounds like an off the cuff response given because he didn't want to say "I don't know" or "Leica lenses", which would have been the better answer.

 

How can he comment on distinguishing features when he doesn't know what the competitors products will look like? (I'm not aware of any current top end EVIL cameras from Nikon/Canon etc). Why would an AF EVIL camera also employ a rangefinder? It's nonsense.

 

Anyway this thread isn't about hypothetical EVF cameras, there's plenty of other threads on that subject already.

[roydonian]

Apologies to Mr Daniel, but that sounds like an off the cuff response given because he didn't want to say "I don't know" or "Leica lenses", which would have been the better answer.

 

How can he comment on distinguishing features when he doesn't know what the competitors products will look like? (I'm not aware of any current top end EVIL cameras from Nikon/Canon etc). Why would an AF EVIL camera also employ a rangefinder? It's nonsense.

 

I was at the meeting, so can only report his comments as I heard them.

 

As to why an EVIL camera might have a rangefinder, or how Leica could ‘put blue water’ between its future offering and those of rivals, I cannot enlighten you further. I did not make notes of the discussion, believing that the LHSA would be publishing a detailed report of the event. But as a technical journalist who is used to having to differentiate between facts and public-relations ‘puff’, I thought that Daniel made a decent job of answering questions in areas that were commercially sensitive. Since no-one ‘howled him down’, this part of the discussion presumably made sense to the R users who were present.

 

Anyway this thread isn't about hypothetical EVF cameras, there's plenty of other threads on that subject already.

 

As you say, this thread seems to have drifted away from the talking about the M9-P and into the more general field of the future of the M system and what various individuals see as possible desirable or undesirable features of future M cameras. But unless we get a further leak, I doubt if the thread will get back to its original topic this side of June 21.

 

Personally, if the M9-P turns out to be in silver chrome and vulcanite finish and has a traditionally engraved top plate, that will be good enough to bring me into the M9 community, provided that the price increase is reasonable.

 

Best regards,

 

Doug

[earleygallery]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi Doug,

 

I'm sure you reported accurately, I just take what Mr Daniel said with a huge pinch of salt!

 

The much rumoured EVF 'R solution' or whatever alternative type of camera it may turn out to be, is another thing entirely - we can only wait and see what if anything Leica deliver.

 

As for the M9-P I think you're going to be spot on!

[menos I M6]

There is one point about a potentially discussed "R solution", I never saw mentioned.

I have been getting very aware of this by trying to employ an equivalent of this in form of a Panasonic GH2 + adaptor + Leica M lenses, to add to my gear.

 

Let me mentions this: completely apart from certain handling issues, M users might not be willing to correspond with (viewfinder, ease of use of controls, direct exposure input, etc…), any solution, that adapts on the rather large and heavy traditional SLR lenses, the R system offered will not match the excellent R bodies in handling, Leica offered.

 

Looking at current camera developments, it very likely must be a more compact and light system camera than a R8 or R9 (even more so, when paired with winder or DMR).

In my opinion, the Leica R lenses were designed to handle perfectly with such a heavy, bulky SLR body.

 

Any compact and light camera, you adapt R lenses to other than a current, big SLR (Nikon D700, D3, Canon 5D/ 1D, …) will handle awkward and front heavy.

 

This is not a matter of heavy or bulky lenses (I am used to large and heavy lenses both by M and SLR standards), but a matter of completely thrown out balance and handling.

 

Try using a 90 Cron or similar heavy lens on a µ4/3 body handheld in natural quick shooting and you will experience what I mean - it is a big, big compromise, working with great image quality but very unpleasing handling.

[mjh]

Try using a 90 Cron or similar heavy lens on a µ4/3 body handheld in natural quick shooting and you will experience what I mean - it is a big, big compromise, working with great image quality but very unpleasing handling.

Apart from the fact that my own experience was different, the suggested R solution would have to be bigger than a Micro FourThirds camera – it would need to house a much larger 36 x 24 mm sensor after all. While it could be slightly smaller than an M9, there wouldn’t be any need to miniaturize it to the max if that was to the detriment of an ergonomical design.

[Jamie Roberts]

{snipped}

I'm not saying all portraits should be shot with this lens at f/0.95, but it does fit certain poses and lighting conditions very well Unfortunately, when those conditions are met the focus then becomes a hit and miss affair. Hence my original statement.

 

(mods forgive the thread hijack in lieu of an M9P discussion)

 

Dave--

 

I don't have the funds for a .95 Nocti but I can tell you after years of shooting people with the 1.0 Nocti (yes, I know all about its quirks) shooting with it between 1.0 and 2.0 is no more or less a hit and miss afair than shooting with a Canon 50 1.2L or 85 1.2L (which isn't fair, really, since the 85 needs to be even more critical... the Nocti is fair easier to focus at 10 feet away)...

 

Is it 100%? Not in the slightest. Do I regularly achieve over 70% with that lens in low-light (or good light, come to that) in the f1.0 to 2.0 range? Yes of course.

 

When I do miss focus, it's on rapidly and erratically moving objects moving toward or away from the camera. The Nocti is not a Summilux 50 ASPH... and it takes work to move the glass from near to far focus. But even dancers at a reception are more or less static a lot of the time, and they're easier to focus on with a Nocti than most people who've never owned one think.

 

Now let's talk critical focus...

 

The 1.0 Nocti delivers low-contrast sharpness throughout its range. It's far superior to the 50 1.2L wide open, even, and for flare rejection it can't be beat by any other non-Leica 50 I've used.

 

But it doesn't have the extreme sharpness or contrast of an 85 1.2L, and to me that's a huge part of its charm. But, like you, I want to see detail on the focus point. While I don't need to have that all the time (for expressive reasons), I do want to be able to predict it...and I can do that with the Noctilux.

 

BTW--I find the Nocti far more predictable wide open than the 75 Lux M, which I also love

 

I'm sure the 0.95 Nocti is better in this regard--high contrast sharpness--than the 1.0 version.

 

But don't take my word for it--check this out...

 

Otto Schulze Photography

 

and look for the .95 entries Otto doesn't seem to have a problem nailing critical focus with the 0.95 Aspherical and moving subjects... and while I can't tell for sure... they look pretty darned open to me too...

 

Lovely portrait shots on your site, BTW.

[Dabow]

(mods forgive the thread hijack in lieu of an M9P discussion)

 

I don't have the funds for a .95 Nocti but I can tell you after years of shooting people with the 1.0 Nocti (yes, I know all about its quirks) shooting with it between 1.0 and 2.0 is no more or less a hit and miss afair than shooting with a Canon 50 1.2L or 85 1.2L (which isn't fair, really, since the 85 needs to be even more critical... the Nocti is fair easier to focus at 10 feet away)...

 

I agree. I have the Canon 85mm f/1.2 Mk2 and it's a cracking lens. The 50mm f/1.2 considerably less so. I keep on hoping they're going to bring out a Mk2 version to match the 85mm, but so far no luck. The difference is though that with this lens on my 5DMk2 I have the option of LV for portrait work, if I so choose. Not that I do very often because I usually just set the centre focus point and use the VF. Still, AF as we know isn't perfect and without the benefit of the old split screen focus aid options are limited. So yes, with this lens there is still a %age of misses amongst the hits. Factor in your own slight movements and the misses go up. You have to expect it to a degree. However, I am more comfortable with the 85mm on the Canon over the Noct on the M9 because it is much easier to check focus on the Canon than the Leica, mainly due to the poor LCD on the latter. I've had shots that have seemed sharp on the Leica LCD only to turn out not so when I get them on my monitor. Whereas with the Canon there is a clearer view whilst shooting and I know then and there if focus is good.

 

Anyway, this is a debate that I'm sure can go on and on. The fact that I have to use glasses when shooting doesn't help matters. My issue with the Noct and M9 could be rectified to a degree just by improving the LCD. I still don't see that as too much to ask.

 

Whilst on the subject of lenses and sharpness, the Zeiss Distagon 100mm f/2.0 Makro-Planar is an awesome lens. Right up there with Canon's 85mm in my book.

 

BTW--I find the Nocti far more predictable wide open than the 75 Lux M, which I also love

 

Yeah, one of the reasons I decided against getting the 75mm lux. Waiting for my 75mm cron to come in instead. Looks like being a long wait.

 

and look for the .95 entries Otto doesn't seem to have a problem nailing critical focus with the 0.95 Aspherical and moving subjects... and while I can't tell for sure... they look pretty darned open to me too...

 

Hmm... I think it's difficult to gauge for certain looking at web images. It's also not clear how many misses he has on any given wedding day Nice shots though.

 

Lovely portrait shots on your site, BTW.

 

Thanks. Very kind of you to say!

[Scott Root]

This M9-P will have one up on a future M10, that individuals in this threat have suggested will have live view, in that the M9-P may be the last M camera that activates shutter once in the process of taking a picture. Live view requires a shutter remain open for live view and consequentially the shutter must be openned and closeed twice in the process of taking a picture. Opening and closing a shutter twice in comparison to once is sure to have a negative impact on the response time for a camera, not to mention additional camera shake?

[Dabow]

This M9-P will have one up on a future M10, that individuals in this threat have suggested will have live view, in that the M9-P may be the last M camera that activates shutter once in the process of taking a picture. Live view requires a shutter remain open for live view and consequentially the shutter must be openned and closeed twice in the process of taking a picture. Opening and closing a shutter twice in comparison to once is sure to have a negative impact on the response time for a camera, not to mention additional camera shake?

 

Interesting, and I have to say I care not about the mechanics as long as it works how I want it to. Same as a car, as long as the engine goes and works I could't give a damn about what's going on under the hood. However, as much as you may well be right in your explanation, and you seem to have a greater understanding than I on how the mechanics of a shutter would need to work under LV, perhaps you can explain how the shutter on my 5D Mk2 does't need to open twice? It opens once when LV is enabled to expose the sensor, and then clicks very quietly with less vibration and sound than if you were taking a shot without LV. In fact, I've used this method with my camera on my lap to take covert candid shots because it is so quiet and I know I can hold the camera steadier because of the lack of the need for the shutter to reopen. So, if it works on my Canon I fail to see why it shouldn't work the same way if Leica were to implement it.

[mjh]

Live view requires a shutter remain open for live view and consequentially the shutter must be openned and closeed twice in the process of taking a picture. Opening and closing a shutter twice in comparison to once is sure to have a negative impact on the response time for a camera, not to mention additional camera shake?

Existing cameras supporting live view work reasonably well despite of this. The additional shutter lag is minimal and I am not aware of any issues with camera shake. And you won’t be forced to use live view; it would just be another option.

 

All that assuming that an M10 would sport a CMOS sensor and support live view, something we don’t really know yet.

[Scott Root]

Interesting, and I have to say I care not about the mechanics as long as it works how I want it to. Same as a car, as long as the engine goes and works I could't give a damn about what's going on under the hood. However, as much as you may well be right in your explanation, and you seem to have a greater understanding than I on how the mechanics of a shutter would need to work under LV, perhaps you can explain how the shutter on my 5D Mk2 does't need to open twice? It opens once when LV is enabled to expose the sensor, and then clicks very quietly with less vibration and sound than if you were taking a shot without LV. In fact, I've used this method with my camera on my lap to take covert candid shots because it is so quiet and I know I can hold the camera steadier because of the lack of the need for the shutter to reopen. So, if it works on my Canon I fail to see why it shouldn't work the same way if Leica were to implement it.

 

The shutter on all SLR cameras work the same as the current M cameras in cycling shutters just once in the process of taking a picture. A SLR camera has the added mirror hanging in frront of a closed shutter to give the through-the-lens view that must swing out of the way before cycling the shutter once on a SLR camera. This underscores my concern that all cameras that utlize live view to date are relatively small cameras with correspondingly small shutters, except for leaf shutters such as on the Fuji X100, that raises the question of how these larger shutters will create a noticable delay in firing and camera shake not noticable on the smaller cameras. Live view will still be an added benefit on an M10 camera even though it may require the cycling of a shutter twice in the process of taking a picture, as long as the camera will revert back to cycling the shutter just once in the process of taking a picture when live view is not employed. I forsee live view being most useful when on a tripod for critial focus and questionable for hand held use, depending upon how well the delay and shake concern is addressed.

[Dabow]

 

The shutter on all SLR cameras work the same as the current M cameras in cycling shutters just once in the process of taking a picture. A SLR camera has the added mirror hanging in frront of a closed shutter to give the through-the-lens view that must swing out of the way before cycling the shutter once on a SLR camera. This underscores my concern that all cameras that utlize live view to date are relatively small cameras with correspondingly small shutters, except for leaf shutters such as on the Fuji X100, that raises the question of how these larger shutters will create a noticable delay in firing and camera shake not noticable on the smaller cameras. Live view will still be an added benefit on an M10 camera even though it may require the cycling of a shutter twice in the process of taking a picture, as long as the camera will revert back to cycling the shutter just once in the process of taking a picture when live view is not employed. I forsee live view being most useful when on a tripod for critial focus and questionable for hand held use, depending upon how well the delay and shake concern is addressed.

 

You're quite right in how the shutter works in normal operation. Mirror up, shutter opens, mirror down. I'm not sure what you mean by 'smaller camera's as most of the larger dSLR's have LV today, including the FF models. I can't speak for Nikon, but for Canon the action is as I have described. The mirror goes up, the sensor is activated to give LV, when you press the shutter release the picture is taken. This leads to quieter operation when the shutter is released with less internal movement. The only thing I see against LV on a future M is the current use of CCD. If Leica insist on staying with CCD instead of CMOS then LV ain't gonna happen.

 

LV could be used in any scenario the photographer sees fit to use it. I've certainly used it handheld in the past to good effect, with no delay or shake concern due to the aforementioned reasons.

[mjh]

This underscores my concern that all cameras that utlize live view to date are relatively small cameras with correspondingly small shutters

Live view has been supported by FF DSLRs for some time now, so from that perspective it should be fine. As I mentioned before, even if a camera does support live view that doesn’t mean that you have to use it. DSLRs with live view still offer both options. I see no reason why a hypothetical M10 with live view wouldn’t offer normal (M9-like) operation as an option, including a normal shutter cycle (just like DSLRs with live view support do now).

[Erik Gunst Lund]

Nikon LV; the mirror go up shutter open, LV is active, press fire, shutter close, mirror down then up and the shutter fires and takes the pictures mirror down...

A perfect example of non-photographic implementation of new technology,,, sad

[Dabow]

Nikon LV; the mirror go up shutter open, LV is active, press fire, shutter close, mirror down then up and the shutter fires and takes the pictures mirror down...

A perfect example of non-photographic implementation of new technology,,, sad

 

Really? Somebody put a lot of thought into the best implementation of that then! Perhaps this is where Scott is getting confused on how LV would (should) work for best effect...

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Jared]

If Leica insist on staying with CCD instead of CMOS then LV ain't gonna happen.

 

LV could be used in any scenario the photographer sees fit to use it. I've certainly used it handheld in the past to good effect, with no delay or shake concern due to the aforementioned reasons.

 

Actually, it isn't so much a CCD vs CMOS issue as it is an Interline Transfer vs Full Frame Transfer. Kodak's makes Interline CCD's that would allow the electronic shutter required for live view (though, perhaps, with greater image lag and a slower frame rate than CMOS).

 

Personally, it's not the first thing I would be looking for in an M9P.