Guest raoul1 Posted June 13, 2011 Share #341 Posted June 13, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) I find myself wondering who the “we” is in your statement. Should that not read “some photographers”? While I can appreciate that some professional photographers have a need for higher ISO ratings in order to be able to match the sort of available light work being done by competitors equipped with CMOS-sensor cameras, this demand is not universal. Best regards, Doug Your friends have a party Some people take pictures. Just to use it as a memory. The light is low. No problem for a X 100, or a Canon or Nikon, that several non professionals own nowadays. You have a Leica M9. For you there is a problem. You payed much more money than the others. Far more. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted June 13, 2011 Posted June 13, 2011 Hi Guest raoul1, Take a look here Leica M9-P ????. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
IkarusJohn Posted June 13, 2011 Share #342 Posted June 13, 2011 Your friends have a party Some people take pictures. Just to use it as a memory. The light is low. No problem for a X 100, or a Canon or Nikon, that several non professionals own nowadays. You have a Leica M9. For you there is a problem. You payed much more money than the others. Far more. Chances are the X100, the Canon and Nikon in that scenario also have a built-in flash. The comment that ISO 100 is "far too slow" is interesting (as is the M9 having 160 as its slowest ISO) - being raised on slide films with wonderful colour saturation, but ISOs of 25, 50 and 64, I've always thought 400 was fast. You may have a point that Leica should keep up with the competition in high ISO noise (and I'm sure they will), but they also need to make sure they don't lose sight of the core issue - a good image, taken with outstanding glass on a small camera with the bare minimum of anything which does not add to a better picture. LCD doesn't fit into that for me. I'm seriously not interested in spending time peering into the LCD screen. If anything, that detracts from the picture taking process - one which starts in my head. Cheers John Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
roydonian Posted June 13, 2011 Share #343 Posted June 13, 2011 And what if you need more dof and 100 ISO is far too slow anyway? Would you still be glad with the M9, while other cameras easily can offer you much, much more, for less money? I’m not sure that I understand your question. If I want more depth of field, I will stop down and if necessary would increase the ISO. But given the sort of photography that I do, I’m unlikely to have a need for lots of DOF in dim light. I was shooting in Rouen cathedral a few weeks ago and found 800 ISO enough when using an f2.8 lens. On only a few occasions did I have to go to 1250 ISO. And at the party, I'd probably use the fast glass and shoot wide open. There lenses were bought in the pre-digital era when they were needed to cope with poor lighting conditions, so they are available for use. I just wish that some of the photographers who submit photos to me for publication would invest in high-speed lenses so that they can throw backgrounds out of focus. For my needs, I'm not sure that there are other cameras that would offer me "much, much more". The only deficiencies that I can see in my M8 are the crop factor, and the problem - common to my M2, M5 and M6 - that thick-lensed eyeglasses prevent me from seeing the wider-angle brightline frames. When I finally get my cataracts fixed, my eyes should have a better focus, allowing thinner lenses that might help with the viewfinder problem. Best regards, Doug Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlesphoto99 Posted June 13, 2011 Share #344 Posted June 13, 2011 Your friends have a party Some people take pictures. Just to use it as a memory. The light is low. No problem for a X 100, or a Canon or Nikon, that several non professionals own nowadays. You have a Leica M9. For you there is a problem. You payed much more money than the others. Far more. Blah, blah, blah...... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest raoul1 Posted June 13, 2011 Share #345 Posted June 13, 2011 Chances are the X100, the Canon and Nikon in that scenario also have a built-in flash. You may have a point that Leica should keep up with the competition in high ISO noise (and I'm sure they will), but they also need to make sure they don't lose sight of the core issue - a good image, taken with outstanding glass on a small camera with the bare minimum of anything which does not add to a better picture. LCD doesn't fit into that for me. I'm seriously not interested in spending time peering into the LCD screen. If anything, that detracts from the picture taking process - one which starts in my head. Cheers John Oh boy, after a good sentence, besides the word may, it goes on. And on. One cannot make it clear to this forum, how many arguments one is using. Ofcourse Leica has to compete. Every firm has to do that. The Leica camera is behind, no matter how good the glass is. ( And it is). Too far behind. The LCD screen: sometimes one needs to control if the picture is sharp. I'm not going to explain when that is specially needed, think about it. With a Leica it is hard to do, because of the quality of its LCD. And now for the last time: sometimes or often one needs to shoot fast. Sometimes or often one needs high ISO. Sometimes or often one needs a fast buffer, and often one needs an excellent dynamic range. The Leica M lacks it all. No doubt. But we do get a M9-P. Without a logo. In hammertone or chrome. Hurray! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pop Posted June 13, 2011 Share #346 Posted June 13, 2011 ... The LCD screen: sometimes one needs to control if the picture is sharp. I'm not going to explain when that is specially needed, think about it. With a Leica it is hard to do, because of the quality of its LCD. And now for the last time: sometimes or often one needs to shoot fast. Sometimes or often one needs high ISO. Sometimes or often one needs a fast buffer, and often one needs an excellent dynamic range. The Leica M lacks it all. No doubt. .. Sorry, I completely fail to see the problem. Why don't you buy a camera with a large, fast, brilliant and sharp LCD, high ISO, fast buffer and excellent dynamic range which is suited for fast shooting if such are your needs? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted June 14, 2011 Share #347 Posted June 14, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) Oh boy, after a good sentence, besides the word may, it goes on. And on. One cannot make it clear to this forum, how many arguments one is using. Ofcourse Leica has to compete. Every firm has to do that. The Leica camera is behind, no matter how good the glass is. ( And it is). Too far behind. The LCD screen: sometimes one needs to control if the picture is sharp. I'm not going to explain when that is specially needed, think about it. With a Leica it is hard to do, because of the quality of its LCD. And now for the last time: sometimes or often one needs to shoot fast. Sometimes or often one needs high ISO. Sometimes or often one needs a fast buffer, and often one needs an excellent dynamic range. The Leica M lacks it all. No doubt. But we do get a M9-P. Without a logo. In hammertone or chrome. Hurray! Hmm. Leaving aside any attempt at basic politeness, do I understand your point that you use the LCD to check your focus? Is that your point? Over on another thread, you also said this about Thorsten Overgaard's M9 review: ' With a Leica you should not use the aperture. If you got an f 1.4 lens, use it an f 1.4. And if it's a f 2.0 lens, use it an f 2.0. Tha'ts how they are designed, for fully open use and photographing in low light.' Thus Thorsten Overgaard. If someone is writing things like this, one cannot take the writer serious. Lenses do need a camera. Well, if anything is true is that the Leica M8 and 9 are not good at all in low light. Lenses have to compensate that? Besides of that we need some dof in most cases, and at full aperture most lenses ( yes also Leica lenses) perform less good. I must confess, I find your points in various threads hard to pin down, apart from an apparent desire to be controversial, if not offensive. There are many photographers on this forum who don't want live view, who don't chimp, and don't use the LCD for checking focus. I appreciate you're making your points "for the last time" - I only hope that it is. Yes, Leica needs to be competitive, and you might be correct that higher ISO performance will make it more competitive. I agree that the M9 is not cast in stone. In fact, I would probably agree with a lot of what you post, if you went about it in a more agreeable way. Cheers John Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
roydonian Posted June 14, 2011 Share #348 Posted June 14, 2011 The Leica camera is behind, no matter how good the glass is. ( And it is). Too far behind. Soon after the M9 was launched, LFI magazine tested it against the Canon 5D Mk II, and concluded that in terms of noise, the 5D could be taken to 5000 ISO before it had a level of noise that equalled that of the M9 at 1250, but paid a slight price in terms of fine detail and colour. At baseline speed, the M9 showed better definition and colour rendering than the 5D. The LCD screen: sometimes one needs to control if the picture is sharp. I'm not going to explain when that is specially needed, think about it. With a Leica it is hard to do, because of the quality of its LCD. My own normal approach is to use the rangefinder to place the plane of sharp focus where I want it. A quick glance at the DOF markings on my lens will show me the range of subjects likely to be acceptably sharp, and a quick readjustment can be made to optimise this. It takes less time to do than to describe. When I go on outings with the local camera club, the younger members are often surprised by the fact that I don’t ‘chimp’. I only use the image on the LCD screen if I want to check the exposure under tricky lighting conditions, find out if a passerby had walked into the edge of my picture, or to see if camera shake spoiled a photo taken with a very low shutter speed. And now for the last time: sometimes or often one needs to shoot fast. Sometimes or often one needs high ISO. Sometimes or often one needs a fast buffer, and often one needs an excellent dynamic range. The Leica M lacks it all. “One” (a specific photographer with a specific subject) may well have these needs. But they are not universal requirements, as the wording “We need…” in your original posting seemed to be implying. No camera is good for all tasks; there are times when I find the Digilux 3 SLR a better tool for the job than the rangefinder-based M8.2. On a technical point, it is my understanding that high dynamic range and high ISO are incompatible requirements. As the camera applies greater amplification to the output from the sensor in order to obtain ISO ratings above the baseline value, the dynamic range falls. But we do get a M9-P. Without a logo. In hammertone or chrome. Hurray! The M9-P is not pretending to be the follow-on model to the M9. The new model to replace the M9 will presumably be the M10. A small company with Leica’s limited financial and development resources and low production rate cannot turn out a new model every 18 months the way that the ‘big players’ do. For users who see a need to always have ‘state-of-the-art’ sensor technology, Leica is not a sensible choice, and never will be. Even if the M10 were to match the best ISO performance of its contemporaries at the time of being launched, within two years Canon and Nikon's faster development cycle would probably have 'moved the goalposts'. Best regards, Doug Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter H Posted June 14, 2011 Share #349 Posted June 14, 2011 I can think of at least ten circumstances in which a VW Passat is better than a Porsche. Where it is unarguably, demonstrably, definitively better. I think I'll go on a Porsche Forum and explain to them why they're all wrong. And then I'm going to prove why potato is better than smoked salmon. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ecaton Posted June 14, 2011 Share #350 Posted June 14, 2011 Too far behind. The LCD screen: sometimes one needs to control if the picture is sharp. I'm not going to explain when that is specially needed, think about it. With a Leica it is hard to do, because of the quality of its LCD. Poor old M 35mm film shooters, their LCDs were even worse, not usable to control sharpness. How did they come home with all these great shots? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Overgaard Posted June 14, 2011 Share #351 Posted June 14, 2011 Reminds me of the 1600mm f/5.6 lens that was special made by Leica and which they have one of the preproduction models of in the store in Solms. The buyer also had a Mercedes 4WD car fittet as tripod, little did he know how large the market would be in 2011 for this tripod to use to carry around the M9-P camera that finally held all the features people asked for. The passenger seat has been omitted to make space for the users manual which states prominently on the first page: "Welcome as a Leica M9-P user. Congratulations with the most simple camera, now featuring all the advancements you ever asked for. As part of this Leica M9-P we also invented the worlds first walk-in-manual which feature a shower with hot and cold water." Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Rawcs Posted June 14, 2011 Share #352 Posted June 14, 2011 This tread seems to have become a discussion about the merits, or otherwise, of the M9-P: a camera that has not even been released yet with a specification that the majority of us here know nothing of. I'm hoping that the camera is not just a cosmetic exercise but that it addresses some of the wants of many people who own, or who are considering purchasing the camera. Weather sealing would be good, along with the ability to read all SD cards. If it is as slim as the film MP I'll be happy, very happy. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpattison Posted June 14, 2011 Share #353 Posted June 14, 2011 Ecaton,... Poor old M 35mm film shooters, their LCDs were even worse, not usable to control sharpness. How did they come home with all these great shots? That's the best comment to end this thread on! John Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
M. Valdemar Posted June 14, 2011 Share #354 Posted June 14, 2011 The Contax AX was a film SLR that could autofocus by moving the film plane, rather than focussing the lens. It used manual Contax/Yashica mount lenses. Leica should contract with a Japanese maker with to produce a small, light, classic M-type camera with this feature and three options: 1) Full AF with manual M-lenses. 2) Focus confirmation at the sensor, seen in the viewfinder. This would eliminate problems with fast lenses not being aligned properly. Live view. 3) It could revert to full classic M rangefinder use, just like an M9. With one exception. When a lens is mounted, set the lens to infinity and push the "collimate" button. The sensor plane will adjust to extreme accurate focus with that lens, and will be far more accurate than the M9 is now. With Japanese miniaturization, the new M could be smaller and lighter than the M9 is now, and the camera could have dead-on focus with all lenses, manual focus or auto AF. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xmas Posted June 14, 2011 Share #355 Posted June 14, 2011 Ecaton,...Poor old M 35mm film shooters, their LCDs were even worse, not usable to control sharpness. How did they come home with all these great shots? That's the best comment to end this thread on! John Naaa M users are sissies, they dont need to carry scissors just to trim their leaders (bit like memory cards) to get them into the Barnack. Noel Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted June 14, 2011 Share #356 Posted June 14, 2011 Umm - it is a helix system that is adjusted at three points: infinity, close-up and 3m. There is no guarantee that a lens correct at infinity will be so at 1 m, unless the whole system is calibrated. Just like now without in-camera trickery. So this system would solve exactly nothing with the added complication that the sensor location would have to move within extremely narrow tolerances, unlike the Contax film SLR , which was quite problematic anyway. The Contax AX was a film SLR that could autofocus by moving the film plane, rather than focussing the lens. It used manual Contax/Yashica mount lenses. Leica should contract with a Japanese maker with to produce a small, light, classic M-type camera with this feature and three options: 1) Full AF with manual M-lenses. 2) Focus confirmation at the sensor, seen in the viewfinder. This would eliminate problems with fast lenses not being aligned properly. Live view. 3) It could revert to full classic M rangefinder use, just like an M9. With one exception. When a lens is mounted, set the lens to infinity and push the "collimate" button. The sensor plane will adjust to extreme accurate focus with that lens, and will be far more accurate than the M9 is now. With Japanese miniaturization, the new M could be smaller and lighter than the M9 is now, and the camera could have dead-on focus with all lenses, manual focus or auto AF. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted June 14, 2011 Share #357 Posted June 14, 2011 The Contax AX was a film SLR that could autofocus by moving the film plane, rather than focussing the lens. It used manual Contax/Yashica mount lenses. Leica should contract with a Japanese maker with to produce a small, light, classic M-type camera with this feature... Aren't there issues with longer focal lengths? I'm thinking in particular of the 135mm, not sure if there's be a problem with the 90mm. Also I seem to remember that there are other issues with lenses that use floating elements since the lenses have to be set to infinity when used by the AX system. I'd also be interested in knowing what sort of tolerances the moving sensor has to be made to - I realise it can be done, but at what cost? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xmas Posted June 14, 2011 Share #358 Posted June 14, 2011 The Contax AX was a film SLR that could autofocus by moving the film plane, rather than focussing the lens. It used manual Contax/Yashica mount lenses. Leica should contract with a Japanese maker with to produce a small, light, classic M-type camera with this feature and three options: 1) Full AF with manual M-lenses. 2) Focus confirmation at the sensor, seen in the viewfinder. This would eliminate problems with fast lenses not being aligned properly. Live view. 3) It could revert to full classic M rangefinder use, just like an M9. With one exception. When a lens is mounted, set the lens to infinity and push the "collimate" button. The sensor plane will adjust to extreme accurate focus with that lens, and will be far more accurate than the M9 is now. With Japanese miniaturization, the new M could be smaller and lighter than the M9 is now, and the camera could have dead-on focus with all lenses, manual focus or auto AF. There is nothing to stop Zeiss doing just that, with Cosina, no current patents etc. You should be on a Zeiss fora not here. Alas even Zeiss are gonna spot the sky blue thinking, but you never know. Get a X100 while you wait... Noel Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjh Posted June 14, 2011 Share #359 Posted June 14, 2011 The Contax AX was a film SLR that could autofocus by moving the film plane, rather than focussing the lens. It used manual Contax/Yashica mount lenses. Leica should contract with a Japanese maker with to produce a small, light, classic M-type camera with this feature and three options: Oh please, not again … I had once likened that idea to a vampire in that one should drive a stake through its heart to put it to rest. But apparently it is more like a zombie, slowly but steadily lurching on, devouring peoples’ brains along the way. Focusing by moving the film plane wasn’t even such a great idea to begin with but with internally focusing lenses it has lost all its remaining appeal. Not to mention that a camera designed along these lines would be anything but small. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
M. Valdemar Posted June 14, 2011 Share #360 Posted June 14, 2011 You all sound like forum posters 5 or 6 years ago kvetching about why it was "impossible" to make a full frame rangefinder Leica. Every week, someone else explained why it was "impossible", now you all fall over each other to buy M9's and lenses for it. Wait a few years. The Chinese will ramp up to build cameras just like they now build high-end hi-fi equipment. There will be dozens of AF Leica-clones that will work fine. And the silly statement "get an X100". That seems to be the answer to anyone who imagines any alternate creative ideas. As soon as an AF Leica comes out, you'll all pay any price for one. Every shift in technology brings out the sourpusses. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.