jaapv Posted June 10, 2011 Share #41 Posted June 10, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) We'll see how much of it is true. Perhaps, but some of his suggestions would cause another huge rush to upgrade, as we saw with the M9. Think about it ... greater resolution, greater speed, greater dynamic range, better high ISO, better LCD ... what's not to like with those? You don't think they are coming? Maybe, but it would not help me much. the M9 is already far more capable than I am. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted June 10, 2011 Posted June 10, 2011 Hi jaapv, Take a look here Open Letter to Leica — 10 Ways To Improve the M9 Rangefinder. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Double Negative Posted June 10, 2011 Share #42 Posted June 10, 2011 All of this complaining about a camera just strikes me as odd in the first place. It's like buying a hammer and then complaining it doesn't drive screws. Either you didn't do your homework when buying the camera, or if you don't own one - what ARE you complaining about? Go buy something that fits your needs, then. And yes, if all you have is a hammer and a box of screws... You'll FIND a way to make it work. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
zlatkob Posted June 10, 2011 Share #43 Posted June 10, 2011 The engineering trade-offs. Battery size & weight, and color quality for example. It depends. The M9 offered several significant improvements over the M8 without significant engineering tradeoffs. Time after time, people who dare to suggest improvements to the M are treated as cretins and complainers because a) they fail to recognize the complete perfection that is in the M already, they don't understand the M or the Leica philosophy, c) they want the M to be a different camera entirely such as a DSLR or medium format, or d) they think they can better run the company. However, when Leica introduces improvements to the M (such as more resolution and better high ISO), they are welcomed as highly desirable. Witness the eagerness to buy the rumored M9-P because it will reportedly have a more durable exterior. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jsrockit Posted June 10, 2011 Share #44 Posted June 10, 2011 What kills me about these types of articles is that the reviewer seems to not want a Leica M, but something else... why do they insist on wanting the M9 to be something it isn't? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Herb Sennet Posted June 10, 2011 Share #45 Posted June 10, 2011 I agree with the author in many points... +1 Herb Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pop Posted June 10, 2011 Share #46 Posted June 10, 2011 ... people who dare to suggest improvements to the M are treated as cretins and complainers ... However, when Leica introduces improvements to the M (such as more resolution and better high ISO), they are welcomed as highly desirable. I object to this misrepesentation. There are indeed many members who suggest some change or other. Many of the suggested changes are either not possible to implement or not possible without impairing other properties of the camera. Some of the suggested changes are by no means desirable to most of the current users and many of the prospective ones. Some of the members who propose such changes are then much surprised that quite a few other members decline to regard those as "improvements". The M9 does not offer "more resolution". It offers a larger sensor with more pixels at the same resolution. If you can not tell one from the other, you are not qualified to discuss technical specifications for any digital camera. A sensor which covers the same area as the image on film clearly has advantages, even financial ones, for those M users who use both digital and film cameras. An increased sensitivity to light is indeed beneficial in some situations. However, most users of the digital M cameras have their priorities sorted, and more sensitive sensors seem not to rank very highly. I'd be quite surprised if a largish number of owners changed from the M8 to the M9 just on account of that particular change. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Washington Posted June 10, 2011 Share #47 Posted June 10, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) I’ll have to give this all some serious thought for a second or two. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pop Posted June 10, 2011 Share #48 Posted June 10, 2011 I’ll have to give this all some serious thought for a second or two. Give it a second thought, too. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
zlatkob Posted June 10, 2011 Share #49 Posted June 10, 2011 The M9 does not offer "more resolution". It offers a larger sensor with more pixels at the same resolution. If you can not tell one from the other, you are not qualified to discuss technical specifications for any digital camera. A sensor which covers the same area as the image on film clearly has advantages, even financial ones, for those M users who use both digital and film cameras. Ouch! Should have written "more pixels". Excuse me for making such a very grave error. Clearly I have no clue as to any digital camera. An increased sensitivity to light is indeed beneficial in some situations. However, most users of the digital M cameras have their priorities sorted, and more sensitive sensors seem not to rank very highly. I'd be quite surprised if a largish number of owners changed from the M8 to the M9 just on account of that particular change. The M9 made a number of valued improvements to the "all I'll ever need" M8, and together these caused owners to buy the M9. Likewise, an M10 that incorporates even a few improvements requested by the "complainers" will be a hot item flying off the store shelves. Happily, Leica does make improvements and does not stand still. Of course, not every idea for an improvement is a good one, but there is a strong tendency here to dismiss them all, even the good ones, as somehow being offensive and silly. Improvements in color, resolution, dynamic range, high ISO, exterior finish, LCD, speed, buffer, battery, etc. --- "Not needed!" --- until they appear in the next product. And then the people who dismissed the requested improvement will be the first to buy. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xmas Posted June 10, 2011 Share #50 Posted June 10, 2011 It depends. The M9 offered several significant improvements over the M8 without significant engineering tradeoffs. Just a bit more expensive as well, the hike seemed a bit illogical, even if the internal castings were replaced... Ripping the udder of a milk cow - springs to mind. Noel Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pop Posted June 10, 2011 Share #51 Posted June 10, 2011 Ouch! Should have written "more pixels". Excuse me for making such a very grave error. If it matters at all, you should have written "sensor larger in area". That's what apparently attracted most M8 users to the M9. The number of pixels was a rather secondary consideration, it seems, and many would have been just as happy if not more with larger pixels instead of more pixels. Well, some just wanted to have the latest. That's always a consideration for some of our esteemed members. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill Posted June 10, 2011 Share #52 Posted June 10, 2011 Well, some just wanted to have the latest. That's always a consideration for some of our esteemed members. Sadly so... I've always felt that part of the negative reaction to the S2 when it came out was that it took pole position in the Leica lineup but at a price point that put it out of reach of many of the "latest and greatest" crowd. Regards, Bill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted June 10, 2011 Share #53 Posted June 10, 2011 The situation with higher end digital cameras is that they often do not have the latest technology that is available in the lower end consumer models that are updated more regularly and play in a more competitive higher volume market. This has been true on Canons, Nikons and MF backs too. The original 1Ds had a much poorer screen than the Canon 2.3 MP p&s models available at the time and the electronics for processing and reviewing images and magnifying them was much slower and had a cruder interface in the 1Ds. I have a hard time reviewing images on the 1Ds at this point. Of course the camera still sold because there was nothing else like it at the time, and later models overcame these issues but did not always have the "latest and greatest." E.g. some of the lower end DSLRs now have built in electronic levels which would be very handy to architectural photographers. But the higher end cameras don't have this feature yet and are often playing catch-up. (With some exceptions.) Regardless of brand, at some point the speed, image, quality and features reach a level where they do most of what you want from a camera and there is no reason to upgrade unless something in the new model really makes a difference to you. I'd put a real premium on having built in precise levels but many people would never even look at them. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter H Posted June 10, 2011 Share #54 Posted June 10, 2011 Sadly so... I've always felt that part of the negative reaction to the S2 when it came out was that it took pole position in the Leica lineup but at a price point that put it out of reach of many of the "latest and greatest" crowd. Regards, Bill I'm sure that's right. But don't we all go to some lengths to justify our own choices and preferences, even if sometimes only to ourselves? It would be easy (and often tempting) to dismiss the "latest and greatest crowd" as being somehow superficial or lacking in some sort of discerning intelligence, even perhaps not being hard-core photographers but rather techno-addicts, but I suspect that may be as unfair as it would be to dismiss those of us who enjoy more tradition, one might say proven, tools. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill Posted June 10, 2011 Share #55 Posted June 10, 2011 Peter, I'm not really knocking the "L&G", per se, just amused by their antics. There are always those who MUST have the newest toy on the block before everyone else. They must ride a massive emotional rollercoaster as they experience the buzz of anticipation, the thrill of the chase, the elation of acquisition... followed by buyers' remorse at the amount of money they have spent and and worse, finding themselves beta testers for bleeding edge innovations. They go from expressions of delight to starting "Perfidious Leica! J'accuse!!" threads overnight. I couldn't live like that. But, we should thank them. They do a valuable job of testing, and of paying top dollar to fund Leica's next developments. They also feed a healthy secondhand market with their cast-offs. Long live the L&Gs I say. "After you", I say Regards, Bill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosuna Posted June 10, 2011 Share #56 Posted June 10, 2011 Regardless of brand, at some point the speed, image, quality and features reach a level where they do most of what you want from a camera and there is no reason to upgrade unless something in the new model really makes a difference to you. I'd put a real premium on having built in precise levels but many people would never even look at them. It is difficult for Canon or Nikon additional and significant improvements to the professional models. You can improve the 1Ds and D3x cameras, of course, with a myriad of minor changes and new capabilities for a specific public (video features, etc), but for many photographers with a 7,000 euros spent on a current model it is difficult to justify another large investment 2 or 3 years later on a new (marginally) improved model. Lets see how Canon has solved this dilemma this August, when the 1Ds Mark IV is presented. The situation of the M9 camera is a bit different because there is much more room for important improvements in basic elements of the camera (sensor, processor, screen, electronics, interface...), and that is good for Leica. They will sell a lot of M10 cameras as well. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildlightphoto Posted June 10, 2011 Share #57 Posted June 10, 2011 It depends. The M9 offered several significant improvements over the M8 without significant engineering tradeoffs. Faster frame rates and higher ISO certainly will, a bigger LCD may also. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jto555 Posted June 10, 2011 Share #58 Posted June 10, 2011 Wow, a lot of people really jumped on the 'How dare he' band wagon. While the M9 is one of the best cameras around today for image quality, WHEN it is improved most of those posters will be selling their M9's for the new M. Just look at all the posts about the M9-P. Right, where do I put my name down for the M11??? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xmas Posted June 10, 2011 Share #59 Posted June 10, 2011 Hi They will need a rebate if they dont have a new model soon cause the M9 is starting to occupy dealer shelf space. The M9 was a first one would not expect a M10 to sell as well, A large % of M9 sales were to new M customers hence a part reason of the major shortage of lenses. The new top plate will sell some more M9, or lead to more upgrades, I an stopped in the street as M9 owners read the top plate script on my M2, and drool on it... The M9 is a bit like the M3 or M2 they made a lot of bodies at introduction. Only a small % of M9 owners will upgrade, independent of any changes e.g. not everyone will want more ISO, it is difficult to visualise how nice the colors are in low light. The biggest lever for new sales and upgrades from M9 to M10 would be $. Leica did that with the M2, seems unlikely... This might get more M8 people to upgrade as well to M9 and M10. The thing that confuses me is how well RD/1 are holding up in service reliability and 2nd hand cost. Noel Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted June 10, 2011 Share #60 Posted June 10, 2011 But look also at the large number of M8 users who do not have any inclination to buy an M9. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.