M9 and M9-P, the End of an Era

[TomB_tx]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Yes - however, smaller would be quite a feat. I would like a clip-on EVF (Visoflex IV) for a simple reason - to be able to use my R lenses the way the were intended. It would take a CMos and more integrated electronics to enable this wish, but that would automatically improve battery life and high ISO performance. That is all. The M9 is rather close to the ideal digital rangefinder camera imo. Still, Leica has managed to surprise us time and time again over the last few years, let's wait and see what they come up with.

Jaap,

Good thought! While I prefer optical viewfinders, an M with EFV option could make use of R lenses easy. I have an R-lens to M-body adapter that works well, but mainly feasible for use with Viso for macro. An M EFV could be a good solution, if designed right.

Of course, auto-diaphragm linkage in the adapter would likely be asking too much...

[wolfloid]

I read that Stefan Daniel said, the resolution of the current screen cannot be improved because of the dimensions of the body. A better screen would rise the dimensions of it and the body.

 

And you believe this? Even though every single other camera in production, from the cheapest point and shoot up has a bigger and better screen.

 

The Nex and NX cameras are half the size with far, far superior screens, both in size and resolution.

 

The CCD sensor may still be a limitation, but technology is moving fast. As soon as They can find a workable solution for ultra wide angle lenses, with a rangefinder register on a CMOS FF, then there will be a decent screen, faster processing rates and higher, clean ISO.

[mjh]

And you believe this? Even though every single other camera in production, from the cheapest point and shoot up has a bigger and better screen.

If you take a look at the body design you will see that Leica couldn’t fit a significantly larger than 2.5" display and there were (probably still are) no higher resolution display panels available in that form factor. That doesn’t imply that the body dimensions as such would preclude switching to a larger and higher resolution display. For example, a design based on the M9 Ti would allow for much greater freedom and could easily accommodate a 3" display with 921.000 pixels or whatever is on the market nowadays. I wouldn’t be surprised at all if the M10 should be designed that way.

[AlanJW]

Having some vision issues, and I will be very happy if there is some form of EVF with focus peaking (like NEX). This would not require new lenses, and if it is a hybrid that can be flipped between optical and EVF that would be ideal. Adapters could allow R lenses as well. This does not require groundbreaking technology, just using existing technology to maintain the Leica feel but also to provide the assistance that newer technology offers. I am hoping that Leica can take those technologies and apply to them the precision and workmanship that we expect.

 

Because of the vision issues, I have a NEX7 on order as well as M adapter, and my understanding is the focus peaking is well done by Sony. But I would really like Leica to put their hand to it, allowing the older RF technology to live side by side with the newer.

 

I know some will think this is heresy, but those are probably also the ones who thought the aperture preferred auto exposure of the M7 was a disaster. It wasn't.

[Alnitak]

And you believe this? Even though every single other camera in production, from the cheapest point and shoot up has a bigger and better screen.

 

The Nex and NX cameras are half the size with far, far superior screens, both in size and resolution.

 

The CCD sensor may still be a limitation, but technology is moving fast. As soon as They can find a workable solution for ultra wide angle lenses, with a rangefinder register on a CMOS FF, then there will be a decent screen, faster processing rates and higher, clean ISO.

 

I'm not sure of the roots of this myth, but there is NO reason that a CMOS sensor can't be used, wide angle lenses or not. Look at all of the many cameras out there with much shorter registration distances and CMOS sensors. In fact, given the architecture of CMOS sensors, there are arguably reasons why they could solve this problem much more elegantly than a CCD sensor.

 

If we don't see a CMOS sensor it will be because of business decisions, not technological. That said, I'd be shocked if we don't see CMOS. Virtually no one uses CCDs any more, and since Leica doesn't fab their own sensors, they are going to have to turn to someone who can fab for them--and Kodak is looking like a lousy choice. I'd expect something from Sony or Dalsa.

 

Jeff

[Alnitak]

I know some will think this is heresy, but those are probably also the ones who thought the aperture preferred auto exposure of the M7 was a disaster. It wasn't.

 

If you read all of the replies in this thread, there are people who still think this is the case. The Luddites will always be with us. They forget that at one point the Ur Leica was revolutionary new technology.

 

Jeff

[Borbarad]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'm not sure of the roots of this myth, but there is NO reason that a CMOS sensor can't be used, wide angle lenses or not. Look at all of the many cameras out there with much shorter registration distances and CMOS sensors. In fact, given the architecture of CMOS sensors, there are arguably reasons why they could solve this problem much more elegantly than a CCD sensor.

 

If we don't see a CMOS sensor it will be because of business decisions, not technological. That said, I'd be shocked if we don't see CMOS. Virtually no one uses CCDs any more, and since Leica doesn't fab their own sensors, they are going to have to turn to someone who can fab for them--and Kodak is looking like a lousy choice. I'd expect something from Sony or Dalsa.

 

Jeff

 

Well no. A CMOS is not superior. It actuall is only cheaper to produce and its easier to pull HighISO. That's it ( and video and liveview due to less heat production)

 

A CCD gives you far better color fidellity at base iso. The noise readout is also superior at base ISO. It's one of thoses reason why the Large Format Systems are using them. Also in the high end projector business they are key. Just look at the technical information you will find at Dalsa and "Kodak" ( wherever that's now moved to..).

 

 

However if you are a believer of dpreview and DXO then well....

 

B

[Alnitak]

Well no. A CMOS is not superior. It actuall is only cheaper to produce and its easier to pull HighISO. That's it ( and video and liveview due to less heat production)

 

A CCD gives you far better color fidellity at base iso. The noise readout is also superior at base ISO. It's one of thoses reason why the Large Format Systems are using them. Also in the high end projector business they are key. Just look at the technical information you will find at Dalsa and "Kodak" ( wherever that's now moved to..).

 

 

However if you are a believer of dpreview and DXO then well....

 

B

 

Read what I wrote before you just kick back a standard reply. I never said CMOS was superior.

 

But let's review what you said. "Far better color fidelity at base ISO" is just bunk. CCD and CMOS sensors are purely black and white devices. All they do is capture photons and quantize them. The color information all comes from the Bayer arrays and has nothing to do with the sensor being CCD or CMOS.

 

Noise readout theoretically can be better at base ISO with a CCD device, but if you do your research you'll find that in practice the technology on the CMOS side has advanced far enough that this is a negligible difference today. There are advantages to the architecture of CMOS sensors in terms of native (as in per-pixel, at the level of the electronics) noise suppression that aren't available with a CCD; this same architecture is what makes it easier to deliver high-speed shooting and video so easily with CMOS sensors as well.

 

While CCD's historically had better fill factors, the use of gapless micro-lenses has pretty much nullified any advantage there, and the current move towards back-illuminated sensors will make that a totally moot point.

 

And yes, you are right, CMOS sensors were historically cheaper to make because they could leverage existing fab technology. That same technology when combined with the architecture of a CMOS sensor has also allowed them to be more flexible in their application and has allowed CMOS sensors to advance rapidly in quality and sophistication.

[mjh]

“CMOS sensors are cheaper” is just another myth. Years ago, CMOS sensors were indeed cheaper to produce, but then the images you got from those sensors were just awful, mostly because of noise. Consequently CMOS technology was found only in toy cameras, webcams, and the like. Since then, CMOS sensors have much improved in quality but have also increased in price. Today, cost isn’t really a factor in deciding between CCD or CMOS.

[Borbarad]

Read what I wrote before you just kick back a standard reply. I never said CMOS was superior.

 

But let's review what you said. "Far better color fidelity at base ISO" is just bunk. CCD and CMOS sensors are purely black and white devices. All they do is capture photons and quantize them. The color information all comes from the Bayer arrays and has nothing to do with the sensor being CCD or CMOS.

 

Noise readout theoretically can be better at base ISO with a CCD device, but if you do your research you'll find that in practice the technology on the CMOS side has advanced far enough that this is a negligible difference today. There are advantages to the architecture of CMOS sensors in terms of native (as in per-pixel, at the level of the electronics) noise suppression that aren't available with a CCD; this same architecture is what makes it easier to deliver high-speed shooting and video so easily with CMOS sensors as well.

 

While CCD's historically had better fill factors, the use of gapless micro-lenses has pretty much nullified any advantage there, and the current move towards back-illuminated sensors will make that a totally moot point.

 

And yes, you are right, CMOS sensors were historically cheaper to make because they could leverage existing fab technology. That same technology when combined with the architecture of a CMOS sensor has also allowed them to be more flexible in their application and has allowed CMOS sensors to advance rapidly in quality and sophistication.

 

Well, this

 

"If we don't see a CMOS sensor it will be because of business decisions, not technological."

 

implies that a CMOS is superior. That's why I have made that statement. Anyway.

 

Being a 4/3 User I have seen, read and followed endless CMOS vs CCD discussions, esp. between the CMOS fan-curve (mainly due to better speed, high-ISO, LiveView and Video) and the E1 Owners Club (usses a FFT CD wich is basically the Grandpa of the ones used in the M8 and M9). As you could guess I'm a E1 Owner and one of those key reason why I went for the M9 was that I could have a 35mm Kodak Sensor (also I'm not a Speed Junky and HighISO isn't a priority for me).

 

As for cost, yes you a right, they are nowadays a lot closer due due the changes they had to made to get close in IQ of a CCD. Production machinery should however still be cheaper (re-use etc.)

 

As for advances in technology, your a "right" but its not CMOS you are actually referring to but a NMOS. In simple terms a NMOS is a merger between a FFT CCD and a CMOS. Therefore on paper when proper engineered it should be at Base ISO as good as a CCD, but as everyone knows Panasonic isn't the brightest one in this regard.

 

No going back to (FFT) CCD vs CMOS. When it comes to what I would define as "Colour fidelity" at Base ISO a CCD is still better due to the different design approach.

 

Dalsa has it put down in simple words:

 

CCD:

"In a CCD sensor, every pixel's charge is transferred through a very limited number of output nodes (often just one) to be converted to voltage, buffered, and sent off-chip as an analog signal. All of the pixel can be devoted to light capture, and the output's uniformity (a key factor in image quality) is high."

 

CMOS

" In aCMOS sensor, each pixel has its own charge-to-voltage conversion, and the sensor often also includes amplifiers, noise-correction, and digitization circuits, so that the chip outputs digital bits. These other functions increase the design complexity and reduce the area available for light capture. With each pixel doing its own conversion, uniformity is lower. But the chip can be built to require less off-chip circuitry for basic operation"

 

However as I'm not a Sensor Nerd there are other out there able to explain this advantage in detail.... (as I said above seen and read numerous "wording wars" about this....)

 

B

[MikeD700]

I wouldn't presume anything. They don't own a controlling stake, and investment by private equity does not necessarily equate to any change in product, strategy or quality. I rather suspect that Dr. Kauffman capitalized Leica as much as he could, and its had great results. If he wanted it to grow further, faster, its only natural to recoup some of his investment and let someone else capitalize the next phase of growth. His pockets are not nearly as deep as those of Blackstone.

 

Like Apple, I suspect that Leica could see a significant wave of growth with a heavy expansion of their currently successful retail strategy. This will require capital both to build out the stores and to fill the shelves with products. This is where some well-placed capital can help execute on a proven strategy and yield a larger return more quickly. Those who like their local dealers may not like this, but I think its the wave of the future with a premium brand like Leica.

 

Like others have indicated on this thread, I suspect we'll see some additional products and frankly I'd prefer to see them come from Leica rather than be rebadged Panasonic stuff, which I don't like. I believe Leica can do better than that and fill some interesting niches, but again, that will take some capital to fund R&D. The M line and what it represents are part of the core Leica brand, and I doubt we'll see them radically alter it in any way--they'll just evolve it.

 

Jeff

 

Blackstone invests in companies or portfolios with potential, and that is obviously how they see Leica. They don't downgrade quality, but they do rationalize, something that Leica would certainly benefit from. Blackstone doesn't invest without gaining a heavy say in the target, and I wouldn't be surprised if the agreement includes the option to increase their stake. That's pretty common.

[mjh]

Well, this

 

"If we don't see a CMOS sensor it will be because of business decisions, not technological."

 

implies that a CMOS is superior.

It may be taken to imply that both types of sensor are on equal footing, but not that one would be superior over the other.

 

When it comes to what I would define as "Colour fidelity" at Base ISO a CCD is still better due to the different design approach.

The key factor here is the pixel’s full-well capacity. For a long time CCDs had an edge here but this is no longer true. While Dalsa still claims the CCDs superiority with regard to dynamic range, it doesn’t bear out in practice – cameras with CMOS sensors like the Nikon D3X actually offer more dynamic range than the M9 does, for example.

[Borbarad]

It may be taken to imply that both types of sensor are on equal footing, but not that one would be superior over the other.

 

 

The key factor here is the pixel’s full-well capacity. For a long time CCDs had an edge here but this is no longer true. While Dalsa still claims the CCDs superiority with regard to dynamic range, it doesn’t bear out in practice – cameras with CMOS sensors like the Nikon D3X actually offer more dynamic range than the M9 does, for example.

 

Yes the files the D3X produces are really damn good and the best I seen from any CMOS powered DSLR. Definitely rivals the ones you get from a M9(P).

 

As for DR well it is not only about the light capturing area but also the processing pipeline straight afterwards within the "pixel" which in my POV is quite responsible for the digital apearence of a digital captured photos( i.e. looses the textural apearence, reality).

 

B

[mwilliamsphotography]

CMOS is probably inevitable ... but it had better get a lot better really soon if they put one in a M ... (which, BTW, I am sure will be in the next M). I've shot a Sony NEX5 with the same M glass as on a M9, and cropped the M9 files to match ... and there is no comparison ... keeping in mind that Sony makes their own CMOS sensors and are in complete control of the process.

 

These little cameras with big LCDs do it by putting almost everything else in on-screen menus ... the antithesis of the Leica M shooting experience. There are already to many functions relegated to LCD control on the M9, adding more would be a disaster.

 

There are so many gadgets that different individuals emphatically want to stuff into the next M, (which are of marginal interest to the whole of the user body), that the obvious ones go unmentioned ... for example:

 

People want EVF and focus peeking and all that other e-stuff because the rangefinder is seen as imperfect ... yet 9 times out of 10, the imperfection is because they can't see the rangefinder patch clearly ... so the more elegant add-on to the M would be a step-less diopter adjustment which the M has never had. Instead, one has to order every diopter adjustment lens and experiment until they get the right one ... which few people do, and do again and again as their eyes change. How hard would that be for an optical company with a sterling reputation for mechanical excellence?

 

Simple and elegant mechanical solutions seem to escape those with an electronic addiction.

 

-Marc

[lct]

...the more elegant add-on to the M would be a step-less diopter adjustment which the M has never had...

+1

[brill64]

i just bought an m8.2. it's still a superb little camera

[dwbell]

Another elegant solution is an external ISO dial where the old rewind was. Then I don't have to look at the screen at all, ever, during a days shooting other than to check battery and card levels during a break. It's the third exposure variable, why is it that "form follows function" applies to aperture and shutter speed but not ISO? Unless, no surely not, unless form doesn't really follow function but rather it's a hashed up hark back to a previous era with digital components rammed into it?

[lct]

That's what some of us did complain about at the launch of the M8 by comparison with the R-D1.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[thighslapper]

I can't help thinking that TOO much improvement on the current M9 would be a problem for Leica.......

 

If it had high quality imagery at iso 6000+ then what would be the point in spending thousands of dollars/euros on sub f2 lenses ???

 

Any half way decent 3.5/4 would give great results without the complex and expensive optical engineering necessary to avoid the higher order aberrations involved in wide aperture lens design. More compact too.....

 

A whole swathe of M series lenses would become an unnecessary luxury.......

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[lct]

What about DoF?