photomeme Posted March 8, 2013 Share #61 Posted March 8, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) Just so that you know for future use, "puerile" is spelt with an extra "e". Making fun of typos is infantile enough. It's worse when your target has a typing disability that has been discussed on this forum. Disgusting. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted March 8, 2013 Posted March 8, 2013 Hi photomeme, Take a look here A little disappointed. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
thighslapper Posted March 8, 2013 Share #62 Posted March 8, 2013 ...... 'I find the lack of pictures or even better dngs to be found online a bit disturbing' err...... I could post dozens of pictures a day ...... but almost all would be rubbish..... ...... but that was the same with all the Nikons I had and the M9 ..... If you want large quantities of holiday snaps 'a la Rohde' then I'm sure plenty of us could oblige. I took 100+ today ....... in the fog ...... so they are hardly representative of what the M can do and would look just as unimpressive with an M9 Thrilling ..... aren't they !! 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! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/199958-a-little-disappointed/?do=findComment&comment=2265133'>More sharing options...
pieterpronk Posted March 8, 2013 Share #63 Posted March 8, 2013 Seriously, those are better than many other pictures posted. And I think these tell me more about the M capabilities than most. Thanks! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
k-hawinkler Posted March 8, 2013 Share #64 Posted March 8, 2013 I just love the foggy pictures! Thanks. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thighslapper Posted March 8, 2013 Share #65 Posted March 8, 2013 Seriously, those are better than many other pictures posted. And I think these tell me more about the M capabilities than most. Thanks! the 3rd is 2000 iso but it's impossible to tell unless viewed at 100% .... and what noise there is can be dialled out in LR4 with almost no image degradation if you want to. I'm pleased at the amount of manipulation these images will tolerate without intrusive artefacts. Tree needed white balance adjusted and a bit of contrast to de-fog it a bit, tomb had a bit of 'clarity' for the same reason..... otherwise some reasonable images in rather 'challenging' conditions. The EVF and focus peaking is a real help at times. Just as well ....... out of the box my M back-focusses by a fair bit close up (well done Leica - thats 4 out of 5 bodies that have arrived out of spec....). When the fog clears it will be out with the screwdriver and allen key ....... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
henning Posted March 9, 2013 Share #66 Posted March 9, 2013 I couldn't agree more. Yes the M is new and certain areas of improvement but it just doesn't feel like the M9. By the way I also have the OMD. B Fortunately, the M doesn't feel like the M9 (which I've had for quite a while and will use as a backup in good light and when everything is moving quite sedately). The M is responsive, with a smooth and quiet shutter, it feels like a finished product and it doesn't get in the way of my shooting. All things the M9 didn't do well. The general speed of the new camera makes it feel like a current product, not one from the early years of digital. Yes, the M9 file quality is excellent under the right conditions, but only then. The M file quality is better over a very broad range. As many others have mentioned, there are a lot of little things that are improved on the M, but for me the M is the first digital Leica that disappears in your hands like the film M's did. As I mentioned before, the M9 was an M8 with one significant upgrade, and in my mind not terribly significant at that. Both cameras were based on a design from a desperate company that were rushed to market, and it showed in a lot of areas. Leica since the start of the Kaufmann era did a lot of things well, but they were stuck with the digital M that the pre-Kaufmann company could afford to produce. The new M is a completely different beast, and it shows. It is a complete product, not rushed to market and not half-baked. I will only be using the M9 when I can put up with a slow, cranky camera that only produces good files at the lowest ISO's. Henning Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
macjonny1 Posted March 9, 2013 Share #67 Posted March 9, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) I will only be using the M9 when I can put up with a slow' date=' cranky camera that only produces good files at the lowest ISO's. Henning[/quote'] The M9 has its quirks but your experience is a minority Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
henning Posted March 11, 2013 Share #68 Posted March 11, 2013 The M9 has its quirks but your experience is a minority The 'cranky' part is definitely subjective; the others aren't. It IS slow compared to all major system cameras today and even when it came out, and file quality at higher ISO's is not that good. These items have been accepted as true on this forum and elsewhere. Whether my opinion is a minority or not depends a bit on whom you ask. Never the less, I shall keep using the M9 as a backup in those situations where its drawbacks are not really perceptible, as I enjoy the file quality at low ISO's. Henning Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
macjonny1 Posted March 11, 2013 Share #69 Posted March 11, 2013 The 'cranky' part is definitely subjective; the others aren't. It IS slow compared to all major system cameras today and even when it came out' date=' and file quality at higher ISO's is not that good. These items have been accepted as true on this forum and elsewhere. Whether my opinion is a minority or not depends a bit on whom you ask. Never the less, I shall keep using the M9 as a backup in those situations where its drawbacks are not really perceptible, as I enjoy the file quality at low ISO's. Henning[/quote'] Ahhh...I guess it was where you said "lowest ISOs" and I suppose that is very subjective. I think M9 does fine up to1250. The new M gives about 1.3 stops more from what I am reading no? I suppose to some the new M is still only good at the lowest ISOs if they shot a D4 or something. Slowness doesn't bother me that's what a DSLR is for even the new M is a sloth compares to one. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonoslack Posted March 11, 2013 Share #70 Posted March 11, 2013 As I mentioned before, the M9 was an M8 with one significant upgrade, and in my mind not terribly significant at that. Both cameras were based on a design from a desperate company that were rushed to market, and it showed in a lot of areas. Leica since the start of the Kaufmann era did a lot of things well, but they were stuck with the digital M that the pre-Kaufmann company could afford to produce. The new M is a completely different beast, and it shows. It is a complete product, not rushed to market and not half-baked. Hi There Henning - very much to the point. Nothing is perfect, but as a digital rangefinder camera I think the new camera has really arrived. all the best Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
henning Posted March 11, 2013 Share #71 Posted March 11, 2013 Ahhh...I guess it was where you said "lowest ISOs" and I suppose that is very subjective. I think M9 does fine up to1250. The new M gives about 1.3 stops more from what I am reading no? I suppose to some the new M is still only good at the lowest ISOs if they shot a D4 or something. Slowness doesn't bother me that's what a DSLR is for even the new M is a sloth compares to one. My impression at present is that 3200 on the new camera is better than 1250 on the M9, so I would say that the M9 is good up to 640. I think that if I were converting everything To B&W, 1250 on the M9 would still do well, but there is an awful lot of colour blotchiness at 1250. I did often find myself using 1250 on the M9, but in the last year have often picked up the Olympus OM-D when things got dim, as I feel that 3200 on the OM-D is about equal to 1250 on the M9, and then the Olympus has that fabulous stabilization. Of course at base ISO I'll almost always prefer the M9. As long as I can use one of the better m43 lenses, the Olympus does well, and even if some are a stop slower than the Leica equivalents, the Olympus lets me shoot in darker conditions. I also have a FF DSLR, but that doesn't come out except for work. In any case, the M240 is quick, handles well, has decent if not top-of-the-class high ISO performance, and lets me use my M glass manually focussed. Things are good. If only I could get some more batteries…. Henning Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick_S Posted March 12, 2013 Share #72 Posted March 12, 2013 As this is the "disappointed" thread. I can say that I am disappointed that Leica did not make any attempt to claw back the overweight dimensions of the digital M cameras in the direction of the classic film M cameras. In other words include a reduction of the size of the internal electronics as part of the design brief instead of just adding features and resolution so that we move in the direction of the Mamiya 6 instead of an M4. As an example, the discontuation of the stepped M9 top plate just to fit a larger battery in the new M is an ugly compromise. Nick Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marknorton Posted March 12, 2013 Share #73 Posted March 12, 2013 As this is the "disappointed" thread. I can say that I am disappointed that Leica did not make any attempt to claw back the overweight dimensions of the digital M cameras in the direction of the classic film M cameras. In other words include a reduction of the size of the internal electronics as part of the design brief instead of just adding features and resolution so that we move in the direction of the Mamiya 6 instead of an M4. As an example, the discontuation of the stepped M9 top plate just to fit a larger battery in the new M is an ugly compromise. Nick Oh, I am quite sure they tried very hard to constrain the dimensions and weight of the new camera but what you are saying really is that in your opinion, they have failed. We've covered this goodness knows how many times but the need for a Digital M body to be thicker than its film counterparts stems from the fixed lens flange to focal plane dimension - set by the characteristics of the M lenses - and the need, behind that focal plane, to have a package - sensor, two circuit boards, LCD module and cover glass. That all conspires to make the M body some 5 mm thicker than a film M, itself made as small as possible by recessing the display in the back panel and projecting the lens mount forwards by a couple of mm. There are, sadly, no alternatives and it's a fact that all digital cameras are thicker than their film counterparts. Aside from depth, the new camera is only a little larger than a traditional film M and you overstate your case a fraction by saying the camera is moving towards a Mamiya 6. I do accept the stepped M9 top plate was lost to incorporate a microphone and the larger battery will have benefits for everyone, even the most traditional M shooter for whom chimping is anathema. As for weight, part of the increase is down to the new battery which is exactly double at 94g vs 47g. The rest of the camera weighs a back-breaking 48g more. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted March 12, 2013 Share #74 Posted March 12, 2013 As for weight, part of the increase is down to the new battery which is exactly double at 94g vs 47g. The rest of the camera weighs a back-breaking 48g more. Nick can answer for himself whether the details are worth arguing about but I agree with his criticism of the "direction" that Leica appear to be taking. I would like to think that the engineers and product designers at Leica thought long and hard before deciding that certain features were absolutely necessary and whether they could accommodate those features by making the M body just that little bit bigger. You only have to look at the photo of the M with full grip and an R zoom attached (a world away from an ergonomic wonder like the M4) to see where this product may be heading. Incidentally, you don't need to have taken apart a digital M to understand why it has been made thicker than a traditional film body. The greater thickness to accommodate the LCD, circuit boards, etc. is obvious. I guess there is also a limit to how far you can push the mount proud of the body before you run into problems retaining the traditional linkage between M lens and RF. However, I'm sure that I'm not the only one to have hoped that Leica might at least have investigated the possibility of an MP-esque totally frill free version of the digital M that does away completely with the LCD and the various tedious buttons and wheels that make the body feel thicker than it actually is. As an even more cultish camera than the Monochrom, I suspect, with the right marketing playing heavily on the idea of the discerning photographer as purist (a perceived quality that knows no bounds in the world of Leica and it's customers), it'd sell rather better than many here usually predict. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted March 12, 2013 Share #75 Posted March 12, 2013 It is hard to see how a digital camera can do away with an LCD screen. Even the R8 sported one, albeit quite rudimentary. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hepcat Posted March 12, 2013 Share #76 Posted March 12, 2013 ...but I agree with his criticism of the "direction" that Leica appear to be taking. I would like to think that the engineers and product designers at Leica thought long and hard before deciding that certain features were absolutely necessary ... You only have to look at the photo of the M with full grip and an R zoom attached (a world away from an ergonomic wonder like the M4) to see where this product may be heading. ...However, I'm sure that I'm not the only one to have hoped that Leica might at least have investigated the possibility of an MP-esque totally frill free version of the digital M that does away completely with the LCD and the various tedious buttons and wheels that make the body feel thicker than it actually is. As an even more cultish camera than the Monochrom, I suspect, with the right marketing playing heavily on the idea of the discerning photographer as purist (a perceived quality that knows no bounds in the world of Leica and it's customers), it'd sell rather better than many here usually predict. Ian, I understand your disappointment but there are a couple of things you're not factoring in. First, the camera market, like it or not, is heading to live view +video cameras as the defacto standard. Cameras without live-view (and video), particularly pro cameras, aren't competitive. Second, when Leica abandoned the R cameras for the S cameras, they lost probably a third (? guessing here) of their new camera sales market, and I can't imagine that the S cameras are selling by the truckload because of the cost. There are thousands of orphaned R lens owners out there who now have a path to continue to be able to use their R lenses... and I might add... that the M body continues to be considerably smaller than any of the R bodies, a plus for R body owners. Third your opinion, which isn't too far from mine, really doesn't count much because we're in a real minority. Although I have come to appreciate having the LCD (which initially I thought was a waste of effort) It is MY opinion, for example, that worrying about any ISO over 800 is pretty much a waste of time. I got along for twenty five years just fine shooting nothing higher than that with film, and still don't see the need. ISO 1250 on my M9 still looks a LOT better than ISO 1250 in color negative film, and I seldom shoot at anything over the native ISO. However, it appears that marketing drives these consumer demands, not necessarily need as indicated by all of the forum threads and internet articles devoted to high-ISO performance. There are folks who won't be satisfied until images shot at ISO 50,000 look like ISO 160 images look today. Last, whatever body Leica builds, they have to sell enough to be profitable. Production costs used to be amortized over years of assembly line work. The M4/M6, in its various iterations, ran from 1967 through 1998. That's a long run. Now the R&D has to be amortized over a three year production run and they have to hope to sell enough bodies in three years to make a profit as the marketing cycle will expect a new body to be released in another three years. That's a pretty short cycle for a small company with high-dollar equipment who don't sell a bazillion inexpensive consumer cameras to subsidize the equipment you and I buy. The M isn't built to appeal to the "purist" market. That's currently the purview of the M-E. The market for the M is much wider and that's a good thing for us. The more M bodies they sell, the more likely you are to see limited run bodies like the Monochrom, or the body you envision as the profits from the M will subsidize the R&D for those kinds of projects. As I've said in other threads, digital technology is essentially mature now. The production cycle will continue to slow as the ability of engineers to push the limits of physics has slowed. There will be improvements, but it won't be the free-for-all we've seen in the past 15 years in digital cameras (or digital technology in general.) We may even be seeing returns to production runs of five to seven years for pro cameras as we used to see in the mechanical camera days. That will also work to our benefit as manufacturers look to continue to sell product and find "niche" cameras to expand into (a market that Leica understands well.) Patience is a virtue. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted March 12, 2013 Share #77 Posted March 12, 2013 Just to clarify, I'm not disappointed with the new M – I like the sound of many of the design changes listed by Mark Norton. I'm simply not enthused enough to consider buying a new colour digital M at this point in time when I already have a perfectly good one (albeit currently at Solms awaiting a new sensor:mad:). On a design philosophy level I guess I'd like Leica to maintain a more basic stills photography and M lens only body (currently served by the M-E and Monochrom products) which doesn't get pulled in the direction that the new M appears to be taking. The LCD-less MP digital is more a camera I wish Leica would make rather than something I seriously expect to see. It is hard to see how a digital camera can do away with an LCD screen. Even the R8 sported one, albeit quite rudimentary. Yes, but I was referring to dropping the large LCD on the back. I agree that the camera I was describing would need a small LCD (on the top plate would be fine) for displaying battery life, shots remaining, ISO setting and, perhaps (like that on the Hasselblad H grip) a small histogram. If it was a RAW-only camera there would be no need for any buttons on the back – formatting could be done via a button located by the card slot (hidden by the base plate when the camera is being used) and ISO could be changed via a lift-up shutter speed dial like the RD1 (which is admittedly not the 'Leica way') or a simple MP/M7 style rear dial. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick_S Posted March 12, 2013 Share #78 Posted March 12, 2013 It is hard to see how a digital camera can do away with an LCD screen. Even the R8 sported one, albeit quite rudimentary. Replace the huge TV monitor on the back with a miniature display for an LCD RAW histogram, one bar per exposure zone. This would also double as a frame counter and for brief menu options e.g., [ DNG+JPEG ], [ ISO 10000 ] etc. This small information screen could be placed anywhere on the camera, even recessed in the top plate. Nick Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted March 12, 2013 Share #79 Posted March 12, 2013 Well, I'm sure it would be a nice camera, but I estimate the market will not exceed 100 pieces. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marknorton Posted March 12, 2013 Share #80 Posted March 12, 2013 Replace the huge TV monitor on the back with a miniature display for an LCD RAW histogram, one bar per exposure zone. This would also double as a frame counter and for brief menu options e.g., [ DNG+JPEG ], [ ISO 10000 ] etc. This small information screen could be placed anywhere on the camera, even recessed in the top plate. Nick And huw would you set the date and time, USB attached cuckoo-clock? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.