bocaburger Posted July 17, 2014 Share #41 Posted July 17, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) I really would like to see a sensor remapping feature in a firmware update. Epson did it for the R-D1 half a dozen years ago. It would be easy to to write it so that it could recognize when remapping would be insufficient, or when the number of mapped-out pixels exceeds a predeterminted limit, and alert the owner that the sensor needs replacement. Yes, raw converters map out bad pixels but they don't do it for jpgs and so far neither does Pixel Fixer. The cost of shipping/insuring an M, and the turnaround time, is unnecessary when a couple of button presses and a few seconds of waiting time is all it takes. At least that's all it took with the RD-1 after the new firmware. Leica could write it for the M-E and make available for the M9 and M9P at the same time. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted July 17, 2014 Posted July 17, 2014 Hi bocaburger, Take a look here Did anyone go back to M9 after M240. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
jaapv Posted July 17, 2014 Share #42 Posted July 17, 2014 That would indeed be nice. The reason Leica doesn't do this is because they feel they want to remain in control of the tolerances. Each new sensor is mapped in the factory and has a varying number of mapped-out pixels. When a sensor is remapped it may well exceed the maximum number and will have to be replaced. This is difficult to implement in firmware, especially if the tolerance span is narrow. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BerndReini Posted July 18, 2014 Author Share #43 Posted July 18, 2014 One comment: if you ask."who witched back to M9" you will get a one-sided answers. Same like if you asked "who likes the new M better than the M9" just in opposite direction. I knew I would already get a biased answer by posting in the M9/MM forum rather than the M(240) forum, but first of all, I am currently an M9 owner, and I also asked for people who really went to the extreme, had experience with the M240, were invested in it, yet still went back to the M9. Either way, I felt that the responses were very helpful. My M9 works wonderfully and with two young children I feel it is the responsible thing to do skipping a generation of very expensive cameras. There will be another one, and I will feel better about spending that much money after showing some restraint. I have used the M and I would certainly enjoy owning it, but I don't feel restricted by using an M9 (or an MP, or an M7, or a Contax 645, or a Hasselblad Xpan ... or one of many more) - you are talking to a proud recovering camera addict. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sblutter Posted July 21, 2014 Share #44 Posted July 21, 2014 Right, and you're getting the results you want. Enjoy your new 35! I'm hoping the next gen M will wow me, but so far my M9P & M-E have not missed a shot due to anything avail only on 240. Once in a great while I'll be at the close end of the focusing scale wide open feeling very insecure about focus and could use LV. In those instances I shoot many frames slightly moving my body in & out, 'bracketing for focus'. 99% of the time there's one dead on. The other 1% - just weren't meant to be. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmahto Posted July 22, 2014 Share #45 Posted July 22, 2014 That would indeed be nice. The reason Leica doesn't do this is because they feel they want to remain in control of the tolerances. Each new sensor is mapped in the factory and has a varying number of mapped-out pixels. When a sensor is remapped it may well exceed the maximum number and will have to be replaced. This is difficult to implement in firmware, especially if the tolerance span is narrow. Do you mean I can buy a new camera and it may have remapped pixels? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonogilmour Posted July 23, 2014 Share #46 Posted July 23, 2014 Do you mean I can buy a new camera and it may have remapped pixels? It is basically impossible to make a perfect sensor. From what I've read, every digital camera ever has been remapped in the factory to some degree. That's why they have tolerances, and the tolerance is not 0. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted July 23, 2014 Share #47 Posted July 23, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) Do you mean I can buy a new camera and it may have remapped pixels? It will have mapped pixels 100% sure. The percentage/tolerance level will vary with the brand and the camera. If you want a flawless sensor it will cost you. They are available for technical and scientific applications. Think tens of thousands of Euros and upwards. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom0511 Posted July 31, 2014 Share #48 Posted July 31, 2014 I knew I would already get a biased answer by posting in the M9/MM forum rather than the M(240) forum, but first of all, I am currently an M9 owner, and I also asked for people who really went to the extreme, had experience with the M240, were invested in it, yet still went back to the M9. Either way, I felt that the responses were very helpful. My M9 works wonderfully and with two young children I feel it is the responsible thing to do skipping a generation of very expensive cameras. There will be another one, and I will feel better about spending that much money after showing some restraint. I have used the M and I would certainly enjoy owning it, but I don't feel restricted by using an M9 (or an MP, or an M7, or a Contax 645, or a Hasselblad Xpan ... or one of many more) - you are talking to a proud recovering camera addict. I don't think one is limited with the M9 as long as one doesn't need/want the EVF (I don't need it often). So I think you made a good decision. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
theoldman Posted July 31, 2014 Share #49 Posted July 31, 2014 After many years of M8's, M9's etc. I bought an M240 in September last year but I couldn't get on with it. Sold it and went to Nikon. Hated the Nikon so thought I'd try again with the M240. I got on better this time but still couldn't get used to the faffing and fiddling about. Sold it quite quickly and bought a Monochrom. The M8 and M9 were just lovely cameras - the M240 isn't (although it did improve a bit with the recent firmware update). I'm happy at last. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paulus Posted July 31, 2014 Share #50 Posted July 31, 2014 I have a difficult decision to make. I have the opportunity of buying a used M240 in perfect condition, but I would have to sell my M9. I tested the M240 when it first came out and a little later with the new firmware and decided it wasn't worth the money for the upgrade at that point. I recently read someone here comment that they looked through their old photos and felt like they had more photographs that absolutely spoke to them with the M9. Sometimes I look at my old M8 photos and I see that ultimate crispness that the M9 gave up for the thicker IR filter on the sensor, but I still feel that the full-frame was a worthwhile upgrade. I don't want to start the discussion from both camps about what is better and why. I have sifted through all of those and I have my own opinion on that as well. I would specifically love to hear if someone switched back to the CCD sensor after owning the M240. Switch back: No. I sold the M9 never regretting it, but I'm still looking for a nice M9P for a nice price maybe as a back up. Wat is holding me back is the noise of the M9 . I really like the M for that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronazle Posted August 1, 2014 Share #51 Posted August 1, 2014 The responses are very interesting. It is especially so in regard to the loyalty of M9 users. The M8 did not seem to generate such widespread loyalty after the M9 introduction. Regards, Ron Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted August 1, 2014 Share #52 Posted August 1, 2014 I got on better this time but still couldn't get used to the faffing and fiddling about. With what in particular? I haven't yet 'faffed' with my M…I don't think. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bocaburger Posted August 1, 2014 Share #53 Posted August 1, 2014 The M8 still is a powerhouse in terms of IQ. If that were the only criteria I would've skipped the M9 and M240 and thrown the dice w.r.t. the unrepairability issue. The crop factor was a major factor for a lot of people, but not for me so much. It was the IR filters that annoyed me no end. The red reflection attracted unwanted attention, and I had to carry a spare for each size just in case one broke. I was glad to be rid of them. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted August 1, 2014 Share #54 Posted August 1, 2014 There are so many more similarities than differences...today I'll go back to the M 9 because it happens to have a lens on it I like, tomorrow it' ll be the M, often both with different lenses. Actually three, as I will have the MM around somewhere . Anyway, all these cameras have a wonderful anti-faff system called user profiles. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mkrzyzow Posted August 6, 2014 Share #55 Posted August 6, 2014 Planned to sell M9 after getting used to M240, but after a year with the M240 decided to keep both. Use M9 mostly for daylight color shooting with the newer Leica lens designs, M240 for everything else. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waldo Posted September 3, 2014 Share #56 Posted September 3, 2014 I can understand the sentiment. It took me half a year to get the colours under control in postprocessing. Now I have a workflow lined up and could not be happier. Jaap, Can you explain a little please about what the workflow differences are for you between M9 and M240? And how you worked the M240 workflow out the way you did for your style of photography, please? Thanks Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted September 4, 2014 Share #57 Posted September 4, 2014 Mostly strictly profiling and having a red and yellow preset in the hue/saturation box in ACR In mixed/tungsten light I use the greycard setting as a WB starting point. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kloss Posted September 4, 2014 Share #58 Posted September 4, 2014 The M8 still is a powerhouse in terms of IQ. If that were the only criteria I would've skipped the M9 and M240 and thrown the dice w.r.t. the unrepairability issue. The crop factor was a major factor for a lot of people, but not for me so much. It was the IR filters that annoyed me no end. The red reflection attracted unwanted attention, and I had to carry a spare for each size just in case one broke. I was glad to be rid of them. Not a big issue for me since I almost always shoot b/w without IR filter in .jpg ooc with my M8.2 and actually do like the results. BR Thomas Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
A miller Posted September 4, 2014 Share #59 Posted September 4, 2014 I'll jump in here and state FWIW that, after nearly a year with the MM, I have come to deeply appreciate the benefits and power of very usable high ISO. One can quite easily analogize the M9 to a film camera in the sense that, with a film camera, one typically shoots with 160 or 400 (maybe 800, but for me usually portra 400) ISO film and deals with it - that's what fast lenses are for. Some have better luck than others at pushing color film beyond a single stop with pleasing results. I view my M9 the same way; it's like having a 160 ISO film that can magically be pushed one stop with hardly any degradation at all, which is even better than film. This is all fine and good, and indeed could be all that a true film photographer could ever want (other than better skin tones straight out of the camera ). But having the power to push that 160 film 3 stops and perhaps more with essentially the same pleasing results is, to me, a good enough reason to switch assuming one has the means. It also has been an entire 5 years since the release of the M9. That is an eternity in the digital camera design and advancement world. At some point in the near future, I believe the incremental returns from this great camera will begin to deminimish materially relative to its successors (and competition). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
k-hawinkler Posted September 4, 2014 Share #60 Posted September 4, 2014 That's an excellent point about the M9 getting 5 years old. I hadn't paid any attention to that fact as my M9 still looks and acts fresh! Quirks and all. ... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.