swamiji Posted September 4, 2014 Share #341 Posted September 4, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) Agreed on all points, but without a giant asterisk, how can Leica claim the blanket term "faster" as written by their advertising? FASTER* *ymmv Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted September 4, 2014 Posted September 4, 2014 Hi swamiji, Take a look here The New LEICA M-P: Discreet, Faster, Harder. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
colonel Posted September 4, 2014 Share #342 Posted September 4, 2014 (edited) The issue I have is that I don't need any faster. I agree a faster CPU is always better, but for it to make a noticeable difference to the M240 it would have to be 10x faster. 2x increase wouldn't make any difference to me. I presume the next version of the M will have a bit more pixels, a bit more speed, a bit more ISO, etc. Without a compelling new feature it'll be a difficult sale to me as I think the M240 essentially solves the problem of sensor longevity, SD card compatability, telephoto lenses (with live view) and ISO which the M9/8 had. If Leica is thinking out of the box there is one feature I would absolutely love in the 2016 M, LTE built in (ie with a SIM card slot). I have found this feature on my iphone indispensable and ensures all photos are backed up to flickr with no user intervention required. They are sent to flickr as private view only. This is incredibly useful and if it could be extended to DNGs via Dropbox or other service it makes USB or SD card transfer redundant. With the iphone it's not instantaneous, but it doesn't need to be, just sending files throughout the day. Rgds Edited September 4, 2014 by colonel Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjh Posted September 4, 2014 Share #343 Posted September 4, 2014 Agreed on all points, but without a giant asterisk, how can Leica claim the blanket term "faster" as written by their advertising? As explained above … If they wanted, Leica could show an M and an M-P side by side, both set to burst mode and shooting in sync. When the M had to slow down after 4 seconds the M-P would continue shooting at the same speed for another 4 seconds. That would be faster for anyone needing 8 rather than 4 seconds shooting at 3 fps to get an important shot. But then, hey, this is advertising copy; why do we even try to divine some arcane messages from it? The camera may be faster for some functions, but surely in won’t be for all; I wouldn’t conclude without checking that the function most important to me be will indeed be faster. My stance is: Give me the specs, not advertising copy. And they better not lie in the specs. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
swamiji Posted September 4, 2014 Share #344 Posted September 4, 2014 My stance is: Give me the specs, not advertising copy. And they better not lie in the specs. +100 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
r7photo Posted September 4, 2014 Share #345 Posted September 4, 2014 Any one own / purchased new cam and can report out on camera? 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlashGordonPhotography Posted September 4, 2014 Share #346 Posted September 4, 2014 Any one own / purchased new cam and can report out on camera? I got one of the first in Oz, on release day. I feel faster and better looking. The camera is the same though.:-) Gordon 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
r7photo Posted September 4, 2014 Share #347 Posted September 4, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) Thanks Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DigitalHeMan Posted September 4, 2014 Share #348 Posted September 4, 2014 Agreed on all points, but without a giant asterisk, how can Leica claim the blanket term "faster" as written by their advertising? FASTER* *ymmv Faster can be defined in many ways, and is very subjective. You could say the camera is faster because it has the frame selector lever, and therefore you don't need to swap lenses to see different fields of view, for example Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheshireCat Posted September 4, 2014 Share #349 Posted September 4, 2014 the M240 is much faster than the M9, but it has larger files Nope. If you shoot lossless DNG, then the M240 has much smaller files than the M9. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted September 4, 2014 Share #350 Posted September 4, 2014 Nope. If you shoot lossless DNG, then the M240 has much smaller files than the M9. Are you sure? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pop Posted September 4, 2014 Share #351 Posted September 4, 2014 Nope. If you shoot lossless DNG, then the M240 has much smaller files than the M9. Mine has not: a spot check yields 24MB (M) vs 18.4MB (M9). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheshireCat Posted September 4, 2014 Share #352 Posted September 4, 2014 Mine has not: a spot check yields 24MB (M) vs 18.4MB (M9). That is because either you have enabled DNG lossy compression on the M9 (bad!), or you are checking files compressed by Lightroom (or other sw) after they have been imported to your computer. Note that we are talking about file size in the camera, as it affects buffer flush speed to SD. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheshireCat Posted September 4, 2014 Share #353 Posted September 4, 2014 Leica could show an M and an M-P side by side, both set to burst mode and shooting in sync. When the M had to slow down after 4 seconds the M-P would continue shooting at the same speed for another 4 seconds. ... the problem is that after 8 seconds from the beginning of the test, both cameras will have filled the buffer, and the speed (or should I say slugginess) will be exactly the same. So, technically, you are buying more time (4 more seconds) not more speed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheshireCat Posted September 4, 2014 Share #354 Posted September 4, 2014 I got one of the first in Oz, on release day. I feel faster and better looking. What about the huge screw ? Don't you also feel screwed ? :p Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pop Posted September 4, 2014 Share #355 Posted September 4, 2014 Thank you, I do know quite well what we're talking about. The EXIF says the M9 picture is uncompressed, as it should. I do not "import pictures into the computer" and I most certainly do not let any software do it that damages the goods. I merely copy them from the SD card to one of the HDDs. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted September 4, 2014 Share #356 Posted September 4, 2014 That is because either you have enabled DNG lossy compression on the M9 (bad!) [...] Why is it bad? . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pop Posted September 4, 2014 Share #357 Posted September 4, 2014 So, technically, you are buying more time (4 more seconds) not more speed. Nonsense. For the first four seconds of continuous shooting both cameras have the same speed. After that, the M-P will take more frames per second than the M. "More frames per second" is called "faster". The difference will grow asymptotically smaller, of course, after an additional four seconds. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pop Posted September 4, 2014 Share #358 Posted September 4, 2014 Why is it bad? . Using lossy compression on a picture will make it more difficult to process the image because you're bound to introduce more artefacts or because the desired data has gone. These are, admittedly, borderline cases, but I strongly subscribe to the doctrine that "you never know". 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted September 4, 2014 Share #359 Posted September 4, 2014 Using lossy compression on a picture will make it more difficult to process the image because you're bound to introduce more artefacts or because the desired data has gone". I wonder about exactly what information is lost. Can anyone demonstrate the bits thrown out that diminish the outcome? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted September 4, 2014 Share #360 Posted September 4, 2014 Would be nice if they brought back the different viewfinder magnifications True. Canon had that in the Seventies, although with a larger finder, but this is decades later. Why not? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now