M9 on track

[nugat]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

A cheaper M-mount body alternative?

Yes, there was one. In 1972-74 Leica let out the CL, an amazing little camera. It outsold the M-line like 2:1 in its short life. 60,000 were produced. And then they killed it.

I just got one for 300 euro and am very happy.

Like many I was hoping that m4/3 will be the new CL. Alas problems with wide angles were an unpleasant surprise. Curious if Olympus can somehow improve on that (EP1 debutes today). The only alternative to M remains the Epson RD1-another amazing camera. It can be had these days for 1500$ and less since the brand new RD1x costs 3000$ (matsuiya store).

 

Problems with R&D on the M9 sensor? The only problem is the price of this exotic chip.

If it works on the 1.33 crop it will on the full frame (36x24). However the M8 sensor is 56% area of 34x26. The full frame M9 chip therefore will cost at least 4 (four) times the m8, the yields are progressively more difficult with the increased area (minimum power of 2). BTW how Epson solved the problem with the APS-C run of the mill sensor?

 

The IR filter? I think Pentax solved it a neat way in their new MF. You can have no IR/AA filter or "filtered" camera model. Or you can have the filter instlled/removed any time. Your choice.

 

It seems Leica simply cannot decide what to do.

 

Produce a cheaper M-body?

" It might kill our cozy high margin business ..."

 

Produce an M9 with 1.2crop/15Mpix sensor (see my thread below) and hold the price?

"oh, maybe we can squueze them for a 10k body instead?"

 

Decisions, decisions...

Meanwhile I add to my M film collection with M6 and CL and look forward to the MF Pentax at the rumoured 10k price.

[stunsworth]

The IR filter? I think Pentax solved it a neat way in their new MF. You can have no IR/AA filter or "filtered" camera model. Or you can have the filter instlled/removed any time. Your choice

 

I assume the removable filter would fit over the sensor. If so that's the solution Leica rejected because of its effect on image quality.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[jaapv]

A bit fiddly too it would seem to me. MF is a whole different thing in this respect, the angle of incidence on all lenses is quite narrow, so no vignetting by the filter to speak of the register distance quite long which makes reflection control easier, nothing to do with rangefinder design.

[jaapv]

We're all just guessing, only Leica know the outstanding issues.

 

What if they've already solved the M8 issue of the angle of light on a full frame sensor and were able to build a camera with a full frame, but they hadn't yet found a way to do away with the IR filters? If that were the case, and they couldn't solve the IR issue, then they release an M9 that requires the continued use of filters.

 

Again, this is just supposition on my part based on the fact that IR was mentioned as an issue with the M9, but not light fall off in the corners of a full frame.

Just a jigsaw of impressions, snippets of conversations, more or less reliable rumours and the smell of the wind, I think you are being conservative. Stefan specifically said that Leica think they may have licked the IR problem, but the matter is still in R&D.

And he told me that engineers have established that rangefinder accuracy on a 24x36 M sensor camera is better than on the M8. Now that could be arrived at through computer simulation, but it might have been an actual mockup or prototype.

[stunsworth]

And he told me that engineers have established that rangefinder accuracy on a 24x36 M sensor camera is better than on the M8.

 

Possibly because you don't need to magnify a full frame image as much as one from a cropped sensor to get the same sized print/final image.

[jaapv]

It is more the different viewfinder magnification. And the DOF changes too - but in the other sense. So there is a balance between the two parameters, with apparently the magnification winning.

[tomasis7]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hello again Charles, I also like you have to shoot digital for work (Nikon D3), but I always manage to bring along a Nikon film camera (mostly F5); plus, I also use MF film (Hassy, Mamiya & Holga), and whenever I go out on the street I always have a couple of film Ms with me - for my street work is M + B/W film only... plus, shooting film gives me the chance of finding amazing gear for very low money, and a choice of cameras & lenses all with different qualities & strong points; I recently got an Oly XA, today a Minox 35, plus I bring out a Zeiss SuperIkonta at times, you know - lots of toys, small money, is enough to sell one image taken with any of this camera to pay it back ten times over... I love the digital era because it made shooting film with all sort of format, medium, cameras etc very very affordable, as it never has been before it is a lot of fun! Of course, I am keeping a close eye on the future digital M, and I have high hopes for the M9, M8.3 or whatever it will be called...

 

But for now, M is film only for me.

 

i feel the same. ironically, the digital is better, the more fun I have

[Julian Thompson]

" It might kill our cozy high margin business ..."

 

Not so sure you can just say that - the cost of being in business in a niche market like Leica are with the M8 means you need a gross margin to yield even a sensible net one...

 

(Can't argue with you on the technical side though you clearly know what you are talking about!)

[marknorton]

I'm much more concerned that Leica solve the light angle problem in a FF M9 than I am in them solving the IR problem.

[jaapv]

Produce a cheaper M-body?

" It might kill our cozy high margin business ..."

Yeah - read our balance sheet and see us just break even if we're lucky. Undoubtedly that is because we invest our immense profit margin into marble production halls, three-star staff restaurants and Mercedes S class company cars for all our employees...

[stunsworth]

I'm much more concerned that Leica solve the light angle problem in a FF M9 than I am in them solving the IR problem.

 

I agree with you Mark. If for no other reason that it would establish a clear difference between the M8 and M9. If they only solve the IR issue, but keep a cropped sensor, then it would be possible to argue that you weren't really gaining anything by buying the M9 that you couldn't get by buying an M8 and using it with filters. Slot in a full frame and there's the difference.

 

Maybe it's significant that there was no mention of FF being an issue when they were talking about the M9.

[marknorton]

Maybe it's significant that there was no mention of FF being an issue when they were talking about the M9.

 

If you think bad, the light angle problem was the major stumbling block. Go back LFI in 2003 and 2004 and you see comments such as "unlikely to ever be a Digtal M". So, either they have solved the problem with a new sensor or microlens design or else it remains as intractable as ever

.

Impossible to know, but I do not think we should automatically assume the M9 will be FF. As for IR, it's a non-issue for me now apart from some night shooting.

[jaapv]

To me the implications in Stefan Daniel's words were that the creating of a full format M is no longer a technical issue, but IR filtering on such a sensor is still dodgy, although there are expectations of a solution.FWIIW

 

Carl?

Edited June 16, 2009 by jaapv

[Peter Branch]

It is more the different viewfinder magnification. And the DOF changes too - but in the other sense. So there is a balance between the two parameters, with apparently the magnification winning.

 

It’s the viewfinder aspect of any future digital M camera that interests me far more than any gain in image quality.

 

My personal view is that although I can easily understand the interest in very high ISO it would have to be achieved without any loss in the performance at low ISO. The Leica M (1 > 7) was, of course, a “low light” camera but it was also the best camera with Kodachrome. Looking at some of my old Kodachrome slides last week taken with an M6 ttl, and in some cases a R6.2, I was made very much aware that the image quality was at least as good as that which can be obtained with the M8 and probably better. The problem at the time they were taken, c2000, was that colour negative film was nothing like so good, (the exception being the short lived Kodak Ektar 25), and so prints never matched the quality of slides. Making prints from slides was always difficult, time-consuming and expensive. Now we have DNG files that are undoubtedly superior in terms of image quality to any colour negative film, even from the M8’s cropped sensor.

 

The fact is that the M8 has shown up the limitations of the existing view / range finder design. I would love to believe that simply fitting a FF sensor and increasing the viewfinder magnification will transform the situation – but I doubt it. The reduction in view finder magnification has obviously not helped, but do the 1.25 or 1.4x magnifiers really help that much? My experience is that they are a slight improvement – nothing more. I believe that the problem is the totally flat digital sensor which is very sensitive to focus errors. The sharp bits of the image are incredibly sharp and any adjacent image area which is even slightly out of focus simply looks soft. If we get FF we will start using those slightly longer focal length lenses again and what will we then get? – Reduced depth of field – which demands greater focusing accuracy.

 

Leica never matched the rangefinder accuracy of the Zeiss Contax; I had a look at one only yesterday, and marvelled at its rangefinder sensitivity. In my view Leica need to get engaged with this topic and give us something better.

[marknorton]

Peter, I agree with you. I think Leica are too easily persuaded that this 50 year old rangefinder design is "good enough" and although I am encouraged that my upgraded cameras are much improved, I still feel focussing is too hit and miss when using the fastest lenses wide open and close up.

 

I worry more that the M8 was hampered in 2005/2006 through lack of funds so that the M8 finder is an almost direct carry-over from the M7 and that the M9 is being hampered now because the drain of development funds to the S2 is encouraging the same, "it will do" frame of mind. As someone once said here, "a day late and a dollar short". They'll be telling us the shutter release is fine next.

 

Take a look at the images from Hessenpark to see various people squinting through an M finder. Many of us are of a certain age and would benefit from much greater eye comfort - look at the S2 - and without the need for all the extra bolt-ons.

[jaapv]

The only thing I can say - in my hands the M8 rangefinder is accurate to the mm even with lenses like the 90 apo summicron. And I do not use magnifiers ( correction, at the moment on one body because I am waiting for a diopter to be delivered). Any mistakes are mine, not the camera.

The way to do it is to set up the rangefinder correctly to your eye. I will admit that the M8 represents the limit of the system, and do not disagree with Mark there at all, but there is no reason even to use a magnifier, unless it is needed because of some eye defect or if the user prefers it for ease.

Oh- I am one of your squinters - and I find the M8 easier to focus than the R9 with standard screen.

Edited June 16, 2009 by jaapv

[charlesphoto99]

I would be fine if the M9 had a 1.1X to 1.2X sensor, though of course full frame would be ideal.

 

I also hope they keep the vf and body style the same. If anything, if they need more room, a few mm of height to offset the extra thickness of the body wouldn't be a bad thing. I just hope it is more robust engineering, better viewing screen, and a few extras such as external iso setting, full time shutter speed readout in the vf (30 years late), pc socket back, and possibly a battery grip. I hope the batteries stay the same but better, or at least the M8 battery is useable in the M9 (I have five of them!).

 

I hope they retain sharpness, higher iso performance, and dynamic range over more megapixels.

 

Lens wise, I would love to see a 50 cron with close up adaptor ala the 90 Elmar.

 

If my dealer turns out to be correct, the price will be the same or very near the current M8.2.

[luigi bertolotti]

I would be fine if the M9 had a 1.1X to 1.2X sensor, though of course full frame would be ideal.

 

.

 

Sorry, I disagree... a M9 with, say a 1.15x crop sensor in my opinion would NOT be fine... even if this should come with a new sensor with all the collateral improvements (noise, IR etc...). Right or not it be, the market in the DSLR is definitely going to define 24x36 as the target for top models... less than this "magic" size would lower the appeal (and the percepted VALUE) of the camera to the "open" market... and for loyal Leica users... I think that many of us have just got accustomed to the mental equivalences of focals... and would see as a terrible hassle to have a SECOND "correspondance table" in mind. If they couldn't do a 24x36 digital M... better to work hard on new sensors availability establishing 18x27 as the std. "Leica Digital Format" ... personally I would prefer to spend on a 1,33 M9 or M8.x with a jump in sensor specs rather then the SAME amount on a 1,15-1,2x or so.

[nzav]

The Leica M (1 > 7) was, of course, a “low light” camera but it was also the best camera with Kodachrome.

 

Peter,

 

I am sure you are aware there was no Leica M1 production rangefinder, the first "M" was the M3, followed by the M2 (yep, the M3 preceded the M2).

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[nugat]

Yeah - read our balance sheet and see us just break even if we're lucky. Undoubtedly that is because we invest our immense profit margin into marble production halls, three-star staff restaurants and Mercedes S class company cars for all our employees...

 

So I read their balance sheet, income statement etc. Have you?

A glimpse into the Leica AG financial reports should scare any investor--and it does.

The shares fell in the past 12 months from 12 euro to 3 euro--and it's not a financial institution. What's going wrong? My figures from Reuters Financial.

 

Total revenue for the 157.9 milion euro

financial year 2008

(31 March 08)

 

Cost of revenue 67.5 mil euro

 

Gross Profit 88.7 mil euro

 

Gross Margin 56.79%

 

Operating Margin /Net Profit 4.91%/1.93%

 

Their margin is 57% and the profit 2%, so what happened with all that cash?

Well, indirect costs ate them, also known as overheads eg. facilities and salaries associated with headquarters operations (marbles, Mercedes S etc, ).

It can also partly be R&D but here Leica is very secretive and do not reveal what part of General Expenses (40.9 mil euro in 2008) is R&D. Let's say half or 20 million euro or 12.5% of revenue!!! Canon's R&D is 8% of net sales (net sales is less than revenue) and that's double the competition!! So Leica spends three-four times industry average on R&D if my previuos fantastic assumption is any close to reality. Maybe somebody can dig the real R&D figure for 2008 from somewhere. Jaap, why don't you ask the friendly managers from the party?

One way or another the hyperinflated overheads that reduce the record margin of 57% (sure, drugs and arms pay better) to the net profit margin of 1.93% ring alarm bells in any investor's ears. From 12 euro to 3 euro per share in 12 months...

Sell! Sell! Sell!