andybarton Posted June 23, 2009 Share #21 Posted June 23, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) So use Kodachrome, or X-pan. Although, since today, Kodachrome is a bit of a problem:mad:But I really mean it. If you like film, use film, don't try to kitsch it in digital. Now, a digital X-Pan would have me reaching for my Visa Card... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted June 23, 2009 Posted June 23, 2009 Hi andybarton, Take a look here Megapixels, resolution and the M9 sensor. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
swamiji Posted June 23, 2009 Share #22 Posted June 23, 2009 Sorry swamiji - but this is the funniest M9 request I heard yet. Holy cr@p it's only a hair's breadth away from in-camera 'van Gogh' effect... Finally... Somebody got it... Full frame, 4/3, 1.33, 14bit depth... It sounds like the old large format vs 35mm , Fuji vs. Kodak arguments that have plagued photography for the last 100 years. The only difference is that in the old days, for the most part the media (film) was provided from a different vendor from the Camera, now the camera company is responsible for both... and when you buy a body... you are locked to a particular look... until the image hits Photo Shop.... No matter what we say, we know Leica will give us the best image that they can provide, and at the end of the day... we just have to wait. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
georg Posted June 23, 2009 Share #23 Posted June 23, 2009 All new sensor architectures from Kodak and Dalsa (+ Sony) have a 6µm pixel-pitch, so any 24x36mm-sensor will result in 24MP. It also makes moire less of a problem and a 12MP-file downsampled from a 24MP-sensor usually looks as least as good (even regarding noise) as a native 12MP-file. Modern CCDs with larger pixels are not available. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olsen Posted June 23, 2009 Share #24 Posted June 23, 2009 Those with a Full Frame camera available will confirm that they are far from perfect. Typical is a lot of vignetting. Three to four stops difference from center to corner is common on my 1Ds III depending on lens. So... I am not that insistent on a 'Full Frame' M9. It is far more important to get rid of this UV/IR filter mess. And get higher ISO low noice capability. Not to say ultrasonic sensor dust removal, 14 bit dept and higher resolution that challanges quality of the Leica lenses. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted June 23, 2009 Share #25 Posted June 23, 2009 Those with a Full Frame camera available will confirm that they are far from perfect. Typical is a lot of vignetting. That hasn't been my experience at all. Here are a couple of example taken with a Canon 5D and chosen because there's some conformity of tone from edge to centre. The first was with a Leica lens - either 35mm or 50mm, the second was with a Canon 100mm f2 lens... 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/87913-megapixels-resolution-and-the-m9-sensor/?do=findComment&comment=942210'>More sharing options...
zlatkob Posted June 23, 2009 Share #26 Posted June 23, 2009 While we're on the topic of batteries (sort of), I hope any future M digital will use the same batteries as the M8. If you're working with two different cameras carrying two sets of batteries and chargers is a drag. The M8 battery isn't particularly good and changing it isn't particularly quick, so I hope they do improve it significantly. Sometimes a new battery design is totally worth the extra trouble of carrying two sets of batteries and chargers (when working with 2 different cameras). This is the case in the world of Canon, where the new 1D3 battery was a big improvement (and half the size & weight) vs. the old battery available since the first 1D. And likewise the 5D2 battery was a big improvement vs. the old battery available since the original D30. The new batteries last much longer and also provide detailed info about their status. When you have a battery that lasts twice as long (or longer), it cuts in half the number of batteries you need to charge and carry, and reduces the hassle of having to change the battery during active shooting. So I would not encourage Leica to burden a new camera with old battery technology (if something significantly better becomes available). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted June 23, 2009 Share #27 Posted June 23, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) The M8 battery isn't particularly good and changing it isn't particularly quick, so I hope they do improve it significantly. If you read Mark Norton's analysis of the M8 power usage the problem isn't with the battery but it's with the camera's power management. If you are shooting rapidly you get the best battery efficiency. I've shot 550 frames on a single battery over a two hour period and still had some charge left in the battery. I'd agree that the charging is slow. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Firemedic Posted July 18, 2009 Share #28 Posted July 18, 2009 I expect to be taking a considerable trouncing for my amateurish comments, but here goes: The new M9 should have an adjustable diopter like any other modern day professional camera. Also, what causes some of the most hassle with a rangefinder is the viewfinder: the way the framelines change with each lens, some framing of certain lenses not working out with certain viewfinders, and so forth. If Leica could somehow design a viewfinder that would make each lens frame like, say, a 35mm lens does on an M7 using the 7.2 viewfinder than they would really be getting somewhere. Perhaps much of this could be done through internal software, not by changing the focusing system, but just the appearance of it through the viewfinder. And all of this talk we've been hearing about autofocus. If you're going to have auto focus, then make a zoom lens that has this feature. Leave the other fixed focal lengths alone. Now let's hear it. Viewfinders can not be adjusted in this way. Zoom lenses can not be designed for an M camera. But surely you'll grant me the simple adjustable diopter, won't you. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
paga Posted July 18, 2009 Share #29 Posted July 18, 2009 And all of this talk we've been hearing about autofocus. If you're going to have auto focus, then make a zoom lens that has this feature. Leave the other fixed focal lengths alone Really?!!! Autofocus on a Leica M camera is what you want?! LOL LOL LOL Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted July 18, 2009 Share #30 Posted July 18, 2009 Nugat's assumptions are arbitrary, because they disregard how we actually use, i.e. view printed or painted images. The criterion of a ten-by-fifteen inch picture is grabbed out of thin air, without any rationale. Therefore, it is irrelevant. Field studies in museums and galleries have convinced me that whenever people try to view a (rectangular or square or even circular) picture as an integral picture, they tend to stand at a distance that is roughly equal to the diagonal of the image. In other words, by varying the viewing distance, we adjust the angle of view to our own central-plus-close-peripheral seeing, the area within which we clearly discern shapes. This rule holds true as long as the diagonal is longer than our comfortable close focusing limit, which can be taken to be roughly 30cm. Book and newspaper printing (my own business for a lifetime) and also the manufacture of reading glasses use that criterion. Now in the days when the typical amateur print was a 6x9cm contact, the print when viewed took up only part of this preferred angle. And as you sat there holding the print in your hand, you might well ask yourself if this seemingly sharp print would stand up to printing at larger sizes -- because these larger prints, up to 18x24cm or 8x10" (i.e. = A4) would be held and viewed at this selfsame minimum focusing distance of 30cm. So the demand for resolution and edge definition would increase in proportion. -- It seems to me that traditional thinking on print sizes is still stuck in this tradition. As soon as you increase the size beyond the 30cm diagonal however, viewing distance does also increase. This means that if you can do a visually 'sharp' image at that size, you can do it at any size. Attacking a four by six foot poster by pushing your nose against it, or for that matter, a two-by three foot print with a magnifier, is a wanton and arbitrary act, and a silly one too, unless of course that piece of paper (or painted canvas) is a technical specimen examined with technical instrumentation, for some meaningful technical purpose. But we are photographers, not optical scientists or pedants absorbed by a purposeless Glasperlenspiel. How many more pixels does a camera need to make better A4 prints than the M8? Not many, I would contend. The desire for a full frame sensor does not arise from a need for many more pixels -- or it shouldn't. It is a matter of viewing and focusing with the camera, and also from a desire for better high ISO performance without a loss of micro-contrast. What we want is not more pixels, but bigger pixels, to keep the signal-to-noise ratio high. The pixel race started because pixel counts are understood by photographic idiots, and manufacturers want to sell cameras to idiots too. Meaningful criteria are another matter, and we should keep to these. The old man from the Age of Evidence Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SJP Posted July 18, 2009 Share #31 Posted July 18, 2009 Completely agree with Lars - FF and about 10 megapixels would be ideal. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
giordano Posted July 18, 2009 Share #32 Posted July 18, 2009 Meaningful criteria are another matter, and we should keep to these. Yes indoody. But one that you don't mention is the desirability of being able to make that decent-sized print after throwing away half the pixels by cropping, e.g. to rescue a shot where there wasn't time to change lens or get closer. It's only then that I sometimes wish I had more than ten or twelve MP to play with. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted July 18, 2009 Share #33 Posted July 18, 2009 Yes indoody. But one that you don't mention is the desirability of being able to make that decent-sized print after throwing away half the pixels by cropping, e.g. to rescue a shot where there wasn't time to change lens or get closer. It's only then that I sometimes wish I had more than ten or twelve MP to play with. This is what we have interchangeable lenses for. We have had since 1932 to learn that game. The situation is different in MF, where the user of the picture is nearly always a different person from the photographer--in the best case a picture editor, in the worst case a designer, to whom the image is just one decorative element in his beloved and often fashionably arbitrary layout. This man demands pictures with lots of acreage outside the subject, so that he can crop the picture to fit anything, however silly. Most of those I have known have not given a damn about the picture content. This is one very valid reason for the classical 6x6 format. But a surfeit of pixels means not only noise. It does also mean humonguous files and slow cameras. This is OK in a studio, with its deliberate workflow. It is less endearing in a camera that must be used out there in the bush. About in-camera composition: Some people come to the M from SLR cameras with the ubiquituous zooms, and compose as if they had a zoom lens on the camera--without zooming ... Of course they complain about their need to throw away half the picture. Old M hands compose with their eyes. The composition is roughly done even before the camera rises, with the appropriate lens needless to say. You must learn to see focal lengths, to put on '35mm eyes' or '90mm eyes' or whatever and find your subjects with them. This does of course necessitate some 'proactive' thinking: What kind of subject will I likely encounter? You can learn that game too. The old man from the Age of the Roll Film Folder Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Julian Thompson Posted July 18, 2009 Share #34 Posted July 18, 2009 I can see both sides of this. Since using my M8 I find myself not needing the zoom at all on the little point and shoot we have - and I'm even taking better photo's there, too. Also, since using the M8 I find I am needing to crop less and less off my work as I get better. However, as Giordano says - what do you do if you're at a festival, working with a 35mm lens and something interesting happens a long way away? - then you wish you had a few more pixels, perhaps! In the end Lars' argument persuades me. But if everything else stays the same and they are able to give us a few more pixels with no trade-off in IQ then great! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 18, 2009 Share #35 Posted July 18, 2009 I The price could be 6000 Euros. I wish It was less, but I think It will be more. I've already spared more than half so if the next year the world economic situation doesn't brake me more, I'll be ready to buy the new M9. I'll keep on dreaming! Kind Regard Miguel I think, that in order to duplicate the success of the M8, in terms of units coming out of a manufacture and as a vehicle to keep on selling top notch top priced lenses, the M9 should not cost more than 5000,- euros including taxes. LEICA's already betting the farm on the S2, which will face a future 1DmkIV with a 24-70mmII (IS?), the present and the future Hassi. The second good news on the M9 arrival (so many people here waiting anxiously ) will be that the M8 prices will slide further. Alas, not particularly good news for us M8 owners , but for LEICA mostly. M9 buyers will keep their glass (and buy some more ) and second-hand M8 buyers will enter the congregation and get Elmarit dreaming of Crons, or Crons dreaming of Luxes. And the picture forums will profit, too from young tallent with a beaten up M8 and a 25 or 28 or 35 ONLY, thinking more of pictures and less of toys ( = harmless gear, just like a vintage car or a boat) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.