Flat Earth Posted August 11, 2009 Share #221 Posted August 11, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) Because I had no problem with my DMR, that the M8 was able to take pictures even with the IR issue. The framelines were just a mirror problem easy to circumvent. Of course they work, but that's not the point. My R9/DMR, M7 & M8 are great cameras. My point is that when they were first released, they were almost beta test versions of what they should have been. I jumped at both the M7 and R9. If I had waited 3 months on the M7, then the rangefinder flare would have been fixed at the factory instead of being a warranty issue. I don't really care about IR, but if I had waited for the 8.2 then I wouldn't have had to imagine where my 75mm framelines are supposed to be. Maybe that's a minor problem and one that could be solved if I shipped my camera away for a few months and threw some money at NJ, but it was a problem enough that Leica had to fix it later. With digital M already here, rushing to a FF, whether that be an M9, M10 or M11 is at your own peril. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted August 11, 2009 Posted August 11, 2009 Hi Flat Earth, Take a look here Leica refuses to confirm M9 launch.... I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
pascal_meheut Posted August 12, 2009 Share #222 Posted August 12, 2009 With digital M already here, rushing to a FF, whether that be an M9, M10 or M11 is at your own peril. What is the peril here? I'll keep at least 1 M8 for a while, I still have an M7 and other cameras. So I'll continue to take pictures. If I decide to order the M9, that is. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MP3 Posted August 12, 2009 Share #223 Posted August 12, 2009 Of course they work, but that's not the point. My R9/DMR, M7 & M8 are great cameras. My point is that when they were first released, they were almost beta test versions of what they should have been. I jumped at both the M7 and R9. If I had waited 3 months on the M7, then the rangefinder flare would have been fixed at the factory instead of being a warranty issue. I don't really care about IR, but if I had waited for the 8.2 then I wouldn't have had to imagine where my 75mm framelines are supposed to be. Maybe that's a minor problem and one that could be solved if I shipped my camera away for a few months and threw some money at NJ, but it was a problem enough that Leica had to fix it later. With digital M already here, rushing to a FF, whether that be an M9, M10 or M11 is at your own peril. Sound sensible ... unless Leica is putting up another 30% M-Lenses Discount for M9's fault. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
markgay Posted August 12, 2009 Share #224 Posted August 12, 2009 If Leica knew that Zeiss was about to announce a digital rangefinder competitor, whether partial or 35mm frame, that would put the fear of God into Leica. It could also drive Leica to launch a "killer" 35mm frame M to knock Zeiss into the rough. A premature launch of a 35mm frame M might not be a good idea, especially if Leica/ Kodak/ whomsoever has not overcome the oblique angle restrictions to 35mm frame and if it consequently repeats the trouble birth of the M8. But against the "ra, ra, ra" of the Internet, I'm not sure Leica would have much choice. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted August 12, 2009 Share #225 Posted August 12, 2009 BTW I emailed my Leica rep about the "leak" - t'will be interesting to see if Leica makes the store take down the listing. It will be even more interesting to see how this forum interprets it if the store DOES take down the listing - as "proof" that something's really in the works, or as "proof" that it was all a mistake. I notice Boetie no longer lists the "M9" for pre-order today - Leica must have jumped on them. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adli Posted August 12, 2009 Share #226 Posted August 12, 2009 I notice Boetie no longer lists the "M9" for pre-order today - Leica must have jumped on them. Or Leica might just have imformed them that the M9 will actualy not be available next month Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaay Posted August 12, 2009 Share #227 Posted August 12, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) the rumors are now taking hold and spreading beyond this forum: one good canon site northlight images posted the following today: "Aug 12th 'Full frame' M9 from Leica on show in Japan? We're told that the Japanese market is important enough to Leica, that a few people have been given cameras." Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted August 12, 2009 Share #228 Posted August 12, 2009 Even if the M9 were real, why would you want one now anyway? Every Leica "early adopter" has been burned in one way or another. This includes the M8 IR and frameline things, the M7 patch flaring, R8 and R9 qualtiy control issues and loose DMR knobs. Bide your time. M8 IR - it took me all of 20 minutes to figure it out and I bought a "digital" filter as it was called then the next day. The framelines? just a matter of understanding rangefinder theory. The real problem was high-ISO banding and the rainbow cascade, and that was solved promptly by Leica with the recall. I did not feel burnt as an early adopter. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevem7 Posted August 12, 2009 Share #229 Posted August 12, 2009 The M9 does not have a Canon sensor. You can take that to the bank. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
delander † Posted August 13, 2009 Share #230 Posted August 13, 2009 If Leica knew that Zeiss was about to announce a digital rangefinder competitor, whether partial or 35mm frame, that would put the fear of God into Leica. It could also drive Leica to launch a "killer" 35mm frame M to knock Zeiss into the rough. A premature launch of a 35mm frame M might not be a good idea, especially if Leica/ Kodak/ whomsoever has not overcome the oblique angle restrictions to 35mm frame and if it consequently repeats the trouble birth of the M8. But against the "ra, ra, ra" of the Internet, I'm not sure Leica would have much choice. I think the digital Zeiss Ikon rumour is very interesting. I'm sure Leica know more about it than we do. It is possible that it has caused Leica to release the M9 earlier than they would have perhaps wanted and even encouraged them to price the M9 more competitively. I wont be an early adopter of the M9, it could be fascinating to see a DZI emerge in the coming months. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted August 13, 2009 Share #231 Posted August 13, 2009 ZI will certainly be interesting. I wonder if they can get around the incidence angle problem (any ZI DRF will be full format), because it looks like the new sensor only solves some CMos problems. Afaik the shifted microlens technology is protected by patents. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
noah_addis Posted August 13, 2009 Share #232 Posted August 13, 2009 A digital Zeiss Ikon would be interesting. At the very least some price competition would be a good thing. But I'm not so sure that the M9 (if it exists) would outsell a digital Zeiss Ikon (if it exists). A sony A900 costs about $2600. A Zeiss Ikon film camera about $1400. I know I'm VASTLY oversimplifying things and that new sensor technology and a lot of R&D are necessary, but based on those prices if they could make a full-frame DRF for around $4k leica would be in real trouble in my opinion, at least when it comes to selling bodies. If Zeiss could do it for $3k, they'd sell them faster than they could make them. I know a lot of young photographers, especially people doing street and documentary work, who would love to shoot with a rangefinder if it offered up-to-date specs (full frame, decent high iso, 16+ MP, etc.) and cost something remotely close to a high-end DSLR. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
delander † Posted August 13, 2009 Share #233 Posted August 13, 2009 Is the shifted microlenses a Kodak patent, because I think Leica's only extends to the coding and in camera corrections. You know companies have a way around a lot of this stuff. Would Kodak license this out? They need cash. Would they make the sensor for Zeiss, why tie themselves to Leica. A DZI would be satisfy an awful lot of Bessa and other RF users, who cant or wont stump up for a Leica. Could be good allround inc Leica, expand the market etc, sell lenses. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted August 13, 2009 Share #234 Posted August 13, 2009 I think it is either a shared patent or one tied up in contracts. I'm sure Leica has nailed that one down, they are pretty good at that kind of thing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandymc Posted August 13, 2009 Share #235 Posted August 13, 2009 Afaik the shifted microlens technology is protected by patents. Jaap, do have any reference for such a patent? I've never been able to find one using any of the online patent searches, and I'd like to see it. Kodak certainly hold a large number of microlens related patents, but they all seem to cover methods of fabrication rather than the structure itself. Sandy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoppyman Posted August 13, 2009 Share #236 Posted August 13, 2009 Well the digital ZI is entirely hypothetical. The M9 is known to be in development, whatever the realities of anouncements and releases may be. A digital Zeiss Ikon would be interesting. At the very least some price competition would be a good thing. But I'm not so sure that the M9 (if it exists) would outsell a digital Zeiss Ikon (if it exists). A sony A900 costs about $2600. A Zeiss Ikon film camera about $1400. I know I'm VASTLY oversimplifying things and that new sensor technology and a lot of R&D are necessary, but based on those prices if they could make a full-frame DRF for around $4k leica would be in real trouble in my opinion, at least when it comes to selling bodies. If Zeiss could do it for $3k, they'd sell them faster than they could make them. I know a lot of young photographers, especially people doing street and documentary work, who would love to shoot with a rangefinder if it offered up-to-date specs (full frame, decent high iso, 16+ MP, etc.) and cost something remotely close to a high-end DSLR. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted August 13, 2009 Share #237 Posted August 13, 2009 Jaap, do have any reference for such a patent? I've never been able to find one using any of the online patent searches, and I'd like to see it. Kodak certainly hold a large number of microlens related patents, but they all seem to cover methods of fabrication rather than the structure itself. Sandy No - it is one of those "I've been told things" when in Solms. It should be findable and it is inconceivable that it would not be patented. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfarkas Posted August 13, 2009 Share #238 Posted August 13, 2009 A digital Zeiss Ikon would be interesting. At the very least some price competition would be a good thing. But I'm not so sure that the M9 (if it exists) would outsell a digital Zeiss Ikon (if it exists). A sony A900 costs about $2600. A Zeiss Ikon film camera about $1400. I know I'm VASTLY oversimplifying things and that new sensor technology and a lot of R&D are necessary, but based on those prices if they could make a full-frame DRF for around $4k leica would be in real trouble in my opinion, at least when it comes to selling bodies. If Zeiss could do it for $3k, they'd sell them faster than they could make them. I know a lot of young photographers, especially people doing street and documentary work, who would love to shoot with a rangefinder if it offered up-to-date specs (full frame, decent high iso, 16+ MP, etc.) and cost something remotely close to a high-end DSLR. I spoke to a representative from Zeiss at Photokina about a possible Digital Ikon. He said that they did explore the possibility, but that they would end up having to charge what Leica does for the M8 (more expensive to peoduce than they thought). Zeiss felt they couldn't be competitive enough to make inroads into the market and ulitimately, decided that they are much happier just making lenses to go on Leica digital M cameras. David Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adli Posted August 13, 2009 Share #239 Posted August 13, 2009 Jaap, do have any reference for such a patent? I've never been able to find one using any of the online patent searches, and I'd like to see it. Kodak certainly hold a large number of microlens related patents, but they all seem to cover methods of fabrication rather than the structure itself. Sandy Could maybe be this one?: European Patent 0809303 US Patent 6218692 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
noah_addis Posted August 13, 2009 Share #240 Posted August 13, 2009 I spoke to a representative from Zeiss at Photokina about a possible Digital Ikon. He said that they did explore the possibility, but that they would end up having to charge what Leica does for the M8 (more expensive to peoduce than they thought). Zeiss felt they couldn't be competitive enough to make inroads into the market and ulitimately, decided that they are much happier just making lenses to go on Leica digital M cameras. David Too bad. The competition could be good for everyone and could help Leica too with lens sales. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.