Leica refuses to confirm M9 launch...

[Flat Earth]

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.

[pascal_meheut]

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.

[Advertisement]

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

[MP3]

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.

[markgay]

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.

[adan]

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.

[adli]

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

[jaay]

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."

[jaapv]

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.

[stevem7]

The M9 does not have a Canon sensor. You can take that to the bank.

[delander †]

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

[jaapv]

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.

[noah_addis]

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.

[delander †]

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

[jaapv]

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.

[sandymc]

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

[hoppyman]

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.

[jaapv]

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.

[dfarkas]

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

[adli]

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

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[noah_addis]

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.