Richard.no Posted August 13, 2009 Share #1 Posted August 13, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) The interest for the rumored M9 with a full frame sensor is obvious, but what if it isn't full frame at all? The reason for my question is that while the rumors have been settling for a full frame M9, a recent hint has made me think that it might not be full frame, but rather have the 1.33x crop ratio known from the M8. If this turns out to be the case, some might get disappointed. As for myself, I think I'd find it somewhat of a relief with regards to the quality aspects of the yet to be released M9; Instead of plowing new ground, stick with the cropped sensor, and fix other issues, like UVIR, or the other strange "features" of the M8 sensor. Would a 1.33x sensor with cleaner high ISO's, more stable electronics and no need for UVIR-filters make you stay awake at night like the dreams of a FF €5,500 M9 did? I didn't force you to read this thread, so please don't complain that I introduced another M9 rumor thread. I just thought that after reading hints of a cropped sensor, the price and time of announcement makes a bit more sense. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted August 13, 2009 Posted August 13, 2009 Hi Richard.no, Take a look here M9 with 1.33x cropped sensor?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Philippe D. Posted August 13, 2009 Share #2 Posted August 13, 2009 The interest for the rumored M9 with a full frame sensor is obvious I'm suffering of dyslexia I guess, when I see Rumor, I read Humor. I don't see the point of all those excitement about M9 or whatever. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mat_mcdermott Posted August 13, 2009 Share #3 Posted August 13, 2009 The only thing that'll get me to go for an M9 is genuinely improved high ISO performance. Full frame by itself isn't a selling point, though it'd be nice. More megapixels without better ISO performance definitely doesn't matter to me. I can already print very well as big as I ever actually print. I've never had (knocking on wooden desk) a problem with the electronics. The UV/IR filters don't bother me, though if I don't need them in the future all the better. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philippe D. Posted August 13, 2009 Share #4 Posted August 13, 2009 The only thing that'll get me to go for an M9 is genuinely improved high ISO performance. Look how the world can be dissimilar. I wish 50 ISO, never (or very rarely) go over 640 ISO with the M8. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted August 13, 2009 Share #5 Posted August 13, 2009 Would a 1.33x sensor with cleaner high ISO's, more stable electronics and no need for UVIR-filters make you stay awake at night like the dreams of a FF €5,500 M9 did? I didn't force you to read this thread, so please don't complain that I introduced another M9 rumor thread. I just thought that after reading hints of a cropped sensor, the price and time of announcement makes a bit more sense. What you describe would be an M8.3, IMHO. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mat_mcdermott Posted August 13, 2009 Share #6 Posted August 13, 2009 Look how the world can be dissimilar. I wish 50 ISO, never (or very rarely) go over 640 ISO with the M8. I very rarely go over 640 too, but would love 1250 to be usable without embracing the grain of it and/or converting to black and white. Heck, if the Mx had a base speed of 50, I'd never need to go above a shutter speed of 1/1000th and we could go back to a cloth shutter. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard.no Posted August 13, 2009 Author Share #7 Posted August 13, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) What you describe would be an M8.3, IMHO. IMHO, if it has a new sensor (a significant change over the M8/8.2), it deserves being called M9. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rolu Posted August 13, 2009 Share #8 Posted August 13, 2009 NO NO NO ! Format means DOF ! Isn't DOF determined by aperture, focal length and magnification of the film/sensor? Crop 1,33 means: 1,33x1,33=1,77 less magnification, and for the same setting you have to use another focal length: Thus a 35mm at f 1,4 on crop has the same FOV and DOF as a 50mm at f 2,5 on FF, a 50mm at f 1,0 on crop equals a 67mm at f 1,8 on FF. But the FF M9 rangefinder has to be more accurate than with the M8 (Messbasis) and only with FF you can use very shallow DOF. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
efftee Posted August 13, 2009 Share #9 Posted August 13, 2009 If there is one thing consistently repeated with every morsel of the M9 rumor, it is the FF feature. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mat_mcdermott Posted August 13, 2009 Share #10 Posted August 13, 2009 ...only with FF you can use very shallow DOF. At least for me the ability to use selective focus and very shallow DOF with my favorite lens (28/2.0) for this sensor size is perfectly adequate. I've take shots at f2 of someone standing 20' away and can still blur the background while the subject is sharp as can be. At closest focus the area in focus is tiny. Others may think differently, but I've never found unwanted depth of field to be a problem with the M8, even with the 18/3.8 -- shooting DSLRs with a 1.5 crop is a different story in my experience. I've always thought of it as the difference between 16mm and 35mm motion picture film. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rolu Posted August 13, 2009 Share #11 Posted August 13, 2009 If there is one thing consistently repeated with every morsel of the M9 rumor, it is the FF feature. Agree: So it's time to get rid of it by getting the FF M9 out. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philippe D. Posted August 13, 2009 Share #12 Posted August 13, 2009 I very rarely go over 640 too... if the Mx had a base speed of 50, I'd never need to go above a shutter speed of 1/1000th and we could go back to a cloth shutter. Why so radical ? I'm using ND filters up to -3 stops with the M8 (yes, I do like to use my Summiluxes wide open). With ISO 50, I could spare those f... filters. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ErikFive Posted August 13, 2009 Share #13 Posted August 13, 2009 The biggest issue for me is high iso performance. Edit: And shutter sound, but they fixed that with the M8.2 so thats no issue anymore... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotografr Posted August 13, 2009 Share #14 Posted August 13, 2009 I'm suffering of dyslexia I guess, when I see Rumor, I read Humor. I don't see the point of all those excitement about M9 or whatever. It's not dyslexia. It's lesdixia. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mat_mcdermott Posted August 13, 2009 Share #15 Posted August 13, 2009 Why so radical ?I'm using ND filters up to -3 stops with the M8 (yes, I do like to use my Summiluxes wide open). With ISO 50, I could spare those f... filters. I never said I wouldn't want to go back to a cloth shutter. Wouldn't bother me in the slightest actually. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flat Earth Posted August 13, 2009 Share #16 Posted August 13, 2009 Maybe Leica are taking a page out of the Hasselblad "full frame sensor" marketing pantheon. Two years ago (if I rememrbe correctly), Hasselblad introduced what they called the world's first full frame medium format DSLR. This of course got everyone drooling untill the spec sheet showed up and the sensor was a ho hum 36mm x 48mm. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard.no Posted August 13, 2009 Author Share #17 Posted August 13, 2009 The biggest issue for me is high iso performance. Edit: And shutter sound, but they fixed that with the M8.2 so thats no issue anymore... Hi Erik, Well, looking at your photo of Holmenkollen Ski Jump, it's hard to argue that grain can't be a nice feature I like that shot a lot. A pity that old "Soviet ski jump" isn't still standing for melancolic bw's. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicoleica Posted August 13, 2009 Share #18 Posted August 13, 2009 Perhaps the M9 will be FF, but the FF stands for 'Filter Free' Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philippe D. Posted August 13, 2009 Share #19 Posted August 13, 2009 Perhaps the M9 will be FF, but the FF stands for 'Filter Free' Oh NO! I have already plenty (too much plenty ) of them... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted August 13, 2009 Share #20 Posted August 13, 2009 ...I've never found unwanted depth of field to be a problem with the M8... Not a problem just a compromise. If you've shot 135 film in the past you'll retrieve your feelings with full frame. And true wides at last. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.