markowich Posted September 8, 2009 Share #401 Posted September 8, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) I imagine Leica sees the first as imprecise, and the second as adding more glass layers to the sensor - something that is unfriendly to M lenses. I'm sure dust removal is on their "things to do when we can do it without affecting lens resolution" list. And, knowing Leica, they'll come up with an ingenious, M-lens-friendly, oddball solution eventually. A squeegee - an air puffer - mini-vacuum system. I guess that's similar to what Scott said. oh please...leica did not implement it because nobody licensed the technology to them. and, yes, it needs a bit of space in the camera body. there is the wonderful attitude in this forum to sell every possible leica shortcoming as a great technological insight of the holy grail of photography. peter Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted September 8, 2009 Posted September 8, 2009 Hi markowich, Take a look here M9 full specs and pictures are out. Let's discuss.. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
jaapv Posted September 8, 2009 Share #402 Posted September 8, 2009 oh please...leica did not implement it because nobody licensed the technology to them. and, yes, it needs a bit of space in the camera body.there is the wonderful attitude in this forum to sell every possible leica shortcoming as a great technological insight of the holy grail of photography. peter Possibly, and the technology may work great on a Olympus 4/3rds camera. But they don't have a Noctilux to focus. A few microns play could be problematic already. So even if Leica could buy a patent they would have to precision-reengineer it. At what cost? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
markowich Posted September 8, 2009 Share #403 Posted September 8, 2009 Possibly, and the technology may work great on a Olympus 4/3rds camera. But they don't have a Noctilux to focus. A few microns play could be problematic already. So even if Leica could buy a patent they would have to precision-reengineer it. At what cost? jaap, this is very contorted logics. the back (or front) focusing of, say the noctilux and the 35mm lux as well as possible misalignments of the rangefinder are much worse than potential inaccuracies of the focal plane due to sensor cleaning. sensor shake cleaning is a wonderful technology, that -for me- has worked extremly well. but of course, here i am only talking of lesser nikon DSLRs, not of the holy grail. peter Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted September 8, 2009 Share #404 Posted September 8, 2009 (edited) The rolerance on sensor alignment is a less than on a DSLR, due to the short register. And you are talking about Noctiluxes and Summiluxes, with very thin DOF spans. And yes, these factors put a strain on any other tolerances as well, as Mark has pointed out repeatedly. On another note, sensor shake works well for loose dust, as good as a short puff with the Rocket Blower. It won't do a thing for sticky gunk, which is the main problem we are dealing with in this Forum. It will not free you of the Sensor Swipe.... Edited September 8, 2009 by jaapv Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted September 8, 2009 Share #405 Posted September 8, 2009 On another note, sensor shake works well for loose dust, as good as a short puff with the Rocket Blower. It won't do a thing for sticky gunk, which is the main problem we are dealing with in this Forum. It will not free you of the Sensor Swipe.... I am very impressed with the sensor clean technology on my 5D2 but as Jaapv says, 'sticky gunk' does remain a problem:confused:. I also wonder whether all the loose, shaken off dust will finally re-emerge to cause irritations at some future date? Perhaps a sapphire glass cover on the sensor...... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
markowich Posted September 8, 2009 Share #406 Posted September 8, 2009 The rolerance on sensor alignment is a less than on a DSLR, due to the short register. And you are talking about Noctiluxes and Summiluxes, with very thin DOF spans. And yes, these factors put a strain on any other tolerances as well, as Mark has pointed out repeatedly.On another note, sensor shake works well for loose dust, as good as a short puff with the Rocket Blower. It won't do a thing for sticky gunk, which is the main problem we are dealing with in this Forum. It will not free you of the Sensor Swipe.... it reduced my sensor cleaning efforts by 90%. i repeat, with all the well known focusing shifts of most leica high speed lenses it is a ridiculous argument to say that internal sensor cleaning would introduce significant focusing defects for precisely those lenses. you can argue that there is not enough space in the leica M 8/9 body and since leica engineers are restricted by what their fans ask for, namely often form over function, they could not have enlarged the body by a few milimeters to accomodate sensor cleaning even if they had the technology. but please do not argue along the lines of inaccurate technology. peter Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rolo Posted September 8, 2009 Share #407 Posted September 8, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) If Leica hold back on Wednesday and don't announce their intention to provide a 0.85x viewfinder for the M9 and then introduce it in the short term, I for one will consider that to be very sharp practice on their part, verging on the dishonest ! Some users will be happily breaking their nuts to acquire the M9, but to discover after acquisition that there was always the intent to ship a 0.85x version that they really wanted will be a real pisser. (IMO) Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dpattinson Posted September 8, 2009 Share #408 Posted September 8, 2009 If Leica hold back on Wednesday and don't announce their intention to provide a 0.85x viewfinder for the M9 and then introduce it in the short term, I for one will consider that to be very sharp practice on their part, verging on the dishonest ! Some users will be happily breaking their nuts to acquire the M9, but to discover after acquisition that there was always the intent to ship a 0.85x version that they really wanted will be a real pisser. (IMO) I think you should assume they will offer a 0.85 (or whatever is the equivalent for the body thickness) finder M9, it makes no sense that they would not. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted September 8, 2009 Share #409 Posted September 8, 2009 I think you should assume they will offer a 0.85 (or whatever is the equivalent for the body thickness) finder M9, it makes no sense that they would not. Why so, could you explain? Just curious as i don't seem to recall that the M8 could have such a magnification but i may be totally wrong on that. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dpattinson Posted September 8, 2009 Share #410 Posted September 8, 2009 Why so, could you explain? Just curious as i don't seem to recall that the M8 could have such a magnification but i may be totally wrong on that. Because now that they have a FF body - it would be worth making the parts required to offer alternative magnification finders. Those wanting to shoot wide might well expect a finder that retains the 24mm framelines too I expect. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
giordano Posted September 8, 2009 Share #411 Posted September 8, 2009 If Leica hold back on Wednesday and don't announce their intention to provide a 0.85x viewfinder for the M9 and then introduce it in the short term, I for one will consider that to be very sharp practice on their part, verging on the dishonest ! Some users will be happily breaking their nuts to acquire the M9, but to discover after acquisition that there was always the intent to ship a 0.85x version that they really wanted will be a real pisser. (IMO) If 0.85x or thereabouts is really important to you, it's frankly silly to rush and buy a 0.68x whatever Leica say. For the first production run it helps to minimise the variations that have to be managed. Once the wrinkles are ironed out it will make more sense for Leica to offer variants - and if enough people want different magnifications they should find it profitable to do so. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rolo Posted September 8, 2009 Share #412 Posted September 8, 2009 If 0.85x or thereabouts is really important to you, it's frankly silly to rush and buy a 0.68x whatever Leica say. For the first production run it helps to minimise the variations that have to be managed. Once the wrinkles are ironed out it will make more sense for Leica to offer variants - and if enough people want different magnifications they should find it profitable to do so. Understand the production economies and happily accept that variants will come later. However, the single most important interface with the RF is the VF and Leica have a total history on percentage demand for 0.58x and 0.85x and of course the M3 was 100% 0.91x. They can have no doubt that the demand for the 0.68x will be heavy after the leaks, so it would provide customers will comfort to know which key options are planned, albeit not immediately available. Let's face it, there's a desperate need for Leica to announce something we don't know already. VF variants are top of my list. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Overgaard Posted September 8, 2009 Share #413 Posted September 8, 2009 Can anyone summarize what the magnification is on M4, M7, MP and M8. I use glasses, so with the M4 I have trouble (to say the least) seeing the full frame of a 35mm. And I expect to have the same trouble on the M9. I would love to have a full view of the whole frame as I expect it will be possible in the S2 and was int he Nikon F4 HP. So is it to view the full frame or to get closer to focus better? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
giordano Posted September 8, 2009 Share #414 Posted September 8, 2009 (edited) Can anyone summarize what the magnification is on M4, M7, MP and M8. I use glasses, so with the M4 I have trouble (to say the least) seeing the full frame of a 35mm. And I expect to have the same trouble on the M9. I would love to have a full view of the whole frame as I expect it will be possible in the S2 and was int he Nikon F4 HP. So is it to view the full frame or to get closer to focus better? The brochure says the M9 has a 0.68x viewfinder magnification, same as the M8, vs. 0.72 on M4 and most M6, M7 and MPs. Based on previous threads I expect that the 28 and 35mm frames in the M9 will be easier to see than their equivalents in the M4 - but only very slightly. Second thoughts: or maybe not. Edited September 8, 2009 by giordano Second thoughts. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adli Posted September 8, 2009 Share #415 Posted September 8, 2009 Can anyone summarize what the magnification is on M4, M7, MP and M8. Looking for something like this? Leica Viewfinder & Rangefinders Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Overgaard Posted September 8, 2009 Share #416 Posted September 8, 2009 Thanks. What I would see as he perfect M viewfinder would be one where the hole is big enough and with plenty of space to see the full frame even with glasses. And then from there one can magnify for not wearing eyeglasses, or to use 75mm, 135mm lenses, etc. But you can work with whatever there is. It's amazing how fast you learn to do that. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
UliWer Posted September 8, 2009 Share #417 Posted September 8, 2009 If Leica hold back on Wednesday and don't announce their intention to provide a 0.85x viewfinder for the M9 and then introduce it in the short term, I for one will consider that to be very sharp practice on their part, verging on the dishonest ! Some users will be happily breaking their nuts to acquire the M9, but to discover after acquisition that there was always the intent to ship a 0.85x version that they really wanted will be a real pisser. (IMO) I don't think that the question of viewfinder magnification will ever be solved. Those who run now and only get the 0.68 version, will cry as you happen to announce. Those who will wait and get a version with a larger magnification will cry when they find out, that they have problems to use the frames for 35mm if they wear glasses. Those who opt for a wideangle version with lesser magnification will cry because they are very limited with telelenses. On the M6 I have 0.85, and wouldn't buy this again, for screwing in a 1.4x magnifier doesn't help for wideangles. It helps with telelenses on 0.68 of the M8. Rangefinders ask for compomising, you won't get one that fits all. Best solution is to get two bodys. I did this with the M3 and M2 - but for 1/10 of the price of a M9;). Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rolo Posted September 8, 2009 Share #418 Posted September 8, 2009 I've been using Leica M's since 1984 and fully appreciate what I want. A 0.85x with 50mm frame lines, plus some outside space with confirmation from the LCD, will be just fine for all lenses from 35mm upwards. I'll use a separate viewfinder for my 24mm. If I get two M9's as planned, I'm not yet sure what the second would be. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KM-25 Posted September 8, 2009 Share #419 Posted September 8, 2009 Daniel,Sure, if you can't get to like your tools, then income will suffer. Hadn't realised you felt that strongly about the M8. I'll also admit to not settling with my M8 as quickly, or as well, as I did with the film M's. Hope that doesn't follow on with the M9 - HELL !! How much it costs is crucial, as a professional I'd like a backup/second lens camera. That's £9,500 at the rumored prices and whilst not impossible, like you, something(s) will be leaving the kit locker. Retaining the M8 would be more viable, but I agree it's better to have a matched pair. If the M9 is all we hope for, do you anticipate moving completely away from film after your terrific Kodachrome project is finished ? Oh, I liked the M8 well enough even if not as much as my current FF SLRS, but I knew if I held out, I would get what I wanted. For if there is any glass on earth deserving of full frame, it is Leica M. In terms of after Kodachrome, yeah, I am pretty much done with color film in 35mm after that. I do keep Ektar in one of my M3's for family pics, it is just too easy and fun to drop the roll of and get back prints and that film is awesome. But Leica glass and Kodachrome, man, not much can touch it...:-) Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
eziomi Posted September 8, 2009 Share #420 Posted September 8, 2009 This discussion is running so fast, maybe I missed something?Someone asked about the coding. The question was: is it possible to put the lens values in the camera? Not only for the EXIF but also for corrections. I could not find this in the brochure, although there the possibility of coding is mentioned. Hank No one is having an idea about this topic, which I also consider very important ? Thanks in advance. EM Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.