gwelland Posted September 6, 2009 Share #201 Posted September 6, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) Sapphire LCD Cover: If it's an option and not std then you'd think that they'd list it in the brochure like all the other options and accessories? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted September 6, 2009 Posted September 6, 2009 Hi gwelland, 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!
scott kirkpatrick Posted September 6, 2009 Share #202 Posted September 6, 2009 Maybe I will wait for the M9 upgrade: sapphire glass, 2m framelines, and a shutter that goes to 1/8000. scott Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dng88 Posted September 6, 2009 Share #203 Posted September 6, 2009 Yes, but the problem is, previously "16-bit per channel color information" is a phrase that hasn't had any meaning. In fact, for some time, the M8 was described the same way. 16 A/D converter, that would be meaningful. The good news is that clearly however you can select full width DNGs, not only 8-bit compressed Sandy This is still confusing to me. Is DNG only 8 bit? 8 bit compressed? And now M9 photo would be 16 bit. It sounds a lot of difference between a 8 bit and 16 bit (256 vs 64k) shade and I guess part of the reasons some Medium Format Back has a look different from dSLR. Any more explanation, please. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fotomiguel Posted September 6, 2009 Share #204 Posted September 6, 2009 Looking at the sample pix of the brochure, I think the files are incredible nice. If you try to shoot under this conditions you realize how difficult is. The contrast is really high. Nowadays all photographers are looking for low light capabilities but high light is important as well. Summers in Mallorca are really hard. Dynamic Range was one of the important features of the M8. The M9 seems to be even better. -Iso 80 is the perfect solution for the lost of 1/8000. -The iso button is a nice change, but I would have prefered a iso dial. -No filter needed for the M9. I would like to keep my filters on the lenses and use the lenses on both cameras. How is going to affect this to the M9 files???? The M8 and the M8.2 disappear totally from the brochure. They are no more a solution for Leica. I think I will be able to use the m8 grip on the M9 and the batteries as well. I hope my two magnifiers 1.25x and 1.4x will be compatible. The one mistery that remains in my head is how good will be 2500iso. If 1250iso is really good, this will be enough for my and my way of shooting. I think I'm going to keep my m8 as a second body. Will I use it enough? In my opinion, Leica strategy is really good and intelligent improving the files and M capabilities but keeping it as simple as possible. No liveview and other supposed improvements are necessary to enjoy a M camera. For those who like this new features, there are many good and incredible DSLR cameras. I'm happy but anxious. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest roey Posted September 6, 2009 Share #205 Posted September 6, 2009 The M8 stores its 14-bit sensor data in 8-bits using a compression scheme that preserves shadow detail. It has been discussed on this forums several times: http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m8-forum/59812-8-bits-versus-16-bits-2.html http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/digital-forum/8895-8-16-bit-dng-files-m8.html Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thrid Posted September 6, 2009 Share #206 Posted September 6, 2009 Does anyone really know if the sapphire LCD cover is going to be on the M9? Some very early posts on this thread suggested it won't be but it seems crazy for Leica to leave this out and thus go backwards unless the cost would truly not allow for it to be included. The sapphire LCD cover is very expensive to manufacture. I can live without it if it shaves $500-1000 dollars off the cost of the body. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandymc Posted September 6, 2009 Share #207 Posted September 6, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) This is still confusing to me. Is DNG only 8 bit? 8 bit compressed? And now M9 photo would be 16 bit. It sounds a lot of difference between a 8 bit and 16 bit (256 vs 64k) shade and I guess part of the reasons some Medium Format Back has a look different from dSLR. Any more explanation, please. The way I read the sheet, you can choose between getting a DNG with: a) 8-bit level compressed data, as is the case for the M8 today - 18 MByte file full width data (maybe 16 bit, maybe 14 as on the current M8 - we'll see when we get raws.) - 36MB file Interesting that Leica have chosen not to implement lossless compression - it may imply that the M9 still has the old DSP processor based design, rather than the Maestro based design that been speculated. Sandy Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nugat Posted September 6, 2009 Author Share #208 Posted September 6, 2009 The way I read the sheet, you can choose between getting a DNG with: a) 8-bit level compressed data, as is the case for the M8 today - 18 MByte file full width data (maybe 16 bit, maybe 14 as on the current M8 - we'll see when we get raws.) - 36MB file Interesting that Leica have chosen not to implement lossless compression - it may imply that the M9 still has the old DSP processor based design, rather than the Maestro based design that been speculated. Sandy In the brochure they say "compressed/uncompressed" whatever they mean by that. The more relevant is A/D converter bit figure.Is this 16bits here ? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted September 6, 2009 Share #209 Posted September 6, 2009 (edited) .dng is just a wrapper for the data. It can hold any amount or bit depth of data - just as a txt file can hold words 8 letters long, or 16 letters long ,depending on what the writer (in this case the Leica firmware + the A/D converter) chooses. In the M8, data was captured at something high and then compressed to 8-bit via a squareroot compression, so each pixel only needed 8 bits, for faster writing primarily (or so sayeth Leica). In the M9, the compression can be turned on or off in the menu, more or less the same way you can choose high or low quality jpegs. I.E. there will likely be an image quality menu reading something like: .dng (high) .dng(compressed) .jpg(fine) .jpg(norm) .dng (high) + jpg(fine) .dng (high) + jpg(norm) .dng (compressed) + jpg (fine) .dng(compressed) + jpg (norm) high dngs will be 36 Mbyte files (18 Mpixels x 2 bytes (16 bits) each) compressed dngs will be 18 Mbyte files (18 Mpixels x 1 byte (8 bits) each) The compression algorithm listed in the pdf-we-shall-not-name is described as nonlinear color compression - which may or may not be the same as the M8's sqrt compression. (??) Computers are hard-wired to work with bytes - 8 bits valued 1 or 0. If you have between 9 and 15-bit data, it has to be stored as 16-bit (two side-by-side bytes) - with 0's filling out the extra space, because there is no such thing as a part of a byte in general computing. Edited September 6, 2009 by adan Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dng88 Posted September 6, 2009 Share #210 Posted September 6, 2009 Mike, Glad i did not design that, would have been tempted to put the MP revind knob in there where it belong but with a multi function - turn for exp-comp - push once and turn to set ISO. push again to return to exp-comp... (or easier, pull up to set iso down for exp-comp) . A very good idea! A dedicated button/switch/dial for exposure compensation is good! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KM-25 Posted September 6, 2009 Share #211 Posted September 6, 2009 The sapphire LCD cover is very expensive to manufacture. I can live without it if it shaves $500-1000 dollars off the cost of the body. Me too. When I had my M8, I had it for about a month when a brass button on a pair of good old Levis 501's put a small scratch on the screen. I quickly ordered one of those easy to stick on clear plastic covers and was good to go from then on. I often shoot in snowy / icy weather where frozen wet snow or ice on the back of the camera needs to be wiped off with anything I can get my hands on, and to be honest, it is not always the softest material and has to be done fast. So if I get an M9, one of the first things I will do is put the plastic cover on the screen. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
efftee Posted September 6, 2009 Share #212 Posted September 6, 2009 I can't find any mention of "Auto ISO shift" in the brochure. Can you point me to where this might be? - Vikas Page 33, bottom right corner. In section (6) Complete Control of All Picture Parameters, from end of 2nd line on. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
biglouis Posted September 6, 2009 Share #213 Posted September 6, 2009 Underwhelmed. I really would like to see examples of iso1250 or iso2500 but it makes me suspicious that the pictures in the brochure are all iso160-ish. If the M9 had really good high iso quality you'd think they'd give an example in the brochure, instead we've got a page on flash guns. Mind you, if the camera had, say iso3200 or even iso6400 then it would make the idea of the wide summilux lenses a bit redundant. If this is a full frame DRF for the sake of full-frame, without attendant (vast) improvements in noise handling above iso320 then what is the point? LouisB Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest roey Posted September 6, 2009 Share #214 Posted September 6, 2009 Let's see...Being optimistic regarding improvements in the electronics -- shooting for the same kinds of files -- my first guess is 50% more shots per battery. The brochure claims that you can shoot ~400 pictures with an 80% charged battery. That'd be considerably more than I get with a fully charged battery on my M8. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KM-25 Posted September 6, 2009 Share #215 Posted September 6, 2009 (edited) Underwhelmed. I really would like to see examples of iso1250 or iso2500 but it makes me suspicious that the pictures in the brochure are all iso160-ish. If the M9 had really good high iso quality you'd think they'd give an example in the brochure, instead we've got a page on flash guns. Mind you, if the camera had, say iso3200 or even iso6400 then it would make the idea of the wide summilux lenses a bit redundant. If this is a full frame DRF for the sake of full-frame, without attendant (vast) improvements in noise handling above iso320 then what is the point? The difference between ISO 2,500 and 3,200 is 1/3rd stop....I think you are getting too caught up in the numbers here, which has little value until we all see the actual files. Plus, considering what Nikon did in the D3 sensor a few years ago, it is very possible that the M9's new sensor could employ technology that could get the noise characteristics of the M9 at ISO 2,500 to around ISO 4,000 on the D3. And what if they had tried to make it go to ISO 4,000-6,400 and felt the results were not what Leica photographers would even bother using? It is entirely possible that ISO 2,500 is great and anything beyond is a waste of time so it was not even bothered with. Putting higher ISO settings on cameras that give only barely usable image quality is a measure I have never fully understood. In the case of the D3 / D700, image quality deteriorates rapidly from ISO 6,400 on. For example, if I am shooting an event that sees an average ISO of 1,600-3,200 and all of the sudden I need 6,400, I can expect the image quality to drop a fair bit in that one stop change. That has a lot do to with ISO 3,200 being outstanding and 6,400 being good. So I rarely go over 5,000 even though the D3 can go to ISO 25,000. So there might come a time when a high ISO setting will only be included if it is noisy to a point and perhaps that is what Leica is doing with the M9, they want us to only have the highest possible quality and feel that anything like the image quality of the D3 at 12,800 and higher is not good enough to even bother with....I hope I don't eat crow on this one...but? I have never used ISO 25,000 on the D3 for a paying gig and have only used ISO 12,800 once and when I absolutely had no choice. I was shooting aerials at night of oil and gas fields. We were in a Cessna with the window open, I was using my D3 on a Kenyon Gyro at ISO 12,800, F 1.2, 1/20th of a second. It may not be the best image quality in the world, but it was a usable image, even if just barely: http://www.flickr.com/photos/23585735@N06/2951321430/sizes/l/in/set-72157608128266766/ StevenM is saying in the dpreview forum that he has seen ISO 2,500 on the M9 and it looks "Really, really good, I would not hesitate to use it" for what that is worth... It always amazes me that people don't think something is possible in electronics...remember when no one thought a FF sensor could possibly be made for a DSLR let alone a Leica M? Leica is obviously proud of the M9 and they have the best optics on earth to live up to, we all might be pleasantly surprised... Edited September 6, 2009 by KM-25 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
farnz Posted September 6, 2009 Share #216 Posted September 6, 2009 ... If this is a full frame DRF for the sake of full-frame, without attendant (vast) improvements in noise handling above iso320 then what is the point? To at least allow you to use your lenses at their native focal length to benefit from their intended angle of view (wide angle in particular)? Pete. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pop Posted September 6, 2009 Share #217 Posted September 6, 2009 Computers are hard-wired to work with bytes - 8 bits valued 1 or 0. If you have between 9 and 15-bit data, it has to be stored as 16-bit (two side-by-side bytes) - with 0's filling out the extra space, because there is no such thing as a part of a byte in general computing. There's a long history of computers using - say - 3 bytes to store 2 values of 12 bits each. Such techniques used to be applied when the use of storage or the transmission time had to be minimized. It's a "theoretical" possibility, even when I doubt that it is being used in this case. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted September 6, 2009 Share #218 Posted September 6, 2009 BigLouis - one step at a time. Considering that my main money lens is a 21 (FoV) - the M9 increases my low-light capability from f/4.5 to f/2.8 (or f/1.4 if I want it) simply by being full-frame. With whatever Leica and Kodak have managed to do to sensor noise (if anything) being icing on the cake. I did notice the lack of high-ISO samples, though. The photog should have taken the boxer and his girlfriend on a tour of Havana nightlife after the workout. ISO 1250/2500 is something I'll try out if I get to Salt Lake City for the demo. Philipp: understood, which is why I specificed "in general computing" - i.e. apps that run on folk's home computers. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Overgaard Posted September 6, 2009 Share #219 Posted September 6, 2009 Consider that a (very) great deal of the real fast photography on film was done with Kodak Tri-X 3200 ISO, but usually shot as 1600 ISO. So 2500 should be good. And with DNG you still have the possibility to shoot 2-3 f-stops underexposed and fix it in the conversion. The more light there was in the original photo, the better the result will be (because it's hard to convert complete darkness into nice colors for any camera). By the way, love the term "the pdf-we-shall-not-name" to which there's only one reply: "What PDF?" Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MJones Posted September 6, 2009 Share #220 Posted September 6, 2009 The difference between ISO 2,500 and 3,200 is 1/3rd stop....I think you are getting too caught up in the numbers here, which has little value until we all see the actual files. Plus, considering what Nikon did in the D3 sensor a few years ago, it is very possible that the M9's new sensor could employ technology that could get the noise characteristics of the M9 at ISO 2,500 to around ISO 4,000 on the D3. And what if they had tried to make it go to ISO 4,000-6,400 and felt the results were not what Leica photographers would even bother using? It is entirely possible that ISO 2,500 is great and anything beyond is a waste of time so it was not even bothered with. StevenM is saying in the dpreview forum that he has seen ISO 2,500 on the M9 and it looks "Really, really good, I would not hesitate to use it" for what that is worth... It always amazes me that people don't think something is possible in electronics...remember when no one thought a FF sensor could possibly be made for a DLSR let alone a Leica M? Leica is obviously proud of the M9 and they have the best optics on earth to live up to, we all might be pleasantly surprised... Agreed, 1/3 stop is pretty small. Besides, according to dpreview rating iso160 on m8 is really a 200 and so forth so 2500 is 3200. Leica M8 Review: 13. Photographic tests: Digital Photography Review Whether that's true or even the case for M9, then possibly 80iso is the new 100. And low or well rendered noise is available through all the stops. Doesn't (I don't have one) Epson rd-1 top out at 1600 iso but it's considered good for 1600 as if it could go a little further but doesn't. 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.