M9 full specs and pictures are out. Let's discuss.

[SJP]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I think someone is getting cold feet. "I will not buy a digital M until it is full frame".

 

So...... now one is available additional reasons not to get one are being disseminated without a grain of evidence.

 

I couldn't care either way, but I would prefer a simple stament like "I am happy with film (Kodachrome)" and be done with it. No-one has to buy a digital anything if they don't want to, and no-one should have to offer an excuse for such a choice.

[KM-25]

I'm glad to hear business was very good for you, but it sounds like your performance was above the average for the business... Most shooters are not raking in huge amounts of cash, especially not those in the news business...

 

By the way, good luck with the Kodachrome project. I got my 10 rolls in the fridge and plan on shooting some before it's too late...

 

Oh, believe me, biz is down quite a bit, I am either going to lose my a$$ with the project or it will be the best self promotion I have ever had.

 

And thanks for reminding me what matters most to me right now, the Kodachrome Project.

[ShyTot]

The M9 does not need IR filters on the lens.... so let's see what them've put on the sensor to avoid it and let's see how it affects the file...

 

They've put nothing on the sensor for IR. There is another solution.

[carstenw]

Oh good god, I can't believe we are even bothering to discuss this stuff in a thread that is about the merits of the M9, which I am 90% positive I am getting. What you say is your opinion, it is not all fact, you have to get over it.

 

There is nothing to get over, of course this is only my opinion. I even said so, in so many words, just as your posts are based only on your opinion, and anyone else here, for that matter.

 

I am not saying that anyone should give up their SLR, in case you want to read it again. I am merely saying that if the limitations of the M8 don't inhibit you in your work, it produces results which out of the box stand up to most cameras out there. That does not imply that you can't make good photos with other cameras, which is clearly not the case. For some scenarios, other cameras make better photos, but see my comment above about limitations again: clearly the M8/9 is not going to outperform an SLR in macro, tele, high fps, high ISO, and other kinds of specialist photography. An SLR is a jack of all trades, and the M is the master of one.

 

Anyway, I thought you just shot Kodachrome?

[plasticman]

They've put nothing on the sensor for IR. There is another solution.

 

People are being very categorical with their statements without any backup - I guess they want to signify they have some secret hush-hush inside information - but from one of the 'preview' sites I read online, there was very definitely a statement there which indicated that the IR solution was indeed on the sensor. This may have been marketing misunderstanding, but if this was a mistake, maybe you can be helpful enough to tell us more ShyTot (or should I say Bond, James Bond).

 

Anyway, in every other respect, I have to say (barring the lack of a chrome finish camera - why??) the M9 does indeed seem to be exactly the camera I hoped in the next iteration of the M-series. I'm especially impressed by the lack of DNG compression - and if this leads to a nicer shoulder in blown highlights, it'll solve my main bugbear with digital in one swoop.

 

In any case, I'll be taking my M8 with an SD card and a couple of lenses along to the dealer who gets the first demo here in Stockholm, and if I like the result my name will be added to the list of buyers, I think.

 

The main problem will obviously be price, and I'll probably wait a little while to make sure no other issues arise. But the pdf (which I rather guiltily read) seemed to me to be much better than expected: no gimmicks and no unnecessary innovations. Just striving for ultimate image quality.

 

Now if they just decide to re-introduce chrome...

[adan]

Thrid - easy, guy! Nothing aimed at you personally (posts lead-frog all over the place on these fast-paced threads.)

 

Gene Smith dumped RFs (mostly Canon, for the Pittsburgh Project) for SLRs the moment SLRs appeared. So did Pete Turner, Jay Maisel, etc.

 

And they were right - for the way they saw the world, an SLR made far more sense - once it existed

 

Same for Elliot Erwitt, who shot Leica M for one way of seeing (his personal stuff) and SLRs and even an MF view camera for his commercial work.

 

Which just emphasizes my point - there is a big difference in how the two (or 5 or 7) different kinds of camera viewing affect one's interaction with the world. EE deliberately chose NOT to use his huge stock of commercial equipment for what he shot for himself.

[carstenw]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

They've put nothing on the sensor for IR. There is another solution.

 

That would be exceedingly surprising: even the M8 had an IR filter on the sensor (weak as it was).

[andybarton]

Come on guys. Is it really necessary to have a row over this? Honestly?

[carstenw]

... maybe? How else will we spend the days leading up to the 9th?

[adan]

From the brochure (p. 18, second section)

 

"A newly developed sensor filter ensures the suppression of undesirable infrared light."

 

end of story.

[plasticman]

From the brochure (p. 18, second section)

 

"A newly developed sensor filter ensures the suppression of undesirable infrared light."

 

end of story.

 

Thanks for quoting this Adan - I thought we weren't allowed to.

 

I'm really interested to do some direct comparisons with the M8 now.

[andybarton]

A "newly developed sensor filter" sounds like more than just a piece of pink glass. If it were that easy, they'd have done it 3 years ago. Must be more to it than that.

 

Could the sensor itself be less sensitive to IR radiation?

[ccc yyy]

... my point was that there are very few world-beating Nikon lenses ... The same with Canon,

what photo gear-heads consider "world-beating" ...

 

and what all others, including real photogs, consider world-beating ...

[andybarton]

That's a world beating photograph, not a world beating lens.

 

Just goes to show...

[KM-25]

... maybe? How else will we spend the days leading up to the 9th?

 

Oh, taking photos. No offense Carsten, we are all pent up about the M9 like a football team that is about to go to the Superbowl....:-)

 

And yes I still shoot Kodachrome, it's just creating bills right now rather than pay them. The M9 will help pay the bills while on the road.....I hope.

[ShyTot]

"A newly developed sensor filter ensures the suppression of undesirable infrared light."

 

Thanks for quoting this Adan - I thought we weren't allowed to. I'm really interested to do some direct comparisons with the M8 now.

 

There's no denying there's a 'filter', obviously there has to be to reduce the IR, but would a firmware solution qualify for the brochure statement?

 

Don't know whether the same level of IR filtration that existed on the M8 sensor continues, or not.

 

Andy B,

"That's a world beating photograph, not a world beating lens. " Nah - a world beating photographer, more like. :-)

 

New camera, same old photographer, same old pictures ?

 

KM25 - really expecting bigger income from a new camera - how's that gonna work for you ?

[andybarton]

ShyTot

 

Perhaps we are both right re sensor/filter?

 

Most people, amateur and professional would take the same photos with a new camera, unless they were moving from 35mm disposable to 4x5

[jaapv]

As I understand it, the original M8 filter has an efficiency of 95%. The microlenses of the m9 provide the additional filtering.

[stunsworth]

Interesting twist that this threads taking. I think it fair to say that most of us are here because we happen to prefer Leica to other manufacturers, and many of us prefer rangefinders to SLRs - even if the results are indistinguishable from an SLR that doesn't mean that the _photographer_ doesn't have a preference. Personally I prefer rangefinders, others may feel differently, and they are entitled to their opinions, just don't try to tell me I should be using an SLR.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[luigi bertolotti]

Just to touch another point... seems that 135 frame is again in the VF : someway logical, to keep the 6-frame principle and starting from 28, but obviously without a magnifier it will be poor in a .68 VF... anyway, I do not understand completely the sentence that is added in the 135 3,4 description into the famous brochure: "it must be closed at least 2 stops" : why such a detail ? I would have understood better if they simply would have written that "a 1,4x Leica magnifier is highly reccommended" (i.e. "mandatory").