Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
nugat

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

Recommended Posts

I played with the numbers for number of pixels and sensor size, M8 vs. M9, The pixel pitches appear to be virtually identical at around 6.8 microns each, give or take a few hundredths. This means that the M9 will get no high ISO or dynamic range improvement based on pixel pitch alone. This means, in turn, that any improvement in high ISO performance could be obtained only by:

 

1. A significant decrease in the "dead space" between the pixels.

2. Improvement in the noise performance of the sensor or camera circuitry (better shielding, use of less noisy components, etc.)

3. Better signal processing, including noise reduction.

 

If Leica and Kodak have somehow accomplished #1 or #2, great. If they've used #3, we may be faced with the age-old issue: Which is worse, noise or loss of detail?

 

I am *very* interested in what available light samples at 640, 1250 and 2500 look like. Time will tell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My black one weights 320g. I have seen that mistake many times (250g), wonder if some spec sheets were wrongly printed at some point.

 

Put mine on the balance: 310g without hood (perhaps a little bit less). So the "250g" in the data sheet must be a real rumour.

 

P.S.: This keeps me away of some thoughts that a new 35 SummiluxAsph. could mean the real great news on 090909.

Edited by UliWer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I played with the numbers for number of pixels and sensor size, M8 vs. M9, The pixel pitches appear to be virtually identical at around 6.8 microns each, give or take a few hundredths. This means that the M9 will get no high ISO or dynamic range improvement based on pixel pitch alone. This means, in turn, that any improvement in high ISO performance could be obtained only by:

 

1. A significant decrease in the "dead space" between the pixels.

2. Improvement in the noise performance of the sensor or camera circuitry (better shielding, use of less noisy components, etc.)

3. Better signal processing, including noise reduction.

 

If Leica and Kodak have somehow accomplished #1 or #2, great. If they've used #3, we may be faced with the age-old issue: Which is worse, noise or loss of detail?

 

I am *very* interested in what available light samples at 640, 1250 and 2500 look like. Time will tell.

 

at#1 you are talking fill ratio. It was something like 30% for the 2005 CCDs, could indeed improve a lot by 2009. #3 is of course gimmickry from ISO1600. I guess we have to wait another week or so....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding the confusion on the weight of the 35 'lux ASPH - 250g is probably an accidental holdover from the era of the pre-ASPH 35 'lux, which extended well into the 1990s. In fact, both the pre-ASPH and the ASPH were in the catalogs at the same time, for a while, until the backstock of the pre-ASPHs was sold off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dynamic range.

 

Uli pointed this out earlier...

 

Two shots of dark skin (REALLY dark) with highlights, the second shot is running with rimlight and white foam on the water.. still there are some shadow details on the back of the guy. this would have been hard to pull off with the M8...

 

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's no substitute fior a proper viewfinder, IMHO. This is so nearly a camera that I might buy, but if I have to use it with my arms outstretched, I am not interested.

It's a very good substitute when properly used. Live view isn't meant to be used "with outstretched arms" - if you are far-sighted, you should do something about it (e.g. get bi-focal glasses). Viewed from 15-20 cm, LCDs allow for stable and convenient shooting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What does the M9 bottom look like?

 

(Minds out of the gutter, ladies and gentlemen!)

 

I think I answered my own question.

 

Looking more closely at printouts of the brochure I see the little tab on the viewfinder end. So it looks like the concept for the bottom cover is the same, if not the actual (detailed) execution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's a very good substitute when properly used. Live view isn't meant to be used "with outstretched arms" - if you are far-sighted, you should do something about it (e.g. get bi-focal glasses). Viewed from 15-20 cm, LCDs allow for stable and convenient shooting.
Personally I think it makes for wobbly shooting. There is no body stabilisation of such a camera.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I found the full brochure via google. I suppose someone will lose his job at Leica... hope for him this accidental posting was not so accidental but part of the marketing strategy.

 

Anyway, reading the specs. I see 2500 ISO as maximum. I think that although if it is clean and they acheive no noise (still to be seen), it is too low.

The good thing of being able to shoot at 6400 ISO on a Canon MKII or Nikon D700 / D3 is that although there is noise, it allows to shoot at faster speed. For people like me who avoid using flash it means having a moved picture or having a frozen one. Also higher ISO can help closing the lense a bit and not always shoot wide open in available light.

 

If 2500 is perfectly clean, this is great news, but letting the photographer decide if noiser files at 3200 or 6400 are of interest to him would be logical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's a very good substitute when properly used. Live view isn't meant to be used "with outstretched arms" - if you are far-sighted, you should do something about it (e.g. get bi-focal glasses). Viewed from 15-20 cm, LCDs allow for stable and convenient shooting.

 

There are several very good reasons why there isn't a single pro body out there that uses an EVF or live view, as it's sole means of composition.

 

You can't do this with an EVF / LV camera.

 

YouTube - Garry Winogrand Photographer

 

Too much lag and tearing, noise in low light and lousy ergonomics, unless you are taking pictures of static or semi-static subjects.

 

To solve the first two problems the display on the X1 would have to run multiple times faster than anything else out there. We'll know more in a few days.

 

But the M9 looks really great. The DR in those 16bit files must be amazing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a couple of remarks about the PDF brochure:

 

  1. Highlights: the highlights in most of images in that brochure are burnt. Seems like either the exposure metering is broken or something is drastically wrong with the dynamic range
  2. LCD: still 2.5" ---- sad. I would expect it to be 3". Even a P&S camera these days have 3" LCD.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Put mine on the balance: 310g without hood (perhaps a little bit less). So the "250g" in the data sheet must be a real rumour.

 

P.S.: This keeps me away of some thoughts that a new 35 SummiluxAsph. could mean the real great news on 090909.

I happened to note the real weights of my lenses in the Leica catalog of 1983. Back then I found discrepancies of up to 150 grams. I think that situation still exist to some extent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have a couple of remarks about the PDF brochure:

[*]LCD: still 2.5" ---- sad. I would expect it to be 3". Even a P&S camera these days have 3" LCD.

 

My opinion?.....I'm sorry but this is not a drive in movie theatre, it is an M.

 

A good photographer just needs to get in the ballpark and then get onto making photos. I think the screens on my D3 / D700 are great, but it would just not be a deal breaker if they were smaller. You can expect more resolution, brighter LCD's, faster scrolling / zooming, but for Pete's sake, it does not need to be bigger on a Leica M.

 

I am getting more and more excited about this camera and I am going to see it in person on Wednesday.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have a couple of remarks about the PDF brochure:

 

  1. Highlights: the highlights in most of images in that brochure are burnt. Seems like either the exposure metering is broken or something is drastically wrong with the dynamic range
  2. LCD: still 2.5" ---- sad. I would expect it to be 3". Even a P&S camera these days have 3" LCD.

 

Exposure to the right (histogram) seems to be a rule most people are afraid to break.

I on the other hand like inpenetrable blacks and "burnt" lights--where they have an artistic justification. Cuba is a hot, sun-scorched place. The artist chose to depict it that way. It would be naive to think that he did not know how to expose or the meter was broken.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To get back on topic. As an unreconstructed film-only user, who reads these threads purely out of interest, can I ask the following. Is there any indication on how Leica solved the formidable technical problems associated with the highly oblique rays of the short M system back-focus distance and a full frame sensor?

 

It appears to be a new generation of micro-lenses on the sensor. I expect there's alos some in camera processing to reduce the vignetting, but that's purely speculation on my part.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You think? I have both the 35 and 50 Luxes and like I said, hardly ever at ISO 160.

For me, that alone would justify the buying of the camera. I'm always shooting on the brink of a flashing 4000.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...