thrid Posted September 5, 2009 Share #161 Posted September 5, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) I have a couple of remarks about the PDF brochure: [*]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 It's probably close to impossible to judge anything about the DR of the camera from the PDF images, because they were with almost 100% certainty art directed in post. It almost looks like the art director or photographer was trying to emulate the silver retention / bleach by-pass look that was very popular in the movie biz about a decade ago. Let's wait until we see some real RAW sample files. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted September 5, 2009 Posted September 5, 2009 Hi thrid, 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!
okram Posted September 5, 2009 Share #162 Posted September 5, 2009 For me the important issue is wakeup time. Canon announces D7 as 0.1 sec, and I lost so many pictures because of M8s almost a second to wake up from sleep.... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
farnz Posted September 5, 2009 Share #163 Posted September 5, 2009 ... 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. ... Hey, leave me out of this, Daniel! <grin> Pete. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
egibaud Posted September 5, 2009 Share #164 Posted September 5, 2009 For me the important issue is wakeup time. Canon announces D7 as 0.1 sec, and I lost so many pictures because of M8s almost a second to wake up from sleep.... you've said it "announces" Leica too announced very short lap with the M8... so let's wait and see for the D7, and M9 too Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted September 5, 2009 Share #165 Posted September 5, 2009 For me the important issue is wakeup time. Canon announces D7 as 0.1 sec, and I lost so many pictures because of M8s almost a second to wake up from sleep.... Learn to press the shutter button as you raise the camera to your eye, you won't lose any shots. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenf Posted September 5, 2009 Share #166 Posted September 5, 2009 What is the round thing on the top plate of the x1 not the shutter speed nor the manual focus ring but the big button on the other edge with nothing written on it? In my dreams, it's a pop-up optical VF. Probably a flash. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thompsonkirk Posted September 5, 2009 Share #167 Posted September 5, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) The viewfinder is again optimized for 1 meter? Why did they go back? So they can offer me a 2 meter viewfinder upgrade for $$$$? Kirk Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted September 5, 2009 Share #168 Posted September 5, 2009 LCD: still 2.5" ---- sad. I would expect it to be 3". Even a P&S camera these days have 3" LCD. I think P&S users and M8/9/SLR users use the LCD for rather different things. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dpattinson Posted September 5, 2009 Share #169 Posted September 5, 2009 The viewfinder is again optimized for 1 meter? Why did they go back? So they can offer me a 2 meter viewfinder upgrade for $$$$? Kirk Yeah - I didn't understand that either. Unless they think that with the extra Mp, no-one will care about having to crop a bit off the sides... which would tend to indicate that they just don't get it... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bo_Lorentzen Posted September 5, 2009 Share #170 Posted September 5, 2009 LOL... maybe some people like to shoot portraits at 1m..? they "might" have been messing more with the frame line formula. . Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest malland Posted September 6, 2009 Share #171 Posted September 6, 2009 The viewfinder is again optimized for 1 meter? Why did they go back? So they can offer me a 2 meter viewfinder upgrade for $$$$?...That bothers me too, as one of the reasons I got the M8.2 over the M8 were the better frame lines. Sean Reid has written extensively about this, which must have reached Leica — could there be a technical design reason for the 1 meter optimization? —Mitch/Potomac, MD Scratching the Surface© Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest malland Posted September 6, 2009 Share #172 Posted September 6, 2009 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. Exactly. In fact it's encouraging to see a rather exciting photo-essay in artistic terms in the M9 brochure rather than boring, high resolution pictures with "prefect" highlight and shadow detail. —Mitch/Potomac, MD Bangkok Hysteria©: Book Project Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
innerimager Posted September 6, 2009 Share #173 Posted September 6, 2009 (edited) Very pleased to see Iso 80. Besides the advantage for fast lenses in brighter light, I will be curious what the image quality will be. If the M9 is optimized for that Iso, we may see some clear advantages to shooting at iso 80. If it's optimized for 160 but creates the lower iso with additional firmware tricks, like on Nikon cameras, it should lower IQ. As an old Kodak 14N then 14nx upgrade shooter, the iso 80 on the 14N (base Iso) was really superior to the 160 on the 14nx (base Iso), the problem was you couldn't use the 14N above 160 because of noise. If Kodak has conquered the issues and delivered a sensor optimized for iso 80, with low noise throughout the range to 2500, this could prove one of the biggest reasons to upgrade from the M8. best.....Peter Edited September 6, 2009 by innerimager Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
el.nino Posted September 6, 2009 Share #174 Posted September 6, 2009 That bothers me too, as one of the reasons I got the M8.2 over the M8 were the better frame lines. Sean Reid has written extensively about this, which must have reached Leica — could there be a technical design reason for the 1 meter optimization? not quite a technical design reason, but a very reasonable as i think: for quite a few decades leica-photographers have been shooting with frames adjusted to about 1 meter. and they were even shooting on film - some may have complained (inlcuding me) about this, but the majority got used to it and were ok with. so now the digital M has grown up and is using the very same viewfinder as M4s (the late ones), M6s, M7s and MPs, why should it be different here. especially regarding those photographers using both - film Ms and M9. although the viewfinder and focallengths are the same now i still would have to rethink between using a digital or a film M. that would be really annoying. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
el.nino Posted September 6, 2009 Share #175 Posted September 6, 2009 If it's optimized for 160 but creates the lower iso with additional firmware tricks, like on Nikon cameras, it should lower IQ. i saw a screenshot from the ISO-menu where it says "PULL 80", "160" etc... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
innerimager Posted September 6, 2009 Share #176 Posted September 6, 2009 i saw a screenshot from the ISO-menu where it says "PULL 80", "160" etc... oh, hope not! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
el.nino Posted September 6, 2009 Share #177 Posted September 6, 2009 oh, hope not! sorry, but YES. those are the values in the iso-menu: auto iso pull 80 160 200 250 320 400 500 640 . . . 2500 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
innerimager Posted September 6, 2009 Share #178 Posted September 6, 2009 thanks for clarifying, I won't hold it against the messenger ;>) Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest malland Posted September 6, 2009 Share #179 Posted September 6, 2009 Well, a lot of people will prefer this because having 160 rather than 80 as the base ISO results in ISO 2500 being better. —Mitch/Potomac, MD Scratching the Surface© Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
el.nino Posted September 6, 2009 Share #180 Posted September 6, 2009 it even says it in the brochure below the picture on page 20. 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.