erl Posted September 8, 2009 Share #21 Posted September 8, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) Based on the responses on just this topic, not to mention others that abound, it is clear that Leica (or anybody else) is not going to please all of the people all of the time. Clearly, they have made decisions that are "averaged" when electing to have the same LCD or whatever else that requires a decision. For me, that is fine, for someone else, not so. My original LCD from the very first batch, and my subsequent M8 are both well used and both LCD's are totally unmarked. Apparently I have no need of Sapphire glass. I rarely chimp (I am a seasoned film user), but since the tool is there I use it as I think Wilson described. Sometimes it is productive to 'know' what is 'right' and what is 'wrong' with one's exposure, despite your confidence in your skill. Bottom line, as usual. It is (will be) a tool with limitations. Use it for what it can do and go on your way rejoicing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted September 8, 2009 Posted September 8, 2009 Hi erl, Take a look here No upgrade to LCD for M9 - why not?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
UliWer Posted September 8, 2009 Share #22 Posted September 8, 2009 Why would Leica revert to an older screen prior to the M8.2 for a next generation M9. I am referring to the saphire screen on the M8.2. Why would someone, who once made a diversion, take the straight way next time? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted September 8, 2009 Share #23 Posted September 8, 2009 Why would Leica add another £1,000 to the cost of the M9 when, for most users, it's not necessary? A £2 screen cover works just as well for most people and a £6,000 M9 would be more likely to be dead in the water than a £5,000 one. They have made a big thing about a-la-carte again recently. Maybe when the first batch or two of M9s have gone (say, about Tuesday next week...) they will introduce an al-la-carte option for the M9, that will include sapphire as well as 0.58/0.85 and all the other goodies taken for granted on film Ms for years. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
J Mitchum Posted September 8, 2009 Share #24 Posted September 8, 2009 There really is no excuse for using a 230,000 pixel LCD on a camera costing several thousand dollars. It's absurd. I find it amazing to hear people defend this. It will be interesting to see what they use on the X1 since the LCD will be of even more importance due to it likely being the sole method of focusing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted September 8, 2009 Share #25 Posted September 8, 2009 Why? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacksparrow Posted September 8, 2009 Share #26 Posted September 8, 2009 Well, Ricoh GRIII isn't going to be selling in large volumes either, but still, it bumped the screen from 2.7” (in GRII) to three inches, and the resolution jumps from 230,000 dots to 920,000... and that's in a ~600 euro camera. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
erl Posted September 8, 2009 Share #27 Posted September 8, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) Call me stupid (it's been done before!) but I don't see ANY connection between the cost of a camera and the Size or whatever of it's LCD. A lot of the other cams being quoted as 'half the price' with better LCD's is irrelevant IMHO. The purpose of the LCD on the respective cameras is different, hence the difference in necessary quality. I reckon, but don't know, that the M9 would be built to a cost point and all features must be facilitated within that limit. I would rather the heavyweight features get most of the budget rather than a pissy little LCD that is only an aid to picture taking rather an an essential device. Please don't misunderstand my drift, I do use the LCD, but it anything but essential. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevelap Posted September 8, 2009 Share #28 Posted September 8, 2009 Why would Leica add another £1,000 to the cost of the M9 when, for most users, it's not necessary? A £2 screen cover works just as well for most people and a £6,000 M9 would be more likely to be dead in the water than a £5,000 one. They have made a big thing about a-la-carte again recently. Maybe when the first batch or two of M9s have gone (say, about Tuesday next week...) they will introduce an al-la-carte option for the M9, that will include sapphire as well as 0.58/0.85 and all the other goodies taken for granted on film Ms for years. And chrome, maybe:). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wlaidlaw Posted September 8, 2009 Author Share #29 Posted September 8, 2009 The idea that an OLED screen of the same size as the current one would cost $1,000 is rubbish. They have them on mobile phones now, there is P&S Olympus camera that has a 3 inch one and the next Microsoft Zune player, costing about $200 total, will have a 3.3 inch one. It might have added $25 to $50 to the cost. Even if they did go for higher pixels, the additional processing power to go from 230,000 pixels to say 500,000 is tiny. My main beef is not the pixels, it is the brightness. An OLED screen would also use about 40 to 50% less power. I totally accept that some don't want to use it and some find the old screen acceptable but others like me find it way less than perfect. The technology was there at a reasonable price and I personally think that Leica should have availed themselves of it. Although the brochure does not say it, I am hoping that the screen will have the sapphire glass. I don't want to go back to using shields. The other thing is that nowhere in the brochure do they mention which processor they are using. Most have assumed they are using the Fuji Magik processor but it does not say so in the brochure - only says "cutting edge processing". The S2 brochure mentions the Magik processor by name and makes a fuss about it - the M9 brochure doesn't. I suspect they may be using an improved version of the M8 circuitry made from off the shelf components. Wilson Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevelap Posted September 8, 2009 Share #30 Posted September 8, 2009 Wilson, I suspect Andy was thinking about Sapphire rather than OLED. (By the way, Magik = Maestro?, thanks). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted September 8, 2009 Share #31 Posted September 8, 2009 I was referring to the sapphire screen, in response to the post above mine, thank you Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted September 8, 2009 Share #32 Posted September 8, 2009 The other thing is that nowhere in the brochure do they mention which processor they are using. Most have assumed they are using the Fuji Magik processor but it does not say so in the brochure - only says "cutting edge processing". The S2 brochure mentions the Magik processor by name and makes a fuss about it - the M9 brochure doesn't. I suspect they may be using an improved version of the M8 circuitry made from off the shelf components. Wilson That they would be using the old type of circuitry seems rather unlikely to say the least. It would simply not be able to process 18Mp 16 bits files at a reasonable rate. And the price of the camera would be considerably higher. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wlaidlaw Posted September 8, 2009 Author Share #33 Posted September 8, 2009 Wilson, I suspect Andy was thinking about Sapphire rather than OLED. (By the way, Magik = Maestro?, thanks). Sorry guys - late night trip to the airport yesterday and my brain must still be going down the A8. Maestro of course, not Magik. I hope Jaap is right and it is the MAESTRO. Wilson Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wlaidlaw Posted September 8, 2009 Author Share #34 Posted September 8, 2009 I was referring to the sapphire screen, in response to the post above mine, thank you Andy it was not your post I was referring to. Another earlier poster said that changing to an OLED screen would be a huge increase in cost, which I why I used the $1,000 figure as an example rather than using the £1,000 mentioned in your post. I am afraid I disagree with you on the screen protector. The £2 or £7 screen protectors detract from a screen that is already less than cutting edge and make it even dimmer and harder to read in sunlight. I do not regret for one second the sapphire screen upgrade. Wilson Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted September 8, 2009 Share #35 Posted September 8, 2009 On the other hand, Wilson, I have two bodies, both of them have the chrome scuffed and neither LCD screen was scratched. It is not that bad at all. OLED I agree, it would have been nice in strong light. The resolution is not relevant, I would say. Let's see what it is, though, before we start bashing... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rolo Posted September 8, 2009 Share #36 Posted September 8, 2009 as well as 0.58/0.85 and all the other goodies taken for granted on film Ms for years. 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) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wlaidlaw Posted September 8, 2009 Author Share #37 Posted September 8, 2009 On the other hand, Wilson, I have two bodies, both of them have the chrome scuffed and neither LCD screen was scratched. It is not that bad at all. Jaap, I tend to wear my M8 traditional tourist fashion round my neck and hanging in front. Shirt buttons are the problem, especially metal ones. I know how scratched the Hi-Tec protectors I used to use got. Nevertheless I will be surprised if the M9 does not come with Sapphire, after all, that is all that was fitted on the M8-2, after the M8 was out of production. My chrome M8 too is a bit scuffed and scratched to the extend that if I decide to sell the M8, it would have some impact on the price. That is why I also am not too sure about the paint finish. Scratched/scuffed paint looks a lot worse than scratched chrome. Wilson Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
efftee Posted September 8, 2009 Share #38 Posted September 8, 2009 There really is no excuse for using a 230,000 pixel LCD on a camera costing several thousand dollars. It's absurd. I find it amazing to hear people defend this. It will be interesting to see what they use on the X1 since the LCD will be of even more importance due to it likely being the sole method of focusing. I don't think you can rationalize the cost of the camera by the parts and material used. Else you'd be demanding for sapphire glass, Hermes leather and a titanium body! However, I do think that we are all a little disappointed, I know I am, that there is no mention about an upgrade in the display. Whilst I don't much care about the resolution, ie 230K or 920K pixels, I do care about its usability in brightly lit conditions and an OLED screen would have been godsend. But like Jaapv said, lets see it before we bash it. Only one more day, people! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dpattinson Posted September 8, 2009 Share #39 Posted September 8, 2009 Jaap, I tend to wear my M8 traditional tourist fashion round my neck and hanging in front. Shirt buttons are the problem, especially metal ones. I know how scratched the Hi-Tec protectors I used to use got. Nevertheless I will be surprised if the M9 does not come with Sapphire, after all, that is all that was fitted on the M8-2, after the M8 was out of production. My chrome M8 too is a bit scuffed and scratched to the extend that if I decide to sell the M8, it would have some impact on the price. That is why I also am not too sure about the paint finish. Scratched/scuffed paint looks a lot worse than scratched chrome. Wilson I stopped buying clothes with metal zippers and buttons Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted September 8, 2009 Share #40 Posted September 8, 2009 Why would Leica revert to an older screen prior to the M8.2 for a next generation M9. I am referring to the saphire screen on the M8.2. Cost - the M9 is already a very expensive camera, adding the sapphire screen would push this up even more. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.