Double Negative Posted September 9, 2009 Share #21 Posted September 9, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) I've updated the "low res" brochure with a full res one, so if you can't get onto Leica's site to get it, it's here (same name to protect previous links however): http://litpixel.com/m9_brochure_english_RZ_low.1.pdf Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted September 9, 2009 Posted September 9, 2009 Hi Double Negative, Take a look here M9 site with FAQs up now. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
jaapv Posted September 9, 2009 Share #22 Posted September 9, 2009 Um, what does that mean exactly? Is it bad or is it BAD? For the user it does not matter at al, but it does not tally with the S2 being a development platform. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott kirkpatrick Posted September 9, 2009 Share #23 Posted September 9, 2009 Interesting exposition. So you think the Ultra II cards are indeed faster than the Extreme IIIs and not a typo? Maybe on the M8, but I shifted to Ex III's long ago, since they are spec-ed to be faster. Sean Reid uses Ultra 2s, but I assumed that was because he already had enough for his needs and they don't wear out. I did a quick comparison once on my M8 and thought the Ex IIIs were faster. But somebody in Solms must have tested more carefully. If I can still find the Ultra II, I'll retry that test. scott Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
UliWer Posted September 9, 2009 Share #24 Posted September 9, 2009 NO coding of "current 135 APO". Do we think this means they've got a new one in the wings? Seems unlikely, but then so did the M9 not that long ago. There will be a new function for "manual lens detection from a list" in the menu. The list should enclose all present Leica lenses at least - i.e. the 135 Apo Telyt. I think they are fed up with post-coding the lenses at Solms:rolleyes: What will be interesting to know, is whether also old Leica lenses and perhaps even non-Leica lenses are listed. I' am sure we'll learn from Reid's Review tomorrow. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnbuckley Posted September 9, 2009 Share #25 Posted September 9, 2009 For the user it does not matter at al, but it does not tally with the S2 being a development platform. It may still be a development platform, only not for the M. For those of us who've doubted Leica's capabilities, they may yet have some surprises -- and I hope, for the sake of our R users, that it's a solution for you all. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gismoto Posted September 9, 2009 Share #26 Posted September 9, 2009 Big mistake, IMHO not offering a sapphire glass option and requiring IR filters to be removed for wide angles. I agree that the lack of saphire glass is a mistake but they leave a back door open in the FAQ... I will request it Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosuna Posted September 9, 2009 Share #27 Posted September 9, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) The FAQs say that, oh by the way, the shutter is different. Maybe that is where they shifted things to avoid the vignetting problem due to the battery case that Mark Norton's experiments suggested. Is there a picture of the bottom of the camera with the cover plate removed? It's not the sort of thing I would expect to see at this point in the PR materials, but maybe one of the lucky early adopters can show us if there are any differences down there. scott Yes, there is... Leica M9 Hands-on Preview: 4. Body & Design: Digital Photography Review . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marknorton Posted September 9, 2009 Share #28 Posted September 9, 2009 I have to say I do not know how they've done it because the lens throat is more open than the M8.2 as expected but the battery does not appear to have moved and the base plate looks identical. Very strange. There's some internal views of the camera on the DP Review website "Factory Visit" which shows the shutter winding mechanism looks very similar, if not identical, no image of the new DSP board though. The back panel without it looks very similar. Interesting the new 3 colour shutter which should make for improved metering. Blue dot looks the same. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
efftee Posted September 9, 2009 Share #29 Posted September 9, 2009 Maybe on the M8, but I shifted to Ex III's long ago, since they are spec-ed to be faster. Sean Reid uses Ultra 2s, but I assumed that was because he already had enough for his needs and they don't wear out. I did a quick comparison once on my M8 and thought the Ex IIIs were faster. But somebody in Solms must have tested more carefully. If I can still find the Ultra II, I'll retry that test. scott I have both the Ultra IIs and Extreme IIIs, but no M9. Worse, I sold my M8 today and thrown in an Ultra II instead of an Extreme III. Doh! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
guidomo Posted September 9, 2009 Share #30 Posted September 9, 2009 Why are people surprised about the absence of Maestro? It was not mentioned in any of the leaked documents. What is this thing in the FAQ about no image preview being available? The dpreview test mentions the preview. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockyIII Posted September 9, 2009 Share #31 Posted September 9, 2009 Big mistake, IMHO not offering a sapphire glass option and requiring IR filters to be removed for wide angles. Is the LCD monitor cover plastic or glass? Rocky Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marknorton Posted September 9, 2009 Share #32 Posted September 9, 2009 Is the LCD monitor cover plastic or glass? Rocky Plastic. Not good in a £4850/€5500/$7000 camera. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
efftee Posted September 9, 2009 Share #33 Posted September 9, 2009 Why are people surprised about the absence of Maestro? It was not mentioned in any of the leaked documents. What is this thing in the FAQ about no image preview being available? The dpreview test mentions the preview. I thought the 'image preview' in the FAQ referred to live view and the reason why it's absent. I didn't catch the preview mention on dpreview though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
footnoteblog Posted September 9, 2009 Share #34 Posted September 9, 2009 Wow, a lot of typos and poor writing in that FAQ, but still interesting info. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockyIII Posted September 9, 2009 Share #35 Posted September 9, 2009 Plastic. Not good in a £4850/€5500/$7000 camera. The Erwin Puts article says the monitor cover is "normal glass," but dpreview says it is "Perspex" which is a type of plastic. Rocky Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gravastar Posted September 9, 2009 Share #36 Posted September 9, 2009 There will be a new function for "manual lens detection from a list" in the menu. The list should enclose all present Leica lenses at least - i.e. the 135 Apo Telyt. I think they are fed up with post-coding the lenses at Solms:rolleyes: What will be interesting to know, is whether also old Leica lenses and perhaps even non-Leica lenses are listed. I' am sure we'll learn from Reid's Review tomorrow. Firmware: 1.002 16-18-21 ASPH. f/4@16mm 11626 16-18-21 ASPH. f/4@18mm 11626 16-18-21 ASPH. f/4@21mm 11626 21 f/2.8 11134 21 f/2.8 ASPH. 11135/11897 24 f/2.8 ASPH. 11878/11898 28 f/2 ASPH. 11604 28 f/2.8 11804 28 f/2.8 11809 28 f/2.8 ASPH. 11606 28-35-50 ASPH. f/4@28mm 11625 28-35-50 ASPH. f/4@35mm 11625 28-35-50 ASPH. f/4@50mm 11625 35 f/1.4 11869/11870/11860 35 f/1.4 ASPHERICAL 11873 35 f/1.4 ASPH. 11874/11883 35 f/2 11310/11311 35 f/2 ASPH. 11879/11882 50 f/1 11821/11822 50 f/1.2 11820 50 f/1.4 11868/11856/11114 50 f/1.4 ASPH. 11891/11892 50 f/2 11817 50 f/2 11819/11825/11826/11816 50 f/2.8 11831/11823/11824 75 f/1.4 11814/11815/11810 75 f/2 ASPH. 11637 90 f/2 11136/11137 90 f/2 ASPH. 11884/11885 90 f/2.8 11800 90 f/2.8 11807/11808 90 f/4 11633/11634 MACRO-ADAPTER-M f. 90 f/4 14409 135 f/2.8 11829 135 f/3.4 APO 11889 135 f/4 11851/11861 E&OE Bob. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Double Negative Posted September 9, 2009 Share #37 Posted September 9, 2009 Why some lenses aren't listed: "The list contains lenses that were available without coding (before around June 2006). Lenses launched more recently are only available with coding and therefore cannot be selected manually." Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
swamiji Posted September 9, 2009 Share #38 Posted September 9, 2009 Why some lenses aren't listed: More importantly, what do you do when your lens is not listed? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
UliWer Posted September 9, 2009 Share #39 Posted September 9, 2009 Firmware: 1.002 ... Thanks so much! This is really helpful! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ho_co Posted September 9, 2009 Share #40 Posted September 9, 2009 Gee, Bob! Thanks for the list! You've just told me I'll be able to use my old 28mm. But it doesn't include the Hologon 15/8, which some folks were using on the M8; and didn't I read that lenses from 15mm up were covered? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.