ulrikft Posted September 30, 2009 Share #81 Posted September 30, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) And as I said, engineering on an Internet forum is easy. Not tantamount to arrogance at all btw So, you don't think that weather sealed buttons/top plate would help one bit? Then we disagree strongly.. simple as that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted September 30, 2009 Posted September 30, 2009 Hi ulrikft, Take a look here M9 – A Giant Leap in the Right Direction – Still Some Distance To Go. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
pascal_meheut Posted September 30, 2009 Share #82 Posted September 30, 2009 So, you don't think that weather sealed buttons/top plate would help one bit? Then we disagree strongly.. simple as that. Never said so. Once again, you are focusing on 1 point, forgetting the 22 others... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest wls.shanghai Posted September 30, 2009 Share #83 Posted September 30, 2009 ...very funny thread.... looks like a big baby bibelot store the best bibelot has the most silly gimmicks ... --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Aperture & Speed is all I need the rest is very very boring for me... wls Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted September 30, 2009 Share #84 Posted September 30, 2009 ... Please, think before you dutifully repeat the marketing strategy of Leica. OK it's getting harder and harder at my age but i'll try to think just for you. Leica is a company, not a charity, right? So as a company, Leica decides to sell its M9 as is for $7,000. Then why should they sell for the same price an M9 + a $150 or $200 sapphire glass? And if they sell both for $7,150 or $7,200 who said that customers would be prepared to pay such a price to get what they could consider a luxury jewelry? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
zlatkob Posted September 30, 2009 Share #85 Posted September 30, 2009 Sorry, but aren't coupled rangefinder simpler to use than separate rangefinder, bayonet mount than screw mount and in camera metering than separate light meter ? And smaller integrated in the camera than the separated instruments ? Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. A more complex device can be simpler to use. To be consistent, everyone promoting simplicity at the expense of functions and features should also reject such complex innovations as the coupled rangefinder, parallax correction, the bayonet mount, in-camera metering and, of course, all of digital photography. Those innovations are all "too complex" and "too expensive". But regarding the 5DMII that I also use, aren't those comments kinds of oxymoron ? Simple to use in skilled hands and simplify function by extensive customization ? ;-) More seriously, I think that the 5DMII is easier to use in non-skilled hands than the M9 and doesn't really need that much customization. But at a cost, bigger size. Lucien The 5DmkII has an extensive set of features and a lengthy manual to explain them. But a skilled photographer narrows down the variables to the few that aid his specific work and ignores the rest. So after you've set the custom functions, etc., that suit your preferences, it's as simple to use as setting the aperture, shutter speed and ISO. "Simplify function by extensive customization" means you can adjust the camera to your needs. Sometimes, if I pick up a friend's Canon, I can't use it because his buttons are programmed differently than mine and his diopter is set to his eye. He has customized it to suit his preferences and thus made it simpler to use for him. M users customize their cameras too. The bigger size is a valid point. But the bigger size is mainly due to it being a reflex camera, not due to such added features as programmable buttons, weather sealing, high-resolution LCD, video ability or live view. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest malland Posted September 30, 2009 Share #86 Posted September 30, 2009 ...Is manual lens selection from an endless list on a tiny monitor really that much simpler than using coded lenses which are recognized automatically?...I haven't yet seen an M9 but that does not seem to be the most elegant implementation of manual lens identification. In comparison, the D300 has a facility that allows the user to identify nine lenses by entering into each of nine banks the focal length and maximum aperture of lenses; then, the user selects only among nine items when he or she uses a lens that is not automatically identified. I'm surprised that the OP did not include in his list, nor anyone else suggest, a modern 3D matrix metering system, although I have no idea how difficult this would be to implement on a digital-M. I suggested this in a thread on my experience with photographing in Botswana in April with an M8.2 and a D300: while I was photographing wildlife most of the time with the D300 and only occasionally switching to the M8 for landscapes, I found metering with the M8 was somewhat of an annoyance in this situation as, each time, I had to, obviously, point the M8 down from the sky and hold the exposure while bringing the camera back up to frame the shot. When one is somewhat rushed in doing this and has to switch cameras back and forth quickly, the overwhelming convenience and surprising accuracy of Nikon matrix metering leaves one wishing that the digital-Ms, in future versions, would also have a modern, effective matrix metering system. My suggestion had some of the ame type of dyspeptic reactions as the OP has received here: why didn't I just stick to my D300 if I loved it so much; why didn't learn how to use the M8 meter, etc.? And this is the point about "keeping simplicity" to which others have responded above: there are obviously a lot of facilities and functions that a new digital-M could or should include — sensor cleaning through vibration, new type of viewfinder, etc. — without compromising an effective and basically simple user interface. Some of these types of functions perhaps could be easily implemented while other ones may be costly, and this is for Leica to work out. But I find it hard to understand why people should, as a matter of principle, object that everything will be a "complication". On the other hand, this is the internet and I saw one posting on this forum objecting to the idea of a more direct ISO setting than that of the M8 because that particular user found he never had to change the ISO while shooting. The high-end Nikon cameras achieve this in that they allow direct and simple user controls (ISO, white balance, EV adjustment), while providing a complex and effective menu structure that allows extensive customization. It would, indeed, require quite an effort to learn to use all of the hundreds of items for customization of a camera like the D300, but there are files for menu settings for different types of use prepared by Thom Hogan and others that can be uploaded to the camera. —Mitch/Potomac, MD Bangkok Hysteria©: Book Project Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
zlatkob Posted September 30, 2009 Share #87 Posted September 30, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) And as I said, engineering on an Internet forum is easy. Likewise, anti-engineering on an Internet forum is just as easy. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
zlatkob Posted September 30, 2009 Share #88 Posted September 30, 2009 I would certainly like to see a viewfinder which does away with the need for aux finders, magnifiers and dioptres but I agree that most of the rest of the list is feature-bloat which gets away from the essence of M photography. If you don't get it, maybe the M is not for you? But surely changing the viewfinder would destroy a 50+ years legacy. Maybe the M is not for you? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
zlatkob Posted September 30, 2009 Share #89 Posted September 30, 2009 Using the simplicity argument to draw the line exactly where _you_ want is dishonest. I agree. If a list of 23 changes is somehow too long or too many, then surely Leica got it wrong by even making the M9. If years back, someone had looked at the M6 or M7 and made a list of all of the changes needed to arrive at the M9, the list would have been much, much longer than 23 items. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pascal_meheut Posted September 30, 2009 Share #90 Posted September 30, 2009 3 messages in a row, not a valid argument. Not a record but quite good. You made the ignore list. Congrats. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
zlatkob Posted September 30, 2009 Share #91 Posted September 30, 2009 You forgot: - Coffee machine - Frames the picture itself - Has a voice generator and enough artificial intelligence it can convince your wife it was a good idea so spend so much money on a camera Hmmm, I have to learn how to make a "valid" argument, maybe like the above. Seriously, it's funny how everyone draws the line exactly where it suits them, and anything else is contrary to the Leica philosophy and invalid. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ulrikft Posted September 30, 2009 Share #92 Posted September 30, 2009 3 messages in a row, not a valid argument. Not a record but quite good. You made the ignore list. Congrats. Hmm, I'm not sure how much you love, or don't love formal logic, but I have not seen very many valid arguments from your side either, more a mix of feelings and rationality. That is of course ok, but the comments zlatkob made in his last posts are perfectly valid to me. I think it is important to keep a slight humorous tone here, so I'll try once more: weather sealing, better viewfinder (iso, shutterspeed, meter for instance?), better iso, faster electronics, better screen.. I can make a quite long list of things that can improve. But you know what? I can make a quite large list like that on my D700 too, and I love and use that camera to death. I would still love 10-12 megapixels more, for when stupid customers want 100x150cm prints, or a 100% 1.0 viewfinder.. (which will never happen), a smaller body, no pop-up-flash (annoying little feature that keeps popping up when i don't want it...)... my point? The fact that you can find a lot to change/improve is not a matter of hate/dislike, more a matter of love, for me.. that is. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pascal_meheut Posted September 30, 2009 Share #93 Posted September 30, 2009 weather sealing, better viewfinder (iso, shutterspeed, meter for instance?), better iso, faster electronics, better screen.. I can make a quite long list of things that can improve. We all can. This is not the subject of this thread but a 23 items list including 10 fps, CF card support in a smaller body and so on... As someone who seems so proud of its logic, one may think you would have noticed that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
delander † Posted September 30, 2009 Share #94 Posted September 30, 2009 I think a lot of this, especially the added electronic wizadry, whether users want it or not, is simply beyond Leica's capabilities at the moment. So much of it would have to be bought in, Leica would become so dependant on business relationships with third parties it would be a nightmare managing and implementing it. Much added complexity and opportunity to go wrong. Leica is not Nikon, Canon or Sony, it is a small company. Today I did some work with my 1 series Canon, all those buttons and settings, I'd forgotten so much of it. I had a dark object in the centre of view against a white background, I used all the special metering modes and applied various amounts of over exposure. Do you know I've could have used any metering mode as long as I used the correct amount of over exposure. I could have done that with the M8 and in a couple of educated guesses I would have got it right. So simple. Keep it simple Lecia, that along with wonderful design and the RF is your niche. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
diogenis Posted September 30, 2009 Share #95 Posted September 30, 2009 I really don't understand what is the point of this thread. If for once we forget about selling numbers for each system, one would think that you guy feel threatened from Leica, in such a way that you want to transform it to Nikon one, which it simply wont happen. So what is the reason for existence of this thread? Me too, I could begin with impossible to materialise things on a D700: Brighter VF with no tunnel vision Smaller footprint (=< X1) Less weight Better lenses Water tight sealing so that I can photograph submerged Relief valve to take photos in space Light peak connector Sensor the size of S2, now that it is out, in a size of X1 3" 2,000,000 pixels OLED display with multitouch control, no buttons Open source OS so that it can run LR directly after shot is taken.. And so many more... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted September 30, 2009 Share #96 Posted September 30, 2009 ....f years back, someone had looked at the M6 or M7 and made a list of all of the changes needed to arrive at the M9, the list would have been much, much longer than 23 items. Comparing apples to apples i.e automatic cameras, i don't see basic differences between the M7 and the M9 personally. At least, none of them do direct printing or coffee brewing fortunately. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ulrikft Posted September 30, 2009 Share #97 Posted September 30, 2009 We all can. This is not the subject of this thread but a 23 items list including 10 fps, CF card support in a smaller body and so on... As someone who seems so proud of its logic, one may think you would have noticed that. So, you found two items on that list that are totally implausible? And one of those point is a "4.. or 10"-point? And well, my comment about logic was directed towards your condecending remark above.. try again, please. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
zlatkob Posted September 30, 2009 Share #98 Posted September 30, 2009 We all can. This is not the subject of this thread but a 23 items list including 10 fps, CF card support in a smaller body and so on... Compact flash is hardly a big deal, but various cameras smaller than the M have used compact flash. It doesn't seem impossible to put in the M. Again, the OP asked for at least 4 fps. Film M's offered 3 fps with a winder. The M9 offers 2 fps. How can one say exactly how many fps violates the spirit of the M? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest universus Posted September 30, 2009 Share #99 Posted September 30, 2009 What a shame! The M8 can't swim, or dive nor fly unless you throw it into the water or up in the air. And this will apply to the Canon EOS 5D. ) With nearly two weeks experience using the M9, I have to report that I’m delighted. I also use Canon 5DII, and that gives some insight into what the M9 does not have. So, simply put, (1) the M9 has great IQ, (2) the M9 is a high quality and reasonably complete delivery of the “digital M” vision that many Leica folks have had in mind years ago; namely, “use all my M glass on a FF digital (even my Visoflex)”, (3) handling is great, its reasonably compact, you don’t have to wind it. But, is there scope for enhancement, without superfluous complication? Emphatic yes! And much of this is demonstrated in the current Canon and Nikon SLRs, even leaving aside the sensor issues. I think it’s fair to say that the M9 delivers on a vision, but the vision is perhaps a decade old, and needs updating. The M9 is great, but it’s behind the state-of-the-art. Did Leica make a mistake producing the M9 with such a considerable scope for enhancement, and lagging the state-of-the art in some ways? Emphatic No! Getting the full frame M to market as soon as possible was absolutely the right choice for Leica as a company. Clearly very many Leica users share the outlook that they don’t want to wait a minute for a FF digital M. So, Leica has gone from precariously hanging on to their existence (financial fragility) to having a product which is very compelling to a large market, namely people currently owning M-glass (and, this will in turn drive further new sales of M lenses). The M8, in spite of its merits, was apparently never sufficiently compelling to that market. I’ve owned and use most film Leicas from IIIc to M7, but skipped the M8. Current circumstances are somewhat reminiscent of the improvements in market share and financial performance of Leica as a result of the introduction by of the Leica M4-2 and M4-P, produced by Leica Canada. This occurred in the wake of the M5 era, where Leica’s market position was severely damaged by the market failure of the M5 and discontinuation the M4. To their credit, Leica built on the success of the M4-P with the M6 and accessories like the M-Motor. The M9 will provide increased sales revenue and market profile – and the opportunity to build on its success. As the audience of buyers widens the M9 (or M10) will increasingly be compared to offerings from Canon and Nikon, but it’s not the apples/oranges comparison of rangefinder vs. SLR that I refer to. Rather, it’s the comparison of basic camera features. Setting aside price and sensor specs, here are a dozen features found on the Canon 5DII which are not cutting edge technology by any means: 1) Install/remove cards and battery without baseplate removal 2) Recessed buttons on back 3) Viewfinder diopter adjustment 4) Higher FPS (10 would be great, but at least 4) 5) Larger, higher resolution LCD (920k dot VGA) 6) Display on top of camera: exposure, battery, exposure comp, ISO, … 7) More info displayed in viewfinder: ISO, shutter (even when not using auto) 8) Weather sealing 9) Instant on – no perceptible delay until ready to shoot 10) Increased battery capacity via a grip with multiple battery capability 11) CF support for faster cards 12) Highly-wear-resistant black paint finish Here are some more things that would be welcome enhancements from an M-aficionado perspective: 13) Zoom viewfinder (or multiple discrete magnification settings) accommodating lenses from 21mm (or less) to 135mm. 14) Distance-corrected viewfinder – field of view correction in addition to the already present parallax correction. 15) MP sized body 16) Scratch resistant screen (sapphire or hardened glass) 17) User profiles where features may be unspecified so the profile does not affect the feature settings. And here are a few things that other makers have: 18) Video – 1080p 19) Liveview 20) Remote operation controlled by computer 21) Video out 22) Direct printing 23) WIFI support for computer connectivity (802.11n) So, Leica, deliver an M10 with the first 17 features above (and maybe some from 18-23) for about $5000 and your success in the market will escalate dramatically from the position you’ve earned with the M9. Oh, and deliver it as soon as you like. I won’t be sad about you undermining my M9 investment. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leicaiste Posted September 30, 2009 Share #100 Posted September 30, 2009 and only occasionally switching to the M8 for landscapes, I found metering with the M8 was somewhat of an annoyance in this situation as, each time, I had to, obviously, point the M8 down from the sky and hold the exposure while bringing the camera back up to frame the shot.—Mitch/Potomac, MD Bangkok Hysteria©: Book Project In that kind of situation, I have found it easier to switch the M8 to manual and to use it like an M6 or MP. The light doesn't change that much for landscapes in daylight situation. And also it make the learning curve on how the lightmeter behave shorter. Then it become easy to preset the camera or to know when something is wrong in the settings before looking into the viewfinder. But I have always found that it was really difficult for me to master an M camera when I was using it together with an SLR or like now a DSLR. I have only improved my pictures when I have used it as my only camera. But it is not easy to leave that 70-200/f4 IS at home and certainly not when traveling to Africa. Still learning by the way. Regarding the cell, now that we have the Sigma DP1 & 2, the Olympus E-P1 and Panasonic GF1, not to mention the Leica X1, we may see the Nikon incarnation of that concept with the D300s' C-MOS and Matrix. Lucien Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.