M9 – A Giant Leap in the Right Direction – Still Some Distance To Go

[xjr]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

With all due respect are you talking about photography or are going into battle ?

[chmilar]

Does anyone here remember the Contax G1 and G2?

 

They had some of the features mentioned in this thread, such as a zooming viewfinder and outtafocus. It also had interchangeable Zeiss lenses.

 

I remember my excitement when I first heard about the G1, as it was a modern design which "fixed" some of the drawbacks of the M cameras (and the M3 I had used for 15 years). Then I went to see it, and found that the viewfinder was like looking through a paper towel roll, and the whole thing was just slow and clunky. A couple of years later I bought an M6ttl.

 

While the Contax G cameras were produced for 11 years, I never saw anyone actually using one! I have to assume that the sales figures were disappointing.

 

So, if Leica tries to implement these features in such a crappy way as the Contax G, I would not be interested!

[ModernMan]

It is objective.

The essence of M photography as you call it, is to be able to capture the "decisive moment". And to do this you don't need hitec at all. All those "features" on dSLRs work against this rule. Understood?

 

Some prefer to buy complicated electronic watches that can do it all except maybe brewing coffee. Others prefer to pay more and buy complicated mechanical watches. Simply, the M philosophy or system is not for you

 

(1) Capturing the "decisive moment" is probably a legitimate element characterizing M photography, but certainly not the sole defining element.

(2) If it doesn't require hitec at all, why are we here in the M9 forum, discussing a camera with an 18 megapixel sensor, multiple 100+mhz tightly-coupled cpu's, ~100+ megabytes of memory, software with imaging and graphics? So, in answer to your question: "Understood?" No.

(3) I am mildly amused at your declaration that the M philosophy or system is not for me.

[ModernMan]

He posted a 23 points list of things he wants on top of a camera 3 weeks old, some of them contradictory...

Seems fair to see him as never satisfied indeed.

 

If "satisfied" means:

 

willing to accept a product without thinking about ways to enhance its convenience and effectiveness (particularly when some such enhancements are already demonstrated by other manufacturers)

 

then, I'm not and never will be, and I'm fine with that.

[markgay]

zlatkob, thank-you for your camaraderie in this interesting discussion.

 

Perhaps my post would have sparked less outrage and expletive had I adopted the tag "VintageMan" or "ClassicalMan" instead of "ModernMan", but the discussion is welcome and thought provoking in any case.

 

And on and on and on and on.

 

Modern Man it is bad form to sign up to a forum and post too much too soon, and especially to pose a question and then dominate the thread.

 

Let things chill for a while. Forget IQ and go read GQ.

[ModernMan]

Leica way is for simplicity, and this, imho, excludes the adding of sophisticated electronic functions (like Wi-fi, multiple card formats, high fps, image stabilization, hi res LCD etc...) ; ...

 

So, the multiple CPUs, 18 megapixel sensor, ~100+MB of memory, support for High Capacity SD cards, 320k LCD, imaging and user interface firmware, etc., all of which the M9 now has, fall into the "Leica way is for simplicity" category, but the stuff you mention above does not? On what principle do you draw that line?

[ModernMan]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

What's the point of building a weather-sealed camera if lenses are not weather-sealed as well? Just curious.

 

Camera is full of electronics which risk malfunction in the presense of moisture.

[ModernMan]

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.

 

What's the big deal about 10fps? Its just a matter of the a motor cocking the shutter in about ~70 milliseconds instead of 400 or so, and some more buffer ram. But, if the engineering challenges are too great, then at least as fast as my M-motor. If you don't want to shoot fast, then don't, but why inflict that restriction on others?

 

Getting higher FPS and a CF card in an MP sized body will of course require some engineering. That's fine, electro-mechanical technology and the capabilities of off-the-shelf parts are improving constantly. More capability in smaller packages. If it can't be made to fit, then keep the M form factor as-is and omit the feature.

 

I'm still annoyed by the extra couple of millimeters of height of the M7, M8 and M8 because my Visoflex II and IIa won't fit. So, I'm opposed to any further increase in the dimensions.

[zlatkob]

So, the multiple CPUs, 18 megapixel sensor, ~100+MB of memory, support for High Capacity SD cards, 320k LCD, imaging and user interface firmware, etc., all of which the M9 now has, fall into the "Leica way is for simplicity" category, but the stuff you mention above does not? On what principle do you draw that line?

As far as I can tell there is no principle at all. The rule of thumb seems to be that if Leica does it, then it's good and proper; and if Leica doesn't do it, then it's antithetical to the Leica philosophy and tradition and absurd to request it. So when Leica offers sapphire glass in the M8.2, it's good and proper. But the next year, when Leica doesn't offer sapphire glass in the M9, its absurd to request it ("oh the expense!"). When Leica offers the 10 mp M8, it's good and proper, and requesting 18 mp is absurd ("too much -- don't need it!"); that is, until a few years later when Leica offers 18 mp.

 

Likewise, right now, you'll get a lot of abuse and condescension for requesting a 2-battery grip or a hi-res LCD or instant-on or weather seals or video, etc. But in a few years, if Leica implements these technologies, then they'll be defended as good and proper and obviously fitting within the Leica philosophy and tradition. The defense will talk about how these features serve the tradition of reportage and capturing the decisive moment and how they protect the value of your investment, etc.

[ModernMan]

...Coming on a rangefinder forum to explain that a DSLR is better is at best a waste of time.

I don't see anything in this thread to that effect.

[ModernMan]

Right... View finder, FF Shutter, Battery, CF, and a FF sensor (at a distance appropriate for focus) in a M7 sized container... Dream on.

 

Have you seen the thread that dissected an M8... There's no room

 

There WAS no room. Past tense. Technology advances.

[ModernMan]

And on and on and on and on.

 

Modern Man it is bad form to sign up to a forum and post too much too soon, and especially to pose a question and then dominate the thread.

 

Let things chill for a while. Forget IQ and go read GQ.

 

Perhaps re-read the first couple of pages of the thread and see if you can spot any more "bad form" from anyone else.

 

Let me know if you think my tone in responses is anything short of exemplary, particularly in the degree of restraint.

[lct]

Camera is full of electronics which risk malfunction in the presense of moisture.

Never got moisture with my many electronic cameras so far but this was not my question. My question was/is what's the point in getting weather-sealed bodies if their lenses are not weather-sealed themselves? Do you think moisture will be stopped by the glass?

[lct]

I don't see anything in this thread to that effect.

So we don't see the same things apparently. What i'm seeing is a charming OP willing to cram DSLR's innards in a poor Leica M and asking for a smaller size of the latter altogether. Again and again (and again) a Leica M is not a DSLR and not a Swiss army knife either. M users don't want up-to-date gadgets like those they have in their DSLRs already.

[andybarton]

What's the big deal about 10fps? Its just a matter of the a motor cocking the shutter in about ~70 milliseconds instead of 400 or so.

 

Why not ask for 25 or 30 fps and have done with it?

 

Just make the M10 a video camera and choose which frame you want from the 25/second. You are BOUND to catch the decisive moment. Aren't you?

 

Seems reasonable enough to me - the technology is certainly there..

[johnastovall]

Why not ask for 25 or 30 fps and have done with it?

 

Just make the M10 a video camera and choose which frame you want from the 25/second. You are BOUND to catch the decisive moment. Aren't you?

 

Seems reasonable enough to me - the technology is certainly there..

 

Better yet he could just buy the a RED today and have it now. How about 150fps?

[Guest AgXlove]

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.

 

"Fixing" the M9 as suggested should make it somewhere between a Mamiya 7 II and a Nikon F3hp with MD-4 in terms of size & weight...

 

Then there's the issue of the $5000 pricetag for all that stealth bomber technology...

[zlatkob]

So we don't see the same things apparently. What i'm seeing is a charming OP willing to cram DSLR's innards in a poor Leica M and asking for a smaller size of the latter altogether. Again and again (and again) a Leica M is not a DSLR and not a Swiss army knife either. M users don't want up-to-date gadgets like those they have in their DSLRs already.

 

It's charming how everything that the current M has in common with a DSLR falls outside of the definition of "up-to-date" gadgets. And everything that's mentioned as a potential improvement is dismissed as an "up-to-date" gadget that M users "don't want" or would have to be "crammed in". How does that line get drawn?

 

For example, when the M8 had primitive auto white balance, I recall some people arguing that accurate auto white balance was something that M users don't want or don't care about because M users set their white balance manually, as per tradition . If you wanted good auto white balance, you should get a DSLR and stop complaining. That was the argument. But when the M's auto white balance was improved, it was touted as a good thing, which it was.

 

The same now goes for the frames per second. M users "don't want" more than 2 fps is the argument (never mind that film M users had the option of 3 fps with a winder). More fps is an up-to-date gadget, the province of DSLRs. But if the M9.2 or M10 offers 4 or 5 fps, suddenly it will be accepted as a good thing, as an obvious improvement, good for capturing action ... kids' soccer games, etc. And people will post test shots showing their action sequences, and others will post admiring remarks.

[dalippe]

And on and on and on and on.

 

Modern Man it is bad form to sign up to a forum and post too much too soon, and especially to pose a question and then dominate the thread.

 

Let things chill for a while. Forget IQ and go read GQ.

 

As far as I can see, Modern Man has stuck to logical arguments presented in a polite fashion, even after being attacked with derision, sarcasm and even profanity by various forum veterans. If all forum members behaved as well as this newcomer, the forum would be a much better place.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[dalippe]

Most of us use DSLRs already. We like them for what they do but we don't want the same for our DRFs. Again (and again) a rangefinder is a rangefinder. May look obsolete for some people, who cares? Coming on a rangefinder forum to explain that a DSLR is better is at best a waste of time.

 

By definition, the only *inherent* difference between a DLSR and a DRF is the mechanism used to view and focus the subject. I suppose one could argue that live view moves you toward the DSLR concept in so far as it involves viewing and focusing through the lens, although it is still missing the R in DSLR. But aside from that there is nothing on OPs list that is even arguably illogical to have in a DRF. What is so odd about wanting to frame and focus with a rangefinder, but also wanting the items on OP's list?