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

[ModernMan]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

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..

 

Well, I suspect anything over 10 FPS would be hard to exploit in practice within the framework of a Leica M, even with a larger buffer (the current buffer would only hold about 1 seconds worth of shooting at 10 FPS, compressed DNG) I think memory card bandwidth would severely limit convenience (even with UDMA CF cards), and I suspect processor bandwidth would emerge as an issue.

 

By suggesting faster FPS, in the range of 4 to 10, I don't seek to redefine the charter of the Leica M, only to enhance its convenience and effectiveness, and perhaps afford its users the capability to apply the merits of the Leica M to a broader set of photographic challenges.

[ModernMan]

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?

Interesting issue. My assumption is that a sealed body, even with an unsealed lens, will reduce the risk of failure of the body due to contamination by liquid. I've often gotten a few drops of rain on a Leica M lens, but I cringe to get any on my M9 (yes, I like it that much). I am also assuming (guessing, if you like) that moisture, on the scale of raindrops or splashes, is significantly less likely to contaminate the camera through the lens, than through unsealed controls on the camera.

[zlatkob]

In light of this thread, I found James Russell's recent suggestions to Hasselblad quite interesting and insightful. Forum members will recall that he fell in love with the M8 and wrote a memorable essay about it. A number of forum members felt that he expressed the essence of the M. His suggestions to Hasselblad include:

• Make a rangefinder like the Contax G2, with autofocus.
  
• Make a video camera system.
  
• Make a camera that can produce great previews and in-camera jpegs.
  
• Do some real innovation.
  

There's a photographer dude who understands that time does not stand still.

[diogenis]

(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.

 

It is the SOLE defining element. All the rest is bullshit.

Notice how your reasoning has nothing to do with photography? It's all about technology and "state of the art" and all that, but nothing about photographs. In short your reasoning is about things you don't understand because you don't have the knowledge to understand, and yet, what you can really grasp easily, that is photography, you don't discuss.

If you have all engineering issues solved, why don't you apply for one?

This is a forum for photography, not technology...

[lct]

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?...

Who said this exactly? Not that i mind it really but you're playing with my words here.

 

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....

Don't know who those "some people" may be. Any link to support your statement? For me in-camera WB is totally useless as i shoot only raws but some photogs like shooting jpegs so a good WB is important for them obviously.

 

 

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.

Hardly "the same" as direct printing, wifi or video. If you read my post here here you will see what i think of this. I'm no techie at all but moving big files is not that easy in a little body. Again, what we have here is the smallest FF body ever made, right? If Leica could have improved fps for the same price they would have done it don't you think so. Makes me think of a Porsche user willing to cram all his family in his car. Nothing personal.

[diogenis]

Well, I suspect anything over 10 FPS would be hard to exploit in practice within the framework of a Leica M, even with a larger buffer (the current buffer would only hold about 1 seconds worth of shooting at 10 FPS, compressed DNG) I think memory card bandwidth would severely limit convenience (even with UDMA CF cards), and I suspect processor bandwidth would emerge as an issue.

 

By suggesting faster FPS, in the range of 4 to 10, I don't seek to redefine the charter of the Leica M, only to enhance its convenience and effectiveness, and perhaps afford its users the capability to apply the merits of the Leica M to a broader set of photographic challenges.

 

Which photographic challenges demand 4-10fps on a camera?

[lct]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Interesting issue. My assumption is that a sealed body, even with an unsealed lens, will reduce the risk of failure of the body due to contamination by liquid. I've often gotten a few drops of rain on a Leica M lens, but I cringe to get any on my M9 (yes, I like it that much). I am also assuming (guessing, if you like) that moisture, on the scale of raindrops or splashes, is significantly less likely to contaminate the camera through the lens, than through unsealed controls on the camera.

No problem for assuming but can you quote a single brand selling weather-sealed bodies w/o weather-sealed lenses? And how much are you ready to pay for it over the current price?

[zlatkob]

No problem for assuming but can you quote a single brand selling weather-sealed bodies w/o weather-sealed lenses?

Nikon, Canon, Pentax (K-7) and Olympus (E-3) all sell weather-sealed bodies. Nikon, Canon and Pentax systems include weather-sealed and non-weather sealed lenses. I don't know weather Olympus offers any weather-sealed lenses.

[ModernMan]

No problem for assuming but can you quote a single brand selling weather-sealed bodies w/o weather-sealed lenses? And how much are you ready to pay for it over the current price?

 

I know that Canon sell EOS SLR bodies, some of which are weather sealed and some of which are not, and similarly some EOS lenses are weather sealed and some not. They are all interchangeable (subject to sensor coverage limitations on some lenses).

 

I don't know the answer to your question about my willingness to pay a premium for this feature in isolation, but I'm inclined to say the amount is small. I'd be optimistic that the incremental production cost would be small. So perhaps Leica will take the position of adding enhancements without price increase to make their products more compelling.

[ModernMan]

Which photographic challenges demand 4-10fps on a camera?

 

Presumably those same challenges for which photographers have purchased motor drives from major camera makers (including Leica) over the last 40 years or so. The 60's vintage Nikon F motor cracked off 4 FPS.

[zlatkob]

Don't know who those "some people" may be. Any link to support your statement? For me in-camera WB is totally useless as i shoot only raws but some photogs like shooting jpegs so a good WB is important for them obviously.

 

This post advises to set the white balance manually because the M8 "isn't a P&S, so why try to operate it like one?" In other words, to use the M like an M, you set the white balance manually; to rely on auto white balance is to use it like a point & shoot. I believe others expressed a similar view, but I don't intend to search for specific quotes in numerous threads mentioning auto white balance. The general idea was that the M tradition meant everything manual, so bad auto white balance could be excused because auto-anything was for a different kind of camera anyway.

 

You state that auto white balance is totally useless as you shoot raw. However, even if you shoot raw, it's still preferable to record those raw files with a white balance that is at least close to accurate. Shooting raw, IMO, was never a good excuse for bad AWB.

 

The AWB problem is now moot. But the point remains that sometimes people defend the status quo even when technology offers something obviously better, such as improved AWB.

[zlatkob]

I'm no techie at all but moving big files is not that easy in a little body. Again, what we have here is the smallest FF body ever made, right? If Leica could have improved fps for the same price they would have done it don't you think so.

 

I agree, they would have if they could have. And if they did, they would have advertised the higher frames per second as a selling point. That's why it's funny now when people ridicule someone for expressing a desire for higher fps. If and when Leica actually achieves higher fps in a little M body, the concept will no longer be ridiculed. It will be regarded as a self-evident improvement, consistent with the philosophy and tradition.

[hoppyman]

I have the M8. Snips for post size.

.... 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.

That rather misses the point of M cameras all together though. Your missing features are my superfluous complications. Stefan Daniel has just re-stated candidly that Leica has no intention or interest in competing directly with Canon or Nikon dSLR designs.

 

.............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

Works fine now for me. Structural rigidity may possibly be a concern if cut outs added?

2) Recessed buttons on back

Yep, but may also increase difficulty in operation and/or slow down the actions. 1 mis-setting in 9,000 frames for me.

3) Viewfinder diopter adjustment

I don't know the engineering/cost implications of adding this. I would certainly prefer not to lose any brightness or image size/clarity nor have the eyepiece protrude further backward to achieve this (look through a G2).

4) Higher FPS (10 would be great, but at least 4)

a dSLR more suitable tool for you?

5) Larger, higher resolution LCD (920k dot VGA)

Current size/configuration already suitable for purpose. I don't want more complex menus. no room for larger w/o a different design or worse, a taller camera.

6) Display on top of camera: exposure, battery, exposure comp, ISO, …

Already on the back when powered. 2 or 3 secs longer for occasional batt/frames check with M9.

7) More info displayed in viewfinder: ISO, shutter (even when not using auto)

I don't want to give up any viewfinder image size to fit any more complex displays in there.

8) Weather sealing

Sounds attractive without taking into account design cost/complexity. Does not take into account lenses at all. Any change there would be anathema to owners of those thousands of M lenses out there right now that work. It may be possible to improve weather resistance around the shutter release and shutter speed dial perhaps in a future model. Again I have no issues with the current design.

9) Instant on – no perceptible delay until ready to shoot

More a theoretical than practical. If you need to shoot <1 sec from raising camera you can have the camera ON in your hands (& set Auto pwr OFF).

10) Increased battery capacity via a grip with multiple battery capability

With M8, ~375 frames on a 4GB card and one battery charge between base plate removals for me. The current battery shape won't fit in any reasonable grip profile (like current).

11) CF support for faster cards

No thanks. M8/9 owners already have SDHC cards. Actually I suspect that the market is moving in the opposite direction. Are suitable SDHC speeds are not already available? We may see some improvement in firmware though?

12) Highly-wear-resistant black paint finish

Please some & annoy others. Maybe back to chrome/black paint options better? There's 0 user data on wear on the new options yet anyway.

 

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.

See (3). Messing with the finder may alienate many users.

15) MP sized body

Already much smaller than any other 24x36 sensor camera. Hard to do or the M8 would be that size. Form factor is already accepted & workable.

16) Scratch resistant screen (sapphire or hardened glass)

Was this an issue for many with original M8? I prefer to fit a replaceable protector if I desired. Simply put it is economics. A nice to have but are you prepared to pay extra for it?

17) User profiles where features may be unspecified so the profile does not affect the feature settings.

Irrelevant for me shooting only DNGs.

 

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)

Some pros/studio users may like tethered shooting and remote control/ perhaps wireless options? The rest just make no sense at all to me in an M camera.

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.

[ulrikft]

Hoppyman:

 

You say:

 

"Current size/configuration already suitable for purpose"

 

For your purpose? I find it quite hard to asses critical focus on the current M9 screen, the D700 screen is far superior here, no contest.

 

"More a theoretical than practical. If you need to shoot <1 sec from raising camera you can have the camera ON in your hands (& set Auto pwr OFF)."

 

Actually a very practical problem, if you have auto power off, you'll drain the battery in no-time, if you have auto power on, you will have to adapt workarounds like tapping the shutter on the way up to your eye or something like that. I lost quite a few shots while running around with the M9 the first few days, beacause it would not shoot for a second. This is core decisive moment stuff in my opinion, the camera should fire exactly when i want it to. The delay is so 1999...

 

 

"Already on the back when powered. 2 or 3 secs longer for occasional batt/frames check with M9. "

And you use more battery when turning on the LCD, so, harder to check, uses more battery.

 

 

"Sounds attractive without taking into account design cost/complexity. Does not take into account lenses at all. Any change there would be anathema to owners of those thousands of M lenses out there right now that work. It may be possible to improve weather resistance around the shutter release and shutter speed dial perhaps in a future model. Again I have no issues with the current design. "

 

You don't need weather sealed lenses for a weather sealed body to be an advantage. Weather sealed buttons, and not a tract for water to enter like the current shutter, would be an important upgrade in the future.

 

 

"I don't want to give up any viewfinder image size to fit any more complex displays in there. "

 

Well, good for you. Some of us would love a more accurate meter-reading ("more than one stop.. ok?"), I would also, actually, love an actual spot meter on the M10, but I guess that is not too feasible. Other than that, I'm not asking for shots left/virtual horizon or anything complex. I'm asking for shutter speed, iso and a meter. You would not give up viewfinder image size for that.

[redbaron]

I wonder what the old pros think of all this pointless pontificating. Some of the greatest pictures were taken using M3s, R6s and like models from Nikon and Canon. I guess some people learn to create masterpieces with what's available while others blame their tools when they can't.

[ulrikft]

I wonder what the old pros think of all this pointless pontificating. Some of the greatest pictures were taken using M3s, R6s and like models from Nikon and Canon. I guess some people learn to create masterpieces with what's available while others blame their tools when they can't.

 

And maybe some of us are capable of constructive criticism AND taking photos...?! who would have thought that..

 

Your comment is beyond banal.

[pascal_meheut]

. Your condecending tone and arrogance is.. misplaced to say the least.

 

And maybe some of us are capable of constructive criticism AND taking photos...?! who would have thought that..

 

Your comment is beyond banal.

 

Maybe you should apply your remarks about a condescending tone and arrogance to yourself ?

[lct]

In the link you're quoting, larry wrote exactly :

"I've also found the AWB to be inaccurate and inconsistent. But in fairness, it's really not that much worse than most other digital cameras. It's best to use one of the presets, or even better to set the Kelvin temperature directly. After all, the M8 isn't a P&S, so why try to operate it like one?"

And in the same thread, larry said as well:

"I've also found the AWB to be inaccurate and inconsistent colorflow : I am also having trouble with setting WB".

I agree 100% with those statements. Auto WB is often poor with any camera, reason why i don't shoot jpeg with none of my Canon, Nikon or Epson cameras. I don't own an M8 or an M9 but i would do exactly the same with them. If i had to shoot jpeg i would never choose Auto WB. Better choose manual WB or, preferably, shoot raw and adjust in PP.

 

This post advises to set the white balance manually because the M8 "isn't a P&S, so why try to operate it like one?" In other words, to use the M like an M, you set the white balance manually; to rely on auto white balance is to use it like a point & shoot. I believe others expressed a similar view, but I don't intend to search for specific quotes in numerous threads mentioning auto white balance. The general idea was that the M tradition meant everything manual, so bad auto white balance could be excused because auto-anything was for a different kind of camera anyway...

[george_b]

If i had to shoot jpeg i would never choose Auto WB. Better choose manual WB or, preferably, shoot raw and adjust in PP.

Best practice is to use say a white card / gray card, take a photo of it under prevailing light conditions, shoot in RAW/DNG and in your post processing work flow use that to set your WB. There may be other ways to achieve the same but is sure to get the best WB, any camera presets assume a colour temperature under different lighting conditions. That is of course if it bothers you.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[David Mills]

Is anyone aware as to why Leica decided to abandon the sapphire screen of the M8.2 for the M9. it couldnt be so as to charge an upgrade fee as an after fit option, could it?