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

[diogenis]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Wow, I thought I was clear. Forgive me for not being clearer. I was not saying that Leica lenses have IS; everyone knows they don't. I was explaining the benefits of having IS. Remember you asked how IS makes photography simpler. I thought my answer was clear in the context of this discussion.

 

Listen Zlatkob, I don't know how to explain it to you:

You are speaking on a theoretical and hypothetical basis on benefits on having IS on Leica lenses. But there are simply not there, its just a product of your imagination, and we cannot speak hypothetically about stuff that dont exist, and also draw conclusions. Your answer therefore is not clear, and your hypothesis is fault

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[fotografr]

His opinion is that we need bigger cards in a smaller body, 10 fps like a sport-oriented camera in a Leica M, remove control and viewing like a studio camera in a Leica M...

 

So, you might think "well-reasoned" to do the list of everything available on the market and saying "I want them all in the more compact and traditional camera available" but I thought better of you too.

 

Because this is exactly like wanting a compact sports car with room and transportation capabilitites of a SUV.

Or a very compact laptop with a 30" screen, the speed of a MacPro and 12 hours of battery life...

 

Maybe you need to read my last post.

 

Incidentally, "well reasoned" does not mean "correct" or "right" or that "I agree with the suggestion." It simply means that he thought carefully about what he wrote. What does one have to do to be treated with respect on this forum?

[Guest roey]

Please ignore, if this has already been discussed: It is my understanding that both sensor cleaning and in-body IS involve subtle movements of the sensor, right? It is further my understanding that the sensor needs to be at exactly the correct position for the focusing to work. Wouldn't sensor movements impact the accuracy of the focusing mechanism?

[fotografr]

Please ignore, if this has already been discussed: It is my understanding that both sensor cleaning and in-body IS involve subtle movements of the sensor, right? It is further my understanding that the sensor needs to be at exactly the correct position for the focusing to work. Wouldn't sensor movements impact the accuracy of the focusing mechanism?

 

The vibrations that clean my Canon sensors are micro-vibrations. If movements that fine were likely to disrupt focusing on the M9, then the simple act of setting one down too hard on a table would be disastrous. I'm not advocating for this feature because I don't find it necessary and I don't mind cleaning the sensor manually, but the idea isn't necessarily as zanny as some here would suggest.

[diogenis]

There are a lot posts to the contrary ... just 2 examples:

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m9-forum/100073-sensor-dust-m9.html

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m8-forum/95978-dust-sensor.html

 

This is the third and last time I will say the same thing : I DON'T DO PHOTOSHOP WITH DUSTBUNNIES. Those links are about people that don't known how clean their sensors, or they fear to do so.

 

And as a question to help you think a little, can you please tell us where on earth shaken dust from that sensor goes? Or there is a dust bin inside the black box??

[delander †]

Roey We see the same problem see post 239

 

Jeff

[delander †]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The vibrations that clean my Canon sensors are micro-vibrations. If movements that fine were likely to disrupt focusing on the M9, then the simple act of setting one down too hard on a table would be disastrous. I'm not advocating for this feature because I don't find it necessary and I don't mind cleaning the sensor manually, but the idea isn't necessarily as zanny as some here would suggest.

 

Brent we know that the M sensors are securely bolted down. A vibrating sensor would also be disturbed by setting one down too hard.

 

Jeff

[diogenis]

The vibrations that clean my Canon sensors are micro-vibrations. If movements that fine were likely to disrupt focusing on the M9, then the simple act of setting one down too hard on a table would be disastrous. I'm not advocating for this feature because I don't find it necessary and I don't mind cleaning the sensor manually, but the idea isn't necessarily as zanny as some here would suggest.

 

Its worse than that. It is flawed to begin with.

What they usually do is they create a sticky film trap which supposedly keeps dust from going back into the sensor. The solution is not elegant, it's like throwing your garbage out of your window to keep your room clean.

Also, nothing guarantees that once you have an airborn particle then this will eventually land in that sticky paper.

[Jamie Roberts]

{snipped}

Leica does offer great and fast lenses, but IS extends even their usability into lower light (as does improved high ISO performance -- which M users wanted -- because great fast lenses are not always enough). IS also extends the range of Leica's many not-so-fast lenses (f/2 and smaller). IS also aids the Leica photographer who has less steady hands.

{snipped}

 

Zlatko, I'm going to hate myself for stepping in here, but I just have to say that telephoto lenses *are* against the M tradition, and that's where IS is most important.

 

In-lens IS also generally degrades image quality because you've got another piece of glass there. It also makes lenses bigger (not an M quality) and more complicated mechanically (also not an M quality).

 

So in truth, IS is completely against the M philosophy. Note I'm not saying it's not useful, but philosophically there's more than one way to skin the camera shake cat (fast lenses and quiet shutters being among those).

 

I personally don't need it when shooting an M8; with an M9 I'll need it even less.

 

As for in-camera IS, well, that's always a possibility in the future, but you'd need to convince me that a moving sensor is a good (and reliable) thing with lenses that need to focus at f0.95 to f2

[Guest roey]

Roey We see the same problem see post 239

 

Jeff

 

Sorry. I have been following this thread loosely -- haven't read every post.

[diogenis]

In my Canons, the dust has to be periodically blown (gently) from the sensor chamber.

 

Which in the end is the only decent thing to do on your camera.. Simple solutions...

But Zlatkov and modernman can wait a few years until Nikon introduces special laser canons that will incinerate dust particles on site! And when this happens, the camera will also play in the 5,000,000 pixels LCD screen various known themes from star trek and other well known movies

[DES]

My God..... I started reading this thread, then after 2 pages I realised there was 12 pages to read....on what!!! The main point was lost early on...Some of you guys cant half rabbit.

[george_b]

My God..... I started reading this thread, then after 2 pages I realised there was 12 pages to read....on what!!! The main point was lost early on...Some of you guys cant half rabbit.

 

and they all be working for Leica with what I assume to be in-depth optical and camera expertise? I'm not on that pay scale.

[zlatkob]

Zlatko, ... I just have to say that telephoto lenses *are* against the M tradition, and that's where IS is most important.

 

Jamie, I appreciate your comments!

 

Telephoto lenses can't be against the M tradition because there are several of them, from 75mm through 135mm. They've been part of the M tradition for a very long time. In 1960, Alberto Korda used a Leica 90mm lens to make the famous photo of Che Guevara.

 

I'm pointing out the obvious benefits of IS, not arguing for a specific implementation of IS. However, in-body IS certainly makes more sense than in-lense IS (in order to keep the lenses small).

 

I agree that IS is not needed. Photographers have been working for ages without it. But I do think that if and when Leica engineers IS into the M, it will be accepted as an obvious benefit. I frankly don't believe anyone will say, "I won't buy that camera because it has IS". People will buy the camera because of its many excellent qualities, and some will say, "Wow, that IS will be useful now and then".

[ModernMan]

As Brent says we had all this with the M8. But the essence is that many M-users moved here not only to use a rangefinder but also to get away from the [completely unecessary] multitude of electronic options found on DSLRs.

 

To see constant repeat posting proposing the opposite just gets so tiresome. Some people want this stuff, maybe Leica will add it but if they do then they will lose customers like me.

That's a fact. I dont want it, I dont need it, I wont use it and I dont even want to see it as options on the camera and I dont want to pay for it. I want a plain and simple camera.

 

Perhaps it is because I have shot film for most of my life when I managed to enjoy photography not electronics.

 

Jeff

 

I have to say, when I read this the first time it sounded kinda good. Then I read it a couple more times and it started to feel more "sounds good if you say it fast". So, lets examine:

 

 

But the essence is that many M-users moved here not only to use a rangefinder but also to get away from the [completely unecessary] multitude of electronic options found on DSLRs.

Jeff

 

When you moved here (to the M9) you embraced a multitude of "electronic options": aperture priority automatic exposure control, in-viewfinder metering, a pletheora of software options including 3 or 5 sequence autobracketting, multiple image enhancemnet options, etc, etc..

 

... moved here not only to use a rangefinder but also to get away from the [completely unecessary] multitude of electronic options found on DSLRs.

 

To see constant repeat posting proposing the opposite just gets so tiresome. ...

Jeff

 

Certainly my original post does not propose anything "opposite" to rangefinder technology, and in fact proposes that the range/viewfinder be enhanced.

 

Moreover,of the first 17 items, only half are related to electronics at all. And most of those are improving functionality that's already there (e.g.: instant on), or putting back functionality that was there on the M8 (top-plate display).

 

... maybe Leica will add it but if they do then they will lose customers like me.

Jeff

 

Just so I have this straight, adding an 18 megpixel sensor, multiple CPU's, ~100+megs of memory, a pile of firmware, auto ISO, auto bracketing, auto white balance, auto exposure control, (and all those autos come with a pile of options) and on and on, is all ok. But if they add the stuff from my list they're going to lose customers such as yourself?

 

So, the M9 is appealing to you as is (and it is to me as well), but If the camera had the features proposed, that would make it so unappealing that you just wouldn't buy it?

 

... I dont want it, I dont need it, I wont use it and I dont even want to see it as options on the camera and I dont want to pay for it.

Jeff

The M9 already has "it.", that is, the M9 already has the substantial majority of a DSLR electronics package. That was necessary to provide a digital camera. The proposal was refinements, enhancments and updates to that package.

 

I want a plain and simple camera.

Jeff

Your definition of "plain and simple" is elusive, as it embraces so much sophisticated electronics and firmware functionality, but apparently rejects enhancments to it.

 

Perhaps it is because I have shot film for most of my life when I managed to enjoy photography not electronics.

Jeff

When I shot film, chemistry (darkroom) took more of my time away from actual photography than electronics does now.

 

The common ground here is that we both value simplicity in the user experience. although I'm all for providing flexibility so long as it is packaged in such a way as not to complicate the user experience.

[zlatkob]

I DON'T DO PHOTOSHOP WITH DUSTBUNNIES. Those links are about people that don't known how clean their sensors, or they fear to do so.

 

Automatic sensor cleaning is very effective. Arguing against it because you personally don't need it doesn't mean that it's not a valuable technology and a huge timesaver for other photographers.

 

There are many features on the M9 that you may never personally use, such as:

• Aperture priority mode
  
• Auto White Balance
  
• Self timer
  
• ISO 2500
  
• Light meter
  

... but even if you find some of those things useless, that doesn't mean they won't be useful to others. Everyone of those options required some engineering and added some complexity, and yet you don't reject the camera because it offers those options. And who will argue that those technologies should belong exclusively to large Nikons/Canons?

[diogenis]

Automatic sensor cleaning is very effective. Arguing against it because you personally don't need it doesn't mean that it's not a valuable technology and a huge timesaver for other photographers.

 

There are many features on the M9 that you may never personally use, such as:

• Aperture priority mode
  
• Auto White Balance
  
• Self timer
  
• ISO 2500
  
• Light meter
  

... but even if you find some of those things useless, that doesn't mean they won't be useful to others. Everyone of those options required some engineering and added some complexity, and yet you don't reject the camera because it offers those options. And who will argue that those technologies should belong exclusively to large Nikons/Canons?

Leica

[diogenis]

Automatic sensor cleaning is very effective. Arguing against it because you personally don't need it doesn't mean that it's not a valuable technology and a huge timesaver for other photographers.

 

Here we go again... broken record...

Zlatkov can you provide us with solid proof that you are not some kind of NASA experiment like ALICE bot, but a human?

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[zlatkob]

Leica

 

All of the technologies I mentioned are in the M9 (from A mode to light meter). Leica took the time to engineer them into the camera, so Leica is certainly not going to argue that they belong exclusively to large Nikons/Canons.

[ModernMan]

... I just have to say that telephoto lenses *are* against the M tradition:)

 

Do you count Visoflex lenses as M lenses? I have nice 200mm, 280mm, 400mm and 560mm Telyt lens setups (lens heads with focussing mounts) that were made by Leica exlcusively for use on M cameras.

 

Not surprisingly, Leica didn't have the temerity to position this M-visoflex system as "simple". The "simplicity" diety wasn't a central theme until the Nikon SLR systems grew to have so many lenses and accessories that the even uber-complex Leica M system (and remember that the Visoflex was part of the M system) was simpler by comparison. Remember the endless variations of esoteric adapter rings -- quick where's my 11112G ring to adapt my 11912 280mm f4.8 Telyt lens head to my focorapid device, don't try it with a 11914 280mm f/4.8 Telyt -- it won't work.

 

Of course, the Visoflex has not been part of the M line for some time. But it still works great on the M9.