M9 M9 M9 M9 M9

I remember a fair number of people thought the same thing back in the film days (I still remember when the Nikon F5 was released for sale, the local camera shop had a wait-list of people ready to plunk down $2995 --that was in 1996 IIRC--and there was soon a display case filled with "obsolete" F4s's). Today since digital though, it's really gotten ridiculous. Ironically, since buying the M8 and 5D I've grown even more admiring of IQ:cost of my 20D.
 
5DII sensor in the M9? Ummm, that's unlikely. If Canon could produce a FF sensor that would work in an M Leica, why would they sell it to Leica? They could produce a FF compact camera of their own.
 
Pickett Wilson said:
5DII sensor in the M9? Ummm, that's unlikely. If Canon could produce a FF sensor that would work in an M Leica, why would they sell it to Leica? They could produce a FF compact camera of their own.
Click to expand...

RF's aren't really Canon's ken these days, it'd likely do a lot better as a Leica camera (plus, would Canon copy the M-mount, or come out with its own line of RF lenses, or what?). It probably wouldn't be competing directly with the 5D2 or Canon's other cameras, so I don't see why not.
 
I'm not talking about a rangefinder. If they have solved the short lens-to-sensor problem with a FF sensor, they could put it in a compact autofocus camera. It would simply blow everyone else out of the water. Why sell it to Leica who might produce 10,000 cameras in five years?
 
jke said:
This would be, I think, the primary conundrum that faces Leica, whose products have been sold on the basis of their extended durability. A digital, because the life of the technology is significantly shorter than the lifetime of the mechanical aspects, doesn't necessarily need to be as durable as an M2. It may need to be durable enough to withstand the demands of professional use, if it is indeed a professional tool, but it doesn't need to last 40 or 50 years because the technology inside will only last 5 at most. But durability is one of the keystones of Leica sales, so creating a camera that would allow them to offer timely upgrades in keeping with changes in technology ala Nikon & Canon would inevitably affect that keystone and thus the company philosophy.

In other words, put a Leica M mount on Panasonic G1 technology stuffed into a rectangular body & you'd sell a stack of them. Plus you could upgrade to better faster more beautiful technology every 2 - 3 years with a G2, G3, G4... without your customer base having to swallow a $4, 5, 6, 10,000 price tag.

But you wouldn't necessarily be the same company either.

I'm glad I am not trying to run that company.
Click to expand...

That's one possible solution, and one that I'd not entirely be opposed to. However, the other solution is that Leica simply needs to get some rock solid sensor tech into their next camera. The fact is, the m8 uses a sensor that has many faults that make newer cameras seem more attractive. It has the build quality and construction of a Leica, though, so it has a "timeless" build. My D700, though, gives me images that I honestly have a hard time faulting, right on up to ISO6400. 12MP is enough for me, and ISO6400 is enough for me. While I can't say that I'll *never* be swayed by more pixels or even better high ISO performance, I can see myself skipping several generations (a decade, maybe?) with my D700. It does everything I want a DSLR to do, gives me results I can't match on film, and I own the damn thing outright and sink no money into image-making with it (only print-making). To play it safe, I think Leica needs to introduce the m9 with ISO performance of the D700 and resolution in the 15-20MP range. That's a camera that I honestly *can* see being used decades hence. Maybe that's shortsighted, and maybe it isn't. Even when cameras regularly shoot 30MP, will there be any real reason for it?

The point is that the reason I can't imagine anyone using an m8 a decade from now is that I find a number of faults with the images it makes that I'd personally want to see corrected, or that could sway me to leave the camera behind for another system. I'm not in that boat with the D700.
 
You guys are all talking about the sensor, as if that was the only challenge. The electronics are as influential as the silicone, and for that matter the software that runs the whole dang show.

I for one like the 1.3 crop. I've had just about every digicam out there. Crops of 1.3 (actually it is 1.25 to be precise on the 1D) FF, 1.5, 1.6 and the sigma's foveon had 1.7 if I remember right. It is a little like making the transition from medium format to large or down to 35. It just takes a slight change in approach and on the whole can be invigorating.

What the heck is this thing about needing some exact duplication of some old arbitrary standard. Heck the 35 standard was only put into place because they used stock from movie film. Now it is some kind of holly grail? I don't get that mind set. Every different format is a new challenge and opportunity - mostly, I see, to argue. :D
 
I hate the crop. My wides are no longer wide. Why would I want to shoot any format for which my lens was not designed? The image circle is for 35mm, and that is what I want to shoot!

As for solving the light falloff problem, what is the percentage of falloff? Does anyone know?
 
I've been reading about the M9 since before the first M8 was shipped, that I'm wondering already about the M10.
 
I suspect if there is a FF M9, part of the solution will be heavy corrections in software. Wonder how that will effect the characteristics of the various lenses?
 
Pavel+ said:
What the heck is this thing about needing some exact duplication of some old arbitrary standard. Heck the 35 standard was only put into place because they used stock from movie film. Now it is some kind of holly grail? I don't get that mind set. Every different format is a new challenge and opportunity - mostly, I see, to argue. :D
Click to expand...

While I agree with the spirit of what you're saying, here's an interesting counterpoint: I shot 35mm film from 1998 or so until winter 2004 when I bought my first DSLR. I still shot the occasional roll, but mostly I was cropped-DSLRing it from winter 2004-winter 2008. As soon as I got my D700, I was instantly more comfortable then I'd ever been in the digital formats. I knew the focal lengths, I knew the performance of the gear. I was comfortable in ways I simply had never been.

That's 6 years of experience, mostly buried, coming back after four years of other digital excursions. I'd wager to say that most people on the forum have shot 35mm for plenty more than six years, and have a certain innate comfort with the 36x24mm format that cropped formats simply never replicated. It is a legacy format, to be sure, and lenses and the like could be designed for newer formats as well. But there's still that familiarity of a 35mm lens being a 35mm lens and knowing exactly what that means. Not to mention the fact that only Pentax has actually ever dedicated itself to making primes for the newer formats. If you have religiously shot primes, if you've ever changed from a 24mm lens to a 28mm lens in oder to get the shot you want, then the precise format size makes a fair bit of difference.
 
Pickett Wilson said:
5DII sensor in the M9? Ummm, that's unlikely. If Canon could produce a FF sensor that would work in an M Leica, why would they sell it to Leica? They could produce a FF compact camera of their own.
Click to expand...

If I were Leica, and I'd figured out how to use the 5Dii sensor, I'd pay for that sensor tech.

If I were Canon, and Leica wanted to pay me to use my sensor in a camera that wasn't remotely competitive with my own products, I'd let them.

I don't see what is so confusing about this arrangement. Honestly, I've never understood why Canon specifically, and even Nikon to some extent, hasn't sold tech to Leica already. The stuff they get from Kodak is in many ways inferior to what could be gotten elsewhere, and neither Canon nor Nikon seems to have any conflict in terms of conflicting camera models.
 
Pavel+ said:
What the heck is this thing about needing some exact duplication of some old arbitrary standard. Heck the 35 standard was only put into place because they used stock from movie film. Now it is some kind of holly grail? I don't get that mind set. Every different format is a new challenge and opportunity - mostly, I see, to argue. :D
Click to expand...

I believe you're overlooking the basic fact that this standard allows for lenses and cameras that are are small (but not miniature). In other words the 35mm format (the circle into which 24x36mm fits) is just about perfect for human hands and portability. If you build to a larger format the lenses become significantly larger. Compare the Fuji medium-format rangefinders to a Leica or Bessa rangefinder and I think you get the point.

Crop-format digital cameras exist as a result of different constraints of this new technology. Once these constraints are eliminated there will be no reason to crop anymore. Then our small 28mm, 35mm and 50mm lenses will retain the full FoV and other attributes they were originally designed for.
 
buckpago said:
it would be better if M9 is a film camera.
Click to expand...

Yeah :D It isn't that hard to get some slides developed and scan them. But actually, I wouldn't buy a new Leica film camera when you can have used ones much cheaper.

Just get a cheap M2 and a meter and some VC glass, then a good 35mm scanner like the Nikon's. You got a full frame digital system to go!
 
Jaapv ... com'on .... surely you see the virtue in a film M9. The signal that film is here to stay, along side Digital, that would be a marvelous boost. We can make if FF and all rejoice about the full use of the image circle etc. :)
Imagine how the press would give coverage to the boldness of Leica! And there is always a way to slowly increment. I for one will likely buy a Zeiss Ikon in two months rather than the M7 - simply due to the way the auto iso nags you. I'd love to see that gone.
I have also read of the slow wake ups from sleep and some other small imperfections.

This may be a wild one but I have always thought that the perfect marriage of the old and traditional as it pertains to rangefinders (in both analogue and digital) would be to still use the rangefinder for focus but to not have the classic frame lines. If you take the aproach that Nikon has implemented with the focus points on the D700, D3 and D300 where the l.e.d's are projected - I wonder if that could not be imlemented. Frame lines, one at a time only ... but with the ability to exactly match the lens mated.
Could it work? ... or am I drinking too much beer? :)
 
Wiyum; I know what you mean. I had shot all those years with 35mm as well as medium format. I do agree that it becomes embedded in the conciousness in some way that defies logic because something similar happened to me. I went to FF slr with the D700 after digital since the canon d30 waaaay back.

I had instantly grown to like the crop factor. It is not strictly a crop but more a meld of crop and magnification imho due to the fact that it makes you stand in a different spot for the framing. But I digress. I liked the crop. I liked it over FF and would be quite comfortable choosing a D300 over a D700, or a M8 over an M8.3 FF - even at the same price. It just depends on what I'm hunting with the viewfinder.

But despite saying that, I was very surprised to find exactly the same thing as what you had described. I felt instantly at home. The lens field of view and framing was oddly much more intuitive to my brain. That was even after so much re-training.

I wonder if it is quite common. Could it be that we get trained and "stuck" with the first exposure to a way of working? I wonder if those who picked up a 1.5 sensor first ... would they be comfortable in reverse?

There is one other factor. I guess some like to be comfortable in their skin. They value a system, one system that they have learned and don't like to change. Comfort for them helps their creativity. I can really see how many would really hate the crop then. I - for better or worse find the exotic stimulating. When I get so accustomed to a way of working, my creativity seems to go out the window. So I can relate to the FF as 'home" ... as many other old fogeys do .... but I'm quite happy to get out of my comfort and run with something alien. I do think it likely stops me from getting to a higher level with my shooting, especially the quick intuitive shooting ... but that is the way it is for me.

But mostly my stance is rooted in the thought that it is a shame to look at the glass as 1/10th empty. Every plus has a minus. FF may give back to us old guys (and gals) some comfort, and perhaps a sense that Leica has "arrived" in digital, but do we want an already insanely expensive product out of the reach of even more of those who want a rangefinder renaissance?
What if, with the small flange size Leica is saddled with, we never get very good corner performance with FF. What if Leica believes that Harley-Davidson's approach (which has been their up to now) is the flaw, and go to FF, auto focus and a whole new line of incompatible lenses? This urge forward ... just may kill the legacy and take with it what we have now.

Anyways .... when I get my M8 back from the shop; I'm going to get out there and learn to use it. I'm going to go and block out of my mind this new found knowledge I've gleaned from my short stay in this forum about how incomplete, how flawed my new Rangefinder is. No, I'm going to make do, and try to find it's strengths ... and the fun of it.

Cheers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom