9AM, 9/9/09 announcement

I guess many of us Leica snobs were too held-up by work (simply to afford the red dot) and a simple hobby with such history will no doubt evolve into a more technical discussion. No past hobbies of mine - RC Plane/Heli, DJing can offer me such endless depth of knowledge and history.

M9 will be expensive no doubt but look at 1DsMk3's price when it first came out.. And its not even FF to start with and made in Japan by machines. A dealer in Singapore has started taking in order (without camera specs) at $9500SGD. It is cheaper than a 1DsMk3 when it came out ($12kSGD) so I think the price is reasonable.

History has taught us, a better and cheaper product (5Dmk2) will follow. In RF's case - a digital Zeiss or something else to balance the market. And I reckon not too long after M9's launch.

But if you ask me, I prefer film Leica. There is something that is missing in digital no matter how clean or big your sensor is. I shot with phaseone and H3DII39 and still prefers my MP. Just printed a B&W poster of my girlfriend with TMax and Summicron 35 asph... Im surprised by the details the cron renders on a tiny 35mm film. Holy...
 
I just got my OM-1 back from the US freshly CLA'd and with a brand new prism ... John (Camtech) tells me that while he had it apart he converted it to full frame for me.

Can't wait to try that! :angel:
 
dovevadar said:
I guess many of us Leica snobs were too held-up by work (simply to afford the red dot) and a simple hobby with such history will no doubt evolve into a more technical discussion. No past hobbies of mine - RC Plane/Heli, DJing can offer me such endless depth of knowledge and history.

M9 will be expensive no doubt but look at 1DsMk3's price when it first came out.. And its not even FF to start with and made in Japan by machines. A dealer in Singapore has started taking in order (without camera specs) at $9500SGD. It is cheaper than a 1DsMk3 when it came out ($12kSGD) so I think the price is reasonable.

History has taught us, a better and cheaper product (5Dmk2) will follow. In RF's case - a digital Zeiss or something else to balance the market. And I reckon not too long after M9's launch.

But if you ask me, I prefer film Leica. There is something that is missing in digital no matter how clean or big your sensor is. I shot with phaseone and H3DII39 and still prefers my MP. Just printed a B&W poster of my girlfriend with TMax and Summicron 35 asph... Im surprised by the details the cron renders on a tiny 35mm film. Holy...
Click to expand...

I don't think your understand the 1Ds3 and 5D2. Sorry.
 
Al Kaplan said:
Why do I need to buy new Leica bodies? My newest M body isn't even forty yet. That's Leica's big problem. Some of us use the crap out of them year after year after year and don't feel the need to "upgrade", while other owners burn incense, light candles, and chant excitedly about beauty and bokeh. The Learned Ones get into endless nit-picking discussions of anthracite, black paint, or black chrome, and then there's th 0.58, 0.72, or 0.92 finder magification conundrum, "grips" or not, to motor or not to motor. Fun, huh?
Click to expand...

I have a Mitchell BNC-R 35mm motion picture camera that was built in 1936. I still use it on occasion and when the footage is projected you can't tell if it was shot with that 73 year old warhorse or a modern Panavision. Why? Because I can simply use it with the newest lenses and filmstock out there. The camera itself is just a light tight box that moves the film.

The biggest reason for the never ending upgrade cycle in the digital world is that your filmstock is built in i.e. the sensor. Unless you own a medium format camera you have to toss the entire body to use the latest 'emulsion' ie sensor.

But I see your point. I'm still mostly shoot film. I've had M bodies for over 10 years now and my oldest one is an M2, that's older than me.

I keep shooting and this never ending parade just keeps passing me by...
 
sojournerphoto said:
I don't think your understand the 1Ds3 and 5D2. Sorry.
Click to expand...

simple. 1ds3 is the flagship of canon. it cost alot, very good build and outstandingly iso performance. 5d2 followed, it is 1/3 the price, near but not as good build and even better iso performance and higher IQ. The first is usually the most expensive we all know that (in this case, a ff m9?) then a much better and much cheaper alternative will follow (in this case a digital zeiss?)

I hope I'm clear with this.
 
The tone and expression of that invitation seems to me to be suggesting that something radically new (for Leica) is on the way, but I don't think a FF M would be seen as a 'new thing'; it's completely expected.

I have a feeling that it's going to be something completely new. I wonder if it's going to be a rangefinder take on Micro 4/3? - M4/3 body, rangefinder VF, new manual focus lenses (or perhaps PanaLeica lenses) with of course the adapter for genuine M lenses. That would stir things up.
 
Given all the hype and effort to make this announcement on Sept. 9th, 2009 at 9am, I can't see how they WON'T be announcing the M9.

If it's not the M9, why go thorough all this trouble just to let a lot of people down?
 
dovevadar said:
simple. 1ds3 is the flagship of canon. it cost alot, very good build and outstandingly iso performance. 5d2 followed, it is 1/3 the price, near but not as good build and even better iso performance and higher IQ. The first is usually the most expensive we all know that (in this case, a ff m9?) then a much better and much cheaper alternative will follow (in this case a digital zeiss?)

I hope I'm clear with this.
Click to expand...

sojournerphoto is right. And You still don't understand the 1Ds3 and 5D2. The 5D2 followed the 5D. It has nothing to do with the 1D line.
 
A clever move would consist in a round sensor seing alla the image transmitted by the lenses.
With digital the square or rectangular format has no practical reason.
The circular image could of course be reframed at will by the fotographer
 
tom.w.bn said:
sojournerphoto is right. And You still don't understand the 1Ds3 and 5D2. The 5D2 followed the 5D. It has nothing to do with the 1D line.
Click to expand...

Do you mean a 1ds3 should only be compared to a former 1ds models only? Then whats the point? I dont understand why you are splitting the 2 lines? Its canon's marketing gimmick thats all. Tell me the 1 series can produce better pictures than the cheaper 5d range? Not quite. Performance? Not quite too. So a camera is a camera, unless you are comparing a rf to an slr then thats another story together. Both models here are dslr with canon sensor and they can mount the same lens just different build. And why are we comparing nikon to canon? comon.

anyway, its an example of the digital trend and nothing more. No need to pick on it. If I dont understand, please enlighten me what is correct then...
 
Last edited:
In college, I files down the negative carrier of my enlarger to really print "full-frame" from my 35mm cameras. I also remounted some slides as the slide mount obscures part of the image. These days, sometimes I scan a negative strip as a whole to get the entire image.

I find my film scanner has a crop factor when set to import single images, and store-prints have a crop factor. I suspect it is close to 1.1x.

So a full-frame digital camera REALLY gives full frame, and most people using 35mm cameras have never experiences true full-frame on the final image.
 
Brian Sweeney said:
In college, I files down the negative carrier of my enlarger to really print "full-frame" from my 35mm cameras. I also remounted some slides as the slide mount obscures part of the image. These days, sometimes I scan a negative strip as a whole to get the entire image.

I find my film scanner has a crop factor when set to import single images, and store-prints have a crop factor. I suspect it is close to 1.1x.

So a full-frame digital camera REALLY gives full frame, and most people using 35mm cameras have never experiences true full-frame on the final image.
Click to expand...


I noticed when scanning a roll of film from my M3 the other night the area of exposure was noticably larger than created by all my other cameras. I create the scanning frame template manually when I scan 35mm and according to my scanner software the negatives from the Leica were 37.5 by 25.5mm

I've never noticed this before!
 
dovevadar said:
Do you mean a 1ds3 should only be compared to a former 1 model only? I dont understand why you are splitting the 2 lines? Its canon's marketing gimmick thats all. Tell me the 1 series can produce better pictures than the cheaper 5d range? Not quite. Performance? Not quite too. So a camera is a camera, unless you are comparing a rf to an slr then thats another story together. Both models here are dslr with canon sensor and they can mount the same lens just different build. And why are we comparing nikon to canon? comon.

anyway, its an example of the digital trend and nothing more. No need to pick on it. If I dont understand, please enlighten me what is correct then...
Click to expand...

The 1D line always has the better AF-Module and weather sealing. For a sports photographer there is no question which one to choose. A reportage or studio photographer might think about buying 1D or 5D. I see a clear distinction that goes beyond marketing.
But I think this is a little off topic now. But wait. What if Leica anounces on 09/09 a Leica branded 5DMkII 😱
 
tom_uk said:
The tone and expression of that invitation seems to me to be suggesting that something radically new (for Leica) is on the way, but I don't think a FF M would be seen as a 'new thing'; it's completely expected.
Click to expand...

Well, if you are right and it isn't the M9 in spite of their heavy use of nines in the announcement, the remaining solution is perfectly obvious - they have jumped the "back to film" bandwagon, and will cancel the S2 to revive the R9... 😛

Sevo
 
tom.w.bn said:
The 1D line always has the better AF-Module and weather sealing. For a sports photographer there is no question which one to choose. A reportage or studio photographer might think about buying 1D or 5D. I see a clear distinction that goes beyond marketing.
But I think this is a little off topic now. But wait. What if Leica anounces on 09/09 a Leica branded 5DMkII 😱
Click to expand...

At least they'd have guaranteed sales! 😛
 
tom.w.bn said:
The 1D line always has the better AF-Module and weather sealing. For a sports photographer there is no question which one to choose. A reportage or studio photographer might think about buying 1D or 5D. I see a clear distinction that goes beyond marketing.
But I think this is a little off topic now. But wait. What if Leica anounces on 09/09 a Leica branded 5DMkII 😱
Click to expand...


haha. fair enough. But I think Im comparing more on the IQ of both cameras. I for one stands for the ff M9 if its for real. There isn't any competitors doing this now and Leica can and will make it "excusive". But its going to be short-lived. People are getting smarter and people tend to wait abit nowadays given the digital trend...

I think the price is fair if it really spots a 5d2 sensor in it. Or the latest sony ccd will be cool too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J
35mm Still-Picture Photography: It began with scale focusing cameras! Back To Basics. Part 1, From the first to half-frame 35s of then and now.
Replies
10
Views
1K
Jason Schneider
J
Back
Top Bottom