Godfrey
somewhat colored
The sensor problems on the M9 are there, and real. BUT, the M9 is an obsolete camera that went out of production in 2012, and its last derivative in 2015. Leica moved on to a trouble free sensor in 2012.
Yeah yeah, I know. "It's an expensive camera, they should... woulda... blah blah blah." A waste of time, folks. The M9 generation cameras time is over. Spend to fix it if you love it. If you're going to complain forever about it, well, you should just sell it and move on.
Life is not a free ride—no one gets out of it alive.
Yeah yeah, I know. "It's an expensive camera, they should... woulda... blah blah blah." A waste of time, folks. The M9 generation cameras time is over. Spend to fix it if you love it. If you're going to complain forever about it, well, you should just sell it and move on.
Life is not a free ride—no one gets out of it alive.
Huss
Veteran
Because the majority of Leica's DIGITAL customers are owners not users.
And I've never met a bigger crowd of apologists for any brand.
full disclosure - I currently own an M240 (bought used), and numerous film bodies and lenses. So I am not casting rocks from afar.
I differentiate between film and digital Leicas, because almost everyone I know and have seen with film Leicas are enthusiastic photographers who use them all the time. Most of them saved up their pennies to buy a used one.
It is the opposite for the digital cameras. The majority of those rolled into a dealership to buy something expensive and pretty, cuz it has to be better than a Nikon or Sony, right? Heaven forbid they are not actually going to use them...
Of course there are a few digital Leica users out there,such as those on RFF, but if you think you are representative of the customer base then you are mistaken.
Huss
Veteran
Every digital Leica is an obsolete camera. None, including the M10, compare in tech to other offerings in the market. Especially in sensor tech.
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
Godfrey,
My spin is I bought my Monochrom new, used it for 5 years without a real problem (corrosion only showed in some large prints and I was able to spot-heal any image defects), and then did without the camera for 12 weeks while it got a sensor replacement (upgraded) and a free overhaul.
I kinda got a "free-ride." No complaints here, I still love the camera. Surely the M-246 and M-10 are more advanced cameras, but the charm of the original Monochrom is that it is a primitive and basic digital camera for B&W only. It is as close to a film camera than any digital camera I have used. That is its charm.
I also expect a reasonable next decade of use. If that happens getting 15 years of service out of a digital camera is nothing to complain about. Already I feel I got my money's worth, and even if I only get a second five years of trouble free service it is still a good deal to me.
BTW I love this camera, but it cost me nothing for the sensor upgrade, and my Monochrom was overhauled for free. Happy-happy.
Cal
retinax
Well-known
Would that be possible because they sell their products themselves in the US? German law doesn't know such a thing. Which might explain the attitude... It was possible in the case of one of the German car manufacturers, but they produce in the US. Does anyone know?
cz23
-
Raid, I don't know what there is to "look into." It seems obvious that Leica's handling of the M9 issue has been a business decision. A service department and supply chain are not that hard to improve if you're willing to spend the money. Even basic, genuine communication would have gone a long way. I know this subject has been beaten to death, but it's still shameful.
John
raid
Dad Photographer
John: It do not represent but myself here. I have no idea what Leica does or does not do here for improved service. I just pointed out to them that there is a perceived issue in terms of lack of services.
David Hughes
David Hughes
Rant mode ON:-
In my little world the word 'obsolete' means worn out; not old fashioned and not no longer being made...
OK, rant mode OFF.
In my little world the word 'obsolete' means worn out; not old fashioned and not no longer being made...
OK, rant mode OFF.
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
David,
I agree. Certainly there are much more advanced digital cameras. I think of my Monochrom as a rather "primitive" digital camera. For me the experience is most like shooting a film camera because it is so basic. I love my Monochrom for all the reasons others hate it.
One day I think others will take my side. Still makes amazing images. The CCD sensor has its own unique rendering, and because it costs more to make than a CMOS sensor perhaps the days of CCD sensored cameras is just history.
One day I say there will be a great appreciation, a turnaround and the thinking will be more aligned. Truely so elemental that my Monochrom comes the closest to being like shooting a film camera than anything else.
Again, the M-246 is a much more advanced camera.
Cal
willie_901
Veteran
Not really, the M10 data stream's performance is competitive for 24 X 36 mm still photography.[1]
One could say Leica basically has historically lagged behind other brands in terms of raw-file, data quality (S/N and DR). But the M10 is currently competitive.
The M-246 is superb. The M-240 family is behind, but not by much. I suggest M-240 photographers do not face a significant disadvantage in terms of raw-file data quality. At the same time, if I wanted a Leica M camera, I admit I'd buy a M10.
I never owned a Leica product. Actually I don't trust Leica. My motivation to apologize or over compensate for Leica is unmeasurable low. But I appreciate what Leica has achieved with the M-240, M-246 and especially the M10.
1. DxO and PhotontoPhotos statical analyses disagree. I prefer PhotontoPhotos' methodologies which indicate the M10 is more competitive.
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
Willie,
The Leica SL was actually the development platform for much of the M10 the way I understand it, and the SL now is is becoming a camera that will be likely be updated perhaps into a SL2 in a year or two maybe.
I own a Leica SL and the much maligned gigantic and extra heavy 50 Lux-SL. I kinda see no real advance in the M10's capabilities over a SL. Pretty much it uses the same Maestro processor borrowed from the medium format Leica "S." To me the M10 is really a SL built and repackaged as a smaller M-body without autofocus and the weatherproofing.
Was the SL really that far behind when it was released?
Cal
David Hughes
David Hughes
Thanks; what really gets to me is that, if I said I had a 1957, worn, black Leica MP no one would suggest I bin it. Even with all the black worn off and light leaks it would be appreciated and loved. And I think the same should apply to any camera that turns out decent prints or slides; so the M9 is on that list.
Trouble is, prints and slides don't come into the arguments for and against cameras. It's as bad as judging a wine without opening the bottle and finding two glasses...
Regards, David
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
David
I have a reputation for printing big and annoying people. LOL. An art dealer asked me point blank, "Why are these prints so big," because generally street photography is most times limited in print size by image quality. The point of being a street photographer and being able to attain IQ of a landscape photographer gets glossed over.
I feel I really learned how to maximize the images and fully exploit the original Monochrom.
The M-246 kinda crushes my simple MM in speed, high ISO, better shadow detail, smoother highlights... but where my CCD camera excels is in the mids.
To me the output of the M-246 is kinda scooped in the mids, and in large and medium format the "voicing" really is more about the mids. Perhaps this is the only place where the MM beats the more advanced M-246.
When printing big post processing, less is more. To me the rich mids of the CCD is well suited for printing big.
Cal
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Obsolete does not mean "worn out". It means "replaced by a newer model" in the context I was using.
Tons of obsolete things remain perfectly serviceable for years past their date of obsolescence, and even desireable and sought after, but that does not make them any less obsolete. For example: That 1957 M2 is long obsolete, but it's still a sought after camera that is perfectly usable. My 1978 Hasselblad SWC is long obsolete, but I like it so it was worth the $500 it cost to have it serviced and repaired last year.
When you have obsolete things that are worn out or broken, you have to make a decision as to whether it's worth the cost of putting them back into service. That's where a decision must be made. Over time, obsolete things wear out in ways that are either no longer serviceable or able to be repaired in any justifiable way, but people still repair them anyway at very high cost.
Even the simplest digital camera is a device that is over an order of magnitude more complex than any film camera. So the speed at which obsolete becomes unrepairable, either economically or practically, is faster. That's a fact of life.
(Cal, my perfect Leica is the M-D. It's just like using a film camera in most any way that counts, but allows a 100% digital workflow for B&W or color. I understand all about loving an older model that has other unique attributes completely ... However, I never presume that any camera, any mechanical device, is going to last for decades unless it is a very simple device that is easy to service anywhere. That does not describe the majority of cameras ever made.)
(Willie, I've trusted Leica for over 50 years and have zero regrets from doing so. They've always produced photographs that met my satisfaction requirements and my client's needs. They've never been cheap, and they've always been a joy to work with. That's all that matters to me.)
G
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
I agree. My Leica II, made in 1934, still fulfills its intended function. So does my M9.
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
Godfrey,
Some really good points you made. Pretty much I used my Monochrom for 5 years of hard use. It was my main go to camera. The camera just got overhauled and has a new sensor.
Pretty easy to expect another 5 years of trouble free service, especially since the SL is my primary camera and I have many others. Not unreasonable to think the five years could stretch into a decade. After that it basically is a remarkable free camera.
I do think this could happen in my case. I can see how a MD has its charm.
Cal
willie_901
Veteran
Well, the SL's S/N ratio (performance when sensor underexposure is mandated by increasing ISO) is well below the M10's (data). Many 2015 cameras outperform the SL in this area - some even have smaller sensors.
On the other hand the SL's dynamic range the highest for all the Leica products with 24 X 36 mm sensors. Even today, only a handful of Nikon and SONY 24 X 36 mm cameras have higher DR performance (and not by much).
A sensor's photo-diode conversion-gain can be optimized for S/N or DR. So, it appears Leica choose DR for the SL and S/N for the M10. If this speculation is relevant, and if the SL and M10 photo-diode assemblies are similar, I believe Leica made wise performance decisions. The SL is a better choice for studio work because one has control over the light levels. The M10 is a better choice where one is at the mercy of low ambient light levels.
In terms of DR the SL certainly was competitive in 2015 and remains so today.
It would be a mistake to assume I'm bad-mouthing the SL. There's much more to consider than the technical performance of a camera's data stream. The lens systems are at least as important as the sensor technical specifications.
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
Willie,
Thanks for the response. I reached out to you because I have much respect for your technical spin on things and expertise.
A friend owns both the M10 and SL. We kinda agreed that the M10 was basically a SL that was dressed up as a rangefinder, but my friend happens to like the colors better on the SL right out of the camera, so evidently he sees a difference in the rendering of the files between the two cameras.
Your explanation between S/N verses DR makes sense. As far as the lens system, although I love my M-glass, it is evident to me that the SL glass is the most optimized for the SL. I use a Noct-Nikor and a Leica 50 E60, as well as the 50 Lux-SL. For me I favor the SLR glass over M-glass not only for ergonomics, but also rendering.
Kinda funny how the 50 Lux-SL is well hated. I know it is mucho oversized and is a porker, but to me it is the finest rendering 50 I have ever used.
Cal
David Hughes
David Hughes
Yes, I agree some people use it that way but my dictionary the last time I looked (and just checked) says "US; to cause ...a product to become obsolete by replacing it with something new". As I said "in my little world" (England) I figure I'm excluding these US versions of the word. And the word "cause" suggests it is forced on people, probably by the sales dept...
Regards, David
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
Cal, thanks for the detailed explanation of this cleaning method. I will look into getting the arctic butterfly! While I've never done any sensor cleaning, not on the M9 nor my D700, for fear of causing damage, the electrostatic method sounds safe enough for me to use. I wonder if I should get wet cleaning supplies as well, or just leave well enough alone.