eleskin
Well-known
I am in waiting mode for the next M digital. I thought about an M8.2, making my present M8 a backup, but I believe that if I just want another camera, a used M8 would be the better option, and save the cash for the M8.3 or M9 or whatever they will call it. Anyone thinking the same way?
My great hope is a great improvement in high ISO performance. 10-15MP would be fine also. I think image quality is more important than zillions of pixels!! Crop factor is not a big deal for me.
My great hope is a great improvement in high ISO performance. 10-15MP would be fine also. I think image quality is more important than zillions of pixels!! Crop factor is not a big deal for me.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Waiting for a camera that has not even been announced seems to me to be a singularly useless passtime.. See all you wishful thinkers in four years time - I'm off taking photographs But I agree, it does not make much sense to buy a M8.2 for an (upgraded) M8. It generally makes sense to skip one upgrade, with any product.
wilonstott
Wil O.
Dude totally. The M8.2 hasn't had time to gather dust on any shelf, and the most pertinant question in so many minds is "When is the M9 coming out?" When the M9--err whatever--comes out, like with the M8, the limitations will be magnified 10fold by shockjock reviewers, and then the all too moot question about the arrival of the M10 will start swirling around this and other forums.
The point is, you can't stay ahead of the curve. The M9 (or whatever) will surely have quirks too. Bloggers will rant and rave about them--thats what they do. It won't be perfect. Hell, mechanical Ms have loose shutter times and you don't see people waiting for the MP.2 to render the problem. I understand the money, and how if you're going to spend the money, then you want something that works right--and by "right" I mean the IR issue and the noisy high speeds. Get a Nikon or a Canon if you want better high speeds and no IR problem--but then you say "but I want a Leica." Then get an f-ing M8 and deal with it.
Last edited:
Avotius
Some guy
Well.......I cannot afford a M8 right now but would buy one if I could. Since it is hard enough for me to save for an M8 the 8.2 is off the table. If the M9 or something else that is not the rd1 comes around by the time I have saved that kind of money then I will consider it, so for me it is not a mater of waiting to see what else shows up, just affording it. In the mean time I am waiting for developments in large sensor compacts.
aniMal
Well-known
I am waiting for the M9, because then the prices of used M8s will fall for sure! I passed on a really good buy for $200 w/guarantee recently, and that is the general price level I am waiting for. Then I will buy a second M8, preferably a tattered one.
What is most important for me with the M8 is simply the ergonomics of a film M, so that I can use the hard-wiring I got from working with M2/4/6s for years. Compared to film it does an absolutely outstanding job up to 800 iso - if I should really need more than that I would buy a D700...
But I do hope that there will be a really good M9 coming sometime of course, so that I can buy that one second hand as well - in maybe 5-6 years time...
What is most important for me with the M8 is simply the ergonomics of a film M, so that I can use the hard-wiring I got from working with M2/4/6s for years. Compared to film it does an absolutely outstanding job up to 800 iso - if I should really need more than that I would buy a D700...
But I do hope that there will be a really good M9 coming sometime of course, so that I can buy that one second hand as well - in maybe 5-6 years time...
Ron (Netherlands)
Well-known
I just got an M8.2, - and really love it, since I want to make photos right now, I never waited forn a newer model to come out. If you have to wait for the M9, you will also have to wait for the M10 and M11......
kbg32
neo-romanticist
A M8 for $200 with guarantee???!!!! You passed this up??!!!
Tom Niblick
Well-known
Yes, I'm waiting for the M9. I have a M8 and since I use 4x5s and Nikons for work and my Leicas for pleasure, I don't feel the pressing need for a backup digital Leica body or feel that there were enough fixes to make me want to spend money on a M8.2.
If the M9 is 24x36 and has good high ISO performance and a few million more pixils, I'll be in line for one. It just makes more sense.
Tom
If the M9 is 24x36 and has good high ISO performance and a few million more pixils, I'll be in line for one. It just makes more sense.
Tom
johannielscom
Snorting silver salts
the math.
the math.
For your convenience, I constructed this little table...
Type ... Year ... Years later
Leica I ... 1925 ... +0
Leica II ... 1932 ... +7
Leica III ... 1933 ... +1
Leica M3 ... 1954 ... +21
Leica M2 ... 1958 ... +4
Leica M1 ... 1959 ... +1
Leica M4 ... 1967 ... +8
Leica M5 ... 1971 ... +4
Leica CL ... 1973 ... +2
Leica M4-2 ... 1978 ... +5
Leica M4-P ... 1981 ... +3
Leica M6 ... 1984 ... +3
Leica M7 ... 2002 ... +18
Leica M8 ... 2007 ... +5
It took 21 years to develop and market the M3, but there was a war going on. It took three years for the introduction of the M5, two more for the CL, also three years to get a light meter into the M6, but 18 years to get aperture priority into the M7. All major changes involving electronics take time. From the M7 to the M8 hasn't even taken that long. Question is, does Leica consider the upgrade to a FF M9 a major change? I think it IS a major change. Why? Read elsewhere on the forum, not going to get into this again.
Anyway, on average six years between major new model releases. Introduction times vary from 1 year apart to 21 years apart.
Free advice: Don't hold your breath for the M9 just yet. It might take a while.
the math.
For your convenience, I constructed this little table...
Type ... Year ... Years later
Leica I ... 1925 ... +0
Leica II ... 1932 ... +7
Leica III ... 1933 ... +1
Leica M3 ... 1954 ... +21
Leica M2 ... 1958 ... +4
Leica M1 ... 1959 ... +1
Leica M4 ... 1967 ... +8
Leica M5 ... 1971 ... +4
Leica CL ... 1973 ... +2
Leica M4-2 ... 1978 ... +5
Leica M4-P ... 1981 ... +3
Leica M6 ... 1984 ... +3
Leica M7 ... 2002 ... +18
Leica M8 ... 2007 ... +5
It took 21 years to develop and market the M3, but there was a war going on. It took three years for the introduction of the M5, two more for the CL, also three years to get a light meter into the M6, but 18 years to get aperture priority into the M7. All major changes involving electronics take time. From the M7 to the M8 hasn't even taken that long. Question is, does Leica consider the upgrade to a FF M9 a major change? I think it IS a major change. Why? Read elsewhere on the forum, not going to get into this again.
Anyway, on average six years between major new model releases. Introduction times vary from 1 year apart to 21 years apart.
Free advice: Don't hold your breath for the M9 just yet. It might take a while.
colker
Well-known
do you need a back up now? why?
colker
Well-known
digital is a whole different game. every 2/3yrs there is a new camera from nikon/ canon.
no camera is above this race. it does not matter how good it is. technology changes. it's a techonological game, not quality.
johannielscom
Snorting silver salts
Well, enjoy the technological hunt then. Current qualitiy is good enough for me. Newer cameras won't necessarily make better photographers!
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
That is why the sensor of the Canon D60 did not change until the after the 20D I suppose -and that was a minor Mp increase. Ten years? And that on the steep shoulder of the development curve - which has flattened out considerably by now. There is a biological limit to technological development. It makes no sense for a camera to outresolve the human eye. I makes no sense either for a camera to shoot anything darker than a black cat in a coal cellar. A good parallel is the HiFi story - it has a head start in time on digital imaging. Any technological improvement now is subject to the law of diminishing returns.
Last edited:
greggebhardt
Well-known
Waiting is a waste! Shoot now and do not look back. It could be years before we see a FF M camera if ever.
Spoks
Well-known
The M8 leaves much to be desired. From IR/UV filtering to noise on high ISO. Not to say full frame sensor to sensor dust removal. Leica can forget the old pace of model renewal if they are going to stay in business in today's digital camera market. I believe they will be launching a new M-model in connection with Fotokina in 2010. I hope so.
What is just as exiting is what this M9 will cost. Some say it will be € 8.000 - $ 10,000. Then we better start saving now!
What is just as exiting is what this M9 will cost. Some say it will be € 8.000 - $ 10,000. Then we better start saving now!
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
hmmm
Dream on, dream on
Dream yourself a dream come true
Dream on, dream on
Dream until your dream come true
Dream on, dream on, dream on...
Aerosmith...
kin
Member
The law of diminishing returns that so many people say about HiFi is a fallacy.
I don't see any slowing down in technological change in extreme HiFi. And with each change that comes, my how wonderful the improvements in sound. The changes caused by 'minor' improvements are Night and Day still.
D-class amps, 6H30 supertubes, Magico driver technology etc etc.
How many times have I had to open the eyes of the unbeliever and show them what changes in technology can do in one night of listening to good music.
mfogiel
Veteran
As far as I am concerned, I do not care about a Bayer matrix, low bit digital anything - I would gladly consider a full frame camera with a meaningful resolution (18-24MP) and a true 16 bit, no anti aliasing B&W matrix, although it might take 24 bit or even more, to get an acceptable tonal separation in the highlights. I think a clean 1600 ISO image would be more than sufficient in terms of speed, and for a B&W matrix this is completely achievable nowadays. The problem is, this camera will never be produced.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Having two cameras with very similar sensors, one 8-bits compressed (M8) and one full 16 bits (DMR), I can tell you that the practical advantages of 16 bit as far as IQ is concerned are largely an illusion. The main difference is that the DMR files are more robust in Photoshop.
Don't forget that 8 bits in non-linear DNG compression like the M8 writes has nothing at all to do with an 8-bits workflow in Photoshop, which is clearly inferior. The M8 files *must* be developed in RAW to 16 bits if one wants to do any amount of post-processing.
Btw, the Bayer demosaicing has nothing to do with the near-losless compression in the M8. That is still in uncompressed 16 bits working space.
The M8 is not an 8-bit but an 16 bit camera.
The 16 bit file is compressed down to 8 bit in the following manner:
A logarithmic compression is applied through mathematical manipulation of the data and the data are not stored as values but as pointers to a lookup table. The result is most of the data are concentrated in the darks, and less in the lights, which follows the natural response curve of the eye. The result is that it behaves much the same as a 12 bit file, which is not that far off that it makes a real difference to the 14 bits which is the real depth of 16-bit files.
The advantage is speed. The original 16 bit M8 (yes-that was the pre-production beta camera) was desperately slow, reason for Leica to go this road.
Don't forget that 8 bits in non-linear DNG compression like the M8 writes has nothing at all to do with an 8-bits workflow in Photoshop, which is clearly inferior. The M8 files *must* be developed in RAW to 16 bits if one wants to do any amount of post-processing.
Btw, the Bayer demosaicing has nothing to do with the near-losless compression in the M8. That is still in uncompressed 16 bits working space.
The M8 is not an 8-bit but an 16 bit camera.
The 16 bit file is compressed down to 8 bit in the following manner:
A logarithmic compression is applied through mathematical manipulation of the data and the data are not stored as values but as pointers to a lookup table. The result is most of the data are concentrated in the darks, and less in the lights, which follows the natural response curve of the eye. The result is that it behaves much the same as a 12 bit file, which is not that far off that it makes a real difference to the 14 bits which is the real depth of 16-bit files.
The advantage is speed. The original 16 bit M8 (yes-that was the pre-production beta camera) was desperately slow, reason for Leica to go this road.
Last edited:
LeicaMSeattle
Established
Life is way too short. Get something now, get out, travel, and capture some images to post here. We're on this earth only once, so make the best of it!