uhoh7
Veteran
Leica digital discussion seems often to devolve into an essentially political repartee , with power, money, entitlement, resentment, vengeance, loyalty, and personal identity swirling about to an astonishing degree.
Even DPreview broke it's "almost never mention Leica" rule to report on the M9 sensor issues, and of course the comments exploded with hatred, sarcasm and sneering, reminiscent of nothing so much as a lynch mob.
The very word: "Leica" is a flaming hot button. Then you have "Digital", OMG red cape to the bulls around here, LOL "Leica Digital" is like an IED. "Jewelry", "toys for the rich", and all sorts of cliches accompany just about every discussion of Leica digital bodies. Considering the age of many of us, I would not be surprised to hear that one two strokes have been precipitated by these little talks.
For those of us who just love the camera for what it is, not it's labels, all this is a bit perplexing. We are all too aware of the M9 foibles, and every clean shooting day is that much sweeter. Most just ignore the hysteria, which is what I should do.
If we think Leica exorbitant now, we should consider the wake of WW2, when the cost of a Contax or Leica spurred the entire Japanese camera industry. I just wish the same thing would happen again LOL
But I'm seeing the MM, pristine, for 5600. Still too rich for me, and M9 does good BW. M8 even better.
M8.2s I see for 1850.
Even DPreview broke it's "almost never mention Leica" rule to report on the M9 sensor issues, and of course the comments exploded with hatred, sarcasm and sneering, reminiscent of nothing so much as a lynch mob.
The very word: "Leica" is a flaming hot button. Then you have "Digital", OMG red cape to the bulls around here, LOL "Leica Digital" is like an IED. "Jewelry", "toys for the rich", and all sorts of cliches accompany just about every discussion of Leica digital bodies. Considering the age of many of us, I would not be surprised to hear that one two strokes have been precipitated by these little talks.
For those of us who just love the camera for what it is, not it's labels, all this is a bit perplexing. We are all too aware of the M9 foibles, and every clean shooting day is that much sweeter. Most just ignore the hysteria, which is what I should do.
If we think Leica exorbitant now, we should consider the wake of WW2, when the cost of a Contax or Leica spurred the entire Japanese camera industry. I just wish the same thing would happen again LOL
But I'm seeing the MM, pristine, for 5600. Still too rich for me, and M9 does good BW. M8 even better.
M8.2s I see for 1850.
Dralowid
Michael
Newcastle Brown.
I remember a holiday in Alwmouth (staying in Oxo's Katy's cottage). The money we could get for the returned bottles was much higher in Alwnick. Every morning we would set off for Alwnick in our Morrie thinking we would save ££££s.
The other things I remember? The drains ran uphill and the cottage, being a film set, had repeat titles on the books shelves approximately a yard at a time. War and Peace Part 1 every 36 inches.
Apols for any mis-spelling, kippers from Craster etc etc...none too digital...HP3 was my favourite at that time.
I remember a holiday in Alwmouth (staying in Oxo's Katy's cottage). The money we could get for the returned bottles was much higher in Alwnick. Every morning we would set off for Alwnick in our Morrie thinking we would save ££££s.
The other things I remember? The drains ran uphill and the cottage, being a film set, had repeat titles on the books shelves approximately a yard at a time. War and Peace Part 1 every 36 inches.
Apols for any mis-spelling, kippers from Craster etc etc...none too digital...HP3 was my favourite at that time.
Pioneer
Veteran
I have noticed that very effect on other forums that I visit from time to time uhuh007. Maybe we should offer them a pint of Newcastle Brown?
chikne
Well-known
Nevermind Tom Abrahamson who will service his winders for life regardless of age and original owner or not
leicapixie
Well-known
i have been informed by a friend, who is involved with Leica,
that the M9 Sensor and the Monochrome will run out Sensors,
within a shorter period, than known..
So if you are wondering "should i send it in or wait ?",
my friend the answer is blowing on the internet wind..
I firmly believe that the RFDR concept is flawed with digital.
My experiences lead me to move towards a EVIL finder, which so far has made me nauseous and lacks immediacy.
So i'll wait..
I am good at that!
All my equipment is old!
that the M9 Sensor and the Monochrome will run out Sensors,
within a shorter period, than known..
So if you are wondering "should i send it in or wait ?",
my friend the answer is blowing on the internet wind..
I firmly believe that the RFDR concept is flawed with digital.
My experiences lead me to move towards a EVIL finder, which so far has made me nauseous and lacks immediacy.
So i'll wait..
I am good at that!
All my equipment is old!
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
This could happen ... but Leica need to keep feeding the current crop of M9 users replacement sensors for some time yet. Or their goose may be well and truly cooked!
oltimer
Well-known
Kieth, they cannot feed them new senors if they cannot get them. My personal guess what Leica "slipped out" in amongst their recent statement about upgrading to a 240, with an attractive trade in value. They'll feel this out so long as people are happy; but in the end the offer will have to be sweeter or their costs will escalate changing them sensors all out, which may be impossible?
uhoh7
Veteran
Their response implies there will be a new run of CCDs with modifications to prevent the corrosion.
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
It makes sense to deplete supplies of stock while the engineering solution is worked out for the new batch.
Meanwhile I'm still enjoying using my Monochrom.
Cal
willie_901
Veteran
Of course Leica's new policies will increase the comfort level of M9 owners.
It seems the current sensor assembly will be used for replacements until inventory is exhausted. This is likely a temporary fix. I can't imagine ordering a new production run for a the current sensor assembly.
A parallel effort is underway to explore the development of a new sensor assembly that does not delaminate under normal usage. It is not clear if this will be a modified sensor cover glass/IR filter with the current Kodak based electronics or if an entirely new sensor assembly will be designed from scratch. I don't think we can know the M9 sensors' current manufacturer can or will change manufacturing processes. Nor do I think we can know if CMOSIS has the capacity to develop and manufacture an entirely new unit.
Is it possible Leica will decide it is not possible/practical to produce a redesigned M9 sensor? Who knows? By strongly discounting replacement M240s, Leica could abandon the M9 and meet regulatory consumer standards.
I also wonder why Leica wouldn't order a CCD M9 sensor run with out the IR filter. Then customers would have three choices.
I suspect we will have answers sometime in 2015.
It seems the current sensor assembly will be used for replacements until inventory is exhausted. This is likely a temporary fix. I can't imagine ordering a new production run for a the current sensor assembly.
A parallel effort is underway to explore the development of a new sensor assembly that does not delaminate under normal usage. It is not clear if this will be a modified sensor cover glass/IR filter with the current Kodak based electronics or if an entirely new sensor assembly will be designed from scratch. I don't think we can know the M9 sensors' current manufacturer can or will change manufacturing processes. Nor do I think we can know if CMOSIS has the capacity to develop and manufacture an entirely new unit.
Is it possible Leica will decide it is not possible/practical to produce a redesigned M9 sensor? Who knows? By strongly discounting replacement M240s, Leica could abandon the M9 and meet regulatory consumer standards.
I also wonder why Leica wouldn't order a CCD M9 sensor run with out the IR filter. Then customers would have three choices.
I suspect we will have answers sometime in 2015.
uhoh7
Veteran
I got the idea there have already been two variants of the M9 sensor, the first brittle, and the second with corrosion. That may or may not be true. Then of course there is the MM variant.
Certainly they cannot replace a bad sensor with a new version before it exists, so without question, they will use the current stock until it does. At that point I think they will try to use the good one because it's going to save a lot of hassle with the new lifetime warranty.
This is not alchemy. If they want a new sensor run with modifications they will have it.
As to forcing everyone to go M240: no way no how. Huge resistance to this. The M240 has a "sony" look, shifts color and flares more than M9. That's not to say you don't see fine results from the camera, and I'd take it over any Sony. It's also heavier, when the M9 is already too big. M6 is perfect. No reason on earth why we can't have a digi RF in that footprint. And do they think the MM users will go 240?
They have already shown they are smart enough to try and make us all happy, and that will pay huge dividends long run.
The MM is the sexy Leica today. I think they are waking up to that. I just hope they learn from the M240 and produce a machine which combines the best of all the models---some day. But then I'll have to wait another 5 years till it comes down to 3.5K LOL
Certainly they cannot replace a bad sensor with a new version before it exists, so without question, they will use the current stock until it does. At that point I think they will try to use the good one because it's going to save a lot of hassle with the new lifetime warranty.
This is not alchemy. If they want a new sensor run with modifications they will have it.
As to forcing everyone to go M240: no way no how. Huge resistance to this. The M240 has a "sony" look, shifts color and flares more than M9. That's not to say you don't see fine results from the camera, and I'd take it over any Sony. It's also heavier, when the M9 is already too big. M6 is perfect. No reason on earth why we can't have a digi RF in that footprint. And do they think the MM users will go 240?
They have already shown they are smart enough to try and make us all happy, and that will pay huge dividends long run.
The MM is the sexy Leica today. I think they are waking up to that. I just hope they learn from the M240 and produce a machine which combines the best of all the models---some day. But then I'll have to wait another 5 years till it comes down to 3.5K LOL
willie_901
Veteran
I ignored the cracked sensor issue as I understand it is fully resolved. So we have three sensor assemblies to consider: 1) assemblies made before the deamination problem was well defined and acknowledged by Leica and by customers, 2) essentially identical, assemblies that will be made to replace delaminated assemblies 3) a new assembly we know nothing about right now that will solve the delamination problem.
Please expand on "color shifts and flares". I'm not sure what you mean or how chip manufacturing architecture (CCD vs CMOS) can make any difference at all. I am not saying there is no difference when rendering the M9 vs M240 raw or that the M9 raw is not superior. But I struggle to understand how analog data recorded with lower signal to noise ratios (CCD) is superior to data recorded with higher signal to noise ratios (CMOS). More SNR mean always means more information (or more certain information) In every other instance of digital data recording (still imaging, video, music, MRI, radar, radio astronomy, etc.) more information means superior results are possible.
Of course there's no alchemy in sensor manufacturing. At the same time the third-party sensor assembly manufacturers' production capabilities and schedules are relevant. The third-party has to cooperate and then deliver.
When the M8 and M9 were first announced, the technical limitations that made it impossible to maintain an identical foot print with the M6 were discussed in detail. The problem has to do with fully supporting the diverse optical characteristics of M/LTM lenses. I do not think Leica could afford to unilaterally invent a completely new sensor technology that was thin enough to maintain an exact M6 footprint. Apparently this is still the case.
Please expand on "color shifts and flares". I'm not sure what you mean or how chip manufacturing architecture (CCD vs CMOS) can make any difference at all. I am not saying there is no difference when rendering the M9 vs M240 raw or that the M9 raw is not superior. But I struggle to understand how analog data recorded with lower signal to noise ratios (CCD) is superior to data recorded with higher signal to noise ratios (CMOS). More SNR mean always means more information (or more certain information) In every other instance of digital data recording (still imaging, video, music, MRI, radar, radio astronomy, etc.) more information means superior results are possible.
Of course there's no alchemy in sensor manufacturing. At the same time the third-party sensor assembly manufacturers' production capabilities and schedules are relevant. The third-party has to cooperate and then deliver.
When the M8 and M9 were first announced, the technical limitations that made it impossible to maintain an identical foot print with the M6 were discussed in detail. The problem has to do with fully supporting the diverse optical characteristics of M/LTM lenses. I do not think Leica could afford to unilaterally invent a completely new sensor technology that was thin enough to maintain an exact M6 footprint. Apparently this is still the case.
_goodtimez
Well-known
I read this story from start and well: what a mess with these sensors !
My big wish would be that Nikon makes a digital rangefinder or that Leica works on a digital solution for their film cameras which would make it easier to replace.
My big wish would be that Nikon makes a digital rangefinder or that Leica works on a digital solution for their film cameras which would make it easier to replace.
Huss
Veteran
Careful what u wish for.
Nikon has issues with its brand new D750:
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1331716
Sony has had issues with its A7 which only has been resolved with the new A7ii (a camera I am seriously looking at):
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1336222
This actually tempered my upset feelings towards Leica, as I love using my M-E and the results it gets. I can fix in PP delam spots until they become too many (by then hopefully Leica has the fix, I am on my second sensor). But I can't fix the sensor reflections that the A7 has, nor the dark stripe that can affect the Nikon.
It seems that all these mfgs have issues. Things aren't simple anymore like in the pre-digital times.
burancap
Veteran
And every day I seem to shoot more and more film. I couldn't be happier, and I can wait until Leica gets things sorted. No hurry - no worry.
Pioneer
Veteran
I agree Jeff. Film still works just fine.
_goodtimez
Well-known
That is exaclty what I mean. The more we move on with digital the more trouble we seem to have, or maybe we are just discovering the start of the problem after a couple decades of digital sensors on the market.
Pioneer
Veteran
It would appear that the technology may have become so complex that the rapid camera update cycle may not be sustainable?
Of course Leica's problems problems may not stem from rapid upgrade cycles but rather more from pushing the envelope in areas where no one has a full understanding of the potential problems.
uhoh7
Veteran
Which design elements contribute to more flare with m240, I cannot say.
Here is a pro who is shooting the 240 all the time describing it.
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/920070/1093#12745035
He was talking about "veiling flare" with the ZM18 in an earlier post, which really surprised me, since that lens is very resistant to flare with the M9, far more so than the 28 cron.
Here is Edward trying to get the colorshift correct with the ZM 35/2 on the 240:
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/920070/1092#12741933
This is a lens which needs no profile at all on the M9.
x-ray
Veteran
I don't know if it's a function of being so complex as much as it's how many pixels and whistles and bells do we need or even want.
I don't think Leica was pushing the envelope that much. Their sensor and technology wasn't that much different than several medium format manufactures backs. For example my Hasselblad back had no micro lenses and was a Kodak CCD with 39mp. It worked very well with no issues on a Hasselblad Super Wide with a very short back focus. Also It functioned perfectly well with super wide lenses and extreme movements on a Linhof Technikardan 23. In the case of the super wide lenses on the Linhof, all that was needed was to generate a profile for the lens and apply it in the raw processing just like Leica did with lens coding. Leaf and Phase use the same technology up to 80mp with no problem.
Just my opinion, Leica wasn't ready to introduce a digital camera. I also believe they cut corners and bought cheap components and it bit them in the butt. I know of no other digital system that's had this level of problems since the FF Kodak 14N. In Kodaks case the technology just hadn't gotten there and Kodak couldn't face being honest with their customers.