_larky
Well-known
I do not own an M9, I'd love to, but most likely never will.
If the sensor is that bad at high ISO and produces poor aliased results, this needs to be fixed. Hear that Leica, you are Leica, you have the red dot, you have to fix these sorts of problems. No ifs buts or maybes.
But, as for the use of the M9, again I've only used the M8, who buys a Leica and expects to use it like an SLR? I don't. With the X100 I'd prefer it if they removed the EVF and the screen and all the excess button. In fact, take the M6 and stick a sensor in it.
If the sensor is that bad at high ISO and produces poor aliased results, this needs to be fixed. Hear that Leica, you are Leica, you have the red dot, you have to fix these sorts of problems. No ifs buts or maybes.
But, as for the use of the M9, again I've only used the M8, who buys a Leica and expects to use it like an SLR? I don't. With the X100 I'd prefer it if they removed the EVF and the screen and all the excess button. In fact, take the M6 and stick a sensor in it.
user237428934
User deletion pending
Look at Hasselblad or PhaseOne. That's how state of the art interchangable Sensor Cameras look like. Do you want this?
Adam_Shaw
Newbie
Hi, first post, so be gentle...
Having some experience with Industrial Cameras, and having also been down the road of developing our own camera for a special application there is nothing straightforward about anticipating the roadmap of the sensor developers.
The sensor itself is only part of the question, there are also all the supporting electronics providing the clock and reading out the taps from the sensor.
The FPGA (a programmable chip, the brain of the camera) is usually the limiting factor in a sensors actual performance.
If you want to make one picture every five minutes, you can use an older FPGA with just about any sensor you like, so long as it can be reprogrammed to deal with the data.
Increasing the size of the sensor, the data of course increases as well, and the FPGA will eventually hit a wall in terms of bandwidth.
Most sensors out there are already putting their processors against the wall, and it is always a compromise between what has to be done (de-bayering for example) and the output rate required.
In the end, we chose to drop our "in house" camera design and partner with a couple of suppliers.
In Industrial cameras, standards are becoming the name of the game, once we implement the standard, from a software point of view changing out the sensor tech becomes easier.
But all of this would increase the bulk of the design, if you have to have physical interfaces to make certain components upgradable you need to include space for connectors and accessibility to do it... you would end up with a much larger camera, that certainly wouldn't look like an M.
Hope this was somehow informative,
A
Last edited by a moderator:
willy_icon
Newbie
maybe the article should be called: ten ways to tell the world you don't like rangefinders, complain about people who do and charge $$$ for an m9 review in the process.
Both (D)RF and (D)SLR systems have their uses, use what you like/need.
Both (D)RF and (D)SLR systems have their uses, use what you like/need.
dave lackey
Veteran
So, who the hell is Lloyd?
Better yet, why should Leica listen to him? I think the engineers at Leica are a little better than anyone named Lloyd who doesn't like Rf cameras.
Better yet, why should Leica listen to him? I think the engineers at Leica are a little better than anyone named Lloyd who doesn't like Rf cameras.
jarski
Veteran
Read the article now. What a stupid rant. If I would write this, no one would notice it. When you have a big blog then you can write stupid stuff and it gets discussed.
+1, tried to read the rant. only thing surprised me was that he had actually used M9 for 18 months. usually such lists are impulse of potential buyers expressing their anger because Leica wont follow feature roadmap and pricing of Japanese dSLR makers.
Last edited:
Harry S.
Well-known
I just looked at High ISO M9 pictures on flickr for the best part of an hour and I dont see what the fuss is about. Perfectly usable IMO.
igi
Well-known
He wants to make a niche product just like everything else...
I read the guys open letter, and I wonder if he is using a prototype with a pre-production CCD. The results from my M9 are much better than my $1200 Olympus EP2, let alone the Ricoh Point and Shoot. I did not see examples to back up his assertions.
My M9 gives very good results at ISO 2500, and makes me wonder why Leica did not put an ISO 5000 setting in it.
Anyway. The guy is venting over the results with an early production camera.
So now I get to vent.
Open Letter to Leica for the M9:
1) Add a setting for ISO 5000 and ISO 10000.
2) Pair it up with more noise reduction algorithms implemented in LIGHTROOM to clean up the image.
My M9 gives very good results at ISO 2500, and makes me wonder why Leica did not put an ISO 5000 setting in it.
Anyway. The guy is venting over the results with an early production camera.
So now I get to vent.
Open Letter to Leica for the M9:
1) Add a setting for ISO 5000 and ISO 10000.
2) Pair it up with more noise reduction algorithms implemented in LIGHTROOM to clean up the image.
Neare
Well-known
I'm paraphrasing here: "Can we have this, this and that. Oh, and make it cheaper too."
AusDLK
Famous Photographer
I regularly use my M9 at ISO 1600 without a second thought.
Okay- not venting, more for the Open Letter to Leica...
I LOVE THIS CAMERA!
Thankyou.
I LOVE THIS CAMERA!
Thankyou.
gerikson
Established
I followed the link to this thread in my feed reader, and the very next thing I found in it was http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2011/06/tsk-tskbad-very-bad.html.
Too funny!
EDIT: I've been reading Lloyd Chamber's blog for a long time. His shooting isn't my shooting - he's an outdoor/landscape photographer. And that's where the frustration is coming from. He loves Leica's M glass - it's much better than CaNikon, according to him. But the capturing body behind the glass is crap, in his not-so-humble opinion.
So he's definitely not anti-Leica. He's against the conservative impulses that make Leica produce the same damn camera since 1956 in slightly different configurations.
Too funny!
EDIT: I've been reading Lloyd Chamber's blog for a long time. His shooting isn't my shooting - he's an outdoor/landscape photographer. And that's where the frustration is coming from. He loves Leica's M glass - it's much better than CaNikon, according to him. But the capturing body behind the glass is crap, in his not-so-humble opinion.
So he's definitely not anti-Leica. He's against the conservative impulses that make Leica produce the same damn camera since 1956 in slightly different configurations.
Last edited:
sper
Well-known
I don't see what every body is fussing about, I mean I know this forum can be a little stuffy...but come on! Most of what he's talking about is RIGHT. The M9 does have a crappy screen, crappy processor, crappy battery life. ISO performance is shrug worthy but it's a CCD so ok, par for the course but come on people. The M9 is nice because it's the only option available but it's far from perfect!
I don't subscribe to Lloyd chambers review site but like he wrote a 67 page review about the camera. I think you guys would be wrong towing the party line of "oh you just don't get it."
Why shouldn't Leica equipment cost less? I mean I know it would be hard to see your camera in the hands of the lowely middle class, but hey maybe they actually care about photography and have more interesting stories to tell than...um...I don't know...Seal's flickr stream.
Leica isn't perfect, and this current luxury bubble won't last.
I don't subscribe to Lloyd chambers review site but like he wrote a 67 page review about the camera. I think you guys would be wrong towing the party line of "oh you just don't get it."
Why shouldn't Leica equipment cost less? I mean I know it would be hard to see your camera in the hands of the lowely middle class, but hey maybe they actually care about photography and have more interesting stories to tell than...um...I don't know...Seal's flickr stream.
Leica isn't perfect, and this current luxury bubble won't last.
Quinn Porter
Established
He spends $7K on an M body and then criticizes it for being a rangefinder... Obviously he's very intelligent. Leica should take his advice.
sper
Well-known
No he didn't, he criticized them for not developing a better focusing system. Like one that compensates for FOCUS SHIFT which even these "legendary" Leica lenses have.
Harry Lime
Practitioner
I agree with a lot of his points.
Granted many of the problems are due to the M9 basically being a souped up M8. From what I understand a lot of the electronics are a carry over from the M8. That would explain why the LCD, buffer size, processing speed etc did not change.
The lack of weather sealing in what is supposedly a professional digital camera priced at $7000 is unforgivable. But again, they are still using the M8 shell and from my conversations with Leica reps they don't seem to think this is an important issue.
The M9 framelines are an enormous improvement over the M8 (which were a joke) and even all post M6 cameras. Not as accurate as an SLR, but the framelines were never intended to be more than reasonably accurate at distances between 1 and 15 meters.
It's a rangefinder, not an SLR.
Focus confirmation etc? I think this is an ideological problem. IMO rangefinders shooting as always been more akin to a sketch than a refined drawing. Half of HCB's shots are out of focus and no one gives a damn. That said I do think that a LiveView mode would be very useful feature.
Improved sensor? Well, Leica is at the mercy of Kodak. Sensor development is very expensive and Leica doesn't have and can't afford to do the same R&D that Canon and Nikon do. But the M9 sensor is a mixed bag of goods. It really needs to deliver 12-14 stops in range, especially in light of the primitive metering system. Which brings me to the next point.
They really need a more sophisticated metering system. The current sensor gets about 8-9 stops of range. Better than slide film, but several stops short of negative film. There is little margin for exposure errors in digital photography, because there is no slack in the sensor (unlike Tri-X).
Yes, the M9 is not as good as a 3Ds at high ISO, but you also have to keep in mind that Leica does almost no NR in camera. It must all be done in post. Personally I prefer this. But yes, for 7K it should be better, but that brings us back to Leica not having access to sensors on par with the Japanese.
The M10 will be better, but just as expensive.
Given the performance and quirks of the M9 the pricing is ridiculous and has relegated it to being a rich man's camera. The vast majority of pro shooters (let alone PJ's) can't afford $14,000 plus another $10,000 for two bodies and two fast 35/50 Summilux lenses.
I agree that Leica would have been better off pouring the resources expended on the S2 in to improving the M9 and delivering a Digital CL for the masses. They could have also used the money to expand capacity, so you can actually walk in to a store and purchase a 1.4/50 Lux ASPH.
I don't get the X1. Basically it is a digital Leica 1a starting at $2000. That was a pretty impressive concept in the 1920, but doesn't cut it as anything more than a really good P&S in 2011. Leica would have been a lot better off with an APS-C powered digital CL (see the runaway success of the X100).
But this is all talk in the wind.
Leica just reported record profits and they must consider themselves a bunch of geniuses. So, why the need to change course? They may lose the majority of serious and working photographers, but they do have the money from the rich and it seems that is all that Kaufmann cares about.
(Disclaimer: I own 11 Leicas and a bag full of glass. The M series has been my main camera for the past 12 years. So, I've put my money where my mouth is. But I do feel that in recent years Leica has turned itself in to a luxury brand, rather than grown as a camera company...)
Granted many of the problems are due to the M9 basically being a souped up M8. From what I understand a lot of the electronics are a carry over from the M8. That would explain why the LCD, buffer size, processing speed etc did not change.
The lack of weather sealing in what is supposedly a professional digital camera priced at $7000 is unforgivable. But again, they are still using the M8 shell and from my conversations with Leica reps they don't seem to think this is an important issue.
The M9 framelines are an enormous improvement over the M8 (which were a joke) and even all post M6 cameras. Not as accurate as an SLR, but the framelines were never intended to be more than reasonably accurate at distances between 1 and 15 meters.
It's a rangefinder, not an SLR.
Focus confirmation etc? I think this is an ideological problem. IMO rangefinders shooting as always been more akin to a sketch than a refined drawing. Half of HCB's shots are out of focus and no one gives a damn. That said I do think that a LiveView mode would be very useful feature.
Improved sensor? Well, Leica is at the mercy of Kodak. Sensor development is very expensive and Leica doesn't have and can't afford to do the same R&D that Canon and Nikon do. But the M9 sensor is a mixed bag of goods. It really needs to deliver 12-14 stops in range, especially in light of the primitive metering system. Which brings me to the next point.
They really need a more sophisticated metering system. The current sensor gets about 8-9 stops of range. Better than slide film, but several stops short of negative film. There is little margin for exposure errors in digital photography, because there is no slack in the sensor (unlike Tri-X).
Yes, the M9 is not as good as a 3Ds at high ISO, but you also have to keep in mind that Leica does almost no NR in camera. It must all be done in post. Personally I prefer this. But yes, for 7K it should be better, but that brings us back to Leica not having access to sensors on par with the Japanese.
The M10 will be better, but just as expensive.
Given the performance and quirks of the M9 the pricing is ridiculous and has relegated it to being a rich man's camera. The vast majority of pro shooters (let alone PJ's) can't afford $14,000 plus another $10,000 for two bodies and two fast 35/50 Summilux lenses.
I agree that Leica would have been better off pouring the resources expended on the S2 in to improving the M9 and delivering a Digital CL for the masses. They could have also used the money to expand capacity, so you can actually walk in to a store and purchase a 1.4/50 Lux ASPH.
I don't get the X1. Basically it is a digital Leica 1a starting at $2000. That was a pretty impressive concept in the 1920, but doesn't cut it as anything more than a really good P&S in 2011. Leica would have been a lot better off with an APS-C powered digital CL (see the runaway success of the X100).
But this is all talk in the wind.
Leica just reported record profits and they must consider themselves a bunch of geniuses. So, why the need to change course? They may lose the majority of serious and working photographers, but they do have the money from the rich and it seems that is all that Kaufmann cares about.
(Disclaimer: I own 11 Leicas and a bag full of glass. The M series has been my main camera for the past 12 years. So, I've put my money where my mouth is. But I do feel that in recent years Leica has turned itself in to a luxury brand, rather than grown as a camera company...)
Last edited:
Mister E
Well-known
I hate digiloyd.
zerobuttons
Well-known
No, but please justify why that would be the necessary consequence.
EDIT: Someone else did.
Last edited:
zerobuttons
Well-known
Thank you, Adam. It was certainly informative, and explaining to us who don´t have that knowledge, why my suggestion is not implemented by Leica (which I hope they would have, had it been easier).
Welcome to RFF.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.