M9, anyone?

[Athena]

Geez, if they don't fix this real quick - there ain't gonna be no Leica around to make a M9 (film or digital).

BTW, anyone know how come they didn't just make a digital back for the M7 like they did with the R-series?

 

[amateriat]

Hi,

My hope is for a M9 which takes film and has the same shutter as the M8/R9.
In addition a nice small winder will be nice too.

I have a pair of those...


- Barrett

 

[amateriat]

Geez, if they don't fix this real quick - there ain't gonna be no Leica around to make a M9 (film or digital).

BTW, anyone know how come they didn't just make a digital back for the M7 like they did with the R-series?

The official answer: Are you kidding? We had enough trouble coming up with the DMR! Never mind cramming all that into an M body!!!

The unofficial answer: their backs (Leica proper, not the DMR) were more-or-less against the wall to produce a usable, digital M body...or else. All things considered, I think they did the right thing. I also think they should've done it a bit earlier, but since they say all the pieces weren't in place to do it till now, I'll take their word for it.

I think they'll sell plenty of them, and a lot of people will be content. The M8 isn't perfect. No digital camera at the moment is anywhere near perfect (the ones touted as "pretty darn good" in terms of image quality (and I mostly believe that much) are, IMO, too big, heavy, and clumsy (that includes EVERY "pro" dSLR made...there, I said it). The M8 simply has to be Good Enough to get Leica through in one piece for there to be an M9, which I also think will happen (but which, alas and alack, I still likely won't have the scratch for...my dear Hexars have to see me at least into the next decade, but I'm not exactly complaining). Bottom line: I'm rooting for Solms.


- Barrett

 

[Athena]

The official answer: Are you kidding? We had enough trouble coming up with the DMR! Never mind cramming all that into an M body!!!

The unofficial answer: their backs (Leica proper, not the DMR) were more-or-less against the wall to produce a usable, digital M body...or else. All things considered, I think they did the right thing. I also think they should've done it a bit earlier, but since they say all the pieces weren't in place to do it till now, I'll take their word for it.

I think they'll sell plenty of them, and a lot of people will be content. The M8 isn't perfect. No digital camera at the moment is anywhere near perfect (the ones touted as "pretty darn good" in terms of image quality (and I mostly believe that much) are, IMO, too big, heavy, and clumsy (that includes EVERY "pro" dSLR made...there, I said it). The M8 simply has to be Good Enough to get Leica through in one piece for there to be an M9, which I also think will happen (but which, alas and alack, I still likely won't have the scratch for...my dear Hexars have to see me at least into the next decade, but I'm not exactly complaining). Bottom line: I'm rooting for Solms.


- Barrett

Barrett,

I root for the Yankees (and you see where that got me this Fall). I root for the Democrats (better luck there, at long last). But I have a hard time "rooting" for a camera maker that comes to the ball late, wears the wrong gown and still expects to be the belle.

Perhaps this "belle" really is just an aging "dowager".

Now I'll grant you that a digital back may have just about been too far. So goodness gracious, I expect we'll never see a camera maker really "think outside the box" and make a body with a replaceable sensor!

Imagine that - if Leica had "twinned" its legendary body quality with the ability to easily (at a price, to be sure) upgrade the sensor from time to time - they could have done a paradigm shift of major proportions.

Now, instead, they have a grape maker!

 

[amateriat]

Athena: I grok your point (I'm a Mets fan, so I more than feel your pain), and yes, I truly would've preferred an interchangeable/upgradable option for the M8 (although who's to say an upgrade path hasn't been worked out with this one?), but I also know that quite a few people were expecting somthing that looked like an M, walked like an M and (sorta) quacked like an M...and Solms could only deliver it with its digital innards indelibly attached. Hope springs eternal (even here in Brooklyn).


- Barrett

 

[David Murphy]

Apparently the M8 is well on its way to being a landmark failure in the history of camera manufacturing so you can pretty-well forget about an "M9".

 

[mfunnell]

Apparently the M8 is well on its way to being a landmark failure in the history of camera manufacturing so you can pretty-well forget about an "M9".

I don't have a dog in this fight, but isn't this kind of statement a little, um, overwraught this early in the piece?

...Mike

[Full disclosure: no M8, no current or former plans to get one, no Leica anything, only recently stared playing with rangefinders, happy Canon dSLR user.]

 

[David Murphy]

I don't have a dog in this fight, but isn't this kind of statement a little, um, overwraught this early in the piece?

...Mike

[Full disclosure: no M8, no current or former plans to get one, no Leica anything, only recently stared playing with rangefinders, happy Canon dSLR user.)

Yeah, perhaps it is. I'm guess I'm will to give them the benefit of the doubt.

However noise, banding, and and color cast issues aside (which don't really shock me having worked with image sensor electronic design myself over the years), what I do not understand is why Leica did not use a full frame sensor. Had they done this, the M8 would have been a juggernaut even if it had cost more.

 

[Pherdinand]

Warning message:
This thread is not serious and no serious answers are accepted! If you want to discuss the Emm Problemm start your own thread (like everybody else does)!