M9 concerns.

[jarski]

... They really blew it big time.

this many nay sayers while camera isnt even out yet ! 😱

cool off pls, wait until you can check the VF among other things in your local camera store ?

 

[J. Borger]

it's not only about focus accuracy. The vf image size for 90mm will already be ridiculously small,barely bigger than the focus spot.
That's why i got the bessa r3a, for the 1:1 viewfinder. Very usable for 90mm and very very nice for 50.

I could not agree more!
The 1:1 RF is the one and only aspect i always prefered the RD1 to the
M8!

 

[Keith]

And yes- you only need to be a hair out to be out of focus. That, in common usage, is called skill.

Surely that (skill) will become available in a future upgrade! 😛

 

[Sonnar Brian]

Almost all Leica M's after the M3 that have been produced have 0.72x finders. This 0.85x and 0.58x offering is recent. I doubt there is much difference between 0.72x and 0.68x in use.

Put a 5cm f1.5 ZK Sonnar on my CL yesterday. I'll consider it practice.

 

[horosu]

Well, doesn't Leica have the 1.4x magnifier that was brought out precisely to allow critical focus with the new Noctiux?

 

[jaapv]

Nice theories Jaap.
But why use people the clunky magnifier for their 50/ 75 and 90mm lenses and end up with more in focus shots 😕.
l

That is not my experience. I tossed all the magnifiers and got the correct diopter. I now only get OOF shots when I am drunk - which matches my reality at the time.

 

[Turtle]

.68 VF again is almost a dealbreaker for me. VERY inconvenient at best.
Not everybody is into wide angles. And the VF magnifier is NOT a very elegant solution.

I need .85 or even better: 1:1

Very true, but IMHO the argument for SLRs starts getting stronger the longer you lenses get and I would imagine there are a lot more wide to 50mm RF users than those routinely using longer FLs (hence the Leica decision I suspect). While that might make sense to Leica from a commercial perspective (and me practically) I can understand that even as a 50mm user, 0.68 is a touch short. I use 0.85 for 50mm, but could live without the FL altogether on RF if I needed to. For 75mm onwards I find 0.72 already becoming a weird, dislocated experience and i like to feel connected to what I am photographing

 

[rustysheepdog]

Almost all Leica M's after the M3 that have been produced have 0.72x finders. This 0.85x and 0.58x offering is recent. I doubt there is much difference between 0.72x and 0.68x in use.

Brian, there is a difference - to ME, at any rate. I have an M2 and an M8 - when I got the M8 I reckoned the v/f difference would be too small to matter, but I find the M8 less easy to be sure of getting a good alignment. I CAN do it, but with less confidence.

What I can't explain is why I can use my M3-pattern "goggled" 35mm Summaron on the M2 more easily than my other lenses on the M8. That makes no sense to me at all as the v/f image is actually smaller than the M8. I wondered if the M8 finder has a slight "dioptric difference" to the M2, however Leica Camera UK assure me that is not so.

 

[leicashot]

Can't believe people are bitching (well actually I can). Most commonly used lenses ar 28/35/50 and Leica is catering to that which is why people USE rangefinders in the first place. If you want to shoot telephoto, buy an SLR or the magnifiers.

 

[KM-25]

I am a little concerned with the .68X on the M9, but will get a chance to take a look through it tomorrow, so I can asses it then. My most used lenses are 35 & 50 on my film M's. I am not a huge fan of a 50 at .72, but I get by. My 50 and 90 almost never go on my M6, MP-3 due to the wonderful .92 mag of the M3, so this is my benchmark.

If I can accurately focus my 50 lux on the M9, then I think I will be fine because .68 would be darn nice for the 28 Summicron. I can't ever see putting a 90 on the M9 though, and that is OK by me.

Besides price, this was one of the things that put me off Leica M, the camera's finder being optimized for no more than 3 focal lengths so I can understand the frustrations of those who use a 50 a lot.

 

[peter_n]

I think it would be a wise move on their part to have at least one person trolling these forums and others just to hear user feedback on their products. If these issues are resolved, I would consider buying a digital M.

They monitor the LUF, I don't know about any other forum.

 

[Ben Z]

To the focussing accuracy:
In response to the problems with the M8, Leica has built a huige focussing rig to adjust the cameras. Since then the problem is solved. Leica assures me that a ff camera will have less focussing issues than a cropped camera.

That last statement has me sweating bullets, Jaap. Makes me worry that Leica is still a little credulous. Full-frame DSLRs are notoriously more sensitive to focus errors than the cropped ones. Plenty of anecdotal evidence to substantiate.

 

[jaapv]

That is what I told Stefan Daniel last June, Ben. And whilst admitting that the M8 was at the limit of the tolerances of the RF mechanism, he told me that tests (!) on the ff M9 had shown that their theoretical considerations had been correct and that the M9 would have less of those issues. Of course, matte screen focussing is in many ways the opposite of RF focussing. Where the RF has the largest measuring accuracy on a wideangle lens, the SLR is most accurate with long lenses. So this may well explain this phenomen.

 

[jaapv]

Brian, there is a difference - to ME, at any rate. I have an M2 and an M8 - when I got the M8 I reckoned the v/f difference would be too small to matter, but I find the M8 less easy to be sure of getting a good alignment. I CAN do it, but with less confidence.

What I can't explain is why I can use my M3-pattern "goggled" 35mm Summaron on the M2 more easily than my other lenses on the M8. That makes no sense to me at all as the v/f image is actually smaller than the M8. I wondered if the M8 finder has a slight "dioptric difference" to the M2, however Leica Camera UK assure me that is not so.

No - the difference is film vs sensor. Film has a certain thickness, thus a certain tolerance. With a sensor you are recording on a mathematical plane, so it is more critical. And I am convinced you never judged focus of your film photographs on a monitor at 400% with your nose just inches from the image.

 

[Ben Z]

Of course, matte screen focussing is in many ways the opposite of RF focussing. Where the RF has the largest measuring accuracy on a wideangle lens, the SLR is most accurate with long lenses.

That's true, and I have no doubt the M9 will focus wideangles as efficiently as the M8. It's the longer, faster lenses (50 and up) shot wide open and close-up that pose the most challenge for a rangefinder. And to achieve the same composition from the same subject distance, a longer lens will be required on the M9 than on the M8. The larger sensor resolution will also enlarge farther before pixellating, thus encouraging a greater degree of pixel-peeping by users. Then there's the matter of slight mis-collimation of lenses, an issue which is not addressed by Leica's fancy-schmancy M9-rangefinder-adjusting rig. Much of those tolerance variations went under the radar on film due to its curvature, and limits of enlargement. Now I suspect a number of people will go for an M9 who passed on the M8 due to the crop factor. When they try out their Noctis and 75 Luxes on their new M9 and find it mis-focuses, I suspect fingers will be pointed at the M9, even if undeservedly. "My Nocti focuses spot-on with my M6 for 20 years, what do you mean 'its the lens fault'?"😀

 

[jaapv]

Golden days for DAG and Will van Manen and the likes in that case. Adjusting a rangefinder set is not that expensive and very effective.

 

[Richard Marks]

Well it certainly does look like we have full frame. Hurrah. That is of course the main thing.
Other issues which irked me about the M8 and which I hope will be addressed
;very poor TTL flash with a long shutter lag and over briight pre flash.
;the 6 bit coding lens issue. My D700 will store ID for 9 MF lenses and you get full matrix colour metering.
;having to partially press the shutter button to access any of the menus0
;inaccurate frame lines for my 75mm
; square retaining lug on the base plate (much weaker than the old film m design)
;so so build quality
; very poor customer relations with Leica UK and long delays sending the camera back to Germany on 2 occasions. This of course will be less of an issue if the thing is reliable out of the box.

I trusted Leica implicitly regarding the M8 and bought one of the early UK orders without question. It was a once in a lifetime purchase for me and i sold a hell of a lot of good film gear to get it. I have never spent that much on a camera before. I am going to be a bit more cautious this time.


Best wishes

Richard