ZlatkoBatistich
Established
OK, yes, the M8/M9 are slightly chubbier. Some very small cameras have automatic sensor cleaning, so I'm not sure automatic sensor cleaning would require an even chubbier camera.
M9: Do you want a dust reduction system?
- Thread starter K3N
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 139
- Views 908
OK, yes, the M8/M9 are slightly chubbier. Some very small cameras have automatic sensor cleaning, so I'm not sure automatic sensor cleaning would require an even chubbier camera.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
With very tiny sensors...
That's the thing. Look at all the other digital cameras with so-called 'full frame' sensors (near enough 24x36mm).
Now show me one the same size as a Leica.
Cheers,
R.
N
Nikon Bob
Guest
FF DSLRS have followed the form factor of modern film af SLRs and have not really increased in size. My D700 is very close to my F90x in size and feel. I really don't think that in camera senor cleaning would add much if any to the size of a camera no matter the form factor. Leica have done a good job of keeping the size of the M9 near enough to film Ms so that should not be a problem.
Bob
Bob
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
I don't have an M8 or M9, but aren't they the same size as the M6/MP except for the front-to back dimension? I think they are a little deeper/thicker because the sensor, being thicker than film, requires more depth.
No?
ZlatkoBatistich
Established
Roger, I'm not an engineer, so I'm not going to convince anyone that it can be done. However, I think you're making a basic logical error. Your argument, essentially, is that the fact that something hasn't been done yet is proof that it can't be ever be done. The corollary of this is that if something can't be done, then it is foolish or pointless to express a desire for it.
But that logic has been disproved time and time again, especially in the field of technology, where just a few years can turn an improbable concept into a reality. Clever engineers sometimes find ways to turn fantasy wishlists into practical realities.
Year
1994 "Now show me an SLR lens with an electromechanical system to detect and counteract handheld camera unsteadiness." There are none, hence it can't be done!
1995 Canon introduces the first image stabilized lens.
1999 "Now show me a DSLR with live preview." There are none, hence it can't be done!
2000 Olympus introduces the first DSLR with live preview.
2003 "Now show me a digital rangefinder." There are none, hence it can't be done!
2004 Epson introduces the first digital rangefinder.
2007 "Now show me a DSLR that offers HD video recording." There are none, hence it can't be done!
2008 Nikon introduces the first DSLR with HD video recording.
etc. 🙂
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Bob,
The key words are highlighted. After about 1990 film SLRs bloated up beyond all understanding. Now stand a 'modern' SLR, film or digital, next to an Olympus OM-1 or even a Nikon F (non-Photomic) and you'll see it for the tub of lard it is.
Cheers,
R.
N
Nikon Bob
Guest
Roger
Oh yes I agree that modern film SLRS are as bloated as DSLRs but the point was that they did not get any more bloated with the addition of in camera sensor cleaning or in camera IS. I still don't see where it would add much, if any, bulk to the already digital M9. With better more powerful battery technology there would be no reason for a larger battery either. As usual' I can only agree to disagree with you. I think Lieca knows it's traditional client base well and fear the too much too soon of the new technologies will alienate them. I think this thread just confirms that possible line of thought.
Bob
Oh yes I agree that modern film SLRS are as bloated as DSLRs but the point was that they did not get any more bloated with the addition of in camera sensor cleaning or in camera IS. I still don't see where it would add much, if any, bulk to the already digital M9. With better more powerful battery technology there would be no reason for a larger battery either. As usual' I can only agree to disagree with you. I think Lieca knows it's traditional client base well and fear the too much too soon of the new technologies will alienate them. I think this thread just confirms that possible line of thought.
Bob
kevin m
Veteran
Ironically, that argument would have kept the original Leica M from being invented at all. Now that it exists, however, it's not to be tampered with. 😛
Roger should remember that Leica has surprised him in the past; their announcement of the S2 comes to memory. 🙂
j j
Well-known
Is the M9 much bigger than the M8?
saturnales
Established
Let's built a new M9 with normal features of other cameras and put 4000$ more on the bill!
Ben Z
Veteran
My point wasn't that there's anything necessarily impossible or nebulous about getting IS and/or dust reduction technology into the next M-digital, or that it would have to cost exhorbitantly. My point was that given we're talking about Leica here, there's a very good chance it will result in a large price increase, and that it will end up adding to reliability issues.
Although far better than the M8 in this respect, the M9 is still not free of IR color contamination. And the improvement in IR sensitivity has come with a trade-off, that being the so-called red-edge phenomenon. Which to-date, more than a year after the M9's introduction, Leica is still trying to work out--hopefully, they say, by spring of 2011! High-ISO noise, while moderately better than the M8, still remains behind the curve of technology, including some entry-level models from other brands.
On top of that, considering the intimate scale of Leica's manufacturing process, the tiny production volume (compared to the Japanese), and the astronomical cost of the product, Leica still has what I perceive as a real difficulty with quality-control, on seemingly simple issues such as rangefinder adjustment.
So as I see it, the problem isn't whether or not IS/dust-reduction can or can't be, or should or shouldn't be implemented; the problem as I see it is what the end result of Leica's attempt at executing those features might be. And, whether Leica should embark on further feature modifications before they've completely solved the above issues currently remaining.
Although far better than the M8 in this respect, the M9 is still not free of IR color contamination. And the improvement in IR sensitivity has come with a trade-off, that being the so-called red-edge phenomenon. Which to-date, more than a year after the M9's introduction, Leica is still trying to work out--hopefully, they say, by spring of 2011! High-ISO noise, while moderately better than the M8, still remains behind the curve of technology, including some entry-level models from other brands.
On top of that, considering the intimate scale of Leica's manufacturing process, the tiny production volume (compared to the Japanese), and the astronomical cost of the product, Leica still has what I perceive as a real difficulty with quality-control, on seemingly simple issues such as rangefinder adjustment.
So as I see it, the problem isn't whether or not IS/dust-reduction can or can't be, or should or shouldn't be implemented; the problem as I see it is what the end result of Leica's attempt at executing those features might be. And, whether Leica should embark on further feature modifications before they've completely solved the above issues currently remaining.
N
Nikon Bob
Guest
Ben Z
The only thing that I would say is that Leica came very late, about 10 years, to the digital arena and seems to be having the same problems as other manufacturers had 10 years ago with their initial offerings. That said, you are probably right that they should wait till they have their present technolgy down pat before intoducing new ones even if they are old by others standards. There should not be QC issues in such a costly hand built camera.
Bob
The only thing that I would say is that Leica came very late, about 10 years, to the digital arena and seems to be having the same problems as other manufacturers had 10 years ago with their initial offerings. That said, you are probably right that they should wait till they have their present technolgy down pat before intoducing new ones even if they are old by others standards. There should not be QC issues in such a costly hand built camera.
Bob
Last edited by a moderator:
kevin m
Veteran
Leica has trouble with the M8 and M9 because they tried to keep their traditionalist fan-base happy by stuffing digital innards into a camera optimized for film use, rather than come up with a proper clean-slate design. Good design and engineering would have brought the gestalt of the M into the modern age.
Last edited by a moderator:
ramosa
B&W
I would take it, but I wouldn't want to have it instead of, say, improved high ISO.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
No. Both are a little thicker than a 'real' (film) M.
The point is that the M8 is slightly fatter than an M3. To compare a modern-sized SLR (film or digi) with an SLR of the 60s (a Pentax SV, for example) is another matter -- and the SV is the nearest SLR I know in 'feel' to an M.
In other words (not your point, I know), it is silly to say "a DSLR isn't much bigger than a (bloated) 1990s film autofocus SLR" when the real comparison of an M9 is with an M3, not a huge Canon SLR of the 1990s.
Cheers,
R.
Last edited by a moderator:
N
Nikon Bob
Guest
Last edited by a moderator:
kevin m
Veteran
He made his original point very well, I thought: DSLR's aren't any bigger than the feature-laden film SLR's that preceded them. My Canon 5D and my EOS-3 were so similar I used to mistake one for the other when reaching inside a dark camera bag!
Traditional SLR's made the transition to digital capture much better than has the Leica M; since they were already packed with electronics and had FFD's better suited to digital sensors, they didn't need to get any chubbier.... 🙂
Last edited by a moderator:
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Last edited by a moderator:
Ronald M
Veteran
Another thing to break.
One of my Nikons has it. I never turn it on except a few times to see that it worked.
Use clean rear lens caps and take other precautions and dust is not an issue.
One of my Nikons has it. I never turn it on except a few times to see that it worked.
Use clean rear lens caps and take other precautions and dust is not an issue.
Olsen
Well-known
I use my M8 along with my Canon 1Ds III with this - very effective - ultrasonic dust removal thing. Does wonders. It makes my 1Ds III far more available than the M8. Some sort of sensor dust removal system is a must.
Similar threads
