Zenjitsuman
Established
If someone produces an APS-C camera with an EVIL vf and 12mp sensor with great results at iso 1600 I don't need an M9.
I don't need a rf just a vf that eliminates the slr mirror and prism. If it has an HD lcd high refresh rate finder that is large its going to be good enough.
A faster x-sync should be easy for anybody other than Leica. I could get a Zork pano shift adapter and use a MF lens to take and stitch images without paning.
I don't need a rf just a vf that eliminates the slr mirror and prism. If it has an HD lcd high refresh rate finder that is large its going to be good enough.
A faster x-sync should be easy for anybody other than Leica. I could get a Zork pano shift adapter and use a MF lens to take and stitch images without paning.
Kevin
Rainbow Bridge
Where did this rumour actually start?
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
One poster on LUF....
jack palmer
Well-known
You're usually offended by what you most fear becoming.
jack palmer
Well-known
You're usually offended by what you most fear becoming. Some have already become just that.
ferider
Veteran
I predict:
.) by the time the FF M9 will be available, the rest of that market segment (body price > 3k US) will have moved to larger than FF sensors, with 16bit dynamic range.
.) FF P&S cameras will be available for under US 1k.
Note of course, I've been wrong before
Roland.
.) by the time the FF M9 will be available, the rest of that market segment (body price > 3k US) will have moved to larger than FF sensors, with 16bit dynamic range.
.) FF P&S cameras will be available for under US 1k.
Note of course, I've been wrong before
Roland.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Insulting you mean? I agree.
italy74
Well-known
For the sake of the talk, let's hope that also a D-Ikon is in the pipelines.. maybe it will force Leica to think once more of its own out-of-this-world prices...
Generally speaking, I think the next "definitive"/"ultimate" camera - for pro use (SLR or RF) - should be:
1) extremely compact (as a rangefinder is), light and robust; the littler number of buttons the better;
2) have an adequate MP count BUT (as Nikon showed with D3 / D700) more IQ oriented (more D/R, more high-iso capabilities - as someone pointed: why not a 16 bit D/R?);
3) Possibility of a totally silent shutter, and when I say "silent" I mean "silent". Keep a "normal" mode where it's already low noise but please give to reporters (who need to be as stealthy as possible) a touch-feeling-only silent shutter. Only the finger must be aware that the shutter has tripped, not the ear. It's their lives we're caring about;
4) FF, of course. Stop bothering with lenses which behave 1.33x - 1.5x or whatever. On a PRO camera, a 35mm must be a 35mm. Then, we can debate if an auxiliary in camera crop or magnifying lens can be applied, especially for long lenses, in the case it's a rangefinder.
5) Grid lines on demand; if also AF, please put focusing sensors wherever you want but AT LEAST AND CROSS TYPE in the "rule of thirds" intersection points.
6) Why not a little built-in flash for eye catchlights in backlit subjects and a real 1/500s x-sync?;
7) Its (lithium) batteries are shaped like 4 normal AA-ones so that if yours are gone and can't recharge, you can at least find an alternative everywhere for little money.
Performances:
1) 100-6400 iso. No low, no high, what is in MUST be excellent. Simple as that. Solving iso problems must be an engineering problem, not ours. Less MP if necessary;
2) from 1s - F/1 to 1/8000s - F/32 @ 100 iso
3) (if AF) 7 fps FF - 11 cropped (if really necessary)
4) (if flash is present): GN 15 (m) @ 100 iso - 50mm
Cost. If it was as good as Leica (meaning it would be proven that everything is fine) but it wouldn't have a Leica brand (but "x") would you pay 3000 € (4200$ or 2700£ roughly) for it ?
Generally speaking, I think the next "definitive"/"ultimate" camera - for pro use (SLR or RF) - should be:
1) extremely compact (as a rangefinder is), light and robust; the littler number of buttons the better;
2) have an adequate MP count BUT (as Nikon showed with D3 / D700) more IQ oriented (more D/R, more high-iso capabilities - as someone pointed: why not a 16 bit D/R?);
3) Possibility of a totally silent shutter, and when I say "silent" I mean "silent". Keep a "normal" mode where it's already low noise but please give to reporters (who need to be as stealthy as possible) a touch-feeling-only silent shutter. Only the finger must be aware that the shutter has tripped, not the ear. It's their lives we're caring about;
4) FF, of course. Stop bothering with lenses which behave 1.33x - 1.5x or whatever. On a PRO camera, a 35mm must be a 35mm. Then, we can debate if an auxiliary in camera crop or magnifying lens can be applied, especially for long lenses, in the case it's a rangefinder.
5) Grid lines on demand; if also AF, please put focusing sensors wherever you want but AT LEAST AND CROSS TYPE in the "rule of thirds" intersection points.
6) Why not a little built-in flash for eye catchlights in backlit subjects and a real 1/500s x-sync?;
7) Its (lithium) batteries are shaped like 4 normal AA-ones so that if yours are gone and can't recharge, you can at least find an alternative everywhere for little money.
Performances:
1) 100-6400 iso. No low, no high, what is in MUST be excellent. Simple as that. Solving iso problems must be an engineering problem, not ours. Less MP if necessary;
2) from 1s - F/1 to 1/8000s - F/32 @ 100 iso
3) (if AF) 7 fps FF - 11 cropped (if really necessary)
4) (if flash is present): GN 15 (m) @ 100 iso - 50mm
Cost. If it was as good as Leica (meaning it would be proven that everything is fine) but it wouldn't have a Leica brand (but "x") would you pay 3000 € (4200$ or 2700£ roughly) for it ?
Last edited:
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
I was/am offended because you stereotyped Leica users in general.And I did post: " unable or unwilling."
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Thanks for your kind words about my site. In the part of the world that I know, i.e.Europe, cameras are rarely seen as status symbols. I would put the number of M8s sold to customers that really know how to use them at far over 90%. You should drop by the German section of the Photoforums at LUF. I can only describe the critique there as murderous. I am very careful what I post there... I did not mean unwilling as pejorative. It includes uninterested.
I did not mean unwilling as pejorative. It includes uninterested.
Last edited:
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
I have been using Leica M cameras (amongst many others) since 1975. I only started travelling to Africa in the early nineties.
jack palmer
Well-known
JAAP ,I don't think you need to feel offended or insulted. My mother always said" if the shoe fits,wear it". There has to be a point at which most of us would feel the M8 had reached the "stupid money" level. For you it's obviously not there yet. For others it's past that point. Remember the CEO that was fired ( or resigned) for decorating his office bathroom with a $35,000.00 toilet. You don't think that's ridiculous by any standards?That was worth a good laugh. I've been in the building trades for 40+ years, and never even heard of a toilet that expensive. I want to know if it had a Leica logo on it.
Last edited:
rya
Established
I have a relative who builds rifles and has been a marksman all his life. On hearing a mutual acquaintance had purchased some rare rifles for mostly collection purposes he said, "I guess he likes to own what other people do."
Is it out of the question that the M9 could be a film camera? Or was the M7/MP Leica's 'F6'?
And regarding noise--I don't understand why digital cameras need shutters at all. Can a sensor not be regulated for how long it is sensing? Why not just go ahead and develop a mode that takes multiple quick exposures and compiles them to increase dynamic range? For a 1/60s shot, it could take three 1/120s shots, using only one in highlights, two for normal areas and three for underexposed places. Like HDR. Or is this already being done?
Is it out of the question that the M9 could be a film camera? Or was the M7/MP Leica's 'F6'?
And regarding noise--I don't understand why digital cameras need shutters at all. Can a sensor not be regulated for how long it is sensing? Why not just go ahead and develop a mode that takes multiple quick exposures and compiles them to increase dynamic range? For a 1/60s shot, it could take three 1/120s shots, using only one in highlights, two for normal areas and three for underexposed places. Like HDR. Or is this already being done?
italy74
Well-known
Guys
let me spend a word about this debate: especially if you have already been several times abroad you might confirm or deny my *impression*.
1) Lately - probably following what Fred said " Here in the US, we have a culture of the very wealthy purchasing exotic machinery just because they can " - also here in Italy - especially after the advent of Euro, I see lots of enriched people behaving the same way. Here status symbol are (mostly) german cars and SUVs, Ferrari and other custom-built cars are still rare, football players aside; still, it happened to me to see with my eyes an eastern man who had clearly no clue about any photographic skill or basic, asking once of a Canon SLR "just because they said it's the best camera on the market". I might be wrong but he was playing with at least 2 months if no more of his poor salary to get something he wouldn't have never used if not in AUTO mode. Here,especially among p/s users, is still valid the MP myth: "more is necessarily better, who cares about all the rest, if you have less you're out of date".
2) I'd say that Leica is still (locally) a quite unknown brand (just because you don't usually see Leica P/S or mobile phones, around, while you see Panasonic, Canon, Sony..). Leica and Zeiss are still confined to the "plus" given to mobile phone lenses but none really understands how much the quality of a lens is important when taking a picture. Conversely - but here's a supposition - I'd bet that abroad, especially in poor areas, microcriminality knows very well the value of a Leica camera (while averagely you have even less people knowing it because it's not like Coke, spread everywhere) so you're more in danger if they notice you, especially with the "tourist looking" (hat, shorts, pale skin, sunglasses, waist pouch and watch at your wrist) or the "reporter looking" (30-50 age range, jacket even when it's not cold, beard not shaven, hair from middle to long, still pale skin, casual dressing - and if you're unlucky also a bag aside somehow). People who need money to survive day by day are used to recognize you as a potential carrier of valuable equipment. Of course, for them, you are really a rich and fat western man who deserves only to be stolen as soon as possible. Stereotype? Yes. A fact that every Leica will food them for months if no years? True as well.
3) Leica is - as many other companies - one of those elitary brands who charge much more because of the brand itself than because of the real value of this object. Also my (american) company asked us once to return 10 simple washers (those you purchase for 1$/kg) because EACH of them costed 45 € !!! They were not done in titanium nor any other exotic material, they were just simple rubber.
All this to say that probably - as often happens - the truth is in the middle.
let me spend a word about this debate: especially if you have already been several times abroad you might confirm or deny my *impression*.
1) Lately - probably following what Fred said " Here in the US, we have a culture of the very wealthy purchasing exotic machinery just because they can " - also here in Italy - especially after the advent of Euro, I see lots of enriched people behaving the same way. Here status symbol are (mostly) german cars and SUVs, Ferrari and other custom-built cars are still rare, football players aside; still, it happened to me to see with my eyes an eastern man who had clearly no clue about any photographic skill or basic, asking once of a Canon SLR "just because they said it's the best camera on the market". I might be wrong but he was playing with at least 2 months if no more of his poor salary to get something he wouldn't have never used if not in AUTO mode. Here,especially among p/s users, is still valid the MP myth: "more is necessarily better, who cares about all the rest, if you have less you're out of date".
2) I'd say that Leica is still (locally) a quite unknown brand (just because you don't usually see Leica P/S or mobile phones, around, while you see Panasonic, Canon, Sony..). Leica and Zeiss are still confined to the "plus" given to mobile phone lenses but none really understands how much the quality of a lens is important when taking a picture. Conversely - but here's a supposition - I'd bet that abroad, especially in poor areas, microcriminality knows very well the value of a Leica camera (while averagely you have even less people knowing it because it's not like Coke, spread everywhere) so you're more in danger if they notice you, especially with the "tourist looking" (hat, shorts, pale skin, sunglasses, waist pouch and watch at your wrist) or the "reporter looking" (30-50 age range, jacket even when it's not cold, beard not shaven, hair from middle to long, still pale skin, casual dressing - and if you're unlucky also a bag aside somehow). People who need money to survive day by day are used to recognize you as a potential carrier of valuable equipment. Of course, for them, you are really a rich and fat western man who deserves only to be stolen as soon as possible. Stereotype? Yes. A fact that every Leica will food them for months if no years? True as well.
3) Leica is - as many other companies - one of those elitary brands who charge much more because of the brand itself than because of the real value of this object. Also my (american) company asked us once to return 10 simple washers (those you purchase for 1$/kg) because EACH of them costed 45 € !!! They were not done in titanium nor any other exotic material, they were just simple rubber.
All this to say that probably - as often happens - the truth is in the middle.
italy74
Well-known
Rya
I might be wrong here. Someone is already trying this, but aside any experiment going on, probably the truth is that shutter and lens diaphragm (which has to be closed for a defined moment) serve also to render depth of field of an image. I too thought of a "pixel shutter", once, where the camera scans from top to bottom the light available in front of each pixel and after than it closes, having this way all perfectly exposed. No more need for a matrix metering or spot or whatever else if the sensor would calculate everything pixel by pixel, but still there's the lens diaphragm. It's not only a "light" problem but also an optical / mechanical question. Maybe an engineer can give you a better and more comprehensive answer than mine.
I might be wrong here. Someone is already trying this, but aside any experiment going on, probably the truth is that shutter and lens diaphragm (which has to be closed for a defined moment) serve also to render depth of field of an image. I too thought of a "pixel shutter", once, where the camera scans from top to bottom the light available in front of each pixel and after than it closes, having this way all perfectly exposed. No more need for a matrix metering or spot or whatever else if the sensor would calculate everything pixel by pixel, but still there's the lens diaphragm. It's not only a "light" problem but also an optical / mechanical question. Maybe an engineer can give you a better and more comprehensive answer than mine.
Spoks
Well-known
Olsen states on the L-forum that 10,000 US$ was mentioned as a price for the future full frame M9 with 18 mill. pixels, full frame and no need for filters etc. That equals € 7.400 - tax free, - which, Olsen states, was the price in Europe of the Canon 1Ds when it was launched back on 2002/03. The later 1Ds II and III have become cheaper because of a stronger Euro.
If the M9 is made available already in 2009, which I find not realistic, the M8.2 and M9 might be in the shop shelves at the same time. That could explain the price difference.
Not only that, then the S2 and the M9 would be squeezed out of the door at the same time. No small job for a small company like Leica. Could it be that a mock-up of the M9 will be shown this year? With a launch next year? A M9 launch this year seems unlikely to me.
10,000 $ is a lot of money for a camera, but it matches the prices of the latest Leica glass. Like the two 6,000 $ items, 21 mm 1,4 Asph and 24 mm 1,4 Asph. Sales tax included, the M9 will amount to € 8,500 in most countries here in Europe. Which will leave it untouchable for most ordinary consumers. While professional photographers with their own business can deduct this sales tax and get away with buying a M9 for € 7.400.
This is nothing new to me. Where I come from, only pro photographers or really rich people, like Olsen, do buy their Leica gear new. The rest of us have to buy any Leica gear 2.hand and buy Voigländer lenses. I am sure that we have no less fun.
If the M9 is made available already in 2009, which I find not realistic, the M8.2 and M9 might be in the shop shelves at the same time. That could explain the price difference.
Not only that, then the S2 and the M9 would be squeezed out of the door at the same time. No small job for a small company like Leica. Could it be that a mock-up of the M9 will be shown this year? With a launch next year? A M9 launch this year seems unlikely to me.
10,000 $ is a lot of money for a camera, but it matches the prices of the latest Leica glass. Like the two 6,000 $ items, 21 mm 1,4 Asph and 24 mm 1,4 Asph. Sales tax included, the M9 will amount to € 8,500 in most countries here in Europe. Which will leave it untouchable for most ordinary consumers. While professional photographers with their own business can deduct this sales tax and get away with buying a M9 for € 7.400.
This is nothing new to me. Where I come from, only pro photographers or really rich people, like Olsen, do buy their Leica gear new. The rest of us have to buy any Leica gear 2.hand and buy Voigländer lenses. I am sure that we have no less fun.
Kevin
Rainbow Bridge
Maybe, but those cameras and their matching lenses will have to be larger than the biggest 135mm rangefinder cameras we are currently using.
One advantage of the 135mm rangefinder camera is its relative compactness and it would seem that the 24x36mm format is a great compromise between camera/lens size and image quality.
rya
Established
Dino,
I didn't know about the depth of field issue. I assumed there must be some major design challenges to doing it that that I am not realizing.
I wonder if digital will peak once we can render images in near-darkness in a higher resolution than we can visually consume as humans with limited eyesight. And then the focus could shift back to ergonomics and such, and building devices that are meant to last a lifetime rather than be recycle-bin friendly.
I didn't know about the depth of field issue. I assumed there must be some major design challenges to doing it that that I am not realizing.
I wonder if digital will peak once we can render images in near-darkness in a higher resolution than we can visually consume as humans with limited eyesight. And then the focus could shift back to ergonomics and such, and building devices that are meant to last a lifetime rather than be recycle-bin friendly.
Spoks
Well-known
The future most certainly is going 'solid state'. I am convinced that we will see shutter-free cameras, also DSLRs as well as any future M-cameras, without any mechanical shutter at all.
Steve Ash
Established
I bought all my Leica gear new although I do not encounter myself as being rich. It was just a matter of priorities.
How many of your friends drive a motorbike for fun not being really rich people? The husband of my wife's friend owns a Harley although he can hardly feed the family. I know quite a few people who own a watch beyond the price level of a Leica M system (e.g. M8 plus 2 lenses) with an estimated net salary below 3000EUR per month. If you buy a new middle class car you will easily loose an M system in the first two years.
About every third marriage get divorced. Much more expensive than the Leica M...thus tease your wife.
This list could be continued for ever but I think it is already sufficient to give you an idea why I could afford the M system. :angel:
Kind regards
Steve