M9-p, its official now

I shoot the M9 at 1250 often and am surprised at how good the results are. Then I want more and reflect on the fact that I used to shoot 50 and 100 ASA slide film and anything fast got very grainy and almost unusable (slide). There will be an upgrade program for the M9 to the new screen. They don't know the cost yet.
 
Just wait for the M10 with video. Set that up with a 1:1 viewfinder adapter and a 50 and just imagine the possibilities for framing movie scenes on the fly. :)
 
The 750 US is what I was quoted for the standard replacement. It seemed high so 750, for Leica, would seem right for the new back replacement. I would like the nonglare.

Oh, 750 euro. . . .
 
flip said:
Just wait for the M10 with video. Set that up with a 1:1 viewfinder adapter and a 50 and just imagine the possibilities for framing movie scenes on the fly. :)
Click to expand...
don't forget the sensor image stabilisation too and 12800 ISO with zero noise...
 
dave lackey said:
I would prefer to have NO LCD. I don't have one on my M3, so why on earth would I need one on a digital camera?
Click to expand...

The legions of photographers and tourists whose M's developed a pinhole or other fault that went undetected until they returned from the field would beg to differ. Alfred Eisenstadt was one, as he recounted in one of his books. There were many others.

Even the relatively crappy LCDs on the digital M's provide important sanity checks when working in the field. No professional would be caught dead without one. They are the DSLR equivalent of Polaroid backs for MF and LF systems. Absolutely essential.
 
jamato8 said:
I shoot the M9 at 1250 often and am surprised at how good the results are.
Click to expand...

Surprised? Seriously? Really?

The Olympus E-500 is a 5-generation-old prosumer DSLR. It has an 8 Mpix sensor almost half the linear size, and 25% of the area, of the M9. The E-500 sensor is, like that in the M9, a Kodak frame-transfer sensor.

The E-500 gives very good results at 400 and almost-acceptable results at 800.

The E-500 has a pixel pitch of 5.4 µm. The M9 has a pixel pitch of 6.8 µm, and the sensor is a couple of generations newer.

Really, what's unexpected about this?
 
I don't know what you are talking about. Many people dis the ISO of the M9. What I am saying is I find it very good and am surprised at how good it is, this with the known bias that some do not like the performance. It is a statement by me and if I choose to be surprised that is my prerogative just as it is yours, not to be.
 
jamato8 said:
I don't know what you are talking about. Many people dis the ISO of the M9. What I am saying is I find it very good and am surprised at how good it is, this with the known bias that some do not like the performance. It is a statement by me and if I choose to be surprised that is my prerogative just as it is yours, not to be.
Click to expand...

I seem to remember that the concensus was that it was very good upto around 1250. Its when you go above 1250 that things start to degrade.
 
semilog said:
The legions of photographers and tourists whose M's developed a pinhole or other fault that went undetected until they returned from the field would beg to differ. Alfred Eisenstadt was one, as he recounted in one of his books. There were many others.

Even the relatively crappy LCDs on the digital M's provide important sanity checks when working in the field. No professional would be caught dead without one. They are the DSLR equivalent of Polaroid backs for MF and LF systems. Absolutely essential.
Click to expand...

In fact, I had a Polaroid back made for my Nikon Fs (NPC/Forscher), and still have it somewhere, along with Polaroid backs for baby Linhof, Alpa and 4x5 inch. I completely agree that the screen is a wonderful reassurance.

And to respond to another post, yes, bitching about noisy 2500 is a bit of a joke when you remember what slide (and colour neg) film speeds were like. We'd all like better high ISO performance, but we also like small, light rangefinder cameras.

Cheers,

R.
 
tlitody said:
don't forget the sensor image stabilisation too and 12800 ISO with zero noise...
Click to expand...

Who needs it. I mean, provided Leica stays in business, it is an eventuality, but in the near term, I suspect video will happen. M11 at the latest.
 
Roger Hicks said:
In fact, I had a Polaroid back made for my Nikon Fs (NPC/Forscher), and still have it somewhere, along with Polaroid backs for baby Linhof, Alpa and 4x5 inch. I completely agree that the screen is a wonderful reassurance.

And to respond to another post, yes, bitching about noisy 2500 is a bit of a joke when you remember what slide (and colour neg) film speeds were like. We'd all like better high ISO performance, but we also like small, light rangefinder cameras.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...
It is all marketing, Roger. The megapixel wars have bogged down in the pixellated sands of the resolution desert, the fullframe emperor has been revealed as wearing no clothes, so the only piper to follow is smoooooooth is beautiful....:rolleyes:
 
Roger Hicks said:
And to respond to another post, yes, bitching about noisy 2500 is a bit of a joke when you remember what slide (and colour neg) film speeds were like. We'd all like better high ISO performance, but we also like small, light rangefinder cameras.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

First off, let me start by saying that I have no beef whatsoever with the M9's ISO noise performance. In fact the M8 suited me fine especially once I got the hang of exposure and post-processing it.

But the comparison to film is like excusing a car maker for omitting ABS on the grounds that non-ABS disc brakes are much better than drums all around.

I also don't understand why you say improving high-ISO noise performance would involve an increase in size or weight. The Nikon D3 hasn't grown larger or heavier than the D2. Neither has the Canon 1DS-III increased in size or weight from the Mark-II or the original 1DS. Where I think the big stumbling block is for Leica in improving (vastly) upon the high-ISO of the M9 is the cost of migrating away from the Kodak sensor. There was the question asked of Stefan Daniel as to why the M9 didn't use a version of the Maestro chip as the S2, and his response was that adapting it would have required a much longer time to intro, and the M8/8.2 had already lost most of its sales momentum. So as with the M8, pressure from the marketing department to release the product more quickly, took precedence.
 
Last edited:
Roger can correct me, but I believe the CMoS sensor set-up as implemented in the Nikons & Canons requires more circuitry, for both the sensors themselves & additional onboard noise reduction, i.e., the Canikons may not have increased in size, but they had a much larger starting point.

As to the M9's high ISO performance, I for 1 would very much welcome better performance @ ISO 2500 & above. Even w/the Noctilux, e.g., I often shoot (or would like to shoot) in conditions where f/1 gets me less than 1/8th of sec. @ ISO 1250 or 2500. Comparisons to the film days are apples to oranges, IMHO. Digital has opened up a whole new world of available light/dark shooting & Leica shooters should be able to take advantage of that.

Ben Z said:
I also don't understand why you say improving high-ISO noise performance would involve an increase in size or weight. The Nikon D3 hasn't grown larger or heavier than the D2. Neither has the Canon 1DS-III increased in size or weight from the Mark-II or the original 1DS. Where I think the big stumbling block is for Leica in improving (vastly) upon the high-ISO of the M9 is the cost of migrating away from the Kodak sensor. There was the question asked of Stefan Daniel as to why the M9 didn't use a version of the Maestro chip as the S2, and his response was that adapting it would have required a much longer time to intro, and the M8/8.2 had already lost most of its sales momentum. So as with the M8, pressure from the marketing department to release the product more quickly, took precedence.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Double Negative said:
Well, if nothing else it does go to show how times change. Not all that long ago we had to use 1600/3200 ASA color film and boy, was it a mess. Today we're not even happy with ISO 12,800 and complaining about noise.

Ahh, progress. ;)
Click to expand...

While I like having high ISO, its come to the point where so many people can't handle even a little bit of noise in their photos (at 6400!). Everything's starting to look like a smooth calendar photo or it's way too overprocessed (just because we can). Tech specs are a necessary evil when researching a camera, but I don't need bleeding edge specs just to keep up with the Joneses.
 
Ben Z said:
But the comparison to film is like excusing a car maker for omitting ABS on the grounds that non-ABS disc brakes are much better than drums all around.
Click to expand...

In point of fact, ABS systems have had — contrary to expectations — almost no measurable effect on automobile safety. Contrast them to electronic stability control systems, which turn out to have unexpectedly huge measurable benefits. Back to the thread topic...
 
Well, my turn to *chime* in here.

The M9-P certainly looks better than the M9, but I'm frankly embarassed by Leica's marketing strategy and underwhelmed. USD 1'000 more for no logo and a saphire glass? The press release is a joke too, if you ask me... More professional because of a discreet no-logo camera?!

I (me, myself and I) would feel stupid paying USD 1'000 more for that... I could somehow accept a simple price increase without some kind of bogus explanation about how much more professional I will be... I'm not going to let them let me kid myself like that...

Also, the M9-P has not addressed one of my big irritations with the M9, no remaining-exposure-counter like on the M8. And, a simple dial to set the ISO would have also been an improvement.

Guess the M8 better keep working... :)

JP
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom