ryan26
Established
On a side note, the promo video beats the hell out that that stupid Wim Wenders one for the M8....
don't forget the sensor image stabilisation too and 12800 ISO with zero noise...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. 🙂
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?
I shoot the M9 at 1250 often and am surprised at how good the results are.
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.
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.
don't forget the sensor image stabilisation too and 12800 ISO with zero noise...
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....🙄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.
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.
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.
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. 😉
NR doesn't help that one bit...
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.