ZlatkoBatistich
Established
Sure, a generalization won't be true for every individual. The working photographer who in fact has no need for fast performance will understand that a camera's capacity for faster performance won't diminish their work in any way. So why does anyone feel the need to defend "slow brain" as if that were a good thing? And I don't see why faster performance (than 2 fps for 8 frames) should be the exclusive domain of the DSLR.
Last edited:
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Well, I'd certainly agree with that. But does anyone really pretend it's a good thing? I regard it as part of the price you pay for the very small camera.
On second thoughts, yes, probably the 'one camera/one lens/holier than thou' brigade would try to defend it as a good thing.
Cheers,
R.
ashrafazlan
Established
Don't know if they truly believe it's a good thing, but they seem to regard any mention of speed improvements as blasphemy. Funny thing, these are probably the same people who defend Leica's use of an outdated lcd screen on the M9 and X1.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
How is the LCD screen outdated? I'm not being combative. I'm genuinely puzzled at what significant improvements have been made to LCD screens (this is not a technology I follow closely).
Cheers,
R.
Cheers,
R.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
For a professional - in any field - it is perfectly normal to get the tool that delivers his needs - not to bend the tool to his requirements. If a his needs dictate fast and long fps there are the tools he needs on the market.To add to my comment above -
I don't think this is a DSLR vs. Rangefinder issue. A DSLR should be slower, not faster, considering that it has to flip the mirror up and down for every exposure. And in continuous AF mode, it has to autofocus continuously while shooting multiple frames. Rangefinder photography isn't inherently slow. An RF user may well want to shoot very quickly for more than a few seconds, if the circumstances provide for enough light and enough depth of field.
Leisure photographers may be perfectly happy with a low frame rate because photography is their leisure activity and speed has little consequence. But working photographers can find a camera with a "slow brain" maddeningly frustrating because it always has the potential to impact on their work and their reputation.
It's popular to make fun of those who desire faster performance as wanting to "machinegun" the subject as with a DSLR — but a faster frame rate and deeper buffer would be very sensible upgrades and wouldn't diminish the camera or make it less "simple". If and when Leica makes an M10 that offers, say, 3 frames per second and a 24-shot raw buffer, leisure photographers will not dismiss it as a "machinegunner's" camera. Instead, they will buy it and they will like it.
downstairs
downstairs
This pro could do without the cumbersome jpeg processing (and flash TTL, for that matter). When the M9P?
ulrikft
Established
In short: resolution, brightness and (not lcd-screen related) the speed of which you can zoom in and look at your images. I know dslr-comparisons are shunned upon here, but I don't see the problem with comparing it to my d700 here. My d700 has a very, very high resolution screen, and I can check critical focus 100% within 1-1.5 sec. Doing the same on the M9 takes 5-8 seconds and I don't even get to see if my focus is spot on or not, beacause the screen does not resolve enough. One might say that "well, if you shoot decicive moment photography, checking focus is a waste of brain/camera/time anyway", and that is true, but when i do concerts, portraits etc, being able to check if I got what i wanted, is important to me. And I'm a 90% manual shooter in the slr-world too.
My hope is that a future firmware release will make zoom-focus-check easier in the future. I've already started saving for a M9, so I hope that by the time I have the cash needed, it will be out of it's child diseases and into maturity
Last edited:
ashrafazlan
Established
+ color accuracy too. My D700's lcd is pretty accurate in terms of color compared to my M8, which renders images a bit cooler.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
In short: resolution, brightness and (not lcd-screen related) the speed of which you can zoom in and look at your images. I know dslr-comparisons are shunned upon here, but I don't see the problem with comparing it to my d700 here. My d700 has a very, very high resolution screen, and I can check critical focus 100% within 1-1.5 sec. Doing the same on the M9 takes 5-8 seconds and I don't even get to see if my focus is spot on or not, beacause the screen does not resolve enough. One might say that "well, if you shoot decicive moment photography, checking focus is a waste of brain/camera/time anyway", and that is true, but when i do concerts, portraits etc, being able to check if I got what i wanted, is important to me. And I'm a 90% manual shooter in the slr-world too.
My hope is that a future firmware release will make zoom-focus-check easier in the future. I've already started saving for a M9, so I hope that by the time I have the cash needed, it will be out of it's child diseases and into maturity
Thanks for that. Are there potential problems with extra power consumption or processing? Because those are the only reasons I can think of for this sloth. With a vast DSLR, bigger batteries and dissipating the heat of a bigger processor are obviously less of a problem.
Cheers,
R.
ashrafazlan
Established
I doubt having a good lcd will cost much processing/batter power. LCD tech has improved a lot in these past years. Remember that even compacts have better lcd's, and they're much much smaller than the M9
ZlatkoBatistich
Established
That explains why some photographers will choose a faster tool. But surely that's not a point in favor of "slow brain", is it?
As far as I know, there is no reason why a rangefinder must be slow or why slowness should be regarded as normal. Again, Leica's film M of 25 years ago set a higher standard for speed. So "buy a DSLR" is realistic advice for some, considering the M9's max. speed, but there isn't much to say in favor of "slow brain" in a camera at this price level.
photogdave
Shops local
The reviewer had it set for RAW and FINE Jpeg. I'm guessing you could set it at Basic Jpeg for your purpose and files wouldn't write as slow.
I do understand the need to preview your images in B&W although it's not a method I use myself.
outfitter
Well-known
You make good points. I wasn't referring to casting aspersions upon rapid sequence photographers ("squirt shooters"). It not my technique but surely its the photo not the technique that counts. The problem with the Leica limitations is that regardless of the body heft , size and rangefinder it is still an electronic camera and we are not talking about a mechanical ability but a better chip - surely that's not asking too much?
Richard Marks
Rexel
Dear Roger
Bigger screens are not purely on vast DSLR's
Olympus DSLR's are not bigger than the M9 but the screen has a lot more resolution. Have you looked at an EP1 (the pen thingy) that has a very nice big screen. They do not appear to have heat dissipation problems.
The real issue with the M9 is the progression to full frame is a big and welcome jump as is the solving of the IR filter issue, but the rest does not appear to have advanced. We do not expect mechanical items to make a big jump but 3 years is a very long time for electronic products and if the M9 LCD screen and processor feel dated now its going to feel even worse in very little time.
As I said earlier, if so much of the M8 is from the M9 why the big price tag?
Best wishes
Richard
furcafe
Veteran
Yes, I think going to full frame did use up most of Leica's available resources & I'm guessing that the increased cost of the new sensor + increase in the value of the Euro & simple pricing economics (i.e., you charge the maximum you can get away with--they're not running a charity) account for the price jump.
Ming Rider
Film, the next evolution.
Quote "As I said earlier, if so much of the M8 is from the M9 why the big price tag? "
R&D costs an absolute fortune.
R&D costs an absolute fortune.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
And, in final analysis, it costs just 500€ more than the M8.2...
ulrikft
Established
Hmm, I don't think new generation panels use that much more power, but I have no clue on the exact numbers here. I think I would get another battery extra to keep in my pocket, if that mean't i could get a somewhat faster cpu and a better screen. Did try out the M8 some more today... I'm leaning more and more towards "keep the d700, get a m8 + 35 1.4 CV"-solution here. Instead of "sell it all and get a full m9 kit".
Richard Marks
Rexel
Agreed but a lot of the R and D was already done. I still suspect the phenomenal investment has gone on the s2 and this will influence margins on the M9
Richard
Richard Marks
Rexel
No JAAP the M8.2 retailed at £3,800 and the M9 is £4,850. I can not believe our currency has slipped that much between launches. I also think the M8.2 was not worth the hike onprice from the M8 though.
Richard