M9 processor "brain" too slow?

[ZlatkoBatistich]

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.

 

[Roger Hicks]

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.

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]

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 Funny thing, these are probably the same people who defend Leica's use of an outdated lcd screen on the M9 and X1.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]

How is the LCD screen outdated?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.

 

[jaapv]

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. 🙂

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.

 

[downstairs]

Thank you. Most pros shoot jpeg anyway. If you want 8+ burst get a Canon.

This pro could do without the cumbersome jpeg processing (and flash TTL, for that matter). When the M9P?

 

[ulrikft]

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.

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 🙂

 

[ashrafazlan]

+ 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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

I have my camera(s) set for "Black + White".

RAW + jpg is necessary to show a b&w preview image on the LCD. When shooting and thinking in b&w, I want to see a b&w preview.

If set for RAW only, the preview is always in color despite the "Black + White" setting.

That's one BIG reason why this user (and reviewer) selects RAW + jpg operation.

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]

All cameras have their limitations. Those who don't like/can't handle Leicas' limitations (including low maximum ISO, unsuitability for long lenses, and inability to shoot video) don't have to buy Leicas. Those who want the smallest FF interchangeable lens camera on the market, with superb lenses, are well served by the M9.

It's not 'not worthy of a Leica user'. It's 'choosing the wrong camera for your shooting style'. The M9 is not 'latest and greatest' in the electronics department: it's 'smallest and simplest to use'. That's fine by me.

Cheers,

R.

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]

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.

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]

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.

I thoroughly take the point that rangefinders are not rapid fire machines and that one good killer shot is all that is needed, however I think the issue is that we expect progress in all areas. It is only natural to expect new models to be faster. Its 3 years plus since the M8. It seems increadible that it may be slower. It never would have occured to me that they would re use M8 electronics. It is as if the issue of going full frame has used up all the available resources. Still at least the IR cut out filter issue has been solved. I actually think that is as big as if not a bigger advance than the transition to full frame.

Perhaps the M10 will have the faster processing as well.

One final thought, if the shutter, processor, rangefinder and LCD screen are the same as on an M8.2, why is it so expensive? Are M9 buyers subsidising the S2 project by any chance?

Richard

 

[Ming Rider]

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.

 

[jaapv]

And, in final analysis, it costs just 500€ more than the M8.2...

 

[ulrikft]

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.

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]

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.

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]

And, in final analysis, it costs just 500€ more than the M8.2...

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