M9 - specs so far, and what do they tell us ?

L

leica007

Member
Local time
10:25 PM
Joined
Nov 27, 2007
Messages
38
View My Gallery
about the technical performance of the camera?

1. Dynamic range : If it's using the same S2 sensor , then will get 12 stop DR. similar to D3X and Phase one !!!

2. Tonal gradation: 16-bit colour depth will definitely produce better tonal gradation.

3. Latitude: but, does 16-bit colour depth allow more latitude? will highlight clippings become less problematic?

4. ISO - clean 2500 + 80 - bring out f1.4 and f1.0s and keep them open in the day and night 🙂

5. Exosure bracketing [page 33 of the brochure mentions this]: is there a provision for multi-shot ? if not then exposure bracketing is useless, unless one uses a firm tripod and take (three) single shots.

Please share your thoughts on this.
 
It surely should be better than what was possible 3 years ago. But it still will not be true 16 bit, and it still will not have the dynamic range of my 5 yr old Fuji S3, and it will still be crap in B&W, and it still will have to use the ridiculous IR filters... So it will be a progress respect to M8, but for me no cigar yet...
 
mfogiel said:
It surely should be better than what was possible 3 years ago. But it still will not be true 16 bit, and it still will not have the dynamic range of my 5 yr old Fuji S3, and it will still be crap in B&W, and it still will have to use the ridiculous IR filters... So it will be a progress respect to M8, but for me no cigar yet...
Click to expand...

No IR filters--according to the brochure, there is an IR filter on the sensor this time.
 
mfogiel said:
It surely should be better than what was possible 3 years ago. But it still will not be true 16 bit
Click to expand...
Where did you see that? The brochure states the opposite.It would be the second camera on the market to have that, after the DMR in the 135 class.
, and it still will not have the dynamic range of my 5 yr old Fuji S3
Click to expand...
Thank the Lord, the M8 does considerably better than that, and the M9 should be better by at least a stop, making it about three stops better than that Fuji...
, and it will still be crap in B&W,
Click to expand...
You must be the only person on the planet to think so....
and it still will have to use the ridiculous IR filters...
Click to expand...
Err, no, it does not.
So it will be a progress respect to M8, but for me no cigar yet...
Click to expand...
I somehow doubt that you even know what a cigar is - the brochure was shot in Cuba. That should satisfy you in that respect.
 
Forget the specs. Wait for some folks to get hands on. I would not buy a Leica digital "M" for at least eight to twelve months out. The small print will make or break this camera. It will be some time before we are in the know. I have big expectations for a $7K plus camera body. The smaller X-1, or whatever at less than $2K might be fun put through an early test drive. We will see.
 
jaapv said:
I somehow doubt that you even know what a cigar is - the brochure was shot in Cuba. That should satisfy you in that respect.
Click to expand...

You guys might have noted the boxing allegory on the brochure, Leica is getting ready to fight Canonikon.

Leica wants to be the boxing campion:

" Even today, Cuba’s boxers train under the simplest .. conditions. Perhaps this explains why the sport of boxing in Cuba has retained its original character – as an authentic contest between two men, for fame and honor. .... the new Leica M9. ....What camera is better suited to telling the story of this up-and-coming boxing champion, authentically and vividly, than a genuine M. Discrete, compact, precise, lightning-fast, and, like the young Cuban, ready to claim a place among the best in the world. "

Let's hope that the price is not the best [upper limit wise] in the world.
 
leica007 said:
about the technical performance of the camera?

1. Dynamic range : If it's using the same S2 sensor , then will get 12 stop DR. similar to D3X and Phase one !!!

2. Tonal gradation: 16-bit colour depth will definitely produce better tonal gradation.

3. Latitude: but, does 16-bit colour depth allow more latitude? will highlight clippings become less problematic?

...
Click to expand...

Perhaps it's a stupid question but for what do I need even more dynamic range and 16-bit?
I started digital with an Olympus E-400. With this camera I noticed a lot of blown highlights and often no structure in clouds -> not so nice. With my M8 I never had a problem with pictures where I had disturbing blown highlights. So I can't imagine where I should benefit from more dynamic range. Is it because I am not demanding enough or are we already in a range where differences in dynamic range are not relevant for normal daily use?
 
M9 - specs so far, and what do they tell us ?
Click to expand...

-Full frame. Should please individuals who can't wrap their minds around the concept of equivalency, but force some to come up with a new reason to avoid buying.

-18MP. 80% more pixels on 33% more sensor real estate, a situation that typically ups the noise, yet claims of better noise suppression. Hopefully it's coming mainly from a better sensor, not aggressive firmware processing a la Panasonic.

-ISO 80 setting. If they've truly lowered the native ISO and improved noise @ higher settings, it's wonderful. On Canon cameras the lowest ISO is a firmware "trick" as is the highest setting. Hopefully not the case here.

-The battery indicator/shot counter is gone from the top deck. According to the brochure, a press of the INFO button will be needed to call them up on the LCD...which will mean an added step, and necessitating lighting up the LCD, perhaps an issue when shooting "discreetly" in a dark environment. Frankly I'm puzzled why they did that, plus adding that non-functional step to the left end of the body (aside from making it esthetically more film-M-looking).

-Framelines back to being set @ 1 meter. May make those unhappy who clamored for the 2m setting of the M8.2, but the rest of us probably won't notice or care, plus it will facilitate shooting the M9 alongside a film body.

-No IR filters. Great, of course. But also no indication there's a setting for UV/IR ON, so if shooting the M9 along with an M8/8.2 it would be necessary to remove IR filters from 35mm lenses and wider each time you mount it on the M9 to avoid cyan corners, then remember to replace the filter when mounting back to the M8. Or run all M9 files through Cornerfix. Maybe if there's enough backlash Leica will add the correction in a firmware upgrade...then again, why would they want to encourage anyone to use an M8 instead of buying a second M9?

-Now chrome plating is history along with black-chrome (a Leica innovation BTW). Black paint and gray paint only. Wonder what the gray will look like...hammertone without the hammmer? R9 anthracite?

-Seems to use the same battery as the M8. With more power demand from the FF sensor, unless they've developed some ingenious power-saving circuitry, wonder what battery life will be?

-No pictures of the bottom plate, so we don't know if it still has the removable plate with included tripod thread or some sturdier design.

-No obvious mention of added weather sealing.


The bad news: we'll have to wait for the M10 to solve those issues.
The good news: if Leica keeps their current strategy, we can expect it on 10/10/2010. In fact they can roll out the M11 and M12 in the next 2 years before the numerological coincidence evaporates for another millenium 😀
 
Last edited:
This is all speculation of course - -but here are some hopes. Let's assume the sensor itself will be no worse and that anyone who could learn to love the M8 will learn to love the M9, once they have completed their year and half of eating rice and beans to pay for the durn thing. How about some practical stuff we learned from the M8?

1. 1-step +/- adjustment to the ISO in Auto (that is, a button rather than a menu);
2. Menu option for ALL lenses rather than requirement of 6-bit coding;
3. IR filtration at the filter. Actually, 1 & 2 are the only things I'd really change. If they've figured out how to deal with IR, fine. But I'd kind of gotten to like being able to dip my toes in IR with the right filter. Even my collective UV/IR cut filter collection is cheaper than the other options out there for doing IR photography at this point.

Assuming the IQ gets no worse and you get an extra usable stop (or 2) at the top of the camera's ISO range, why wouldn't that be a win?

Ben
 
Simple arithmetic tells us that the pixel size is 6.8 microns...a Kodak product, and likely reformatted from their tried-and-true 22/32/39Mp chips. [Kodak's latest, a 50Mp 645 format chip, is 6 microns in pixel size.]

Kodak's CCD technology is very, very respectable. Sony (Nikon), Canon...are all late comers. There was enough bit-depth to have satisfied serious professional work.

Micro lens and IR filters are add-ons.

I believe sensor/IR/FF and other issues that have plagued the M8 would have been overcome. There is no satisfying nit-pickers.

The body thickness is still specified at 37mm...thick like the M8. The brochure picture confirmed the body thickness is approximately twice the hot shoes depth.

I could only wish the body was no thicker than the film M-camera.
 
There is only one number related to the M9 that is important for me and that's the price. I do not need to think any further, I'm afraid...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom