M9 value w sensor corrosion

Not sure how we got from the M9 to the Df, but anyway...

Eagerly I anticipated the Df during its pre-introduction tease. Although I applaud Nikon for it, especially the external analog controls, soon I realized it is essentially an F4 with better metering and a digital sensor. My choice was to use my F4's for film, D700 for digital.

For the full analog experience, the M Leicas are hard to beat (Nikon S or Contax also good).

For digital, the external controls and Fuji's hybrid viewfinder, plus the ways it can be customized, appealed to me as well. The Fuji's only fault, for me, is that it is much too easy to inadvertently hit one of the many buttons on the back. So digital M wins there.
 
Huss said:
The DF was designed to be used as a film camera w a digital back. That’s why Nikon made a big deal about it being compatible with all its F mount lenses including the non AI ones. It’s why they made the aperture feeler flip up out of the way. So the suggestion was that all these old mf lenses would be great with it. But they forgot about the focusing screen. The same old AF screen that was in the 610 (?) which was accurate to maybe f4 manually. Using the digital rangefinder was not of much help as there was far too much play in it. The in focus dot remained lit over a wide focus range relatively speaking.
The D750 had much better manual focusing as the digi rf was tightened up and on the D850 it is just great.
Thing is, if you are using AF lenses with the DF, the 750 has much better Af. So for me, the DF is just.... poor mf, and weak in comparison af. All at a premium price.
Click to expand...

Spot-on, Huss.
You had your disappointment moment with Leica and the failed sensor, mine was with Nikon and the Dƒ. I had accumulated a sizable collection of MF Zeiss, Voigtländer and Nikkor AIS lenses over the course of two decades. The focus screen of the D700 (my first DSLR) was optimized for about ƒ/2.8 so was taken in by the hype behind the Dƒ before its release. After the reality became apparent, I sold off the D700, all the AF lenses and all but my 3 favorite AI glass for use on the ever-reliable FM2-T.
 
james.liam said:
Spot-on, Huss.
You had your disappointment moment with Leica and the failed sensor, mine was with Nikon and the Dƒ. I had accumulated a sizable collection of MF Zeiss, Voigtländer and Nikkor AIS lenses over the course of two decades. The focus screen of the D700 (my first DSLR) was optimized for about ƒ/2.8 so was taken in by the hype behind the Dƒ before its release. After the reality became apparent, I sold off the D700, all the AF lenses and all but my 3 favorite AI glass for use on the ever-reliable FM2-T.
Click to expand...

Yup, turn the shutter speed dial on your FM2T. It feels really solid and planted. Turn it on the DF. It feels like there is a thin metal coating over a plastic core.

Nikon hurt my feelings with this one.
:D
 
Three cheers for solid metal...
 

Attachments

  • IMAG9738-1_1.jpg
    IMAG9738-1_1.jpg
    42.2 KB · Views: 0
  • IMAG9714-1_1m_1~2.jpg
    IMAG9714-1_1m_1~2.jpg
    12.5 KB · Views: 0
Sensor Repair

Sensor Repair

I sent an M9M with sensor corrosion to NJ on November 30th. I had it back in my hands inside of three weeks.

Beemermark said:
Given sensor replacement takes 6 months or more (unless something has changed) I not sure how many people would want to pay $600 for a camera that needs a $1600 repair and then wait 6 months to get it back when they can pick up a repaired one for $2300. The logic escapes me.
Click to expand...
 
ndnwithaleica said:
I sent an M9M with sensor corrosion to NJ on November 30th. I had it back in my hands inside of three weeks.
Click to expand...

I started a thread several months ago and and with about 120 respondents, 90% had already sent in their M9/M9M in for sensor replacement. As corroded sensors out there dwindle, turnaround times have shortened.
 
ZivcoPhoto said:
Wonder if that was Kodak’s misjudgment or Leica’s - after all, I thought Kodak designed and manufactured the sensor for Leica.
Click to expand...

Good question. Your question also applies to which party was responsible for not using any IR filter for the M8.

Kodak designed and manufactured the photo-diode array and associated electronics. Kodak did not manufacture the IR filter film. I'm not sure anyone outside of Leica and Kodak actually knows who chose the original M9 IR filter layer film. The same goes for the micro-lens and the RGB Bayer arrays. I would be stunned of Leica did not play a significant role evaluating in the micro-lens and RGB Bayer array performance. These significantly affect perceived image quality.

Leica could have specified a maximum cover glass thickness and Kodak choose the least expensive solution. Or Leica could have selected the thinner cover glass after the standard cover glass thickness under performed in prototype testing. This sort of information is proprietary. Anyone who actually knows can't discuss it.
 
Huss said:
... But they forgot about the focusing screen. The same old AF screen that was in the 610 (?) which was accurate to maybe f4 manually. Using the digital rangefinder was not of much help as there was far too much play in it. The in focus dot remained lit over a wide focus range relatively speaking.
...
Click to expand...

Exactly. I switched brands and eventually sold all my Nikon gear because the the DF did not provide adequate manual focusing methods.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom