Why have you sold your M9

jaapv said:
Sorry, this needs a bit of a flame. It is nonsense.

2. How would you do video on a CCD? You need a CMos for that - and you would lose the low-ISO performance you like. And video without zoomlens?
Click to expand...

Uh, my opinions are "nonsense"? I'll disregard your trolling, sir.

But I can't let this go: video made by CMOS is a recent development. Before that, guess what video cameras used? Yes, that's right CCD's. Read up. So it stands to reason that the chip in this camera could definitely be used for a video signal. It would however, require a total separate support system of circuitry to decode the sensor data and encode it into a common video format onto the SD card. Much like the Digic processor does in a 5D. I believe I made a comment to this effect. :bang:

As for zoom lenses, again, I can't let that go: Cine Primes are 90% of the taking lenses used by cinematographers. Zooms play a backseat to pro level shooting. I'm not the first, nor am I the last to dream of shooting with Leica glass as a taking lens. (edit: looks like the footage in this link is gone, shame it was AMAZING... I'll leave it up to someone else to find an example then)


As for working in the confines of post-processing, I see a ton of leeway with the M9's raw, don't misunderstand me. As much as a 5D raw, and in some instances even more. The red color noise does creep in a little faster than the 5D raw, but it is still an impressive capture.

Hell, I'm since only ~1 week into M9 ownership and must have no history with digital, analogue, cinematography, or rangefinders... feel free to flame away! :p
 
There are currently 3 M9s for sale in the Leica User Forum classifieds. They pop up from time to time.
 
fates said:
But I can't let this go: video made by CMOS is a recent development. Before that, guess what video cameras used? Yes, that's right CCD's. Read up. So it stands to reason that the chip in this camera could definitely be used for a video signal. It would however, require a total separate support system of circuitry to decode the sensor data and encode it into a common video format onto the SD card. Much like the Digic processor does in a 5D. I believe I made a comment to this effect. :bang:
Click to expand...

Fates, you are of course correct that ccd's have been used for video since before cmos dslr's became capable. However, it doesn't follow that the M9's chip is video capable. Not all ccd's are able to process video as there are requirements for things like electronic shutters and appropriate readout circuitry etc.

I don't miss video, but I can see why some might and I do think live view would be a useful addition.
 
jaapv said:
so lot of money? Yes, expensive? No
Click to expand...

Jaapv,

You may be knowledgable but your expression quickly turns sour once anyone expresses any opinion that doesn't align with your own.

Of course "expensive" is relative to ones purchasing ability but the dictionary:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/expensive

Pretty much says to me that "lot of money" == "expensive". Don't kid yourself nor call anyone else who says otherwise "nonsense".


I have enough time behind high end offerings of both Canon and Nikon to know that if high ISO is what I need, then I would seriously consider their cameras as an alternative to my M9. Would I trade? no (I just did the opposite). There's more to a camera than high-iso performance and the M9 is good enough for me. No doubt "fates" has the same opinion... but ended up with a different conclusion than I. Both still valid opinions.

Good day.. go out and shoot. Leave opinions .. just that opinions including your own.
 
fates said:
Uh, my opinions are "nonsense"? I'll disregard your trolling, sir.
Click to expand...
Look it up in the dictionary - telling somebody he is talking nonsense doesn't fit the definition.
But I can't let this go: video made by CMOS is a recent development. Before that, guess what video cameras used? Yes, that's right CCD's. Read up. So it stands to reason that the chip in this camera could definitely be used for a video signal. It would however, require a total separate support system of circuitry to decode the sensor data and encode it into a common video format onto the SD card. Much like the Digic processor does in a 5D. I believe I made a comment to this effect. :bang:
Click to expand...
It cannot work. The problem is heat and power consumption. Heat increases exponentially with sensor area. So CCD video cameras either had miniature chips - not a real problem with the low resolution required- or had to be huge with heat sinks and cooling. In astronomy liquid nitrogen is used to cool large CCDs. The M9 with a 24x36 CCD sensor would be too hot to touch within ten minutes - if the electronics hadn't blown first. the signal would drown in noise. A Cmos would be the answer- if it were possible. Unfortunately not The acceptance angle of CMos is too small for the incidence angle of a WA lens on a RF system, despite shifted microlenses. Pixel bleeding and vignetting would result. Maybe the Sony Exmor sensor will work - but it is not available in full frame because it has to be too thin.
As for zoom lenses, again, I can't let that go: Cine Primes are 90% of the taking lenses used by cinematographers. Zooms play a backseat to pro level shooting. I'm not the first, nor am I the last to dream of shooting with Leica glass as a taking lens. (edit: looks like the footage in this link is gone, shame it was AMAZING... I'll leave it up to someone else to find an example then)
Click to expand...
The reason the Fuji X100 has no video function is that Fuji feels the lack of a zoom lens makes it impracticable from a marketing point of view...
As for working in the confines of post-processing, I see a ton of leeway with the M9's raw, don't misunderstand me. As much as a 5D raw, and in some instances even more. The red color noise does creep in a little faster than the 5D raw, but it is still an impressive capture.

Hell, I'm since only ~1 week into M9 ownership and must have no history with digital, analogue, cinematography, or rangefinders... feel free to flame away! :p
Click to expand...
In that case either search for my high-ISO processing post in this forum, or visit LUF and read the M9 FAQ which contains a ton of useful information for new users. From an M9 user since Sept 12 2009, and an M8 user since November 6 2006.
 
usayit said:
Jaapv,

You may be knowledgable but your expression quickly turns sour once anyone expresses any opinion that doesn't align with your own.

Of course "expensive" is relative to ones purchasing ability but the dictionary:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/expensive

Pretty much says to me that "lot of money" == "expensive". Don't kid yourself nor call anyone else who says otherwise "nonsense".


I have enough time behind high end offerings of both Canon and Nikon to know that if high ISO is what I need, then I would seriously consider their cameras as an alternative to my M9. Would I trade? no (I just did the opposite). There's more to a camera than high-iso performance and the M9 is good enough for me. No doubt "fates" has the same opinion... but ended up with a different conclusion than I. Both still valid opinions.

Good day.. go out and shoot. Leave opinions .. just that opinions including your own.
Click to expand...
Yes - by all means buy the camera you need. We all do - or I should hope so. But the market determines the price - and the market seems to consider the M9 well worth the cost if we look at Leica's sales results. Btw Did you look up the price of a Nikon D3x lately?
 
I don't own an M9, never will but let's treat this as a thought project.

Q: Why would one sell any object of desire (in this case an M9) after its acquisition?
A: 1. Buyers Remorse 2. Liquidate 3. Profit

Two and three we will ignore as these are mostly economic concerns and we'll assume they're not the OP's intent to discuss. Liquidate means it's an asset of value and now you need the cash. 3 assumes you got it undervalue somehow (bequeathed and you're not into photograhy... etc.) and prefer the funds to the asset.

So, we're left with "1" Buyers remorse. Why do people have buyer's remorse over any purchase? The psychology of buyers remorse has been long studied:

One representative article can be found here:

The Psychology of Buyer’s Remorse
by Laura Rowley
http://finance.yahoo.com/expert/article/moneyhappy/11933


1. Future Imperfect or "Projection Bias"

"projection bias," in which people project their current preferences onto their future selves. "If you look at stuff people throw out, a lot of it tends to be virtuous things -- exercise machines that don't get used, bicycles people meant to ride to work, or books people haven't read," Loewenstein says. "People are incredibly optimistic when it comes to their future selves. It's a worthy goal to try to be more virtuous, but don't make (financial) decisions that assume you're going to be more virtuous in the future than you are in the present."

[Translation on to topic. You think that buying an M9 (or any expensive camera) will make you take more pictures and make you a better photograher in the future. It won't. This is called "projection bias". When this is realized you get remorse and sell...]

2. Purchasing an Identity
I won't even quote anything here... The title says it all, especially with regards to the Leica brand. When you realize you're still a dork (perhaps even dorkier) or not any more respected among your peers as a photographer because your pics are still mediocre, you get remorse and sell.
___________________


The cited article above goes on to list other reasons for buyers remorse but I'll stop here. You get the picture. Buyers remorse - and the psychology thereof, is not mutually exclusive to the economic factors outlined. It may well be a mix of these factors. In fact, it probably is. The technical reasons cited by posters, I might add, are largely rationalizations for selling... The object didn't "live up" so I'll cite "ISO performance" or "too many buttons or menus" what have you (the cameras sucks, mahn...) as their "justification" for selling. Few are intellectually honest enough to admit to "projection bias" by saying... "I thought my photography would get better if I purchased this item, and when my pictures still sucked, I sold the camera..." Even fewer - perhaps no one, will ever admit to "purchasing an identity".

There, you have your definative answer by way of "thought project", and I don't even own one of the stinkin' things...
 
Last edited:
I have used solid-state Video cameras since 1985, the RCA CKC-020 which uses a CCD. The frame read-out rate is fast enough to support video, the 2/3" sensor is ~270K pixels. Not too may columns to shift through for the NTSC signal. The 18MPixel CCD used in the M9 has many more columns in the image to shift through. The frame readout rate of the KAF-18500 is 2FPS. THAt particular CCD would not support video.

If I want Video, I'll use the Olympus EP2.

I'm buying the M9 for still photography. 5K of 7k selling some spares, close enough.
 
Last edited:
jaapv said:
Yes - by all means buy the camera you need. We all do - or I should hope so. But the market determines the price - and the market seems to consider the M9 well worth the cost if we look at Leica's sales results. Btw Did you look up the price of a Nikon D3x lately?
Click to expand...

Oh please... someone of your calibre should know that market price can still be an expensive price. Did you ever look up the price of a Canon 5D MII? This is going nowhere... I always give the benefit of doubt but this crossing into trolling now.

Cheers.. better things to do.
 
Hard to imagine selling my M9 save some real financial personal catastrophe. Not sure I'm in the market for an M10, whenever that happens, either: the M9 solves the UV/IR filter problem of the M8, and it's full-frame. Those were the only things about the M8 that I had a problem with.
 
jaapv said:
Look it up in the dictionary - telling somebody he is talking nonsense doesn't fit the definition.
Click to expand...

Ok. Good for you. Again, troll away man. It's all good in the RFF hood.


jaapv said:
The reason the Fuji X100 has no video function is that Fuji feels the lack of a zoom lens makes it impracticable from a marketing point of view...
Click to expand...

Ugghhh....wow. First, Fuji x100 does have video. 1280 x 720 pixels (24frames / sec.) H.264 (MOV) with stereo sound. It is still on their site. Unless they drop it from the product hours before it's launch. Which they won't. The majority of average user's seem to want video functions now... maybe just not on RFF.

Second, it's amazing how much clear fact presented you have glossed over. People shoot video and film with primes. It is the preferred method. Cinema extends beyond the Shaw Brothers' Gung Fu films of 1971.

Third, going back to CMOS vs CCD, indeed CMOS does have a superior power drain and heat resisting nature. It's not superior by that much however. In extreme conditions I can shut down a 7D shooting due to heat (haven't been able to overheat a 5D despite shooting in ridiculously humid and hot climates). Can you be absolutely sure that a CCD this size will overheat in 10min? (heck, I'd take a 2 minute video cap if that was the heat limit frankly). There are other CCD chip cameras that have sizes close to 24x36 that manage to function without nitrogen cooling.

I was never a fan of CCD acquisition, but I would be curious to see a signal out of this chip. I think it could be impressive. CMOS imaging when it was first released took a bit of the "digital edge" of CCD video, but CCD tech has made a comeback in the past few years despite being more costly to develop.

Neither tech is perfect, and has room for improvements. I would however, like restate (should Leica be listening to this crapola) seeing video as part of a M10 system would be great. Moving to CMOS that works within the small distance of a RF would increase battery life and provide the cooler operation temperatures, but maybe there is hope for CCD tech to continue forward.

Maybe that will be my main reason for my selling. I cut it open to splice the chip to test the video signal, and I melted it. :D
 
If anyone is interested in the maximum frame rates of the Kodak CCD arrays, the Data Sheets are available here:

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/business/ISS/Products/Fullframe/index.jhtml

Note the KAF-18500 is not listed, probably it is only available to Leica. The KAF-10500 used in the M8 is available.

http://www.kodak.com/global/plugins...summary/FullFrame/KAF-10500ProductSummary.pdf

The Max frame rate of the KAF-10500 is 2.4FPS, which lines up closely with the Maximum frame rate of the M8.

Coincidence! I DON'T THINK SO!
 
Last edited:
usayit said:
Oh please... someone of your calibre should know that market price can still be an expensive price. Did you ever look up the price of a Canon 5D MII? This is going nowhere... I always give the benefit of doubt but this crossing into trolling now.

Cheers.. better things to do.
Click to expand...
I would imagine the 5DII costs a fraction of the M9 to manufacture, and the R&D is amortized over many more units than the M9 - millions for the technology. I can well imagine that the profit margin is far higher than Leica's. So which camera is expensive?
 
Bottom Line- not going to use the M9 for movies. I'll use the EP2, or the little Ricoh CX-1. Or the Canon 814. Now THAT is a movie camera.

NOW: to answer the original question, and we will try to get this thread back on track:

Once I buy the M9, I will not sell it. I will keep it for a very long time, well past the point that it has been superceded by multiple generations of improved cameras. I plan on keeping the M8 as a back-up to the M9. I will probably pick up an RD-1 at some point. I still have a Kodak DCS200ir, have for 18 years. I spent more on it than an M9 plus 50/0.95 Noctilux cost today. And I bought a Nikon E3 several years ago, Nikon's first generation of full-frame cameras from the 90s.
 
Last edited:
btw.. I like your response NickTrop.

Unforunately for me, I fell into #2 (liquidate) a few times resulting in "seller's" remorse...
 
I was looking forward to seeing comments on why some people had sold their M9 cameras and not to see praises by people who own such a camera. The question of the OP was clear.
 
raid said:
I was looking forward to seeing comments on why some people had sold their M9 cameras and not to see praises by people who own such a camera. The question of the OP was clear.
Click to expand...


I'm glad you said this Raid because I was thinking exactly the same thing! :bang:

I don't remember seeing such an extreme thread where the OP's actual question was completely ignored in preference to the usual M9/expensive/not expensive/doesn't do this but it does that bun fight!

Anyway, who cares ... we all know the M9 is only a stop gap until people wake up to themselves and go back to film! :angel:

:D
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom