What you want to change about the M9?
- Thread starter bene123
- Start date
third3rdwheel
New Member
I hope:
a) Screen can be bigger
b) Has internal "real" dust cleaning function
c) Price - it should not cost more than SGD 5k
Yes.. it will cost less than SGD5K... 2 years later...
If they sell these cameras for SGD5K now, they will go bankrupt by end of 2010.
not that I have owned one to speak about it, only managed to try a few shots from one kind owner
just sharing my personal wish list as a lazy guy:
better high iso performance
the dial for zooming in/out (never liked it)
higher quality LCD, need not be bigger
base plate design, can be simpler
auto-bracketing snap shot modep lazy)
just sharing my personal wish list as a lazy guy:
better high iso performance
the dial for zooming in/out (never liked it)
higher quality LCD, need not be bigger
base plate design, can be simpler
auto-bracketing snap shot mode
p lazy)
third3rdwheel
New Member
Yes.. it will cost less than SGD5K... 2 years later...
If they sell these cameras for SGD5K now, they will go bankrupt by end of 2010.
Nobody expects it to be 5k now.:bsmilie:
joseph1010
New Member
thinner, brighter viewfinder and better high iso performance
i think what is best is that it would have the mp form factor and d3s sensor performance
i think what is best is that it would have the mp form factor and d3s sensor performance
Why? :dunno:
a) Thinner camera no thicker than a Leica MP
b) Viewfinder with 0.72x magnification
c) lower shutter lag (currently 100ms, film Leicas are 12ms)
d) faster camera operation including image playback
e) weather sealed camera
f) cleaner high-iso
g) return to cloth shutter including manual shutter cocking
h) go back to film Leica design, innards slide into a cast-shell rather than two pieces front and back screwed together
i) 3" OLED screen as nice as the Nikon S70 coolpix
j) EVF port below hotshoe (not really necessary feature)
b) Viewfinder with 0.72x magnification
c) lower shutter lag (currently 100ms, film Leicas are 12ms)
d) faster camera operation including image playback
e) weather sealed camera
f) cleaner high-iso
g) return to cloth shutter including manual shutter cocking
h) go back to film Leica design, innards slide into a cast-shell rather than two pieces front and back screwed together
i) 3" OLED screen as nice as the Nikon S70 coolpix
j) EVF port below hotshoe (not really necessary feature)
Cartman2000
Senior Member
I think it should have 45 AF points and autofocus :bsmilie:
Why go back to a cloth shutter ??? :dunno: its using a metal shutter that will likely live MUCH longer than a cloth shutter... and remember this is a digital camera.... not a film cam..... replacing a shutter assembly is going to be a totally expensive and multi-weeks exercise (the mechanic/technician cannot just suka suka remove base , flip up the back plate and go straight to the shutter)
And MANY old-school independent Leica technicians are not trained to handle this ....... Schmidt is going to charge an arm and a leg for this repair/replacement
I can do without the manual shutter cocking too..... its accuracy will never be as accurate as an electronically adjusted one
Last edited:
Ed,
Thanks for your reply. I've read that the horizontal traveling cloth shutter is less likely to fail and has a longer lifespan compared to a metal blade vertical travel shutter. If they go back to the older design where the whole module including shutter slides out from the cast-shell. It will not be that difficult to service the shutter. Right now, servicing the M8,M9 requires almost total disassembly to get to the shutter.
Leica M7 has electronically timed cloth shutter so its possible to make an accurate cloth shutter. The M7's shutter should be a good candidate since the M9 is requires battery.
IMHO, the rangefinder, the unique custom shutter and construction (innards within a shell) is what made the film Ms. Now the construction is cheapened and they've removed an expensive component (Leica made cloth shutter) but the price has gone up.
The one thing I would want to change is its price!
When I look at the MP I feel that I can justify its price. It's beautifully made, it will last forever, and newer versions will be more or less the same.
The M9 will be outdated in a few years when the M10 comes out. It's value will be halved. I don't think it can even command the same price as the MP now, not to mention DOUBLE.
I know i shouldn't compare RF to SLR, but an SLR at this price point is weather sealed, can shoot 100 FPS, HD video, 1000AF point (you know what I mean). M9?
I really love my RF cameras, and I often wish more people can join me. The problem is that most people are trained on SLRs from young, and are often reluctant to make the switch.
No zooms. Not versatile ie no macro, no sports, no tele.
To the beginners, the moment they hear that they have to shoot film, they give up.
Then you tell them, "oh, theres the M8/9 if you want digital", the standard reply would be "HUH?? how much????? siao ah???" hahaha
Someone should make a cheap digital RF APS-C body for about 1k. It does not have to be so well built, since newer better sensors are always available. I'm sure there's a huge market out there willing to try RF photography if the cost of entry is not as high as now
When I look at the MP I feel that I can justify its price. It's beautifully made, it will last forever, and newer versions will be more or less the same.
The M9 will be outdated in a few years when the M10 comes out. It's value will be halved. I don't think it can even command the same price as the MP now, not to mention DOUBLE.
I know i shouldn't compare RF to SLR, but an SLR at this price point is weather sealed, can shoot 100 FPS, HD video, 1000AF point (you know what I mean). M9?
I really love my RF cameras, and I often wish more people can join me. The problem is that most people are trained on SLRs from young, and are often reluctant to make the switch.
No zooms. Not versatile ie no macro, no sports, no tele.
To the beginners, the moment they hear that they have to shoot film, they give up.
Then you tell them, "oh, theres the M8/9 if you want digital", the standard reply would be "HUH?? how much????? siao ah???" hahaha
Someone should make a cheap digital RF APS-C body for about 1k. It does not have to be so well built, since newer better sensors are always available. I'm sure there's a huge market out there willing to try RF photography if the cost of entry is not as high as now
theRenaissance
Senior Member
The one thing I would want to change is its price!
When I look at the MP I feel that I can justify its price. It's beautifully made, it will last forever, and newer versions will be more or less the same.
The M9 will be outdated in a few years when the M10 comes out. It's value will be halved. I don't think it can even command the same price as the MP now, not to mention DOUBLE.
I know i shouldn't compare RF to SLR, but an SLR at this price point is weather sealed, can shoot 100 FPS, HD video, 1000AF point (you know what I mean). M9?
I really love my RF cameras, and I often wish more people can join me. The problem is that most people are trained on SLRs from young, and are often reluctant to make the switch.
No zooms. Not versatile ie no macro, no sports, no tele.
To the beginners, the moment they hear that they have to shoot film, they give up.
Then you tell them, "oh, theres the M8/9 if you want digital", the standard reply would be "HUH?? how much????? siao ah???" hahaha
Someone should make a cheap digital RF APS-C body for about 1k. It does not have to be so well built, since newer better sensors are always available. I'm sure there's a huge market out there willing to try RF photography if the cost of entry is not as high as now
Word. Im betting that if theres anything similar to a digital RF or close like that (rumoured EVIL/Mirrorless systems), I'm sure alot more will trail down this particular style of photography.
anyone wanna bet that Cosina will come up with an M-mount digital RF that incorporates all the above wants ?
The 'beauty' of the M9 is that it forces the user to improvise and think alot what we take for granted in today's do-it-all dslrs........ eg surprised noone asking for something as basic as AE Lock
They should have THIS thumb support built in in future..... so much easier ..... I could shoot one handed .....
http://matchtechnical.com/CSEP1.aspx
The 'beauty' of the M9 is that it forces the user to improvise and think alot what we take for granted in today's do-it-all dslrs........ eg surprised noone asking for something as basic as AE Lock
They should have THIS thumb support built in in future..... so much easier ..... I could shoot one handed .....
http://matchtechnical.com/CSEP1.aspx
Last edited:
sim4nee
Senior Member
Yes.. it will cost less than SGD5K... 2 years later...
If they sell these cameras for SGD5K now, they will go bankrupt by end of 2010.
The German only want to work few hours a day, the rest of the day drinking beer so no way they can sell lower than $5k, so I agree, by end of 2010 they will close shop.
But 1 thing I like it to change is the lcd, size is ok but give me more pixel. The rest no need to change, I can find it in most dslr.
Last edited:
I don't have an M9, but an M8.2. What I would like to see improved
in an M9.2 or M10 are just two things:
1. I yearn for a rangefinder focusing patch which can be toggled
to and fro between the default 0.68X magnification and a
2X or 3X magnification by flicking a toggle or turning a special
viewfinder dial . It is not Live View I am talking about, but an
optical lens that drops into place to provide the 2X or 3X
magnification, and which tucks away to return to the default
0.68X magnification. If optical viewfinders can have diopter dials
that can adjust for short- or long-sightedness, I would imagine an
optical viewfinder also can have an optical lens that can switch
to a higher magnification. I suggest this in-camera magnification
toggle for three reasons:
(i) makes it easier to focus when using long lenses like
75mms, 90mms, 105mms and shudder, 135mms.
(ii) makes it easier to focus when using fast lenses like f1.4
or f0.95 when shooting wide open. The depth of field is
so shallow at such large apertures, it makes nailing a sharp
focus on the intended subject very difficult on a consistently
successful shot-after-shot basis. Leica lenses can achieve
bitingly sharp images, but only if the user himself manages
to nail the focus, and without magnification, it is difficult
to achieve a high success rate of bitingly-sharp images at
the intended focal plane, shot after shot.
(iii) an in-camera magnification toggle would be convenient
and faster than having to screw in and screw out the 1.25X
or 1.4X magnifier to and from the camera's viewfinder.
Not to mention that to achieve 2X magnification, you
would need to screw in 3nos of 1.4X magnifiers.
2. Secondly, I would like to see better high-ISO performance,
in terms of noise, dynamic range and color fidelity. I heard
conjectures before that Leica is unlikely to introduce cameras
with good high-ISO performance because this would reduce the
sales of their fast lenses, i.e. the Noctiluxes and Summiluxes.
Well, just because it is a low-light environment doesn't mean
I want to shoot wide open - it might be a dinner shot and I want
everyone on the dining table to be in focus, and shooting wide
open just wouldn't give me the depth of field to achieve that.
There are two reasons, not just one, for shooting wide open:
available light and selective focus. Having a good high-ISO
performance would give me the option to shoot with shallow
depth of field or deep depth of field. I yearn for a Leica digital M
that achieves uncompromised noise and dynamic range all the way
from base ISO 160 till say, three stops up (ISO 1280).
in an M9.2 or M10 are just two things:
1. I yearn for a rangefinder focusing patch which can be toggled
to and fro between the default 0.68X magnification and a
2X or 3X magnification by flicking a toggle or turning a special
viewfinder dial . It is not Live View I am talking about, but an
optical lens that drops into place to provide the 2X or 3X
magnification, and which tucks away to return to the default
0.68X magnification. If optical viewfinders can have diopter dials
that can adjust for short- or long-sightedness, I would imagine an
optical viewfinder also can have an optical lens that can switch
to a higher magnification. I suggest this in-camera magnification
toggle for three reasons:
(i) makes it easier to focus when using long lenses like
75mms, 90mms, 105mms and shudder, 135mms.
(ii) makes it easier to focus when using fast lenses like f1.4
or f0.95 when shooting wide open. The depth of field is
so shallow at such large apertures, it makes nailing a sharp
focus on the intended subject very difficult on a consistently
successful shot-after-shot basis. Leica lenses can achieve
bitingly sharp images, but only if the user himself manages
to nail the focus, and without magnification, it is difficult
to achieve a high success rate of bitingly-sharp images at
the intended focal plane, shot after shot.
(iii) an in-camera magnification toggle would be convenient
and faster than having to screw in and screw out the 1.25X
or 1.4X magnifier to and from the camera's viewfinder.
Not to mention that to achieve 2X magnification, you
would need to screw in 3nos of 1.4X magnifiers.
2. Secondly, I would like to see better high-ISO performance,
in terms of noise, dynamic range and color fidelity. I heard
conjectures before that Leica is unlikely to introduce cameras
with good high-ISO performance because this would reduce the
sales of their fast lenses, i.e. the Noctiluxes and Summiluxes.
Well, just because it is a low-light environment doesn't mean
I want to shoot wide open - it might be a dinner shot and I want
everyone on the dining table to be in focus, and shooting wide
open just wouldn't give me the depth of field to achieve that.
There are two reasons, not just one, for shooting wide open:
available light and selective focus. Having a good high-ISO
performance would give me the option to shoot with shallow
depth of field or deep depth of field. I yearn for a Leica digital M
that achieves uncompromised noise and dynamic range all the way
from base ISO 160 till say, three stops up (ISO 1280).
Similar threads
