Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Why no Leica M9 hype here?  (Read 8759 times)
Craig Arnold
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 219


WWW
« Reply #20 on: September 07, 2009, 04:31:28 PM »
ReplyReply

Michael is of course checking hundreds of M9 shots for IR problems in the run-up to 9/9/9. :-)

(That's meant with a very big smiley.)
Logged

Tklimek
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 286


« Reply #21 on: September 08, 2009, 07:57:57 PM »
ReplyReply

I guess we'll have to wait until Wednesday.  I'm sure it will priced reasonably.....for anyone that drives a Bentley!!  ;-)

Todd in Chicago

Quote from: dng88
Understand there is only rumors but the making of it down to a PDF full of details seemed a bit good thing to talk about even if it is rumor.  I do not think S2 has stirred any heat like this.  I know one is burn one is burn but it is something one passion about, I guess one should let it out or just mention it?  In particular the X1 if true is one of the few attempt to have APSC size on a pocketable camera.  (In fact the first as Sigma is Fevon and EP1/G1 etc. is micro 3/4.)

Wonder?

P.S.  I learn all things about rangefinder starting from this site (and later via Reid Review, also introduced by this site).  It is a turning point for Leica it seems (can be all hill down) and hence as now an owner of M8 ultimately can trace to my reading of this site, I find that very strange this site is so silent about it.  May be I miss somthing.
Logged
Nemo
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 275



« Reply #22 on: September 09, 2009, 09:11:13 AM »
ReplyReply

The video interview with Peter Karbe will be really, really, really interesting...

(All the stuff will be interesting, of course...).
Logged
markhout
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 176



WWW
« Reply #23 on: September 09, 2009, 09:27:42 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Tklimek
I'm sure it will priced reasonably.....

USD 7000 has been mentioned.
« Last Edit: September 09, 2009, 11:31:29 AM by markhout » Logged

BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5086


« Reply #24 on: September 09, 2009, 03:17:23 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: markhout
USD 7000 has been mentioned.
Yes, $6,995 is mentioned on Amazon's site: http://www.amazon.com/Leica-M9-Digital-Fin...k/dp/B002NX13LC
And for those in the UK DPReview says "a suggested retail price of 4,850 inc VAT."

P. S. And $1,995 for the X1 at http://www.amazon.com/Leica-X1-Digital-Elm...l/dp/B002NX13QC
Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7526



WWW
« Reply #25 on: September 09, 2009, 04:10:26 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: BJL
Yes, $6,995 is mentioned on Amazon's site: http://www.amazon.com/Leica-M9-Digital-Fin...k/dp/B002NX13LC
And for those in the UK DPReview says "a suggested retail price of 4,850 inc VAT."

P. S. And $1,995 for the X1 at http://www.amazon.com/Leica-X1-Digital-Elm...l/dp/B002NX13QC

The M9 price is high, but I guess that most Leica users were expecting something in that price range. Those who think 18MP in a rangefinder camera has value will probably be willing to invest to tap into their existing lenses.

On the other hand the X1 is not related in any way to the rest of the Leica family, it will have to justify its price tag purely based on its abilities. Although the specs are appealing, I personally find 2000 US$ to be too expensive. The Pansonic appears to be a better deal.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
Josh-H
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1905



WWW
« Reply #26 on: September 09, 2009, 05:45:07 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: BernardLanguillier
The M9 price is high, but I guess that most Leica users were expecting something in that price range. Those who think 18MP in a rangefinder camera has value will probably be willing to invest to tap into their existing lenses.

On the other hand the X1 is not related in any way to the rest of the Leica family, it will have to justify its price tag purely based on its abilities. Although the specs are appealing, I personally find 2000 US$ to be too expensive. The Pansonic appears to be a better deal.

Cheers,
Bernard

Couldn't agree more.

Logged

BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7526



WWW
« Reply #27 on: September 09, 2009, 07:46:31 PM »
ReplyReply

By the way, does the M9 have a suitable auto ISO capability?

I find this to be one of the most important capabilities of modern cameras to maximize image quality in street shooting situations where light levels can change dramatically from one image to the next.

Thanks.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6767


WWW
« Reply #28 on: September 09, 2009, 08:23:02 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: BernardLanguillier
By the way, does the M9 have a suitable auto ISO capability?

I find this to be one of the most important capabilities of modern cameras to maximize image quality in street shooting situations where light levels can change dramatically from one image to the next.

Thanks.

Cheers,
Bernard

It's the kind of convenience and functionality I wish Canon had built into the 1Ds3, but its absence isn't really a "deal-breaker" for people already invested in a system. I'd put it in the category of a highly desirable option on the check-list for people in the status of chosing between systems.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7526



WWW
« Reply #29 on: September 09, 2009, 08:46:56 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: MarkDS
It's the kind of convenience and functionality I wish Canon had built into the 1Ds3, but its absence isn't really a "deal-breaker" for people already invested in a system. I'd put it in the category of a highly desirable option on the check-list for people in the status of chosing between systems.

Auto ISO is clearly a bit less important now than most DSLRs have brilliant image quality up to 3200 ISO.

I was asking the question about the M9, because it does seem to be a bit weak above ISO800. The high levels specs on DPreview don't mention it, but it could be available still. Good autoISO would make the current negative comments on the high ISO image quality of the M9 less relevant.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6767


WWW
« Reply #30 on: September 09, 2009, 09:01:42 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: BernardLanguillier
Auto ISO is clearly a bit less important now than most DSLRs have brilliant image quality up to 3200 ISO.

I was asking the question about the M9, because it does seem to be a bit weak above ISO800. The high levels specs on DPreview don't mention it, but it could be available still. Good autoISO would make the current negative comments on the high ISO image quality of the M9 less relevant.

Cheers,
Bernard

Hi Bernard - not to belabour - but I would think the auto-ISO feature becomes desirable EXACTLY BECAUSE these cameras perform so well at high ISO - it makes it feasible to allow the camera to select a high ISO when low lighting forces you out of sustainable shutter speed and aperture.

I'm looking forward to Michael's review, because I hope (expect) it will illustrate IQ at high ISO - I was kind of disappointed with the selection of gallery images on DPReview - I don't think they showed all that much - to the extent one can judge any of this on a display.

Cheers,

Mark
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
Christopher
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 944


WWW
« Reply #31 on: September 09, 2009, 09:23:48 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: MarkDS
Hi Bernard - not to belabour - but I would think the auto-ISO feature becomes desirable EXACTLY BECAUSE these cameras perform so well at high ISO - it makes it feasible to allow the camera to select a high ISO when low lighting forces you out of sustainable shutter speed and aperture.

I'm looking forward to Michael's review, because I hope (expect) it will illustrate IQ at high ISO - I was kind of disappointed with the selection of gallery images on DPReview - I don't think they showed all that much - to the extent one can judge any of this on a display.

Cheers,

Mark

Well when it comes to the photo galleries DPReview  just sucks, sorry but just look at most of their product reviews....
Logged

Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6767


WWW
« Reply #32 on: September 09, 2009, 10:05:49 PM »
ReplyReply

I wouldn't go that far at all. I find a lot of Mike Askey's product reviews systematic and helpful for anyone who wants that kind of detailed spec-by-spec articulation of what these cameras do and don't do. He's providing a useful service.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7526



WWW
« Reply #33 on: September 09, 2009, 10:33:22 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: MarkDS
Hi Bernard - not to belabour - but I would think the auto-ISO feature becomes desirable EXACTLY BECAUSE these cameras perform so well at high ISO - it makes it feasible to allow the camera to select a high ISO when low lighting forces you out of sustainable shutter speed and aperture.

I see, that is indeed one way to look at it.

Coming from a fixed ISO system, I have been looking at it differently though. I believe that most users who do not have autoISO typically set the ISO on their camera high enough to ensure that they will get enough shutter speed in the average conditions they will encounter at a given moment. I don't think anyone really changes ISO manually that often in street shooting situation, but then again, it might just be my way of working. This impacts negatively all the images where a lower ISO would have been sufficient. In other words, autoISO enbales a camera with avergae to poor high ISO to only show this weakness in these images where there is no other option anyway.

This really depends on how autoISO is used and implemented though. On the body I use, you can set a minimum shutter speed that you want to preserve, and the camera will use the lowest possible ISO making this possible. It will only lower the shutter speed further when the highest authorized ISO is reached. Nikon developped this to limit the negative impact of the then lowesr abilities of the d2x compared to its Canon competitors.

Anyway, 2 ways to look at the same thing. :-)

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6926


WWW
« Reply #34 on: September 09, 2009, 10:45:12 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

On my Alpha 900 I have three presets:

1) Fast shooting, wide focus area, auto ISO (100 - 800 ISO?)
2) Deliberate handheld shooting center spot autofocus, ISO 100, aperture f/8
3) Tripod shooting, MF, ISO 100 aperture f/8, 2s self timer with mirror pre release

More presets would be appreciated ;-)

Auto ISO is very advantageous in my humble opinion.

Best regards
Erik


Quote from: BernardLanguillier
I see, that is indeed one way to look at it.

Coming from a fixed ISO system, I have been looking at it differently though. I believe that most users who do not have autoISO typically set the ISO on their camera high enough to ensure that they will get enough shutter speed in the average conditions they will encounter at a given moment. I don't think anyone really changes ISO manually that often in street shooting situation, but then again, it might just be my way of working. This impacts negatively all the images where a lower ISO would have been sufficient. In other words, autoISO enbales a camera with avergae to poor high ISO to only show this weakness in these images where there is no other option anyway.

This really depends on how autoISO is used and implemented though. On the body I use, you can set a minimum shutter speed that you want to preserve, and the camera will use the lowest possible ISO making this possible. It will only lower the shutter speed further when the highest authorized ISO is reached. Nikon developped this to limit the negative impact of the then lowesr abilities of the d2x compared to its Canon competitors.

Anyway, 2 ways to look at the same thing. :-)

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6767


WWW
« Reply #35 on: September 09, 2009, 11:18:57 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: BernardLanguillier
I see, that is indeed one way to look at it.

Coming from a fixed ISO system, I have been looking at it differently though. I believe that most users who do not have autoISO typically set the ISO on their camera high enough to ensure that they will get enough shutter speed in the average conditions they will encounter at a given moment......................

Anyway, 2 ways to look at the same thing. :-)

Cheers,
Bernard

Bernard, Yes indeed, AT LEAST two ways of looking at it - like so much of this stuff.

My practice is different - I keep the ISO as low as I can consistent with adequate shutter speed at a fixed aperture around the "sweet spot" of the lens - unless I need to change aperture for DOF reasons. So ISO is a variable for me and I do change it around quite frequently depending on the shutter speed I need at the desired aperture. Which brings me back to the topic - the M9 - I don't know how I would relate to this camera in practice. There's already enough stuff to keep track of without having to worry about manual focus, dedicated viewfinders for different lenses - etc.

Cheers,

Mark.


Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7526



WWW
« Reply #36 on: September 10, 2009, 12:07:45 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: MarkDS
Which brings me back to the topic - the M9 - I don't know how I would relate to this camera in practice. There's already enough stuff to keep track of without having to worry about manual focus, dedicated viewfinders for different lenses - etc.

Yes, indeed. It is for sure good to have options like the M9.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
Pages: « 1 [2]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad