M9 full specs leaked

<p>Leica probably inadvertently put up their next M-system information folder at: http://m9.leica-camera.com/res/dnl/en/m9_brochure_english_RZ_low.1.pdf</p>

<p>It was quickly removed again, but the info got out. In short:</p>

<p>23.9mm x 35.8mm<br>

18.5 megapixel<br>

16bit DNG RAW files<br>

ISO 80-2500<br>

shutter speed 32s-1/4000s<br>

flash sync 1/180s</p>

<p>Find more at rangefinderforum.com: http://rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=78976</p>

<p>The PDF is still circulating, get yours now.</p>

<p>/M</p>

<p>Here's the latest working link to the PDF:</p>

<p><a href="http://litpixel.com/m9_brochure_english_RZ_low.1.pdf" target="_blank">http://litpixel.com/m9_brochure_english_RZ_low.1.pdf</a></p>

<p>/M</p>

<p>The most important spec is the price.</p>

<p>Nah, if you have to ask you are not the demographic. =)</p>

<p>At this point, they're playing us like a fiddle. A few days from announcement, "leak" is not really the case.</p>

<p>I'm glad to see the M7/MP still featured. For patients like me there can be no future if the past is forgotten. But it would have been really great to see the M7 get a new shutter to 1/4000.</p>

<p>My favorite page of the brochure was the "Accessories" photo. It's a shame that the female models' feet were cut off, 6/6.</p>

<p>I want to prod the forum, Leica promised more on the video, is this it? M9 and X1? If this brochure is accurate, 9/9/09 can be missed without missing to much.</p>

<p>I guess the only digital that I could afford is the Leicasonic w/o the dot.</p>

<p>Go Leica! The M9 as shown here is totally kick ass. I hope to see this forum fill with great photos soon.</p>

<p>Feeling retro in a slum...</p>

<p>No more IR filter - yeah. I am guessing that my M8 will NOT become an instant classic and command high prices but rather go for less, and as such I wonder how much I would have go fork over for the "upgrade" :(<br>

But it certainly reads well. I'll want to see high ISO samples though before I mortgage my house.....</p>

 

<p>Lots of interesting detail, including Leica 90mm 2.8 no longer included in their list of lenses.</p>

<p>Too late, I just upgraded (digitally) to D700.....will just have to continue Leica photography with the M2 and IIIF.</p>

<p>LCD monitor specs:</p>

<p>Leica M9 ... 220,000 dots<br>

Panasonic G1 ... 460,000 dots<br>

Canon EOS 7D ... 920,000 dots</p>

Leica M photography is about capturing decisive moments, not about chimpiing the LCD monitor.

If you want to shoot, chimp and reshoot, perhaps you'd prefer the S2. :-)

<p>Leica....... 920,000 pictures in museums<br>

Canon..... 220,000 pictures in museums (maybe)<br>

Panasonic.....?</p>

<p align="justify">Well, after all this excitement of the coming of M9, I wonder why other brands are not coming forward to challenge Leica. It will be interesting for the sake of (price) competition if the late brand Contax, for instance, rises once again. Zeiss has already a bunch of good ZM lenses out there.</p>

<p>Interesting that the M8/8.2 is not included (presumab;y discontinued). I wonder if this means that the M9 will be not much more expensive? - after all, the only difference in manufacturing cost ought to be the increased cost of the FF sensor.</p>

<p>yehh... you'll need every one of those dots on the LCD to check Noctilux pics that you tried to focus with the .58 magnification viewfinder:)</p>

<p>'Leica [film]....... 920,000 pictures in museums'<br /> <br /> Leica [digital].....?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I wonder if this means that the M9 will be not much more expensive?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The M9 will be 500 Euros more expensive than the M8.2 - including VAT.</p>

<p>I guess we can expect M8/M8.2 resale prices to go into freefall.</p>

<p>Well, I've seen the PDF and feel like the kid who peeked at his presents before Christmas. Happily I was wrong about one thing: the M9 is not an elephant but appears to be quite compact. It is apparently does not need UV/IR cut filters. Also, apparently coding is not crucial. I like the M9 and I'll get one. Somehow.</p>

<p>One thing about the brochure that disturbed me. There is no mention of the M8 / M8.2. We won't have the M8 to kick around anymore?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I guess my concern is that the large files will be too time consuming on my computer. The M8.2 files work well in my Adobe PS Elements program on my three year old computer, but I wonder if 18mp will be too much for acceptable processing speed. (I know this is an imprecise question, but perhaps some reasonable comment could be made.)</p>

<p>does it really matter about the lcd resolution? i had hoped that the M9 would omit the useless screen at the back.</p>

<p>Peter; we got our 35 Megapixel scan back when the fastest CPU on the planet was a 166Mhz Pentium.<br>

Our base machines about a year later were a 200Mhz Pentium Pro with 512 megs of ram; the ram along cost about what a M9 cost today; probably more with inflation. The same 1996 motherboards are in use today; and now sport 333Mhz Pentium II's; dual CPU server CPU's. One rotate the 105 Meg scans 90 degrees in9 secinds with one cpu; in 7 seconds with two cpus.<br>

<br /> Fast Forward to today; an Office depot computer I bought last January set me back the sames as what my used Noctilux cost me in 1978; 350 bucks. The box has 3 gigs of ram; card reader, 320 gigs HDA, lan card, even dialup modem I wanted too; plus DVD burner. All I added was Nero; since I prefer it to the canned HP stuff.</p>

<p>Both the 1996 and 2009 boxes handle a 105 meg file with ease; the modern box does a raw conversion quicker; about 10 to 15 times quicker.<br>

<br /> The box I am on at home today is a 1 Ghz pentium III with 1 gig of ram; it rotates a 105 meg file off my scan back in about 2.3 seconds; with 16 firefox windows open; and doing a download of the M9 PDF. I use this box all the time with my Epson RD-1 and its raw files. This box from circa say 2002 with upgrades will play all DVD's; with some avi and mov's the CPU is way up there; if the codec is abit fancy.<br>

<br /> For a mass batch conversion even the older 333Mhz box works well; it just takes longer. The older dream machines here are just used less; or for a scanning slaves; or retouching.<br>

<br /> A raw conversion uses cpu; plus the fancier retouching tools.<br>

<br /> Its funny to look back at prices; my used Noct cost me 350 bucks; maybe what a used Vega would fetch in 1978. Ram for PC's was once about 1000 bucks for 16 megs in the early Pentium era; my Pentium 90 dream machine built for Photoshop had 16 megs of ram; that cost 600 bucks; the 17" CRT cost 600 bucks; Photoshop 3 cost 600 bucks then. One worked Computer Shopper and built a custom wazzoo computer that cost 3 grand; Photoshop 3 cost 1/5 the computer's cost; ie 600 bucks. With my prior computer; photoshop cost 1/10 the cost of the computer!<br>

<br /> Today full bore Photoshop costs about 2 to 3 times what a base computer cost. Considering inflation Photoshop costs less than in the past.</p>

<p>Here I use the raw conversions with my Epson RD-1 with my 15mm VC lens; to back out the vignetting; or with any lens to fix a poor shot ie exposure; or a radical color balance issue.<br>

The SCREEN on my RD-1 is not used much; mostly to cull out duds on rare occasions, or to change a rare setting. Most all the time with my RD-1/s I have the screen rotated away; ie so you dont see screen at all.</p>

<p>Tom i am with you, no screen on the back but a well sealed camera against water and dust, choice for higher magnification viewfinders, a dédicated way to connect a remote screen (or video glasses) and a pure black and white version.<br>

Anyway, i think i will to buy this one, my first digital M</p>

<p>The specs show the M9 is a little larger than the MP and M7. Anyone know if Leica solved the M8 full frame challenges (space) with new chip technology, by making the M9 a little bigger and deeper or both?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Anyone know if Leica solved the M8 full frame challenges (space) with new chip technology, by making the M9 a little bigger and deeper or both?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The M9 is identical in size to the M8 (139 x 80 x 37) and weighs 6 grams less than the M8.</p>