Leica M9 why so much ?

[les_lammers]

<p>A few years ago Zeiss said they would offer a digital RF when full frame was feasible...well it appears to be feasible. We will see what happens. :-)<br>

Leica is a small compay swimming against the tide of Canikon and they have not gone under. Good for them.</p>

[mark_davidson1]

<p><strong>Fazal got it right two hours after the initial post:</strong></p>

<p><em>Small production volumes, expensive labor, labor-intensive production due to lack of automation (hand assembly) and individually testing each camera, lack of vertical integration.<br /> If Leica were simply extracting a premium for a luxury product, they would be fabulously profitable like Louis Vuitton. In fact they have been consistently losing money over the last decade or so.</em><br>

<em><br /> </em></p>

[timothy_gray]

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=2224439">Wolf Rainer Schmalfuss</a> , Sep 13, 2009; 10:20 a.m.</p>

 

<p>Hi Tim, what makes you believe that the new M9 outresolving the much more up-to-date top DSRL's?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Wolf, I have a feeling the absence of an AA filter will allow the M9 to outresolve those higher MP cameras. Should be especially noticeable in areas with fine detail and micro-contrast.</p>

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=153336">Brad -</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub10.gif" alt="" title="Subscriber" /> <img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" title="Frequent poster" /> </a> , Sep 13, 2009; 10:33 a.m.</p>

 

<p>>>> They did something which every camera manufacturer should have done years ago - remove the AA filter.<br>

I strongly disagree with that...</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Brad, care to elaborate? I'm all ears!</p>

 

[Richard Williams]

<p>'Certainly it's a bargain compared to the current price of the M7. The thing to overcome for me at least is how to be able to afford Leica lenses, not the cost of the camera body.'</p>

<p>For me it definitely is the cost of the body (equivalent to $8100 after tax where I live). Anyone who wants to shoot with an M7 has several reasonable alternatives from Cosina, Zeiss and (give or take metering and AE mode) the last half century of Leica production, and it's hard to spend more than 15-30% of the M7's price on any of them. Much the same applies to the lenses. Anyone who wants to shoot with a digital rangefinder only has the M8/9 and the old RD1 to choose from. This is great for Leica the company, which now finds itself in much the same position as E Leitz in the 1920s, making a desirable product at a very expensive price in the middle of a recession with no competition or incentive to lower prices. It's much less good for rangefinder photographers in general. We might hope that Zeiss, much as it did in the 1930s, could soon give Leica a run for its money (this time with an M-mount), though rangefinders are obviously not now fashionable enough for there to be any realistic hope of much cheaper competition from other companies (except perhaps Cosina outside the Zeiss partnership, or just possibly a left-field project from someone like Nikon). There must be quite a few of us who already have a set of 'digitally orphaned' lenses and just can't swallow the cost of an M9. Meanwhile, we buy mid-range Nikon and Canon dSLR gear, while the market for an affordable digital rangefinder (such as it is) goes untapped.</p>

[timothy_gray]

<p>In the case of optical anti-aliasing in digital cameras, each optical point captured by the sensor is split into four, the result being smoothing or blurring of the image. It was used early on to prevent moiré, but I have used Canon and Nikon's latest bodies, plus medium format backs from Phase and Leaf, and have not had a single problem with moiré patterns.</p>

<p>Granted, the filters being used today are much more refined (Nikon D3x is one of the better ones), but I'd like to have the option to use it or not as I see fit - soldering it onto the sensor isn't the answer. The camera manufacturers have implemented a solution based on a "one size fits all" mentality.</p>

<p>As an example, Mamiya made it a user-changeable option on their ZD back, and I'd like to see it implemented across the board with digital. At this stage in the game, there's little reason why it can't be done.</p>

[stephen_asprey2]

<p>Tim, I can understand why its an option or removed on expensive cameras. Thats because an assumption is made that anyone spending more than $10k on a body will know what they are doing. They keep it on in the low to mid price range to get a better result for the lesser mortals like me.</p>

[Richard Williams]

<p>Does anyone know if anything in the structure of the M9 sensor (e.g. the microlens arrangement) makes it technically difficult to add an AA filter? In other words, did Leica make a positive choice to omit it and maximise sharpness etc., or was the decision to some extent forced on them? Just curious.</p>

[wayne_naughton]

<p>I reckon the cost of producing those little red aluminium stickers must have been astronomical and the added cost of retraining all those unemployed east german steelworkers to handtip them onto the front of the camera the rightway up.... must have cost Leica millions.</p>

[timothy_gray]

<p>Lesser mortal or not, why would anyone want to add something to a camera which degrades image quality?</p>

[Brad_]

>>> Lesser mortal or not, why would anyone want to add something to a camera which degrades image quality?

 

Such as image-degrading moiré? Which can't be removed afterwards without *further* degrading your image in attempting to

remove it? And after you've spent all that money on extra sharp lenses? Beats me...

[george_hickey1]

<p>My M7 starter set (camera & 50mm F2) costs $5500 new. It has defects with the ISO dial and DX contacts. I argue that at $5500 it should not have those defects.</p>

<p>The M8, as you digital shooters know well, has not been defect free. The M9 will not be defect free. Leica gets away with providing less than premium products at premium prices because it's customers allow it too.</p>

<p>I recently purchased a 43mm F1.9 Pentax limited lens for $529. It is a fine performer. The Summicron 50mm F2 is, if better at all (I haven't run any tests) certainly not four times better made, sharper, etc than the Pentax.</p>

[timothy_gray]

<blockquote>

<p>Leica gets away with providing less than premium products at premium prices because it's customers allow it too.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Did you voice your concern to Leica, and, more importantly, was the issue resolved?<br>

I've got a friend and colleague who is STILL (15 months now) messing around with Canon support regarding her 40D which was replaced three times, each replacement unit exhibiting a different problem.</p>

[timothy_gray]

<blockquote>

<p>Such as image-degrading moir ? Which can't be removed afterwards without *further* degrading your image in attempting to remove it? And after you've spent all that money on extra sharp lenses? Beats me...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Are you in the business of primarily shooting tweed jackets and woven neckties? If not, don't worry about it.<br>

If you are, then you might want to invest in a current generation camera or digital back - you'll be surprised at just how much of a non-issue moiré has become.</p>

[iwao_sakurai]

<p>My 10 dollar Holga medium format toy camera has better resolution than the M9. Its quiet, non obtrusive, as built in flash and easy to fix with duck tape. If you want a finally tuned hand made camera with beautifully design lens for the last 60 years get a Leica!! If money is an issue build your own camera or get an Holga.</p>

[ed_hawco]

<p>Bear in mind that Leicas are built in Germany, with many of the parts assembled by hand. German Leica technicians make enough to raise a family on in Europe. Compare that with most other camera manufacturers who get most of the work done in China by people making about $10 a day (or by robots).<br>

The Online Photographer had a nice essay about the price of Leicas that is worth a read. He talks about "Veblen goods," which throws it into perspective. http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2009/09/what-does-expensive-mean.html<br>

The Leica M9, like all Leicas, is not intended to compete in the trenches with other cameras. It's in a class by itself, and it appeals to those who can afford it ("can afford it" being the operative term -- read the TOP article).</p>

[doug herr]

 

 

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=153336">Brad -</a> wrote: <strong>"Such as image-degrading moiré? Which can't be removed afterwards without *further* degrading your image in attempting to remove it? And after you've spent all that money on extra sharp lenses? Beats me..."</strong></p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p >It hasn't been a big problem for me. 99% of the time I see no moiré with fine feather detail when photographed with the DMR. Instead I see image detail equivalent to a camera with 50% more pixels and an AA filter. Most of the time when I do see moiré it can be fixed locally as needed, with software.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >The only time I have not been able to fix it adequately with software was with the back and chest feathers of California Quail and Gambel's Quail. These two species are the only ones where it's been a real problem. Photos of these species made with cameras that have an AA filter also show wild moiré.</p>

 

 

[Brad_]

>>> Are you in the business of primarily shooting tweed jackets and woven neckties? If not, don't worry about it.

If you are, then you might want to invest in a current generation camera or digital back - you'll be surprised at just how much of a

non-issue moiré has become.

 

No; but it is still something to sweat. Shooting a lot on the street I shoot a lot of different textures/patterns with a lot of high

frequency detail. And there's just no way I could tell on a split-second basis what would alias into moiré artifacts. But in the end, the

*last* thing I'm worried about is ultimate sharpness. But I am fussy about artifacts; if you're not then I suppose moiré is not a big

deal.

 

If you shoot in an environment that isn't fast-changing, predictable, and/or in a studio setting, that might be a decent trade. But for

the street, nope...

 

I just think it's kind of funny that such a huge deal is made about getting rid of the AA filter to get *ultimate* sharpness and minimize

image degradation. But then in the same breath one is willing to accept aliased artifacts. Or, deal with those artifacts through filtering

in post, which then of course degrades the ultimate sharpness that was paid for in fine lenses. Kind of circular. There's no beating

Shannon and Nyquist unless you're willing to accept compromise (and of course your still not *beating*). That's why in all sampled-data systems, low-pass anti-alias

filtering is employed before the sampler (A/D converter, sample-and-hold, etc)...

[Brad_]

By the way, if moiré were not something to worry about, canon/nikon/etc would not pay the extra money for AA filters over

their sensors. I'm certain it was not a mistake or casual decision to do so. I can imagine in high-end studio environments where that option in MF backs could be beneficial.

[doug herr]

<p>Brad, 99% of the time the artifacts aren't there. Since I'm not a mash-the-shutter-release machine-gun photographer the other 1% turns out to be very few pictures. I'd rather have the higher resolution 99% of the time, the other 1% I'm willing to deal with to get the higher resolution. The AA filter throws away image detail 100% of the time whether it would help reduce artifacts or not.</p>

[doug herr]

 

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=153336">Brad -</a> wrote more (surprise!): <strong>"By the way, if moiré were not something to worry about, canon/nikon/etc would not pay the extra money for AA filters over their sensors."</strong></p>

 

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p >The AA filter is best for those who make thousands of exposures daily and can't take the time to check for moiré. Also great for snapshooters with limited technical skills. These are core CaNikon markets.</p>

[Brad_]

Doug, I'm sure in your environment for what you shoot, what you say is true. Shooting on the street is very different.

 

>>> The AA filter is best for those who make thousands of exposures daily and can't take the time to check for moiré.

Also great for snapshooters with limited technical skills. These are core CaNikon markets.

 

Not sure who makes thousands of exposures daily and that being canon/nikon's core market. I know if I shoot something on

the street I can't check for moire (if I could even see it on the LCD), go back and re-shoot. And I totally disagree with your characterization of it being for people with limited technical skills.

[doug herr]

<p>Brad you might also ask why medium-format digital cameras costing many times more than the most expensive CaNikon do not have an AA filter. If you don't want a camera without an AA filter, you have plenty of choices. Pick one and move on with your life.</p>

[Brad_]

>>> Brad you might also ask why medium-format digital cameras costing many times more than the most expensive

CaNikon do not have an AA filter.

 

I addressed that above. Not for street shooting...

[marc_bergman1]

<p>Has anyone seen a test that shows a camera without an AA filter provides more actual detail than a camera with the same megapixel?</p>

<p>The DPReview test of the Leica M8 seems to show no more resolution that other 10 megapixel cameras.</p>

<p>http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/leicam8/page12.asp</p>

[ray .]

<p>I've used the M8 for about a year now for street shooting and never had any issues with moire after having made at least 100 prints. It's simply not an issue in practical terms.</p>