Crossover M digital Leica and a future M10

[aplumpton]

<p>The M8 was what can probably be called a cossover camera. Its 1.33X sensor ratio was combined with its ability to use existing film Leica lenses. The M9 solved the disadvantage in terms of the full frame potential, but is it at the optimum sensor specification (other digital full frame cameras reach about 24 MP and will likely go higher) or is it limited in other aspects (lack of live view)? </p>

<p>I have to continue using my M8 for a while, before I can afford to upgrade. I consider the M8 and M9 as crossover cameras, which might be debatable in terms of designation, but they presently are that for me in regard to my future acquisition. I guess my question is this: what do you think the M10 or M9.2 will possess that will convince me, and others, to leave the M8 for it. Or is the M9 close to what you believe the near ultimate digital M camera will be?</p>

[rgeorge911]

<p>Arthur,<br /> I recently purchased an M8, which I considered at the time to be a crossover, as you say, until I could afford an M9 (probably a year or two off).<br>

I thought that I wanted the M9, to the point that I nearly did not buy the M8, fearing that the crop factor and filters would be big limitations. Part of this is because I read too many posts. Anyway, I'm VERY glad that I sprung for the M8.<br>

After getting through the growing pains of understanding the quirks of the M8 (in my opinion, all Leicas have some quirks, and I don't mind IR filters any more than I mind clipping film leaders for my Barnacks), I have not found too many limitations with the M8. So, I'm now in no hurry to upgrade to the M9. I am quite happy with a 35mm as my standard lens on the M8.<br /> I don't want or need more Mpixels; that's just more disk space for me. I print up to 12x18, and the M8 resolution is fine for that. <br /> <br />So, I guess with limited imagination that the M8 (or especially M9) is close enough to the ultimate rangefinder for me, for now. I'm sure that some new features on an M10 will change my mind. <br /> <br />Reed</p>

[keithdunlop]

<p>For me, the M9 is close to a perfect digital M camera. The most immediate improvements I would like to see are a larger buffer and better battery performance. Better high-ISO noise performance would also be good, but LR3's new noise reduction algorthm may make that a non-issue now.<br>

As far as a future digital M, Leica can't even keep up with demand for the M9 now. Therefore, any future digital M variations are a very long way off. The M9 is no cross-over; it's a very worthy digital version of the classic M that is satisfying both amateurs and pros alike.</p>

[Troll]

<p>WHAT??? No Live View on the M9? (I just presumed it.)<br>

That's a big relief -- now I can stop lusting for one.</p>

[t_nu_tamm]

<p>Maybe it's time for Leica to redesign it's 50 years old range/viewfinder too? After all the lens design today is generations ahead of what it was in the fifties. 1:1 magnification with electronic framelines from 35 to 135 would be nice enough for me...<br /> What about backlit CMOS sensor with live view and image stabilizer?</p>

[t_nu_tamm]

<p>I forgot to mention the real ISO dial and the price under 1000 euros:)</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Reed, Keith and Bill. Thanks for your sage comments.</p>

<p>Tonu, you are a Leica man after my thoughts. And "Apne Dash 1972" is cool....Estonian cool! </p>

[t_nu_tamm]

<p>Thanks, Arthur! Sadly, Estonia isn't anything like "Apna Desh". Apna Desh is a state of mind:)</p>

[jody_stowitts]

<p>Not a dig. Leica shooter yet, but the pinnacle for me would be a .91 (M3) viewfinder and doubling the ISO to 6400(+) to yield "virtually noiseless" JPEGs. Due to the increase in body thickness, the M3 type finder may not be possible; but evolution of the microprocessor alone will probably yield a digital M able to simulate ISO 16 or 3200 transparencies of yesterday"s ISO 50 Velvia quality</p>

[joseph_wisniewski]

<p>Tonu, I like the way you think. An M, even with a Visoflex, can't do everything I need, so it would be a "second system" for me. Add liveview, and it can handle all my macro and product work, in addition to some fun stuff.</p>

[colin_elliott]

<p>Jody,<br>

There's nothing "yesterday" about Velvia 50.Still very popular. It's still my image recording material of choice, widely available 120/220 and 35mm. For every 64 exposures(2x220 rolls) I probably make 5 images on a memory card!</p>

[koray_p]

<blockquote>

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=2295256">Tõnu Tamm</a><br>

...electronic framelines from 35 to 135...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Now that's a good idea. Like the Nikon (and Canon now) AF markings, right? That's done by an LCD layer as far as I know. Maybe an OLED layer for framelines can be even more convenient and visible?</p>

<p>K.</p>

<p> </p>

[ishik_tuna]

<p>autofocus option (in body)<br>

liveview<br>

HD video<br>

wifi image offloading<br>

gps image tagging (wifi+gps could function as a lowjack!)<br>

image stablization (in body)<br>

iso 64,000<br>

weather sealed </p>

[alastair_anderson]

<p>Ishik, wouldn't iso 6,400 be enough? I personally don't feel the need for live view or video, gps etc., although I guess this is the world we live in now so if Leica really wanted to be at the cutting edge....</p>

<p>I'd be very happy to have an M9 with current specs. But, I agree with Keith. Those improvements would be very welcome.</p>

<p> </p>

[vahe_sahakian]

 

 

<p >If M9 has something going for it it’s the utter simplicity compared to full frame DSLR’s, the same applies to film Leica’s and the fact that Leica is still in business indicated that many prefer it this way.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >I hate to see the marketplace pressure force M9-10-11 etc. to become just as complicated as the big DSLR’s where by the time one learns all the features built into these cameras/computers its time to move on to even more complicated upgrades. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >Vahe <br /></p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Vahe, you make a good point, although at the same time acknowledge that the leica digital M is not a complicated beast. Other than a vacuum pressure plate on a film Leica, I feel that Leica maxed out on performance with those cameras and the more recent Leica lenses. Any improvements would be difficult and would likely come from film improvements and perhaps higher quality lens filters. The M digital is another issue, but that depends upon one's needs. Higher quality high ISO performance is a real issue, but not for me. 160 or 320 ISO handles most of my needs and I would even like a lower ISO setting (80?) for highest performance in well-lit scenes (plus advantageous slow speed shutter use). As I think Keith said, the demand for the M9 is high and a new model may be far off. In any case, the learning curve of a new model should be easy.</p>

<p>I am not sure they have arrived at a resolution level with the M9 that would make me put the medium format film camera on the shelf. Is 18 MP enough for high quality (that's the key word, not that of "adequate good quality") images at the 18 x 24 inch or 20 x 30 inch level? Not sure, as I don't have an M9. The problem is that putting too many pixels in a 24 x 36 mm frame, should they go to even higher MP sensor, would likely lead to lower dynamic range (I think) and to probably poorer tonality. What do you think?</p>

[vahe_sahakian]

<p>

<p >Well, obviously once they offer full frame sensor the only other variable is the pixel size, 18 vs 24MP can both be offered for folks who want these cameras optimized for different imaging needs, just like what Leica did by offering M2 & M3 at the same time and letting the end user select the one that better fit their photography style.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >One thing is sure, this being digital system the sensor will be continuously upgraded as better systems become available, therefore an M9/10 will never achieve the longevity of classic film M’s which were simply perfect in every way back when they were introduced some half a century ago.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Vahe <br /></p>

</p>

[Karim Ghantous]

<p>In-body AF would lead to a larger camera. It can be done but it isn't worth it. Video is not really that useful unless it comes free with the sensor. I wouldn't pay extra for it. An increase to 24Mpx is not a bad idea but useless if you're shooting handheld. I agree with Vahe - Leica could offer both 12 and 24Mpx models.</p>

<p>LCD viewfinder? I'm totally for that. It would be useful for both film and digital Ms.</p>

[colin_elliott]

<p>" An increase to 24Mpx is not a bad idea but useless if you're shooting handheld"<br>

Karim, Why do you state this? What is the reasoning? (I am not a digital shooter).</p>

[Rob F.]

<blockquote>

<p> </p>

 

 

<p >" 'An increase to 24Mpx is not a bad idea but useless if you're shooting handheld.'<br />Karim, Why do you state this? What is the reasoning? (I am not a digital shooter)."</p>

<p > </p>

 

 

 

</blockquote>

<p> </p>

 

 

<p >He must be thinking that the slight camera shake could be enough to take the sharpness/resolution edge away, until the picture would not appear any higher in quality at 24MP than it would have at 12. He might be right, but for big enlargements I'm thinking there could still be an advantage in smoothness/gradation. Surely the 18MP now available in the M9 is enough, though. I wouldn't know; I make do with 7.5 to 12MP, depending on the camera.</p>

 

 

 

<blockquote>

<p> </p>

 

 

<br />

 

 

 

</blockquote>

[t_nu_tamm]

<p>

<p>Colin, with a normal lens in front of a 24 Mpx sensor, each pixel represents ca 1/100th of a degree of angular resolution. Only you can now decide whether, and at what shutter speed, you can handhold the camera so that all these pixels will get some information. <br>

This math is not completely true, since each pixel really only sees one color, and IS may change everything, but so far 12 Mpx has been more than enough for me personally.</p>

</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>18 MP versus 24. It won't make any noticeable difference until you go for high magnification enlargements, like 15 or 20X or more. That is the important challenge for a 24 x 36mm body and even 24 MP may not be enough. If you make 8 x 12 inch photos (8X) most of the time, the M9 or even the M8 is probably adequate.</p>

<p>I woud also like to see wiring and firmware that would allow all pixels (3X the actual case) to be used for B&W shooting. Presently, 2/3rds of them are effectively wasted for B&W and the thorny question of spectral modification could be handled by on-lens colour filters, as with film. That would make an enormous difference (54 MP versus 18) for we who shoot a very large proportion of our images with intended B&W output. Leica once listened (apparently) to customers when we asked for a ressurected collapsible 50mm Elmar(it), in black clothing (since discontinued), but I doubt they would accede to such a convertible sensor for super high quality B&W shooting, unless the demand was great.</p>

[ishik_tuna]

<p>for all the naysayers about my wish list:<br>

autofocus option (in body)<br />liveview<br />HD video<br />wifi image offloading<br />gps image tagging (wifi+gps could function as a lowjack!)<br />image stablization (in body)<br />iso 64,000<br />weather sealed<br>

almost all of these features (or some variation there of) are available NOW in cameras sold at Walmart, for a fraction of what a M sells for. It's absurd to argue against technology that currently fits in a cell phone, and is commonplace, hardly "cutting edge".<br>

i believe the days of the rangefinder focus mechanism have to be limited. there is no doubt that some form of ultrahigh resolution liveview will supplant it for accuracy, reliablity, and small form factor. When you remove the rangefinder mechanism, and replace it with liveview and a internal autofocus/image stab mechanism, you've created a smaller, not larger camera. Your seeing this already in the micro4/3's, and it's going to continuously improve and be applied to more pro level gear. <br>

is there any doubt that the day will come when you cannot tell the difference between an electronic viewfinder image and an optical viewfinder image? It may not happen next year, but it's going to happen within 10 years. With the ISO high enough, you will be able to manually focus in any light condition. Who would dispute the desirability of image stabilization. Why not have autofocus (you don't have to use it). GPS tagging and WiFi image transfer...heck, lots of cell phones have this technology.<br>

Besides, wouldn't you lke to take movies of your kids with your Leica!! Live action with stunning Bokeh! Amazing!!</p>

 

[aplumpton]

<p>Ishik, I like your list, but I believe there may be some inverse relationship between price/quality/prestige of the product and its profusity of features. The old film Hasselblads were like that, yet (nearly) every budding amateur photographer would die for one. I wonder how many features on high priced digital Nikons and Canons are actually used and I suspect that their lower cost cameras are used with more awareness of multiple features than the expensive ones by the pros who pre-select a limited number of useful features. In any case, Leica is a very small camera producer with a tradition of limited feature film cameras and they still end up selling all they can produce. They have no reason to want to compete with the big boys. I can do more different things with my point and shoot digital Panasonic than I can with my M8, but then it is usually used for different purposes than the Leica. </p>

[ishik_tuna]

<p>what i'm getting at is what something the size of your digital point and shoot panasonic could use your leica lenses, and still allowed you to "manually" set aperture, shutter speed and focus, but also had all the features of the goodie list, with a 30+mp sensor...is there any doubt you'd buy one?</p>