andy_piper2

<p>According to Stephan Daniel in the LL video, this is equivalent to adding a feature from Vista (or Windows 7, if you prefer) to Windows 2000 - it would require a full rewrite of the firmware from the ground up, which Leica is not going to do for a "finished project." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/videos/daniel-video.shtml - 2:30</p>

<p>If I want the features of Snow Leopard (or PS CS4), I have to "take another financial bath by selling" my G5 iMac for an Intel iMac. So it goes.</p>

<p>Classic portrait lens - 90mm f/2 Summicron pre-ASPH runs just under $1,000 - on the bleeding edge for focusing, though (and big, even in the compact version). 75mm Voigtlander Color-Skopar f/2.5, would be really cheap, but requires screw-to-M adapter. 50 Summiluxes pre-ASPH that close-focus enough for portraits are still a bit pricey - $1500 or so - 50 'cron (f/2) for $700 would be sharper and more readily available and REALLY small. 75 Summarit f/2.5 used might sneak in at under $1K. 50 Summarit f/2.5 should be $1000 new, used 50 f/2.8 Elmar is 4-element Tessar-style lens (like SLR pancake lenses) that will have a retro look - but DON'T collapse it on the digital Ms! Put tape around barrel to prevent full collapse.</p>

<p>If Phil Greenspun is an example of Leica finally losing the "lawyer" market - good for Leica! Beyond that - that blog comment should probably be a thread of its own...</p>

<p>"I want my M6 back but with a digital back. The M8 and M9 are a bit too heavy..."</p>

<p>Well, unless someone can design a digital back with almost zero weight, an M6 + back will far outweigh an M8 or M9. According to the M9 spec sheet, the body weight with battery is 585g. An M6 with battery was 575g. M6ttl was 600g without a battery.</p>

<p>Regarding "older" lenses - I have a soft spot for the last Mandler lenses (lenses designed by or under the supervision of Walter Mandler at Leitz Canada) - generally c. 1980. Less magenta and less contrasty than today's Solms designs, but pretty darn high resolution in the center of the image.</p>

<p>Designed in Leica's financial crisis following the M5 debacle, and at a time when Leica was still something of a working photojournalists' camera - therefore with an emphasis on cost and functionality rather than supremacy. Not as 'dreamy' as pre-1960 lenses, though. The 35 'cron v.4 was one of these - others with some reputation are the current 50 Summicron optical design, the f/1 Noctilux, compact 90 f/2 pre-ASPH and the 75 f/1.4. And my favorite of all, the first 21 f/2.8. The lower contrast is a plus for digital work, and I am very pleased that my 21 f/2.8 seems very well supported on the M9.</p>

<p>The 35 crons v. 2 and v.3 were also "practical" cost-cutting lenses that cut the number of elements from 8 to 6 - a little dull and lifeless compared to the V. 1, as well as being "canadian" instead of "german" in the eyes of german engineering fans. But most of the Leica photojournalism of the 70's used them to good effect. The little semaphore tab on the v.3 aperture ring puts some people off. The v.4 improved the design slightly with a 7th element, borrowed from the design of the pre-ASPH 35 f/1.4</p>

<p>I'd expect the M9 to hold up like my M8: http://www.photo.net/leica-rangefinders-forum/00UKDD</p>

<p>Maybe a tad better since it had one less hole in the body to let stuff in (M9 no longer has the circular LCD for exposure/battery check)</p>

<p>"one-third of the unused value of all the Leica M lenses..." In my case, far more.</p>

<p>I've loved the Mate for 3 years, but there were only three ways to replicate the functionality of my $1,000 21mm Elmarit f/2.8: $5,000 for Leica's 16/18/21 (losing one f-stop), $4,000 for the Zeiss 15 f/2.8 (losing coupled focusing and gaining a lot of size), or using my 15 Voigtlander f/4.5 (free, and very small, but losing about 2 f-stops). I've gotten by with the C/V, but have had to skip pictures in low light that f/4.5 just couldn't handle.</p>

<p>Realistically, the real match would be the $4,000 Zeiss - so the M9 gives me back $3,000 right off the bat for just a single lens. If I figure the price of a 28 Summicron for the M8 ($2,800 used) vs. a 35 f/2 ($1,950 for ASPH, $1,200 for non-ASPH), that's another $1,000 minimum. Finally add the $1,800 of "M8 upgrades" that come built into the M9 - quieter shutter, more accurate framelines...</p>

<p>....and for me, the M9 pretty much pays for itself - $5,800 in free lens or other "upgrades". AND I get to keep the C/V 15 for wild and wacky stuff.</p><div></div>

<p>Brad- Read it this way - "Leica simply chose to address aliasing with firmware - <strong>so tha</strong>t the sensor performance at frequencies below Nyquist are not degraded <strong>by using</strong> an AA filter <strong>over the sensor itself</strong>."</p>

<p>As you said.</p>

<p>Marc B. - You link to a page reviewing the M8 software? Doesn't show anything regarding the M8 compared to other cameras. This may be a better link, where the M8 equals the 12 Mpixel 5D (and both can upscale nicely to 17 megapixels, per the reviewers opinion): http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/leicam8/page18.asp</p>

<p>But realistically, most camera makers, starting at least as early as the Nikon D70, have discovered that they can dial back the AA filtering a bit from where Nyquist et al say it should be, and most buyers (and reviewers) seem to prefer the enhanced resolution at the cost of some moiré. In the case of the M8 and M9, Leica just went a little further, because fewer layers over the sensor also help solve the problems the compact M wideangles have with a digital sensor.</p>

<p>On the question of price - this is the first time in history (I think) that a top-of-the-line Leica M costs LESS than the top-of-the-line Nikon. $6,995 street vs. $7,395-$7,495 street. And is only 10% more than the top Canon. Which is pretty amazing - and means I no longer have to pay through the nose for the features most important to me: compactness, weight around 1 pound, crisp manual split-image focusing, minimal gizmos, fast or small (or both) prime lenses.</p>

<p>If you want to see "why" it costs what it does: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/videos/m9-video-intro.shtml</p>

<p>Yes, you can get this Novoflex R-to-M adapter: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/220122-REG/Novoflex_LEM_LER_Lens_Adapter_Leica_R_to.html</p>

<p>Cameraquest has discontinued theirs, but there may still be others as well.</p>

<p>The 21 f/3.4 was also made directly in Leica M mount (with focusing) - but I presume you are trying to give a new lease on life to an R-version lens you already have.</p>

<p>Three years wait? No.</p>

<p>I did "struggle along" with a Sony R-1 for one year (not really the right term - the Sony was nice, and cheaper than getting into an SLR system for a year), on the assumption that the M8 would arrive at PhotoKina 2006 (which it did).</p>

<p>I don't like having a screen (groundglass or EVF) between me and my subjects, and won't do it if there is an alternative - so getting the M8 as soon as it was available was an easy choice, even though I assumed Leica would eventually get to no-IR/full-frame. It looks like Leica (maybe) sped up the M9 development by a year in order to get cash now - leaving out some improvements based on S2 technology that may show up in the next model.</p>

<p>But my philosophy is that a digital rangefinder in the hand today is always better than pie-in-the-sky 1-2-3-? years from now.</p>

<p>Hmm- can't edit. Disregard reference to 25 c/v in above. You are right that the c/v 15 optics did not change with the new barrel design, though, as the diagrams show.</p>

<p>Kelly F. - lens can be more or less retrofocus. It's a continuum. If the lens' exit pupil is more or less the same distance from the image plane (film, sensor) as the focal length, it is not RF. If the exit pupil (not necessarily the rear element) is further from the image plane than the effective focal length, then it IS retrofocus.</p>

<p>An SLR 15mm is MORE retrofocus than the C/V 15, in order to clear the mirror, but the C/V is still RF itself, too.</p>

<p>Here are the C/V superwides, including the optical diagrams: http://www.cosina.co.jp/seihin/voigt/english/s-wide-e.html</p>

<p>Retrofocus lenses (the 15, the 12) tend to be asymmetrical - shaped like a funnel from outer end to inner end. Non-retrofocus lenses (21/25) tend to be much more symmetrical, funnels coming in from both side about equally.</p>

<p>Here's a link showing Nikkor and Zeiss 21s which are also non-retrofocus, and again the symmetrical design is the clue, if you don't have the precise exit pupil measurement. http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/RF-Nikkor/RF21mm/index.htm</p>

<p>By contrast, here is the layout of a Zeiss Distagon, which is definitely retrofocus, and has the same funnel shape as the C/V 15 and 12: http://ogiroux.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/21linsenschnitt.jpg More extreme, since its for SLR use, and the barrel construction is obviously different from the C/Vs.</p>

<p>It's interesting to note (as one who's actually looked at the M9 sensor from 6 inches away) that the M9 sensor looks a bit different from most sensors, and certainly the M8's. It has less of the green tint normally visible, and surface reflections have a diffraction rainbow striping, like the reflections off the recording side of a CD or DVD.</p>

<p>It is also interesting to note that my shots with a 135 Tele-Elmar (an uncoded lens) showed a very slight gradual darkening towards the corners when used on the M9 "straight" - which was eliminated when I identified the lens in the manual list in the camera's menu. So the camera is doing some vignetting corrections for telephotos as well as wides. The only unknown is whether that is just normal optical vignetting being corrected, or something induced by the sensor.</p>

<p>What Leica originally said (over 5 years ago) was that a digital M camera was impossible with current sensor architecture. Once it became clear that they were in a life-or-death situation, they moved (with help from many others, notably Kodak) to change the architecture rather than waiting for it to be spoon-fed to them. The sensor changes were subtle - the other factor was image processing to correct the remaining vignetting and color shifts from different lenses (thus the coding requirement).</p>

<p>In 1958 it was not technologically possible to put a man on the moon. In 1968 it was. Times change.</p>

<p>Framelines:</p>

<p>• Film Ms and M9 - set for 1 meter<br>

• M8 set for minimum focus of each lens (.7 meters except for 90mm - 1 meter)<br>

• M8.2 set for 2 meters</p>

<p>The 75mm framelines on the M9 are glorious compared to the M8 in terms of accuracy, and to both of the M8 versions in terms of size and completeness - they have corners plus 8 sideline segments, instead of just corner marks.</p>

<p>Take it from someone who's actually shot 4 gigs with the M9, not just read specs online someplace.</p>

<p>Dayton, almost certainly not - basically everything inside the body shell is new electronics: two processors instead of one, whole new "suite" of circuitry and chips, new casting for the "film chamber" to open it up to show the whole sensor, parts moved around to allow the battery and the new chamber to fit side by side. I'm sure that, for the price of an M9 + $150, Leica will transplant an M8 baseplate and hotshoe (with serial number) onto an M9 body - and that's essentially what an upgrade would involve.</p>

<p>The lens data table in the brochure still lists the 50/35 cron weights for both silver and black. I think Leica runs of silver lenses if they feel a market opportunity - they have come and gone over the years. In the Hermes era, almost everything except 28s was available in silver, but once the camera guys got back in charge, most of the silver lenses were dropped.</p>

<p>If you've got your M8 already, enjoy it. The only reason the M9 is calling my name is because a 21mm f/2.8 has been my main money lens for 25 years. And while I've been able to work around it with the c/v 15mm, f/4.5 just isn't f/2.8 unless your subject matter is dead and stiff (and the Zeiss ZM 15 f/2.8 = 60% the cost of just getting the M9).</p>

<p>I'm certainly keeping at least one M8 as my backup body. If I sell/trade the other to get the M9 - somebody will get a nice cheap M8 to enjoy out of it.</p>

<p>I can't say I'll miss the IR-cut filters - but the other day I tried some shots with the newest M8 firmware and NO filters, and the color was generally pretty usable - just as they were the first 6 months of shooting before the filters shipped (I still have unfiltered color M8 shots in my portfolio). I have an IR pass filter that is a kick to use on the M8 for intentional IR photography.</p>

<p>First week of Sept. = Later that quarter = the next year?</p>

<p>Ahh, now I see. Enron accounting methods.</p>

<p>A "fanboy" of facts, certainly.</p>

<p>I'm sorry Charles - but you just do not know what you are talking about - Leica sold 10,000 M8s in the first year of shipments (Oct. 2006 - Oct. 2007). I've owned BOTH my M8s longer than 2.5 years. 2.5 years ago I had already owned my first for 6 months.</p>

<p>Leica announced the M8 in Sept. 2006. http://www.dpreview.com/news/0609/06091412leicam8previewed.asp Today is Sept. 2009.</p>

<p>It works: Sept. 2008 was one year ago, Sept. 2007 was two years ago, Sept. 2006 was - yep, three (3) years ago.</p>

<p>You did not say "Outside firms...." you specifically said "Panasonic has quite a hand in this product..." It is right up there in black and white. Unless Panasonic recently bought Kodak and Fujitsu, your statement was incorrect.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"So, the M8 is now worth half of the original MSRP two years after introduction..."</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Well, three years - but what's a 50% error among friends?</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>"I would think Panasonic had quite a hand in this product...."</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>You would think wrong. In the internet era it is not all that hard to find out the real facts. Kodak sensor, Fujitsu processor, Jenoptik help on the overall electronic design (now being brought in-house because - surprise, surprise, - Leica has hired talent who does know how to do this. And is smart enough to, you know, learn new stuff - just as Canon and Nikon learned how to do it.)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"Am I the only one who thinks that it is somewhat ironic that the brochure for one of the most expensive cameras on the planet is used to glorify Che Guevara and Cuban sports (one of the last pockets of communism on the planet)?"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>There has always been this dichotomy - going back to Robert Capa with the Republicans (socialists) in the Spanish Civil War (Yeah, well, Contax, but still a pricey small German camera). Susan Meiselas hanging out with the Sandinistas in Nicaragua. H-CB in Moscow. David Alan Harvey in Cuba. René Burri in Cuba.</p>

<p>The whole Photo League, busy using Rolleis and Leicas, was shut down as an "un-American activity" http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAPphoto.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photo_League</p>

<p>Heck, when Soviet spymaster Felix Edmundovich Dzerzhinsky wanted a "Soviet" 35mm camera - he didn't copy the nice proletarian Ansco or Argus http://rick_oleson.tripod.com/index-172.html, he copied the Leica, and named it for himself ("FED")</p>

<p>Capitalists make better cameras - socialists make better subject matter. 8^)</p>

<p>[edit] Ahh- c'mon Mods - it's a valid subject for discussion in the history of Leica - so long as it doesn't get nasty. jeez!</p>

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

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

Panasonic.....?</p>

<p>Figure around $6800 in the US - before whatever your sales tax is. Remember all those brainiacs who predicted the M8 would be $6000 when introduced, then it came in at $4,795. High-tax state or city - yeah it could get close to $8,000 after taxes - but complain to your governor about that part.</p>

<p>Ray - remains to be seen. Vignetting may still be an issue without firmware corrections (which would require coding). Plus, an internal IR filter may still cause some cyan in corners with the widest lenses - depends on what technology the new filters use. My suspicion - to be corrected once Leica puts all the facts out - is that coding will still be important over some range of focal lengths, but that 50/75/90s are probably safe. And it depends on one's vignetting tolerance - I often end up darkening the corners of my images intentionally for a dramatic look.</p>

<p>I should add that the Leica video shows a flash of the mystery-M menus, and lens coding is still a menu item - but it says "Auto" instead of "On with IR/UV" - FWIW.</p>