andy_piper2

<p>The M9 specs out of the Leica Japan site (was that accidentally-on-purpose?) are pretty solid: 24 x 36 sensor, 18 Mpixels (basically the same pixel pitch as the M8 sensor, over a larger area), a new "steel-pearl gray" color 'sted silver chrome, no external IR filters needed, 1/4000th shutter (the quieter one), pretty much the same dimensions as the M8 - maybe a mm or 4 wider(?).</p>

<p>The M9 image is probably not far off the mark, regardless of whether it is official or a good fake. Step at the finder end, as already seen in Leica's own teaser video. Not much else different externally from the M8.</p>

<p>The X-1 I'm 50/50 on - looks like a real photo of a wooden mockup. Not everything mocked up makes it to production, though.</p>

<p>Not something I'd be much interested in, anyway - so I'm happy waiting until 9/9 for the real word, while letting others thrash around in the weeds trying to figure out contradictory details.</p>

<p>Practically speaking, I gave up my film RFs for a Sony R-1 four years ago - as a stop-gap awaiting the M8. Traded off the last (and my first) M4-2 sometime after the M8 came out - either for a lens or for my second M8, can't remember for sure.</p>

<p>I'll probably give up my small cheap Hassy system for the M9.</p>

 

<p>"Can anyone tell anything from the serial number on the suspected M9?" - 3803615 or 3603615. Either makes sense since Woody Allen got a Leica M8.2 camera with the serial number 3,555,555 as a gift in Nov. 2008.</p>

<p>First, reading the tea leaves in the video, there is something teased that is an M digital rangefinder body different from the current M8/M8.2 as seen from the back - the visible differences are covered above. The front view shows an M8 logo - but I hope you folks have heard of <em>video editing</em>. The front and back views don't have to be the same camera - they don't even have to have been shot on the same day or on the same continent.</p>

<p>Second, it is being introduced in a webcast at 9:09 am (New York time) on 9/9/09 - read from that what you will, but somehow I don't think Leica would bother with that precise time and date simply to show an "M8.3".</p>

<p>Rudy Spiller (ex-Zeiss) has been Leica CEO since March. Hired to replace moneyman/owner Andreas Kaufmann, who stepped in as interim CEO for a year after Steve Lee's departure. If the M-whatever-this-is actually turns out to be 24 x 36, it will likely be because Spiller has kicked some ---- to get it moving and out the door sooner than most people (including Leica) thought possible. Kaufmann is still the money power. Spiller's background includes running a service center for Zeiss, among other things - can't hurt for Leica to be run by someone who knows nuts and bolts and believes in getting things done on time.</p>

<p>Dayton - actually, I'm a partner. I guess that's "staff". Eh! - it was a fun story.</p>

<p>The difference between RF and SLR wideangles was much bigger in the 1960s, when dealing with the SLR mirror was a whole new challenge for lens designers. When Nikon introduced the Nikon F, they didn't offer anything wider than a 35 f/2.8 - and when they did produce their first F-mount 21mm, it was an RF design - you locked the mirror up and used a separate viewfinder. Since then, SLR lenses have improved, and RF lenses have also improved a bit, but have become more SLR-like in being slightly retrofocus to allow metering.<br /> <br /> That being said, RF wideangles still usually have better corner resolution (with more vignetting, as mentioned) and less fringing or color smearing - aperture for aperture.<br /> <br /> For me, the real difference between RF wides and SLR equivalents is that the RF lenses are at LEAST as good in a much smaller package. Tim's 28 f/1.8 is fairly small for an SLR 28 f/1.8 - but the Leica 28 'cron could fit inside it with room to rattle around. My 15mm c/v would fit inside a Canon 14mm, or even 20mm, (or, to be fair, Leica's SLR 15mm) 4-5 times over.<br /> <br /> My c/v, my 28 Elmarit ASPH, and a 35 Summicron all take 39mm filters - compared to the 52, 62, 72, or 77mm beasts required by SLR wides.</p>

<p>Yeah, it cleaned up pretty well except for a couple of thin cracks - edges of the front viewfinder glass; in the seam between the on-off ring and the shutter release bezel. As I said, I've used it for two assignments since with no problems.</p>

<p>So it won't go down in history (yet) with Jim Marshall's or Gary Winogrand's famous brassed M4s.</p>

<p>Went to Colorado School of Mines' freshman initiation Monday. Followed Robert Capa's dictum "If your pictures aren't good enough, you aren't close enough". Got caught in the crossfire. </p>

<p>You can see the moment it happened in a video at the link below - about 3:02-3:03 into the video you can see paint hit the girl to the right in the neck and splatters appear on the videocam lens. M8 features in the credits, too.</p>

<p>http://www.rockymountainindependent.com/2009/08/ramblin-wrecks-from-mines-repaint-m-and-themselves/</p>

<p>They did indeed repaint the "M" - in more ways than one.</p>

<p>Camera kept working - finished that assignment (see stills gallery bottom of web page), and has shot two more assignments since (after careful cleaning).</p>

<p>If I'd wanted the White Edition - I'd have bought one (wink!)</p>

<div></div>

<p>"18 megapixels" and "Canon5D MarkII Sensor" are mutually exclusive - 5Dii is 21 Mpixels, hard-burned into the silicon. </p>

<p>Other than that, Bill Blackwell accurately reports the concensus rumor. Whether the rumor accurately reports anything remains to be seen.</p>

<p>A French camera store web site (which I won't link to, because if they want photo.net advertising, they can pay for it) is currently listing for pre-order an M9 as described by Bill - Euros 5500 (including value-added tax - so don't run off to a currency converter to get the US price - that doesn't work - US doesn't have VAT).</p>

<p>When Leica-Germany announces a camera and Leica US announces a price, I'll pay attention - until then....</p>

<p>Bob: The advantage that RF wideangles had over SLR wideangles was much greater in the 60s/70s than it is today. Back then, the RF wides were "symmetrical" designs, which were usually more rectilinear and generally better in performance, and the SLRs needed to use "retrofocus" designs to clear the mirror - and retrofocus designs were in their infancy and thus ot yet very good.</p>

<p>Today the difference is smaller. RF wideangle lenses tend to be slightly retrofocus to allow metering, and SLR wideangle designs have matured so that their only real drawback is size (although that also depends on the specific lens design).</p>

<p>Definitions (repeating some already posted)<br>

ASPH = contains one or more aspherical lens surfaces. The actual range of things ASPH elements can contribute is very long, depending on the type of lens and how the ASPH is used in the design. May mean better corner sharpness, smaller size, longer zoom range, no focus shift from one aperture to the next, etc etc.<br>

APO = apochromatic = corrects all colors of light to focus in the same plane, eliminating most color fringing. Usually achieved by choice of glass, and usually only important in long lenses<br>

Rectilinear = straight lines appear straight. Note that a rectilinear lens will still distort - e.g. it will still make buildings appear to fall over backwards if tilted up - but the lines will be straight even as they converge in perspective.<br>

Retrofocus = the physical center of the lens is moved moved forwards relative to the optical center, to allow space behind the lens for an SLR mirror or metering system.<br>

Symmetrical = a lens design in which the glass pieces in front of the aperture are very similar to the layout behind the aperture. The Super-Angulon line of view camera lenses are the quintessential symmetrical wideangles - a design also adapted for use on unmetered Leicas.<br>

http://www.schneideroptics.com/ecommerce/CatalogSubCategoryDisplay.aspx?CID=168</p>

<p>The M8 is not waterproof. Although mine have gone through moderate rain and fountain spatters and snow without any problems.</p>

<p>I don't get the "ethical" part, though. Most of the conversations my M8s have generated usually begin with something like "Oh - nice to see someone still using film!" None of them were with clients, who probably neither know nor care what kind of camera I use.</p>

<p>If another photographer or a client were actually ever offended by the type of camera I use - well, sorry, the root of that problem lies in what's between their ears, not which label is on the chunk of metal and glass in my hands.</p>

<p>However, I might point out that most of those Magnum photographers who use Leicas tend to use them in the service of social causes - as I do myself, from time to time: http://andypiper.squarespace.com/project-homeless-connect-a-pro/</p>

<p>If you are really concerned about the ethics behind the camera you choose - you might look into the factory that produced it. I imagine Leica Germany/Portugal ranks pretty high on ethical treatment of workers compared to some - emphasize <i>some</i> - Pacific Rim factories.</p>

<p>BTW, the 50 on an M8 is a dead match for a 150 on a Mamiya 6/7 or other 120 film camera.</p>

<p>Oh, and yes, the 50 'cron on the M8 and the 75 'cron on film Ms are very nice and crisp at f/2, which helps.</p><div></div>

<p>I like the "70/75" field of view on a rangefinder - a nice short detail/portrait focal length that can be focused more accurately and faster than a 90. I got a true 75 'cron in 2005 right at the end of my time shooting film - partly because I had asked for it and Leica delivered: http://www.photo.net/leica-rangefinders-forum/004jpi (Has it really been 6 years!?)<br>

I do demand the f/2 or f/1.4 aperture, though. Never liked the long end of 28/35-70 zooms because f/2.8 (or worse) just doesn't provide enough subject separation for my work.<br>

On the M8, I use a 50 'cron (and am looking for a pre-ASPH 'lux) because it makes a very nice 70 f/2 - see picture below - and is very compact.<br>

Sadly, the 75 framelines are the least accurate of all those in an M at longer distances - has to do with the close focus distance relative to the focal length - which diminishes its value for some users.</p><div></div>

<p>I must have missed the modification to the dictionary where "EVF" became a synonym for "rangefinder." Try to focus a lens manually on the G1/GH1 - fast enough for photojournalism, not just flowers - and the difference will become starkly apparent.</p>

<p>But the mirrorless micro-4/3rds format clearly has the potential to be the basis for a compact coupled-rangefinder interchangeable-lens camera - the Barnack camera of the 21st century. Depends on how well the permanently exposed sensor proves to hold up to dust and other environmental threats, long-term.</p>

<p>I can envision a CRF body with, say, 10mm f/2, 15mm f/2, 20mm f/1.4, 25mm f/1.4, 40 f/2 and 50 f/2 lens. The extra DoF that makes screen focusing a headache would be a plus for a rangefinder, since the base length could be shorter - no need to handle 50 f/1, 75 f/1.4 or 90 f/2 lenses.</p>

<p>Unless one just carries a body with a cap on it as jewelry, lens size counts, too. See image.</p>

<p>There are definitely smaller cameras than the M8 - when they have lenses equivalent to the 21 f/1.4, 35 f/1.4, 50 f/1-0.95, let me know.</p>

<p>There are definitely other cameras with f/1.4 and f/1.8 lenses. When they, with a lens mounted, are as small as my M8 with a lens mounted, let me know.</p><div></div>

<p>Peter Mann, I'm sorry if you were offended. However, if you read what I wrote, you will see that I was referring to <i>my own argument</i> as the "smart-..." - well, the vulgarity you mentioned - "....Leica traditionalist response".</p>

<p>I don't think your words - "meaninglessly viscious and vulgar", "not...seasoned, or thoughtful", "hate and arrogance" - were directed at <i>your</i> own arguments. Being offensive using la-de-da language is still being offensive.</p>

<p>As it happens, I am well aware of the Visoflex. In fact I've used one professionally as a medical and scientific photographer. And disposed of it, and the MD body it was attached to, for a modern SLR as soon as I became department head - because while it was a fine mechanical device, it was woefully outdated even then (c.1982).</p>

<p>The Visoflex and its predecessors do have a long history, but I would submit that it is mostly a marginal and irrelevant history post-1960. Perhaps you can identify a Visoflex picture taken since then that either graces museum photo collections or has won journalistic awards, or has otherwise contributed to the development of photography as a creative medium - but I don't see a lot of them among the works of the photographers whose names are synonymous with Leica rangefinder photography: Alex Webb, David Alan Harvey, Stuart Franklin, Jill Freedman, Ralph Gibson, Susan Meiselas, Elliott Erwitt, Costa Manos....or Anthony Suau.</p>

<p>http://us.leica-camera.com/news/news/1/6473.html</p>

<p>I can't find my "Laney" at the moment, but perhaps you can tell us the number of M-mount Visoflexes sold over the years compared to the number of M cameras sold. I'd guess the ratio is probably on the order of 1:100 - maybe less. Which meets my definition of "marginal".</p>

<p>As it also happens - I've actually conducted a survey over on the Leica Users Forum regarding preferences for features and specifications for a full-frame Leica-M digital, if one ever comes to pass. "Live view", about as you described it, was among the "other" features listed as possibilities. It was the most popular feature among "other", with about 25% of respondents expressing some level of interest in it. About another 30% were adamantly opposed to it being included even if it imposed no technical compromises in the performance of the camera otherwise. The middle 45% did not mind if it was available, but would not use it and did not want it if it compromised the basic "M-ness" of the camera.</p>

<p>I used Lexar's rescue program to recover some M8 .dngs, and it renamed them as .TIF. I re-renamed them as .dng and they worked fine.</p>

<p>A raw file, including .NEFs, CR2s, DNGs, is a "TIF" in the sense that it is a raster image, in grayscale, of the brightnesses received by each pixel as filtered by the Bayer pattern. It is probably trivially easy to open one directly with the right software, and what you would see is a dull, flat, grayscale image with a checkerboard pattern imposed on it.</p>

<p>The "developer" programs like Adobe Camera Raw, CaptureOne, etc, interpret that checkerboard into a smooth color or B&W image, just as color chemistry interprets the basic silver exposed in color film into a full-color image.</p>

<p>Here's an image I made "back-converting" a color image though a Bayer pattern to a grayscale checkboard - a symbolic approach rather than technically accurate. But any raster image can be saved and read as a TIF.</p><div></div>

<p>Axel: Actually, I would flip around Ronald's explanation. The Voigtlander C/V is made for a THINNER body than your R3, thus won't focus except really, really close.</p>

<p>However, Cosina made an SLR version of the 15mm Super-wide-heliar for use on SLRs that allow for true mirror lock-up. The kind where a lever moves the mirror out of the way for as many exposures as you want, not the silly kind Canon and Nikon provide theses days, good for only one exposure.</p>

<p>See here: http://www.cameraquest.com/VCSL1215.htm</p>

<p>If you can figure out a way to fit a Nikon-SLR-mount lens to an R3, and if the R3 has a mirror lockup lever, then this version would work, using an external viewfinder as in the pictures. But notice how deeply the lens must fit back into the camera body for SLR use.</p>

<p>The quality is excellent. Not perhaps up to today's Leica standards, but it compares well and plays nicely with my 1980's Leica M lenses. Definitely better as a "20" on my M8 than a Canon 20 on a Canon FF SLR body, across the frame.</p>

<p>"The advantage of this feature would be to provide view-camera like abilities, and be particularly useful with long lenses and for close up work with extension tubes."</p>

<p>I believe this is called an SLR? Something Exacta developed for 35mm in the 1930's (and others developed for larger formats even earlier). If you want an SLR, there are plenty on the market. </p>

<p>The Leica M is built around a little window in the corner for viewing. If you like that kind of viewing, you buy the Leica M or some other rangefinder. If you don't like that kind of viewing - move on.</p>

<p>That's the smart-a** "Leica traditionalist" response, although there is some underlying philosophical truth to it. It is possible to put a pickup bed or 10 wheels on a Miata (or a Corvette or an Audi TT or a Smart For2, or whatever), and one can argue that both "features" would improve the capabilities of the Miata in some way - but why tear it up to make it do something it is not designed for? Just buy a pickup or a Fruehauf tractor, if that's what you want.</p>

<p>More practically - live-view requires that the sensor be "on" most of the time, which heats it up, which increases image noise (other things being equal). It requires a more complex shutter control system, and a more complex operating system, which may add bulk and/or cost. There are probably other practical reasons why it would degrade the basic premise of the Leica rangerfinder, just as a pickup bed would degrade the basic sportiness of a Miata or the efficiency of a Smart.</p>

<p>I find it sad that, in an era when we rightly celebrate and promote diversity, so many people want all cameras to have the same feature sets. In the past, there were rangefinders, SLRs, view cameras - shooting 2:3, square, 4:5, 5:7 formats. And part of the wonder of photography was that photographers made choices to give up certain attributes in exchange for other attributes, rather than trying to cram everything into one camera. Diane Arbus chose to shoot square pictures with a Mamiya, while H-CB or Mary Ellen Mark chose to shoot 2:3 with a 35mm RF, while Adams and Weston - or Avedon - chose to shoot 4:5/8:10 with a view camera, while Annie Leibowitz shot 35mm SLR - and those choices impacted their seeing and their work. Part of what makes Arbus' work uniquely her own was the decision to carry a clunky 6x6 TLR with a waist-level viewfinder and interact with her subjects through that device - complete with all its disadvantages and limitations.</p>

<p>Occasionally or eventually some of them also tried something different - 6x6 for Mark and Adams, 4x5 for Leibowitz. And it was the availability of diverse cameras, each doing some things well and others things not at all, that allowed them to grow and experiment.</p>

<p>The short answer: No.<br /> Leica's CEO in an interview last fall said he was hoping for Eu15,000 (roughly $20,000) for the body without lens, but until Leica ships price lists to dealers - likely about July - anyone who suggests a price (including me) is pulling it out from where the sun don't shine.<br /> The new PhaseOne P40+ is apparently a very close match to the S2 on basic specs (sensor dimensions, pixel count, pixel-binning option for high-ISO 10 Mpixel shooting, 1.4 fps, etc. It is also about $20,000 with a camera but no lens, which would seem to apply some pressure to both Hassy and Leica.<br /> If I had to bet today, I'd guess $24,995 MSRP for the S2 with the basic 70mm f/2.5 leaf-shutter lens (the body has a FP shutter, too)</p>

<p>BTW - the 70-200 f/4 "L" lens, in either IS or non-IS form, is one of the best lenses, and certainly one of the best zooms, Canon has ever made. No question about that.</p>

<p>Also BTW - my example above was with a UV/IR filter (Heliopan) mounted. Possible you got a dud filter, but I've never had blur or flare problems using them.</p>

<p>Here's what a 50 'cron should be capable of on the M8 @ f/2 (current optical design, early model from about 1982). ISO 160, but a higher ISO should not cause that "dreamy" softness, unless you have the noise reduction turned up to 1000% or something. I'd say you have a lens or focus problem - possibly "enhanced" by camera shake. A 50 on the M8 is a "70mm", so by the 1/focal-length rule you should be shooting at at least 1/60 or 1/125.</p>

<p>------</p>

<p>edit: If you used a tripod, then I'd really say you have a faulty lens or faulty focus (could be you, could be the camera)</p><div></div>

<p>"...who at Solms was responsible for such a complete waste of resources.[?]"<br>

<br /><br>

Where is the waste? If Leica is earning income by selling upgrades to those who want them, it's good for the bottom line. It's not as though Leica could devote more resources to sensor design if they quit offering the upgrades - they don't DO sensor design in-house (Kodak does it for them). It's not though Leica could devote more resources to lens design - the camera assembly/repair techs doing the upgrades are not lens designers.</p>

<p>Dante reminds me of Woody Allen's story about two old ladies complaining about dinner at a resort: "The food here is terrible - and such small portions!" If he doesn't find the upgrades useful - fine. But why complain about the price of something he doesn't want anyway?</p>

<p>The shutter and frameline upgrades are extremely popular - enough so that Leica has run out of parts for both at one point or another this year. The LCD plate less so. It's funny that when Contax leveraged KYOto CERAmic's materials technology expertise by using artificial sapphire for the viewfinders in the T-series compact cameras and high-grade ceramics for the pressure plate in the ST and RTS, that was just seen as advanced technology - but when Leica does the same thing it gets hammered as some kind of Hermes fashion trinket.</p>

 

<p>IN ANY Leica, the 28 and 90 lenses bring up the same frame line set - they are permanently paired together at least since 1970 (as to lenses - the 28 lines didn't show up until 1980, as noted). Auto frameline selection depends on the length of one of the mounting flanges (which is why the adapter in question is called a 28/90 adapter) and both 28 and 90 lenses (and also the 21s since 1980) have the same flange pattern.</p>

<p>I.E. - any Leica M 90 or 28(post 1970) or 21(post 1980) will bring up both the 90 and 28 lines - IF they exist in the camera.</p>

<p>The first M Leica/lens combo I ever used was a 28 on an M2. I just used "the whole viewfinder" for framing and it worked fine.</p>