Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Digital Rangefinder Cameras > Digital Leica M8 / M8.2 / M9 / M-E /Mono / M10 aka "M"

Digital Leica M8 / M8.2 / M9 / M-E /Mono / M10 aka "M" Discussions about the Leica M8 /M 8.2 / M9 / M9-P/ M-E / M Monochrom / M10 aka "M": Leica digital M mount rangefinder cameras. Naming the new digital M the "Leica M" is VERY unfortunate as it will only confuse newbies with other Leica M cameras of the the past. Happily there is room for confusion with only the past 59 years of Leica M production ... since Leica introduced the Leica M system in 1953. All Hail for the Leica Marketing Department learning Leica M history!

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes

Old 12-11-2012   #51
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
 
semilog's Avatar
 
semilog is offline
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 3,719
Quote:
Originally Posted by sepiareverb View Post
An I for the life of me have no idea why video is so important in a still camera.
If you're a working journalist in 2012, the ability to shoot some video can be very appealing -- even if it's not your main thing.
__________________
There are two kinds of photographers:
those who are interested in what a particular camera can't do,
and those who are interested in what it can do.

semilog.smugmug.com | flickr.com/photos/semilog/
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-11-2012   #52
Lachie C
Registered User
 
Lachie C is offline
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsrockit View Post
Well, that may be a little overboard. If anyone can get away with it, it's Leica.
Next you'll be telling me they'll put out a black and white camera! And what about a 50/2 that is almost as much as a 50/.95. You RFF guys are crazy!
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-11-2012   #53
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
 
semilog's Avatar
 
semilog is offline
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 3,719
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaapv View Post
The form factor I like least is the slab-like M6 TTL and M7. Somehow to me the proportions are wrong. I think the most balanced dimensions are those of the rangefinder Barnacks. I find my iiif just about perfect.
We agree there.

I also prefer the M3-to-M6 classic over the slightly-taller TTL.

And the slightly-smaller-than-an-M Fuji X-E1 is one of the best hand-held cameras that I have ever used. Its size is, to me, perfect.
__________________
There are two kinds of photographers:
those who are interested in what a particular camera can't do,
and those who are interested in what it can do.

semilog.smugmug.com | flickr.com/photos/semilog/
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-11-2012   #54
douglasf13
Registered User
 
douglasf13's Avatar
 
douglasf13 is offline
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 510
Quote:
Originally Posted by semilog View Post
And a Mamiya 6 or 7 will still utterly crush the IQ of any 135 analog, or any digital camera short of a D800 or Leica S2, in a lighter smaller package and a fraction of the price.
I'm not exactly sure what you're point is with this statement.

I do agree that the X-E1, Nex-7 and X100 are a nice size, although, in use, I don't find my M9 and 35/2 IV to feel overly large, having owned some of the Nex and Fujis. Outside of not having a rangefinder, the problem for me with the X-E1 is X-Trans, but that's another topic for a another thread.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-12-2012   #55
colonel
Registered User
 
colonel is offline
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by semilog View Post
Erwin Puts, and Lloyd Chambers (e.g., here) among others, would disagree with you.


I find it bizarre that Leica shooters would spend huge amounts of money on optics and then reject a feature that allows the performance potential of those optics -- the reason for spending big bucks in the first place -- to more readily be harnessed.
I have not read those two saying that Live view can increase detail by improving focus comfortably within the DOF.
The digilloyd example you link to says that the lens is misalligned/faulty. under these circumstances you could still focus the lens with LV. Well and good but I would rather have the lens fixed and use the RF.

LV is certainly not useful for handheld critical focus on any camera I have used. It is very useful for hand held fast approximate focus though.

I think live view is great functionality. i am not rejecting it at all.
It is useful for subtle shooting at waist height, for critical framing or for more control over focus on a tripod.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-12-2012   #56
willie_901
Registered User
 
willie_901's Avatar
 
willie_901 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,884
Live view significantly increases the current draw and battery life shortens. Batteries are not particularly inconvenient to carry, but Live View users will need several.
__________________
"Perspective is governed by where you stand object size and the angle of view included in the picture is determined by focal length." H.S. Newcombe

Self-Induced Transparency Photography, FLICKR, Professional Portfolio.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-12-2012   #57
colonel
Registered User
 
colonel is offline
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by willie_901 View Post
Live view significantly increases the current draw and battery life shortens. Batteries are not particularly inconvenient to carry, but Live View users will need several.
in addition it increases noise in the photo, due to heating up the sensor
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-12-2012   #58
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
 
semilog's Avatar
 
semilog is offline
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 3,719
I'm getting >1000 frames from two small batteries with the X-E1 (>500 per charge). So battery life is an issue but certainly not a huge issue. I'd rather carry an extra matchbox-sized battery that weighs less than the pentaprism from a Nikon F3 than 30 rolls of 135-36!

And yes, live view in principle can heat the sensor resulting in a noise increase.

Of course, this conversation is about CCD vs. CMOS, and a major reason for choosing CMOS in the first place is its lower power consumption and correspondingly lower heat dissipation.

In real applications, the best live view cameras do not seem to have noise problems. The noise floor of (for example) the NEX-7 or X-E1 or OM-D sensors is astonishingly low, with good ISO 3200 and very usable ISO 6400 coming out of APS-C or 4/3 size sensors. This is probably due to the fact that it's mainly dark current that is affected by heating, and typical photographic exposures are too short for dark current to be a huge problem (vs. say, astronomy where long exposures are the norm). Read noise can also increase with heating but suppression of this type of thermally-influenced noise is obviously an area where sensor engineers are making extremely rapid progress.

Note also that sensor heat dissipation and power consumption are bigger problems with bigger sensors. It will be interesting to see how the live-view Sony RX-1 fares vs. its larger cousins (e.g., Nikon D600, which presumably uses a closely related chip) with respect to noise and power consumption.
__________________
There are two kinds of photographers:
those who are interested in what a particular camera can't do,
and those who are interested in what it can do.

semilog.smugmug.com | flickr.com/photos/semilog/
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-12-2012   #59
borge
Registered User
 
borge is offline
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Norway
Posts: 60
In regards to live view generating noisy images... Yes, maybe, if you had live view enabled for several hours on modern cameras.

I have personally done a 30 minute exposure on a Fujifilm X-Pro1 and there was absolutely no noise in the image (base iso of 200). That is the equalent of using live view for 30 minutes straight.

I expect the new M to behave the same. If not - the CMOSIS sensor is basically garbage in my eyes, compared to the rest of the CMOS world.
__________________
www.indergaard.net
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-12-2012   #60
Vcotea
Registered User
 
Vcotea is offline
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 5
Hello,

I am also very curious to see what the new M will be like and how it will be received, even if I'm not in a position to buy one, for now.

But, as this sensor technology switch is somewhat central to shaping many expectations, I'd like to pose a question to those who know some more about the evolution of digital cameras in time.
Out of curiosity, I was looking on some Wikipedia articles and I noticed that, say, Nikon cameras also used CCD sensors up to a point, when they made the switch to CMOS. I guess many more camera manufacturers used CCD sensors as well, but I picked Nikon as an example, seeing as they seemed to make this change a bit later than other companies.
Does anybody remember if that change back then was the subject of any keen observations, reviews or interpretations with regards to the changes in an image's aesthetic or quality?

Thanks!

V
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-12-2012   #61
furcafe
Registered User
 
furcafe's Avatar
 
furcafe is offline
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Washington, DC, USA
Age: 47
Posts: 4,130
An M3 at 4 or 5?! Clearly you were exposed to Leicas at too young an age & were rendered allergic.

Personally, I can get along just fine w/any camera w/an optical rangefinder, whether it's a Plaubel Makina, Kodak Ektra, or Leica M-whatever. I guess I just prefer a RF's binary focusing confirmation &, for my photography, I can work it faster & more consistently than any manual focus SLR (or TLR) & almost every autofocus system I've tried (if only the X-Pro1 focused as quickly & accurately as a D700, which itself is frustrating at times). I would have been happy to accept an M5-sized new digital M if that had been the price of improved high ISO performance; the fact that the new M will be the same size as the M9 is gravy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by semilog View Post
And as someone who first used an M3 at the age of 4 or 5 years old, and has shot an M6 for a long time, it is to me -- by far -- the least appealing aspect of using an M. For me it's about the tangible experience of using the device and the actual results obtained....
__________________
Five a Second. Chicago's Bell & Howell Co. (cameras) announced that it would put on sale this fall the world's most expensive still camera. Its "Foton" will take five 35-mm. pictures a second, sell for $700. Bell & Howell, which has found that "families of both low and high incomes now spend over $550" for movie equipment, hopes to sell 20,000 Fotons a year.

--Facts And Figures, Time magazine, Monday, October 4, 1948
My Photoblog

My Flickr stream

My RFF Gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-12-2012   #62
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
 
semilog's Avatar
 
semilog is offline
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 3,719
Quote:
Originally Posted by furcafe View Post
I can work it faster & more consistently than any manual focus SLR (or TLR) & almost every autofocus system I've tried.
Personally, back in the MF film days I don't recall seeing my PJ friends using their Leica M's to cover basketball games delicate situations in hospitals, homes, etc., sure. For close-in sports it was F2s and F3s with wide lenses, all the way. If the focus speed of SLRs substantially lagged that of rangefinders for most people, SLRs would never have achieved the (almost) totally dominant position that they did in covering fast-moving news events and sports, even close-in with wide lenses.

The advantages of rangefinders were always discretion (low noise, compact form), and great performance with small wide-angle lenses -- not speed.

For most people, anyway. There are always exceptions; you may be one.
__________________
There are two kinds of photographers:
those who are interested in what a particular camera can't do,
and those who are interested in what it can do.

semilog.smugmug.com | flickr.com/photos/semilog/
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-12-2012   #63
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
 
semilog's Avatar
 
semilog is offline
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 3,719
Quote:
Originally Posted by furcafe View Post
An M3 at 4 or 5?
Always under close supervision, of course. Once I was a bit older, I was not so easily supervised, and so not allowed to use the M3; the Pentax system was the one I was permitted to use, until I saved up for my own gear. My dad is a smart guy. ;-)
__________________
There are two kinds of photographers:
those who are interested in what a particular camera can't do,
and those who are interested in what it can do.

semilog.smugmug.com | flickr.com/photos/semilog/
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-12-2012   #64
Godfrey
wonderment
 
Godfrey's Avatar
 
Godfrey is offline
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 4,946
Quote:
Originally Posted by Range-rover View Post
It's not the sensor guy's it's each of the cameras company's processor's, they tweek
the outputs here and there till they get what they want, and remember there's only
three colors on a sensor red, green and blue and you mix that all together and you
get oh my what a mess! where's my film camera!


Range
There are only three color layers in color film too. Mix 'em up wrong and you get the same mess ...
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-12-2012   #65
Tom Niblick
Registered User
 
Tom Niblick is offline
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 212
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vcotea View Post
Hello,

I am also very curious to see what the new M will be like and how it will be received, even if I'm not in a position to buy one, for now.

But, as this sensor technology switch is somewhat central to shaping many expectations, I'd like to pose a question to those who know some more about the evolution of digital cameras in time.
Out of curiosity, I was looking on some Wikipedia articles and I noticed that, say, Nikon cameras also used CCD sensors up to a point, when they made the switch to CMOS. I guess many more camera manufacturers used CCD sensors as well, but I picked Nikon as an example, seeing as they seemed to make this change a bit later than other companies.
Does anybody remember if that change back then was the subject of any keen observations, reviews or interpretations with regards to the changes in an image's aesthetic or quality?

Thanks!

V
Nikon's change to CMOS was mostly financial (CMOS sensors are less expensive) and partially supply chain. Most of the early Nikon digital cameras used Kodak CCD sensors. At that time (1994-1996) a 2/3 CCD sensor ran over $4,000. And digital cameras ran $28,000. Going to CMOS cut that expense in half.

Nikon always has been tight lipped about who makes their sensors but everyone knows Sony makes most of them. It was rumored that Fuji made one or two but I'm not sure how accurate this is. Sony makes CMOS sensors.

Generally speaking, CCD sensors are sharper and more color accurate at base and lower ISO settings. And you see them used in MF and LF cameras. And on the M8 and M9.

Leica may be going to CMOS for the same reasons - price and availability. In response, many of us will keep our M8/M9s until they die because they have those wonderful Kodak (Kodachrome) CCD sensors.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-12-2012   #66
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
 
semilog's Avatar
 
semilog is offline
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 3,719
Tom, the big drivers for CMOS use in portable consumer devices are (1) lower power consumption; (2) the ability to put image processing circuitry on the same slab of silicon; and (3) price. The first two are more important than you suggest.

When you say that "Sony makes CMOS sensors" you're omitting to mention that Sony has also made (metric) tons of CCD sensors, and in fact that in important respects (quantum efficiency; read noise) their CCD technology has been superior to Kodak's for well over a decade. One reason why Sony CMOS sensors are so good is the knowledge (and patent) base they built while designing CCD sensors.

Until the recent introduction of high-performance CMOS chips and more exotic EM-CCD sensors, Sony interline HyperHAD CCD sensors totally dominated the market for high-sensitivity cameras used in fluorescence microscopy. A market that Kodak had previously had a strong position in, and lost because the Sony sensors were so much better.

Now CMOS and EM-CCD sensors have almost totally taken over in that relatively price-insensitive market due to their technical superiority (mainly, physically larger arrays without truly astronomical (6 figure) prices). I don't know anyone who's specified a serious microscope camera in the last three years and has chosen a standard CCD-based unit.

I conclude that, barring significant and unexpected advances, CCD is increasingly a moribund technology that will be relegated to smaller and smaller niche markets. CMOS is where it's at.
__________________
There are two kinds of photographers:
those who are interested in what a particular camera can't do,
and those who are interested in what it can do.

semilog.smugmug.com | flickr.com/photos/semilog/
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-13-2012   #67
furcafe
Registered User
 
furcafe's Avatar
 
furcafe is offline
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Washington, DC, USA
Age: 47
Posts: 4,130
You are certainly correct re: shooting sports, though if you're using wides, you can zone focus w/a manual focus SLR just like you do w/a RF & have the benefit of better framing (because of the better framing, I actually prefer using super-wides on an SLR, even though retrofocal SLR wides are often theoretically inferior to non-retrofocals on RFs). I think for most part, the difference in focus speed between a manual focus SLR & RF is a wash given sufficient practice. I give an SLR the edge for focusing on subjects moving quickly towards or away from the photographer & a big edge to RFs for focusing in low light. Since I shoot a lot of documentary-style subjects in low light & never shoot sports, the RF is my preferred tool.

I think being able to see through the lens, WYSIWYG so to speak, is the bottom-line killer app of SLRs (no competiltion until live view became possible). That & the fact they are also better w/long lenses (which have become more important in PJ work because of greatly increased security restrictions, etc.) & more affordable (easier to manufacture), accounted for their greater popularity even in the manual focus era (which wasn't really that long ago, or maybe I'm just old).

Quote:
Originally Posted by semilog View Post
Personally, back in the MF film days I don't recall seeing my PJ friends using their Leica M's to cover basketball games delicate situations in hospitals, homes, etc., sure. For close-in sports it was F2s and F3s with wide lenses, all the way. If the focus speed of SLRs substantially lagged that of rangefinders for most people, SLRs would never have achieved the (almost) totally dominant position that they did in covering fast-moving news events and sports, even close-in with wide lenses.

The advantages of rangefinders were always discretion (low noise, compact form), and great performance with small wide-angle lenses -- not speed.

For most people, anyway. There are always exceptions; you may be one.
__________________
Five a Second. Chicago's Bell & Howell Co. (cameras) announced that it would put on sale this fall the world's most expensive still camera. Its "Foton" will take five 35-mm. pictures a second, sell for $700. Bell & Howell, which has found that "families of both low and high incomes now spend over $550" for movie equipment, hopes to sell 20,000 Fotons a year.

--Facts And Figures, Time magazine, Monday, October 4, 1948
My Photoblog

My Flickr stream

My RFF Gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-13-2012   #68
colonel
Registered User
 
colonel is offline
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by semilog View Post
I conclude that, barring significant and unexpected advances, CCD is increasingly a moribund technology that will be relegated to smaller and smaller niche markets. CMOS is where it's at.
Its been a minority sensor type for some time. It is used mostly in very small sensors (e.g. compact cameras, smart phones, etc.) and large sensors (e.g. Pentax 645D, Hassleblad, S2, etc.)

There are characteristics of CCD which are superior, so not sure it will ever disappear.

The problem with predictions in specific technologies is that they have a very small chance of being true
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-13-2012   #69
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
 
semilog's Avatar
 
semilog is offline
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 3,719
Quote:
Originally Posted by colonel View Post
There are characteristics of CCD which are superior, so not sure it will ever disappear.
Agreed. But the CCD's niche will (again, barring totally unanticipated technical advances) be smaller and smaller over time.
__________________
There are two kinds of photographers:
those who are interested in what a particular camera can't do,
and those who are interested in what it can do.

semilog.smugmug.com | flickr.com/photos/semilog/
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-13-2012   #70
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
 
semilog's Avatar
 
semilog is offline
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 3,719
Quote:
Originally Posted by furcafe View Post
You are certainly correct re: shooting sports, though if you're using wides, you can zone focus w/a manual focus SLR just like you do w/a RF & have the benefit of better framing (because of the better framing, I actually prefer using super-wides on an SLR, even though retrofocal SLR wides are often theoretically inferior to non-retrofocals on RFs). I think for most part, the difference in focus speed between a manual focus SLR & RF is a wash given sufficient practice. I give an SLR the edge for focusing on subjects moving quickly towards or away from the photographer & a big edge to RFs for focusing in low light. Since I shoot a lot of documentary-style subjects in low light & never shoot sports, the RF is my preferred tool.

I think being able to see through the lens, WYSIWYG so to speak, is the bottom-line killer app of SLRs (no competiltion until live view became possible). That & the fact they are also better w/long lenses (which have become more important in PJ work because of greatly increased security restrictions, etc.) & more affordable (easier to manufacture), accounted for their greater popularity even in the manual focus era (which wasn't really that long ago, or maybe I'm just old).
That tracks well with my own experience.
__________________
There are two kinds of photographers:
those who are interested in what a particular camera can't do,
and those who are interested in what it can do.

semilog.smugmug.com | flickr.com/photos/semilog/
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-13-2012   #71
Lachie C
Registered User
 
Lachie C is offline
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 30
I often get customers insist that the ccd/cmos thing is a big deal. Here's the thing : it isn't.

The fabrication type of the sensor of a camera does indeed bring with it some character, but in all seriousness unless you could get the same camera with a cmos and ccd you really can't make meaningful comparions.

The camera is not a sensor. The camera is a combination of technology that needs to work together to give the best image. Basing a purchasing decision on which manufacturing process a single component was made with, I believe, would be a folly.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-13-2012   #72
swoop
Registered User
 
swoop's Avatar
 
swoop is offline
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: New York City
Age: 32
Posts: 1,720
While I like the quality and character of the CCD in my M9. I'm fine with the quality of the CMOS sensor in my 5D mk2. If the quality from the new Leica M is similar in image quality as well as high ISO quality I'll be a very happy photographer.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-19-2012   #73
raphaelaaron
Registered User
 
raphaelaaron's Avatar
 
raphaelaaron is offline
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: nyc
Posts: 251
judging by the supposed photos, it looks like Canon style quality.

the person who claims to have shot it was using a Noctilux @ 2000 ISO

http://www.camerawest.com/cwblog/201...yp-240-photos/

http://www.petapixel.com/2012/11/01/...e-new-leica-m/

here's the image showing it's from the M at the same get together it appears.
http://www.hklfc.com/forum/data/atta...c3m702msmn.jpg
__________________
+website|+flickr|+gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-19-2012   #74
kmallick
Registered User
 
kmallick is offline
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 560
I saw some more example shots here:

http://seekinglight.net/1442/the-new-leica-m-type-240/
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-19-2012   #75
furcafe
Registered User
 
furcafe's Avatar
 
furcafe is offline
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Washington, DC, USA
Age: 47
Posts: 4,130
Ditto. A sensor that performs like a 5D Mk2 sans anti-aliasing filter or downsized D800E would be just fine w/me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by swoop View Post
While I like the quality and character of the CCD in my M9. I'm fine with the quality of the CMOS sensor in my 5D mk2. If the quality from the new Leica M is similar in image quality as well as high ISO quality I'll be a very happy photographer.
__________________
Five a Second. Chicago's Bell & Howell Co. (cameras) announced that it would put on sale this fall the world's most expensive still camera. Its "Foton" will take five 35-mm. pictures a second, sell for $700. Bell & Howell, which has found that "families of both low and high incomes now spend over $550" for movie equipment, hopes to sell 20,000 Fotons a year.

--Facts And Figures, Time magazine, Monday, October 4, 1948
My Photoblog

My Flickr stream

My RFF Gallery
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 15:46.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.