usayit
Well-known
I've shot with my E-PL1 with a 50mm Summilux f/1.4 asph as well as a Noctilux adapted. My vote is that IS can only be an asset to the system. Its seemless enough that it doesn't impact how one would shoot with an M-body and can be very useful. E-PL1 is extremely lightweight and compact even compared to the M8/M9. Switching it on and off can be easily implemented. I doubt the cost was even a big factor.
No I don't want all the "other" stuff like creative modes etc.... Beating up on the idea of IS in an M8/M9 with the same arguments used against those bloated features is what one would do to a straw man. Many professional level cameras from Nikon and Canon don't have those bloated features BUT still implement IS and is still considered a necessity at those levels.
No I don't want all the "other" stuff like creative modes etc.... Beating up on the idea of IS in an M8/M9 with the same arguments used against those bloated features is what one would do to a straw man. Many professional level cameras from Nikon and Canon don't have those bloated features BUT still implement IS and is still considered a necessity at those levels.
Last edited:
kevin m
Mentor
I find the role reversal a bit odd. With film, Leica M's had several advantages over SLR bodies, but in the digital age technology has all but eliminated them. With better high ISO performance and IS available in affordable SLR's, the 'rangefinder advantage' is largely moot. Better wide angles and personal preference seems all that's left.
samuelphoto
Established
Seems to me that wide angles on digital has been a real challenge for the M8/M9. If that could be resolved, to the extent you can use a 21mmm lens without funky color banding, that would allow rangefinders to regain their advantage. To me, the only advantage RFs have over SLR's today is size and weight (a huge deal for sure) and wide field of view focusing accuracy.
As for the OP's original question, I could think of 2 dozen features I'd rather have or see improved before IS. For me, the relative importance of IS is maybe a step ahead of surround sound video recording.
Roger Hicks
Mentor
Seems to me that wide angles on digital has been a real challenge for the M8/M9. If that could be resolved, to the extent you can use a 21mmm lens without funky color banding, that would allow rangefinders to regain their advantage. To me, the only advantage RFs have over SLR's today is size and weight (a huge deal for sure) and wide field of view focusing accuracy.
As for the OP's original question, I could think of 2 dozen features I'd rather have or see improved before IS. For me, the relative importance of IS is maybe a step ahead of surround sound video recording.
If anyone other than a nerd notices the 'funky color banding' the photo is probably crap anyway.
Cheers,
R.
Ben Z
Mentor
I'm not sure what the chances are of Leica deciding to be "reasonable" if defined as price competitiveness with prosumer Japanese cameras, but I suspect the odds aren't great. An M9 with a lens is roughly $10,000, so proportionately using your estimate, IS could add as much as $833.50, that based only on percentages.
ramosa
B&W
dang, i meant to hit "no." not sure if i did. anyway, NO. with a super heavy, clunky DSLR, there is some benefit. with an M body, i don't think i'd benefit--and i sure would want any additional heft or improvement in tech going to something else.
chrism
Well-known
No IS, please.
Nor autofocus.
And no sensor cleaning ultrasound, thanks.
Nor a motor rewind for the shutter - I can use a lever to re-cock it.
Multiple focus points and face recognition are against all my principles.
Actually I don't need the LCD either, which will make the body as thin as a film M, lighter and cheaper.
The CCD sensor could be B&W only for all I care. I dislike knowing so many different ways of converting RAW to B&W, when none of them involve temperatures and number of agitations per minute.
If we could get rid of all of those, I'd like a bigger buffer and a processor with slightly more cycles per second than the brain of a demented fruitfly.
I'm willing to let Leica AG have all these suggestions for free, as long as they give me the opportunity to buy the resulting camera, the Leica M9.375.
Chris
I'm not joking, either.
Nor autofocus.
And no sensor cleaning ultrasound, thanks.
Nor a motor rewind for the shutter - I can use a lever to re-cock it.
Multiple focus points and face recognition are against all my principles.
Actually I don't need the LCD either, which will make the body as thin as a film M, lighter and cheaper.
The CCD sensor could be B&W only for all I care. I dislike knowing so many different ways of converting RAW to B&W, when none of them involve temperatures and number of agitations per minute.
If we could get rid of all of those, I'd like a bigger buffer and a processor with slightly more cycles per second than the brain of a demented fruitfly.
I'm willing to let Leica AG have all these suggestions for free, as long as they give me the opportunity to buy the resulting camera, the Leica M9.375.
Chris
I'm not joking, either.
dfoo
Well-known
I understand why you don't want autofocus; with autofocus it wouldn't be an M (although focus confirmation would be very useful). It blows my mind that you don't want in-body IS or sensor cleaning... As if you like shaky dusty shots? Or are you worried that it will increase the cost of an already overly expensive camera?
tlitody
Well-known
so who wants higher ISO with no noise? And those of you who want higher ISO, why wouldn't you want IS which amounts to almost the same thing. i.e. upto 4 stops more useable speed but at slower hand holdable speeds instead of higher ISO. And higher ISO would cost as much as IS since IS is already a tried and tested technology.
Alpacaman
keen bean
I guess the worry lies in reliability - the film Leicas simple design is what it owes a lot of its robustness to. Even with the switch to digital the Leicas have become more fragile, less reliable, and more expensive to repair, so by complicating it even further (by adding more features, or even moving parts) it is only going to become less reliable.
However, how much its reliability is decreased is a question to which I do not know the answer. If new features such as IS do not act as vulnerabilities and do not impede the overall functionality/form factor of the camera they could be quite beneficial. I do not know how feasible that would be, though.
However, how much its reliability is decreased is a question to which I do not know the answer. If new features such as IS do not act as vulnerabilities and do not impede the overall functionality/form factor of the camera they could be quite beneficial. I do not know how feasible that would be, though.
tlitody
Well-known
Reliability is purely down to Leica to get right. Are we now saying we can't expect Leica to get reliability right with digital (or film). If that is the case then they are dead as a company. It seems they are already losing their reputation for reliability. They can blame it on component manufacturers but they can't charge what they charge if their products aren't going to be reliable.
N
Nikon Bob
Guest
It is kind of funny, in that both IS and in camera sensor cleaning have been around for a fair bit in other cameras from other manufacturers. I don't recall seeing a lot of complaints about either. It is not as if either are bleeding edge technology. Are people really afraid that Leica can't implement old tech reliably?
Bob
tlitody
Well-known
Well quite a few people here seem to think it won't be reliable but I think thats a rediculous argument because it suggests what I said. And if I thought Leica weren't capable of reliability then I wouldn't buy an M9 or M10 regardless of IS or dust removal system.
gdi
Mentor
I must not be nerdy enough to notice color banding with the M9 and a 12mm, the shots look fine. I take pride in that!
N
Nikon Bob
Guest
Oh I do agree. I was just being a litlle, well you know, sarcastic. Bad habit of mine I'm afraid.
Bob
Ben Z
Mentor
Excuse me for asking, but do you own an M9? I do. I like the camera, but a) the high-ISO noise, although improved, is still quite significantly behind the times, in fact behind even a couple of recent entry-level DSLR's; b)the IR/magenta issue, although vastly improved, is still evident, complicated by the addition of; c) the red-edge issue which Leica is still trying to solve, and hopes to issue a firmware update in Spring 2011! Plus, my camera came with the rangefinder quite far out of adjustment--and not the part that might be blamed on in-transit vibration, it was an adjustment that almost never goes out of whack according to the expert repair people, it had to have been improperly set at the factory and slipped past whatever QC checks are in place.
I'd like to see IS and dust removal on the next model, but not before these other, more fundamental issues are solved.
tlitody
Well-known
No I don't own one and from posts such as yours which tell us how bad their quality control is, I doubt I ever will.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Well, seeing you own an M10, I don't quite see why you should even be discussing an M9...
Noise- a matter of exposing correctly andusing up-to-date software. ISO 1600 is perfectly clean in my hands., it only gets a bit grainy at 2500 aka 3200.
IR - in the top 25 % of digital cameras for surpression.
Red edge - in common with a number of digital MF cameras, only with two or three wideangle lenses and some third-party lenses, not an issue for many users, still it is being worked on.
RF adjustment - it shouldn't be off,but it is mechanical and easily adjusted...
Noise- a matter of exposing correctly andusing up-to-date software. ISO 1600 is perfectly clean in my hands., it only gets a bit grainy at 2500 aka 3200.
IR - in the top 25 % of digital cameras for surpression.
Red edge - in common with a number of digital MF cameras, only with two or three wideangle lenses and some third-party lenses, not an issue for many users, still it is being worked on.
RF adjustment - it shouldn't be off,but it is mechanical and easily adjusted...
Ben Z
Mentor
That's a decision which I suspect was made before my post and for unrelated reasons, so pardon me if I don't accept the responsibility. I've been to the factory, met a number of their major players. All honest, dedicated men and women. I've been on the business end of the QC stick much of my professional life and I understand how difficult a task it is. I have never advised against buying their product.
Very true, and I find nothing objectionable about the M9 in that regard. However, other brands offer far less noise at far higher ISO's, albeit not without trade-offs in other respects compared to the M9. So far there's no single camera perfect for everyone on all scores.
My 6 yr old 20D completely supresses IR. IIRC so did the D60 I had before it. My son's Nikon D70 is about on par with the M9. And the M9 is in the top 1% of price for 24x36-frame digital cameras. Again, there are trade-offs with the other brands, and unique qualities the M9 possesses that others do not.
Unfortunately, red-edge is a problem on my most-used Leica wide, the 21mm Elmarit (non-ASPH). It's also a major problem with the several Voitlander wides I own, but I don't think it's reasonable to be upset with Leica for not footing the bill to research firmware corrections for other brands of lenses. I'll be happy if they just fix red-edge for the Elmarit, and do it before the M9 reaches the end of its product life.
Easily maybe, but from my experience neither quickly, nor necessarily done right the first time. You've got a distinct advantage with your proximity to the factory. Sitting here 1000 miles from Allendale's slow and inconsistent repair department, I get hives over the thought of a warranty adjustment no matter how simple it may be. Heart in mouth, I adjusted it myself, and thankfully, all went well.
jarski
Mentor
better sensor, and original M body dimensions would be my preferences for M10. still voted Yes for IS too