Tariq Gibran:
up to ISO 400 (or may be even 800) M9 images look better than FF Canon, Nikon and Sony. At ISO 1600, it gets much worse for Leica.
.. That is about how I see it.
The sensor is supposedly a custom sensor designed for Leica by Kodak. The IQ has more in common to Medium format digital, by design, than anything else.
The pictures will have outstanding and 35 class leading per pixel sharpness. Anyone know how I can get rich in a hurry?
The sensor is supposedly a custom sensor designed for Leica by Kodak. The IQ has more in common to Medium format digital, by design, than anything else.
The pictures will have outstanding and 35 class leading per pixel sharpness. Anyone know how I can get rich in a hurry?
Real Estate. I hear the market is booming, particularly here in FLA.
Yes, the sensor is a scaled up version of the one used in the M8 which is a MF design by Kodak. This time around, Leica is using a thicker IR cover filter, exactly what they claimed would reduce image quality the first time around. I know it is a better/different IR filter material but I"m curious to see how it fares.
Maybe we will see better samples and it is great that Leica could make it FF and without the IR filters, still the files seem to be compromised by the on sensor processing or something, I can not see much of an improvement over the M8 files in sharpness and file quality.
The price seems to be fine for an item in that range.
Not sure if it applies to all CCDs, but the CCD in my old 1D dished out some of the best greens and reds I've ever seen, compared to all other Canon dSLRs (which all use CMOS).
I think, in general, many consider CCDs to provide better (more accurate?) colour response.
cogitech wrote:
Not sure if it applies to all CCDs, but the CCD in my old 1D dished out some of the best greens and reds I've ever seen, compared to all other Canon dSLRs (which all use CMOS).
I think, in general, many consider CCDs to provide better (more accurate?) colour response.
Slightly agree.
I'm probably gonna end up selling all my dslr stuff to get one. Or I could wait for the M10 and nab the M9 for relatively "cheap".
The sample images look nice.
Now lets put Canon's better L primes on a rebel, take images in the same places, mix 'em up, and see who can match to the camera
The images are clearly taken with good glass. But Leica digital value is provided by the imagination.
dcmiller wrote:
The sample images look nice.
Now lets put Canon's better L primes on a rebel, take images in the same places, mix 'em up, and see who can match to the camera
The images are clearly taken with good glass. But Leica digital value is provided by the imagination.
I agree the images are nice, but I found the CA in the church chandelier shot a little surprising.
How many full-frame digital rangefinders are being manufactured?
That's why Leica can set the price as they see fit. Rangefinder shooting has an extremely loyal and dedicated following, one that gets underserved by the DSLR and P&S manufacturers. Leica continues to serve them. As for the camera being underspeced in comparison to other modern digital cameras, Leica seems to be more about refinement than advancement when it comes to the M series, and it doesn't seem to displease their base.
Great to see some decent detail coming out of an M!! This looks like the camera the M8 should have been. But no liveview, video, etcetera. The game is over for me now. I have been using 21 Mpixel and iso 12800 for almost 2 years, and full-frame for 4 years. Sadly the M9 is still uncompetitive, but bravo Leica for finally doing it right, regardless of the cost.
We won't know if they did it right until enough people are using them in the field and not reporting any problems. But I have already seen a M9 owner's shots with bad pixel lines across the sensor at all ISO's which looks like a quality control issue. Too early to tell if this is a common issue but it also sounds like this pixel line issue has surfaced in the past with the M8 according to one M8 owner.
I also want to see some high detail test shots with crops to see how good the IQ is in the corners.
I played with Leica M9 today at the dealer. Nice camera, seems built well. But I feel it is an amateur camera - it has no weather sealing, so you have to baby it. On mechanical stuff Leica was legendary. But on electronics, how did M8 hold out? Did anyone take it to high altitudes or humid tropical rain forests? Just wondering...
As for the cost - I understand that the price of highly skilled, unionized labor is high. So you can't compare camera made by slaves in countries like China to one made by well paid individuals in Germany. What's next - cameras made in Angola because labor costs are too high in China? I think not. Leica has always been a premium product, and they want it to stay that way. If Canon or Nikon cameras are "good enough", then don't even look at the Red Dot. Because you'll be sorry when you find out that the Red Dot does make a better system. It is all about the glass, and Leica has it. Now I just have to catch up with my income and join the Leica Club.
agnius wrote:
I played with Leica M9 today at the dealer. Nice camera, seems built well. But I feel it is an amateur camera - it has no weather sealing, so you have to baby it. On mechanical stuff Leica was legendary. But on electronics, how did M8 hold out? Did anyone take it to high altitudes or humid tropical rain forests? Just wondering...
As for the cost - I understand that the price of highly skilled, unionized labor is high. So you can't compare camera made by slaves in countries like China to one made by well paid individuals in Germany. What's next - cameras made in Angola because labor costs are too high in China? I think not. Leica has always been a premium product, and they want it to stay that way. If Canon or Nikon cameras are "good enough", then don't even look at the Red Dot. Because you'll be sorry when you find out that the Red Dot does make a better system. It is all about the glass, and Leica has it. Now I just have to catch up with my income and join the Leica Club. ...Show more →
Of course your likely to read more about failures than successes in the forums but I have read more than once of M8's going down when encountering the sort of moisture that does not even make a non sealed DSLR flinch. Hopefully Leica did make some changes regarding weather resistance but strange they would not mention it if they did.
Grmph... I really like this, and the X1 too. Bravo to Leica, at least now we have a FF DRF and a what seems to be a low light compact camera to speak of. However, the reason I never bought a Leica and probably never will is that Leica does the following:
A) It makes a product with the specs that I like (not necessarily need mind you);
B) It adds absolute craftmanship, mechanical accuracy and top quality materials to it; and
C) Because of B it consequently charges a *very* hefty premium.
My problem is that B) is as relevant to me as something like leather trimmings on a computer keyboard, which makes it impossible to explain C) to myself.
To put it in a nutshel, what I really wanted is the Voigtlander version of this.
The Leica glass certainly shines....very sharp. ISO 1600 though is no better (and likely a bit worse) than my E-P1. That's really not acceptable in this day and age for a camera costing this much. Noise looks pretty close to my 10D. My 1Ds II looks to have a significant noise edge.
That is about what I would expect though.