p.40 #1 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
kosmoskatten wrote:
The M9 was a weird experience for me, neither fish nor flesh. Build quality is nice, handling is quite poor - a mechanically sound camera with crippling electronics and rather poor battery life. Even for a camera that is supposed to be a bit lacking in menu options it felt frugal.
I love rangefinders but much as I tried I didn't feel the love. I liked the output of the camera for sure but felt let down as a whole.
The M10 would have to be much improved to impress me.
Rattymouse: how can "lots of reports of improvement" on a product yet to be released be anything but rumors, hearsay and/or wishful thinking?
I bet the same was said going from M8 to M9. ...Show more →
Well, I think most think that the M9 is much better than the M8 so serious improvements did end up happening.
p.40 #4 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
edwardkaraa wrote:
Well it was exactly after my discussion with Kosmoskatten that I changed my mind about buying the M9.
The weaknesses are very well documented, especially on LL and Diglloyd, but to sum them up:
- Low quality LCD.
- Small buffer and slow processor.
- Problems with many memory cards.
- Sensor noise above ISO 800 useless for anything but b&w
- RF problems, not as good as in film cameras. Frequent misalignment.
- Sensor not fully optimized for RF glass. Software fix still obligatory.
- Sensor cover breaking.
I'm sure I forgot a couple of points
In fact, I would prefer to avoid Leica altogether if another manufacturer introduces a mirrorless FF, and I would prefer to avoid rangefinders and their problems and extra cost so if Leica introduces a non RF version I would much prefer that....Show more →
That puts me off one as well... But beyond Leica, I'm not sure who else will really step up and give us something small, full frame... Interchangeable... I guess Ricoh is a possibility with their current system, but anything else would have to come 'from nowhere'.
Zeiss Ikon, Cosina, no suggestions from them. I guess it's M10 or nothing!
p.40 #5 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
edwardkaraa wrote:
Well it was exactly after my discussion with Kosmoskatten that I changed my mind about buying the M9.
The weaknesses are very well documented, especially on LL and Diglloyd, but to sum them up:
- Low quality LCD.
- Small buffer and slow processor.
- Problems with many memory cards.
- Sensor noise above ISO 800 useless for anything but b&w
- RF problems, not as good as in film cameras. Frequent misalignment.
- Sensor not fully optimized for RF glass. Software fix still obligatory.
- Sensor cover breaking.
I'm sure I forgot a couple of points
In fact, I would prefer to avoid Leica altogether if another manufacturer introduces a mirrorless FF, and I would prefer to avoid rangefinders and their problems and extra cost so if Leica introduces a non RF version I would much prefer that....Show more →
Edward,
I'm not willing to convince u to reconsider a M9, but the points u give not to buy an M9 really aren't that important I think.
- Low quality LCD.
the screen is more than capable enough for it tasks. selecting white balance, ISO ect. View pictures to check the light/ composition. Sure its hard to check 100% focus on it, but thats not needed with a good calibrated rangefinder.
- Problems with many memory cards.
Not really an issue. Its solved with a updated firmware. And off course it was an issue with a couple of cards. Most of the cards just work more than fine even with the old firmware. Just don't buy that one type of card and your ready to go.
- Sensor noise above ISO 800 useless for anything but b&w
Noise isn't in nikon territory indeed. But don't forget the M9 doesn't do any of the in camera noise reduction. Shooting RAW and convert in a good raw converting program like C1 or LR works fine and gives good results I think.
- RF problems, not as good as in film cameras. Frequent misalignment.
In all those years I use M camera's I only had one camera misalignment, and that was because I had a zeiss ZM lens coded and the guy doing that screwed up my lens, and tried to align the camera to that.
My m9 never had any problems. Even an 15 year old lens I bought from the internet works spot on right away.
- Sensor not fully optimized for RF glass. Software fix still obligatory.
? Even my 18mm SE, or the 16mm WATE works perfectly. Sure a uncoded lens can give problems, but whats the problem if u can code it, or select the right profile in the menu?
- Sensor cover breaking.
Is like saying I won't use a car, because it might get a flat tire. Sad if it happens, but leica fixes it, and the change u have it is really small.
Change u drop the camera on a hard floor is bigger.
If u really want a M9, take ur change and borrow one to find out if its ur cup of tea. Don't read someones colored opinion they trow up the Internet and let that decide for u.
The M series is different from many other camera's and therefor not everybody's cup of tea. Many don't realize that before they buy one seeing it as a small mirror less camera. That they don't like it is clear, but doesn't mean the M9 is a bad camera. Its just not for them.
p.40 #6 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
Bijltje, thank you for your comments. I think it's a matter of seeing the glass half full or half empty. But anyhow, in exactly 3 days, the new improved Leica M will be announced and we will see how good a job they have done. I really hope it's as good as the rumors say.
p.40 #7 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
edwardkaraa wrote:
Bijltje, thank you for your comments. I think it's a matter of seeing the glass half full or half empty. But anyhow, in exactly 3 days, the new improved Leica M will be announced and we will see how good a job they have done. I really hope it's as good as the rumors say.
Indeed it is. I know how much fun I have with my M8/M9 so hope to see more people looking at a half full glass
Also curious how the M10 will be. Am afraid however its gonna have such a high price, its making the M9/ M9P a bargain.
Maybe in 3 or 4 years
p.40 #9 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
Tariq Gibran wrote:
If the M10 ends up using a Sony sensor, it would seem this will remain the same given the design of the lens used on the Sony RX1.
Offset micro lenses and thin sensor cover without AA filter are not standardized and are built to the specs provided by the client. I hope Leica or the sensor supplier have been able to improve the sensor performance vs the M9. If the GXR is taken as an example (Sony sensor as well) the performance is truly impressive.
p.40 #10 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
edwardkaraa wrote:
Offset micro lenses and thin sensor cover without AA filter are not standardized and are built to the specs provided by the client. I hope Leica or the sensor supplier have been able to improve the sensor performance vs the M9. If the GXR is taken as an example (Sony sensor as well) the performance is truly impressive.
I would think Sony would have taken as much advantage of the engineering of the micro lenses (offset) and sensor cover to relax any expensive fixed lens design as possible. Even with offset micro lenses (which is comonly used today) and thin cover glass, other methods are required to fix the issue with rangefinder wides and the acute angles they present to the sensor. GXR is of course APS so the angle is inherently less than FF.
p.40 #11 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
Tariq Gibran wrote:
I would think Sony would have taken as much advantage of the engineering of the micro lenses (offset) and sensor cover to relax any expensive fixed lens design as possible. Even with offset micro lenses (which is comonly used today) and thin cover glass, other methods are required to fix the issue with rangefinder wides and the acute angles they present to the sensor. GXR is of course APS so the angle is inherently less than FF.
Well, absolutely! If you see how the rear of that Sonnar 35/2 sits so near to the FF sensor, I would think Sony has already solved this dilemma, or is heavily relying on software corrections. We don't know if the M10 is using a Sony sensor though (what else could it be though).
p.40 #12 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
edwardkaraa wrote:
Well, absolutely! If you see how the rear of that Sonnar 35/2 sits so near to the FF sensor, I would think Sony has already solved this dilemma, or is heavily relying on software corrections. We don't know if the M10 is using a Sony sensor though (what else could it be though).
Yes, Sony solved the issue of the sensor by designing a huge rear eleement and placing it very close to the sensor. That must have been the only way they could have done it (vs changes to the sensor toppings and so on). which is why I suspect the same issues would be there with the M10 that are there with the M9 (if a Sony sensor is used). Obviously, Sony's solution with the RX1 is not there with existing M wide lenses if you see my point. This also does not bode so well for a FF NEX like Sony anytime soon - a point Douglas made.
p.40 #13 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
Tariq Gibran wrote:
Yes, Sony solved the issue of the sensor by designing a huge rear eleement and placing it very close to the sensor. That must have been the only way they could have done it (vs changes to the sensor toppings and so on). which is why I suspect the same issues would be there with the M10 that are there with the M9 (if a Sony sensor is used). Obviously, Sony's solution with the RX1 is not there with existing M wide lenses if you see my point. This also does not bode so well for a FF NEX like Sony anytime soon - a point Douglas made. ...Show more →
I agree with that, but somehow I still hope some kind of technological advances in sensor manufacturing have improved the situation, even if only incrementally. I am waiting to see samples taken with the RX1. Maybe the corners aren't as good as we expect them to be.
p.40 #14 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
It seems to me very likely that the solution, as and when it comes, to light rays hitting sensors at wide angles, will be from composite increments rather than one clear step forward. Thus whatever lens design Sony and Zeiss used in this case does not presume of what method Sony used -or not- to help the sensor overcome the issue. Considering that Steve Huff is Playimg with one as I write, I am not losing sleep speculating whether I should feel hopeful or despondent...
p.40 #16 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
rattymouse wrote:
M10's rumored price is $9,000, right?
The rumor isn't based on anything really, just a guess judging from Leica's tendency to increase the price with every new model. However, judging from the huge discounts on the M9 (down to 6000$ currently) I would think the coming model is similarly priced.
p.40 #18 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
rattymouse wrote:
Well, I think most think that the M9 is much better than the M8 so serious improvements did end up happening.
Well, you have to admit that it is not exactly raising the bar, no matter how you look at it. Going from an expensive crop camera, very slow user interface, a sensor that does not work well with their own lenses forcing them to produce expensive and proprietary color correction filters as a mere stop gap solution. I don't think raising a bar that is lying on the ground, halfway buried is a serious improvement.
What I am saying is that obsolete is obsolete, even when you dress it up in a nice package.
I do think the M10 will be a lot better - it simply has to be.
p.40 #19 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
rattymouse wrote:
Half the people that want full frame don't want to pay for it. Very weird.
I'll pay for it. I'm not super hot on the idea of using a RF body, and definitely not the RX1 for what it lacks.
When the body with the right combination of features comes along I'll get my wallet out. Doesn't make sense to throw that kind of money at a camera just because it has a FF sensor.
