Wait, let\'s separate the ones I listed from the ones you list. The things I am interested in:
- High-res screen
- Fast processing
- Quiet shutter
On top of that:
- Higher resolution sensor (18MP is enough for me; I would buy an 18-24MP D800 if one existed)
- More accurate RF (Really? Confirmed or marketing? User adjustable?)
- 2m frames (the M8.2 already had this. The M9 was a regression.)
- Illuminated frames (Schnick-schnack. If you can\'t see the frame lines, there is no light.)
- No card issues (Confirmed? I never had problems with my cards.)
- No cracked sensors (Confirmed? I never had a cracked sensor.)
- Higher framerate (For those M sports photographers or run-and-gun millionaire PJs.)
- Larger buffer (\")
- 3 metering modes (I use A for everything I do, sometimes with Auto-ISO.)
- Scratch resistant LCD glass (Was there on M8.2, M9 was a glitch.)
- Better high ISO. <= First point I missed that I care about. True.
- Live View (Listed separately, since this is the source of the current controversy.)
- Magnified view (What is this item, listed separately from live view?)
If the M9-P had been released as the follow-up to the M8, I might have upgraded. The M9 was a budget-M with its paint-only finish and a slew of old hardware. The M is the first real step forward since the M8, IMO, and it doesn\'t hit enough points for me. The price is also nuts. I sold all my M stuff last year and I have never looked back. Maybe one day something will happen to make me change my mind, but I don\'t see anything on the radar.
Feb 25, 2013 at 10:03 AM
Previous versions of carstenw's message #11373605 « M240 Full Res Samples »
