A year ago there was this rumor on leicarumors
Does anyone in the meantime have any more info on this?
A year ago there was this rumor on leicarumors
Does anyone in the meantime have any more info on this?
Unfortunately no news about that ...
Wonder if this is (was) close to reality, rather I guess it is not
I'll kill this rumor myself. I made an inquiry with Zeiss rumors, thinking that maybe the rumor was about a zeiss ikon. No such luck. This is their answer:
Thank you very much for writing us. We were following very closely to that rumor when it was stirring around the RF community. Unfortunately, as it turns out Jeff Ascough was lying. It was either because he wanted to express our wish or wanted to attract traffic to his blog, his act certainly turned image downward in the RF community.
We will be very happy to have you write us again at anytime.
Oh well, at least we know now.
There were other rumors, like this, too:
Steve Huff recently made several pictures with NEX and M9:
SEAL wrote interesting comment during discussion NEX vs M9:
"All I can say is that if you already have an M9 you will also see what I mean if you decided to delve into getting an NEX. My advice to you would be to sit tight with your M and be patient. There are some very exciting things to come from our friends in Sölms which are going to shut a lot of the neigh-sayers up once and for all. I cannot divulge more than that but lets just say that Leica are more way ahead and progressively minded than most people are giving them credit for recently. The future holds great promise."
but who wants an AF RF? I love RF because there is no AF system in them and that's the reason why RF is fun to use
Selection of work: http://weinschela.zenfolio.com
there is one function a must in next RFs - LV\EVF plus touch LCD!
It would solve DRAMATICALLY most of current ISSUES and WEAKNESSES!!!
For typical RF focals and situation - we can use RF focusing, no doubts!
For wide angles, long focals, close focusing distance, wide apertures at close distance, in case of need to take away paralaxa, in case of weaker eyes, in case of shallow DOF not in center - we can use MAGNIFIED view of ANY part of the frame!
Focus shift - forget about it.
Miscalibrated RF or lens - foregt about it.
I used Panasonic G2 with manual lenses. That is a pleasure! You frame first, then touch screen in point where you want to focus, it magnifies automatically, you focus, you press shutter!
SIMPLE and QUICK.
There is one more, that could be improved - the magnification should NOT take full frame, but part of it, showing whole frame and borders at the same time. Maybe something similar to iPhone - part of screen is being magnified in EVF - exactly where your finger touches LCD. You move finger - magnification moves too.
Today I use from time to time NEX. It is a PAIN to move focusing point within the frame with buttons, instead of toch LCD and EVF.
This would open many applications to RF cameras - without taking away their biggest strenths!
Why? Magnification is simply so useful, exact, that ANY confirmation is useless, less precise.
Confirmation is only used in dSLRs, not in EVILs - because you do not have fully precise LV.
In EVILs - it is simply not needed.
It seems - not only me - is mentioning EVF\LV need for future M
Jerry, despite using two M9s, I also have a NEX5 with a M adapter, (and I've owned/used a Sony A55 coupled with some Zeiss optics like the 24/2 ... I sold the A55). I know exactly how they work, and have used them for some travel and a few less critical shots for paying work.
I've been following the developments in EVF/LV with interest and cash, and will continue to do so. I also read Thom Hogan's article among others.
The real question is: to continue growing, should Leica expand the appeal of a M rangefinder by making it more like something else? Or do they perfect the rangefinder way of seeing, and reach out to better promote that creative option to more serious enthusiasts and professionals who may not quite grasp the difference a rangefinder can make in their photography?
One of the less understood/discussed but key creative attributes of a rangefinder is the very nature of how the photographer relates to world around them. It is an alternative view unfettered by what the images will look like, while forcing the mind on what the image is about. An undistracted relationship to image content has always been one of the underlying strengths of rangefinder photography, right from the very beginning through today.
So, while I appreciate the novelty of using my NEX, and have gotten quite good at using it with M lenses, I do not like the technological distractions nor care what effect any given lens may have in situations where I use a rangefinder (which are many) ... and the collective effect they have on the content of that rangefinder type work. The M9 is simply more of a straight line relationship to the world around me.
As a so called side benefit of RVF/LV, making the M a camera that can be used for landscape work or sports, will make it less of what it is now, and it for sure it will play a pale second fiddle to cameras better suited to landscape and sports.
IMO, advancing M technology should be disciplined by the rangefinder way of seeing ... will it enhance that experience or distract from it?
For example, the frame lines introduced in the Leica M9 Titanium could be seen as enhancing the rangefinder experience without altering the nature of rangefinder photography. If technology could be further used to somehow couple those finder lines with the rangefinder patch to indicate that critical focus has been achieved, then that would be technology well disciplined IMO.
I think the role models for this sort of use of disciplined advancing technology can be found in the world of Medium Format Digital. Hasselblad solved the issue of off-center auto focusing with their elegant True-Focus innovation, and Phase one has solved the critical focus issue when doing studied works with their new LCD and focus masking. Both remained true to the underlying nature of MFD type photography while doing it.
Leica could continue Mx as it is, and release FF EVIL as separate line.
If it happens - who knows...
Even if tomorrow Sony would release FF EVIL - it would not address all needs of "M" lenses users - as wide angles (<40mm or even <50mm) without microlenses - would be mediocre.
However, the M must broaden its appeal to survive long term in the digital age. One way to do that is to offer a product more resistant to the obsolescence seemingly inherent with digital photography. At what point does the megapixel count began subverting the purpose of a nimble, hand-held rangefinder? If focus was easier to achieve, the ISO performance improved by at least a stop, the camera more weather proof, the finish more durable ... a more professional grade camera over-all ... and the benefits of the rangefinder way made clearer, and how to do it made more accessible ... I believe Leica would find new sources of buyers willing to pay the premium for a more lasting solution to access the benefits of the M glass.
True, Leica need way more demand for their M cameras and lenses.....
...obviously we're the ones to tell them their current plan isn't working...
What about focusing the M do you find difficult Marc? Tele's? My 75 cron and my old 90 elmarit are both easy to focus, I must admit AF is quicker for "spray & pray" style shooting but that isn't really the forte of the rangefinder. Do you want some kind of focus confirm? That would require a live sensor ie. CMOS and thus not possible with current technologies and non-retrofocus wide-angles.
I agree they can give me more pixels, better high ISO (although I have no problems with the current performance) as long as it isn't at the expense of low-ISO. I also wouldn't object to weather sealing (although snow/rain/dust haven't proven a problem AT ALL on the M9) however it would add another part that would wear/need replacing. But a lot of people's pipedreams for the M system are just impractical/impossible.
As for forced obsolescence, the more nifty electronic features, the quicker it will be made obsolete or at least appear so. As it is, with the digital functionality essentially 'tacked on' to the old film M style and usage, removes them from the competing for bells & whistles market - at least to some degree.
Everyone needs to be clear, current CMOS technologies are UNSUITABLE for short flange to focal plane wide angles. And CMOS is required for full-frame live-view. A technological breakthrough in sensors (full-frame backlit CMOS) will come before any cameras, so constantly requesting (badgering?) that Leica put it in the next camera when we have no idea when said technology will be available is very annoying.
I even question the "give me more pixels" part. Some maybe, but my question is how much more before it gets impractical for handheld rangefinder work, and makes it harder to improve the high ISO performance? I doubt any user would argue with a cleaner 1250/2500 with less loss of DR and color fidelity ... but frankly, I don't use 160 very much myself except in brighter light with wide apertures ... the M tends to be a lower light machine to me, always has been. I don't even like the look of the current files at 160, and I'm not alone in that opinion.
I do not want focus confirmation unless it is a new technology that somehow uses the existing rangefinder patch (I already know CMOS isn't possible with current sensor technology). I mention this because it would help in certain conditions with certain lenses, not because I have difficulty focusing a M ... I've been continuously using one for over 30 years ... and currently use M9s with a Noctilux 0.95 and 75/1.4 which, trust me, are harder to nail than a 75 cron and 90 elmarit ... but I do okay using mags ... however, it would be nice not to have to use mags. More importantly, I believe some form of focus assist would broaden the appeal to potential new users, and keep some of the current users from abandoning the M out of frustration. If it is technologically not possible right now, so be it.
Returning to black/silver chrome would add to the sense of durability, utilize the frame lines from the M9 Titanium, including a higher resolution LCD could help with occasional focus checks, improved low light performance and maybe a bit more resolution, some weather sealing shouldn't be all that difficult, and a longer, more confident warranty would all add up to improving the Ms performance as a rangefinder, decrease the perception of digital obsolescence, and enhance its professional grade perception in the marketplace IMO.
The m9 s are my go to system ..20k images year mostly street. Agree with Marc on the evolution of the product line. Better Iso performance...they are close but the loss of DR and color fidelity is noticeable even if noise is correctible . Focus confirmation would help especially in low light situations with the fast glass...not sure this is possible using today s technology. Weather sealing for sure. An all day battery would be nice.
Surprised about the comment about Iso 160 as I struggle with getting the most DR possible ..Florida light . I went to 160 for everything on the m8 and have stuck with it. What am I missing.
I only move up when I get below f2.8 and 1/250. Florida is bright easy to shoot f5.6 until dusk.
My biggest wish is to stabilize some of this digital gear and get off the bank busting upgrade cycle. The M10 would have to offer considerable benefits over the M9 to spend the money. I feel my gear box is well balanced right now with the M9 rangefinder, S2P for mobile DSLR type work (in concert with a Sony A900 back-up), and the H4D/60 for commercial assignments requiring specialized applications like view camera work, fabric shoots, or very large files. My hope would be that better ISO performance would be a firmware upgrade for the M9s ...like Hasselblad did for their existing backs.
I would chalk it up to the difference in light intensity. (ISO preference). Florida is often strong light,strong color etc and you need to watch the DR . Not at all unusual to blow highlights and block shadows even at ISO 160. I even shoot with the 28 and 50 summicrons because they are lower in overall contrast than the summiluxes (24/35/50 ) .
In flat light ..the summiluxes shine and I don t need as much DR and up to 640 looks great. So for northern cities like NYC its mosts summiluxes and 320.
But at night ....you often have bright points of light and deep shadows ..here I need near ISO 1600 without losing 25% of the DR. Christmas is a good example .
You can see the differences if you go thru the DxO mark charts and use the see the result feature at the right side of the chart . Nice example of a Bally s sign I believe.
You can also see how the different sensor/cameras are tuned .. Look at the X100...the sensor peaks at ISO800 ..keep increasing the ISO on the camera and you get 800 anyway. M9 at 1250 is the same as a Nikon at 1600....same sensitivity ..
So easy answer
ISO 3200 NOISE FREE!
Electronic frame lines
Large 3'' LCD with > 900k
Image Stabilisation built in
Leica to launch a new compact mirrorless system camera at Photokina 2012
I still hope it will be FF. Otherwise, at that time we will have plenty of APS-C ones from Sony, Samsung, Ricoh, maybe others...
At least two of them accepting easily M lenses.
PS: focusing manual M lenses on NEX became real fun when they added color peaking with recent firmware!
Sometimes, especially when you want to focus not in center of the frame - it may be better than rangefinder mechanism.
Focusing became much more quicker.
Plus EVF - better, with more resoilution than one in GH2 - expected in NEX-7 - what can Leica make better in APS-C world?
The only thing that comes to my mind are microlenses. But what is benefit of them on APS-C if wide angle won't be wide anyway, especially fast...
Quicker and more accurate is using quick profile in C1 or CornerFix...
For me - it makes a lot of sense, but so far - only in FF world.
Focusing is situation specific to me.
There are times when a manual rangefinder mechanism seems best, when its accuracy and the available light and contrast make it easy to see coincident image doubling. There are other times when TTL viewing through an optical viewfinder gives the best focusing, when being able to see the focus point anywhere on the screen at all times is important. There are times when TTL viewing via an electronic viewing device works more effectively than anything else because the viewing device can ramp brightness and magnification to suit the need. There are times when various kinds of in-focus indication with TTL systems works well ... confirmation lamps, peaking edges, etc. There are times when auto-focus does the job brilliantly, with speed and focus tracking, etc.
And there are times when all I want is to just set a precise distance and focus zone on the lens using the focusing ring and aperture control, and have a clear, empty view of the subject to aid in framing.
No one camera does all of these things, and those that do a combination are compromised in various ways depending on the implementation. So ...
- I have an SLR with manual and auto focus for when an SLR does the best job.
- I have a camera that implements TTL EVF/LCD or simple optical viewfinder, with convenient manual and auto focus, for when those are the best options. Soon it will have the option of taking manual focus lenses with clearly marked focus and aperture scales, and DOF markings.
- I don't have a rangefinder camera at present. I don't know of any rangefinders that implement auto-focus, or focus peaking, or focus confirmation, nor do I know how they would implement those things without a serious compromise of the rangefinder's basic values. But if one shows up, I'm happy to take a look at it ...
Godfrey - GDGPhoto Flickr Stream
I guess they'll probably make better lenses than the Panny's and Sony's of this world. These lenses won't be cheap though, and I'd be very much surprised if Leica's camera electronics would better their µ4:3 or NEX APS-brethren.