Leica M9 schedule for September 2009 ?

[Guy Mancuso]

Okay I am going out on a limb here because i mentioned this to Leica 2 years ago and maybe just maybe they did it on the M9 and it was actually drawn out on a napkin in a German pub. Nothing added here :ROTFL::ROTFL::ROTFL:

Okay electronic frame lines. Take out those stupid mechanical frame lines and when you put a coded lens on it reads the focal length and the processor projects the exact 100 percent accuracy frame lines for that lens on the body. Now my added twist. Once you have that and say you put a 75mm lens on which today is a small rectangle on the M8 again the processor and on board computer reads the code decides it is a 75mm and magnifies the frame lines to almost the full frame of the finder and any lens you put on there it does the same thing . So you always will have the image in almost all of the finder regardless of focal length. Yes folks this is the magic part. I know I am nuts but hear me out what are the two biggest complaints about the M8. i will tell you focusing and viewing that small frame lines. If you had exact electronic frame lines at 100 percent of coverage than had the image almost to full magnification in the finder you can see for one and you can focus easier for two. Now put that in the crystal ball.

I know genius come to mind but hold the applause please. :ROTFL::ROTFL::ROTFL:

Oh than add Jacks focus confirmation and you have maybe the best 35mm camera on the market. Eat that Nikon, Canon and Sony

Okay that was my silly moment of the day

 

[stevem8]

I (strongly) believe the M9 will:

1) Be full frame 24x36 and

2) Not need additional IR cut filters and

3) Be in the M8 form factor body and

4) Probably use the same battery as the M8 and

5) Get ready for this -- have electronic focus confirmation!

,

jack knows his stuff

 

[Guy Mancuso]

LOL that is why he is my business partner. I maybe dumb but I ain't stupid. LOL

 

[LJL]

Okay I am going out on a limb here because i mentioned this to Leica 2 years ago and maybe just maybe they did it on the M9 and it was actually drawn out on a napkin in a German pub. Nothing added here :ROTFL::ROTFL::ROTFL:

Okay electronic frame lines. Take out those stupid mechanical frame lines and when you put a coded lens on it reads the focal length and the processor projects the exact 100 percent accuracy frame lines for that lens on the body. Now my added twist. Once you have that and say you put a 75mm lens on which today is a small rectangle on the M8 again the processor and on board computer reads the code decides it is a 75mm and magnifies the frame lines to almost the full frame of the finder and any lens you put on there it does the same thing . So you always will have the image in almost all of the finder regardless of focal length. Yes folks this is the magic part. I know I am nuts but hear me out what are the two biggest complaints about the M8. i will tell you focusing and viewing that small frame lines. If you had exact electronic frame lines at 100 percent of coverage than had the image almost to full magnification in the finder you can see for one and you can focus easier for two. Now put that in the crystal ball.

I know genius come to mind but hold the applause please. :ROTFL::ROTFL::ROTFL:

Oh than add Jacks focus confirmation and you have maybe the best 35mm camera on the market. Eat that Nikon, Canon and Sony

Okay that was my silly moment of the day

Guy,
I think the idea of electronic frame lines projected into the viewfinder for the specific lens could work. However, not so sure about the magnification of things to fill the framelines. That would seem to require some sort of either mechanical/aux lens with the viewfinder assembly, or an electronic viewfinder/live view sort of arrangement. The first part would not work, but the second part would if the sensor was "hot" to view things. If that was the case, then you would not need some other form of focus confirmation, nor would framelines even matter, as you would be working off of the LCD, like most P&S cameras do now.

Not tossing water on the idea, but it does seem difficult to do....the magnification of image area to fill the electronic framelines. Maybe I need a few martinis or something, but I am not following the concept at this point without going to a lot of mechanical work in a very crowded space, or without going live view. I just do not see the viewfinder of the M changing all that much, or it will essentially no longer be a "rangefinder" camera. Electronic framelines that are accurate would work fine. Focus confirmation is going to be tricky, but I guess there could be contrast sensors placed on the rengefinder ends that when overlapped perfectly signal a LED in the viewfinder that things are in focus. That seems doable.

LJ

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Gotta believe in magic and fairy dust bud. LOL

 

[doug]

The electronic frame lines still would not be 100% accurate. They can be 100% accurate (or darned close to it) at the focussed distance but as long as it's a non-TTL viewfinder there will always be some error on either side of the plane of focus.

 

[johnastovall]

Even with an M9 I would keep my M8. Multiple cameras as backup is not a big thing to deal with.

If the M9 requires lens coding and that is the only way to get framelines, it becomes a no-go. All my classic lenses going back to 1938 go out the window along with the Zeiss and Canon ones. I guess I would buy an 8.2 and wish Leica well in it's brave new world.

 

[Stuart Richardson]

I could almost guarantee they would not do that. It would be suicide. If there were electronic framelines, I am sure you would be able to select a focal length (even if they only give you the option of the standard 28, 35, 50, 75, 90, 135). Anything else would be inconceivable, and they know it. This is not like lens coding not being selectable in the firmware (which they argued had to be individually tuned for each Leica lens), this would make a lens completely unusable if it were not coded. I can't see Leica doing that.

 

[cmb_]

Not everyone would like the magnification, some like to see what is outside the frame - anticipating the action to move into the frame at the right moment or to adjust framing to catch the action. May also depend on if one shoots with both eyes open or one open, one closed.

 

[Ranger 9]

I'm with LJL on the frameline issue. Electronic framelines, using an LCD instead of that tiny, delicate-to-make metal finder mask (assuming LCDs have enough contrast now) would make a lot of sense -- more versatile and less expensive to manufacture. Taking this step would eliminate not only the metal mask itself, but the frameline-selecting mechanism, the linkage that moves the mask for parallax compensation, and all the adjustments needed for those two subassemblies. It also would finally put an end to the complaints that some of the framelines are too "sketchy" or interrupted (necessary because of the metal that holds the mask together between the slots.)

But varying the magnification would require a completely new optical subsystem, basically a real-image finder with a zoom lens. Contax gave this a heck of a good try on the G1 and G2, but still encountered a lot of complaints about finder brightness (or lack of it) and small image size.

The optical RF/VF assembly is arguably the crown jewel of the M Leica, and I think they'd be reluctant to throw that baby out with the bathwater.

But... the existing RF/VF optics and electronic LCD framelines plus a digitally coupled rangefinder mechanism using a fine-pitch stepper to replace a lot of tiny cams and levers... now there you'd have a interesting proposition, keeping the look and precision of the Leica RF while eliminating a lot of manufacturing cost and adjustment complexity. I'm sure Leica would be too conservative to do something like that, though...

 

[nostatic]

So is Leica just way better at keeping secrets than other companies, or is this just a bunch of wishful thinking? Or maybe something will be announced on 9/9/09 to be shipped some time before 2012 (ie end of the world)? I find it hard to believe that a company could keep something like this under wraps so late into development.

 

[Riccis]

I (strongly) believe the M9 will:

1) Be full frame 24x36 and

2) Not need additional IR cut filters and

3) Be in the M8 form factor body and

4) Probably use the same battery as the M8 and

5) Get ready for this -- have electronic focus confirmation!

,

jack knows his stuff

Almost, almost... :deadhorse: <--- I've been wanting to use this one for a while

 

[Riccis]

So is Leica just way better at keeping secrets than other companies, or is this just a bunch of wishful thinking? Or maybe something will be announced on 9/9/09 to be shipped some time before 2012 (ie end of the world)? I find it hard to believe that a company could keep something like this under wraps so late into development.

It's wishful thinking... Did you guys know that in Germany they celebrate April's fools in September (I believe the correct day is September 9th)...

 

[donbga]

Leica needs a product that is bread and butter money. Need a constant seller that brings in lots of revenue at low costs to the consumers to maintain there advanced line of gear and keep the company cash flow going at all times. Just like their sport optics has kept the company afloat with a nice sales record. They need something on the camera side that does the same thing. 4/3rds or the 1k or less camera system is the ticket for them. The M9 and S2 are expensive items that will only enjoy sales to a limited number.

I sort of agree with Guy, I've often said if Canon or Nikon could make a real digital rangefinder, even with a 4/3 sensor that sells for less than 2k with a decent normal, wide angle (or 2 or 3) and a couple of longer portrait type lenses they would sell like hotcakes. I like having my eye attached to the rangefinder viewfinder and not holding the camera out at arms length trying to compose and\or focus with a s**ty little LCD.

Of course Zeiss made a stab at it with the new Ikon and I don't know how successful that camera was so maybe I'm barking up a tree, but I believe if Leica could do something similar having the Leica name plate affixed would make a difference - if priced smartly below the 2k price. No autofocus, no zooms, perhaps body IS and it need not be that small. Maybe a body sort of like a Canon G10 with a real viewfinder and inter-changeable fixed focal length lenses.

Just my opinion. I'll continue to have hope.

Don Bryant

 

[Paratom]

I was thinking to keep 1 M8 because of the crop factor, which I sometimes do like - (plus I had sold my 135mm lens)
Now if Leica wants to do us a favor they could just include a setting in the M9with UVIR- without UVIR) and include the cyan correction for those why use UVIR filters and want to keep them on their lenses.
Just a thought.

One other option would be to use certain lenses on the M8 (with filters) and others just on the M9.

The other question is if one would really use a backup M8 much if one owns a M9. Probably not really.

Here is a question for the M8/8.2 owners/M9 wanters.....let's imagine the M9 makes it to the streets in a month or so, or later; further, let's imagine it will be 36x24mm (full frame 35mm), or even as is suggested, 30x20mm (1.2x crop, which is not all that far from the present 1.3x crop of the M8/8.2 model); further, it will accept all the present M lenses, etc......what are folks thinking about with respect to getting the M9 yet keeping their M8/8.2 as a second or back-up camera? How are you thinking about the UV//IR filter issue? Plan on carrying a little folder of various UV/IR filters to swap on an off lenses whenever you switch bodies? How convenient is that going to be for many?

Sure, it is not much of an issue, as most M8/8.2 owners already have filters, so no added cost, but now it becomes more of the extra equipment to carry, not to mention what differences may exist in color profiles when going to process things later. None of this may be an issue, but I just started thinking about that aspect, and wonder what others thought. Would folks start to ditch their M8/8.2 bodies, or keep them and live with the ongoing UV/IR filter hassle? Yeah, almost all of us would prefer shooting without those pesky and expensive filters, so would many just stop shooting the M8/8.2 once they got the M9 that would not need those filters anymore? Use the M8/8.2 for B/W or IR shooting mostly? Dump the M8/8.2 and try to dump the filters also? (Leica sure cleaned up on selling those puppies to most of us, and now they would become a bit more obsolete for all but those keeping and using the M8/8.2 body. Feeling a bit more burned now? I am.)

LJ

 

[Paratom]

Thanks Woody I know you have been in this business and was not sure of the true output size of the wafer. Thanks for inputting that but I know you know what I was getting at with waste it could be cut up between the two sizes to save costs.

I much prefer the rangefinder because it is in the midle of the image and I can compose and focus at the same time.
I also have the feeling (from my Hy6 or my Nikon) that my eyes are more precise than a focus confirmation lamp.
So I really see no need for it - other if you wanted to be able to use non-M-lenses on the M9. Maybe R-lenses?

 

[Paratom]

Am I the only one who would like the M9 to be just like the M8, only without need for UVIR filter, with ff-sensor, a little better 1250 ISO, maybe include 80 ISO, quit shutter as the M8.2 but sync time as the M8, and the wish that the exposure time is shown in the viewfinder (just like in A-Mode) when you use manual exposure.
Maybe make it a little more weather resistant.
Please Leica dont overload this camera with additional electronic functions.
Please dont make it an all metal-G1 with red dot or anything like that.

 

[jaapv]

In a dSLR the light is routed to AF sensor via a sub-mirror, so how do we get the light to the AF sensor in a M9? And we know the CCD won't be turned on with contrast AF like a digicam due to heat build up. The idea sounds interesting, but technically it sounds quite challenging. I'd like to Build-To-Order options of .72 and/or .85 viewfinder magnification. I'd also like to see the diopter adjustment built into the M body. My eyes vary day by day, some days I need more diopter adjustment, other days less.

It could take focus confirmation off the current rangefinder mechanism. It would not be more accurate, but as the current RF mechanism is a magnitude more accurate than any AF system that would not be a problem. But it sure would rule out user error and eliminate a lot of "misfocussing" threads on LUF:grin:.

 

[fotografz]

It's wishful thinking... Did you guys know that in Germany they celebrate April's fools in September (I believe the correct day is September 9th)...

Then they are pulling the joke on a lot of their key dealers all over the world.

Why keep it a secret? Perhaps to avoid undermining sales of existing M8.2 inventory ... and to keep from stealing the energy of the S2 launch.

They would have nothing to gain by pre-announcing a M9 ... the only competition they have is their own existing inventory. Pre-announcements are designed to keep people from buying another brand in anticipation of a possible better solution ... there is no other brand, just their own camera.

Just give me a full frame and useable ISO to 1600 ... and the ability to compensate exposure without multiple steps in a menu ... leave everything else alone. Oh, and skip the black paint please. Black chrome, and a good grip leather please ... I like to actually use my Ms not just look at them

 

[dhsimmonds]

Great thread...........would'nt it be easier though just to stay with a tried and tested DSLR!

Some of us can remember these sort of arguments when SLR film cameras took over as the favoured pro tool formerly the province of the rangefinder. Only Leica RF's survived that massive exodus to sanity! It was circa late 50's early 60's I think.

A Leica user friend of mine sold all his DMR and R glass to switch to the M8 some years ago. When I last saw him he reckoned that his bag of two M8's, and six lenses which he needed to replace his zoom R lenses was just as heavy as his R9/DMR plus a few zoom lenses!

He was looking for another used DMR system as he missed the flexibility of his zoom lenses! BTW he said he needed two M8's as one of 'em was usually away for repair!