Leica M9 schedule for September 2009 ?

[doug]

Okay, I admit I'm straying off-topic a bit, but I have a question about this.... Or is it possibly that AA filters have their place?

They certainly have their place. They're at their best in a production environment, i.e., mass production, such as sports/news photographers who don't have the luxury of time to check & fix each of their hundreds or thousands of photos for aliasing artifacts, likewise for the casual happy snappers who can't be bothered with anything other than out-of-the-camera jpgs.

 

[Riccis]

Riccis,

If the M9 isn't vaporware, could you please tell us where we can order one. Just the name of a dealer would be fine. Thanks,

Steve

Sorry, you'll have to wait until September for that...

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Well, I really don't want to hijack this thread into being about AA filters, but I ain't buyin' that one!

The reason for my skepticism is that at work I use a medium-format back that lacks an AA filter. When you get moires -- which you inevitably do when you photograph fabrics or printed materials with halftone dot screens -- you're supposed to remove them via the manufacturer's software, which includes about two dozen different AA filter routines.

None of them work as well as a DSLR with a properly-designed hardware AA filter. Crucial information is always lost (which is one reason I only use this back when I absolutely have to.)

I wish I'd saved a technical whitepaper I downloaded a few years ago, when the M8 first appeared and this less-is-better notion about AA filters began circulating widely among photographers. It was put out by a maker of AA filters (obviously they'd have an incentive to lie, of course, but their argument was very logical and the technical details were plausible.)

Among the points made were that an AA filter isn't simply a "blurring" filter -- it uses birefringent crystals to cut off too-high spatial frequencies with negligible effect on lower ones, preventing aliasing from occuring in the first place. The best that software solutions can do is blur the aliasing after it occurs -- and since the software has no way of knowing which structures are aliasing and which are actually present in the image, inevitably it has to compromise detail. Medical analogy: the AA filter is preventive medicine that keeps the aliasing "disease" from occurring, while software is an after-the-fact remedy that can only mask the symptoms. That's been my practical experience with my non-AA back, too.

Another point is that one form of aliasing is "false resolution," which causes an image to appear to have fine details that aren't actually present in the original subject. It's been speculated that this is actually what photographers are seeing when they say their camera produces "sharper, crisper" images after the AA filter has been removed.

Counterpoint: After my original post, I got a private reply from another member who wishes to remain in stealth mode, suggesting that while AA filters do a better job than software of handling moires, they do so at the expense of color purity -- they muddy up fine nuances of color. That I can believe. I can imagine that people who say their non-AA cameras give "more detail" might well be seeing color detail rather than luminance detail. And that would explain why people for whom finely nuanced color is very important -- landscapists and catalog shooters come to mind -- would prefer minimal AA filtering. (Natural landscapes probably contain few potential sources of moire, and catalogs are shot under controlled conditions where you can manage the problem at the source.)

That's still not the same as saying "less is better, and none would be best of all." It's a question of which image characteristics are top priority for you. But I'll concede that for some people, ditching the AA filter might be the best answer, even if that's not for quite the reason they think it is.


And now we'd better be getting back to arguing about the desirability of various potential feature sets for the M9 vaporcam...

The real bottom line is if canon and Nikon ditched there AA filters and people where getting Moire which they will. Just do the math on this it maybe 10,000 people screaming and yelling about it. Just think what that PR would do. I'm dead serious here folks they build complaint proof camera's or as little issues as they can and one reason there are so many controls because Freddy wants 51 AF points even though he has no clue what to do with them. Hope you get my point here but they build to reduce any issues and bad PR. Also it' is easier for noise control because it basically smears it

 

[TimWright]

Well Apple is having a media event on the 9th.


"All Things Digital reports that Apple has scheduled a media event for Wednesday, September 9th in San Francisco."

Perhaps they are going to announce that they have bought Leica and are releasing the iCamera.

 

[glenerrolrd]

Sorry, you'll have to wait until September for that...

Ok Riccis ..I know where you live! You would be one of the first people I would give an M9 to if I was Leica. Are the odds good that I can see yours in September. LOL Roger :bugeyes:

 

[Riccis]

Ok Riccis ..I know where you live! You would be one of the first people I would give an M9 to if I was Leica. Are the odds good that I can see yours in September. LOL Roger :bugeyes:

Thank you, man... I can't complain about how great Leica has been to me... Definitely see me in September

 

[etrigan63]

Riccis,
mind if I swing by to take a look at your vaporcam? I live closer to you that any of these other guys....

 

[Ranger 9]

The real bottom line is if canon and Nikon ditched there AA filters and people where getting Moire which they will. Just do the math on this it maybe 10,000 people screaming and yelling about it. Just think what that PR would do. I'm dead serious here folks they build complaint proof camera's or as little issues as they can...

Being someone who shoots in large batches, sometimes has to get the results out in a hurry, and doesn't need any more "issues" added to my life, I guess I'm one of those people who prefers a complaint-proof camera!

I just haven't got the patience to go through each image from an 800-frame take deciding which of two dozen convolution kernels will do the least-mediocre job of blurring out moires that didn't need to be there in the first place (which is exactly what I have to do at work when I need to shoot with the Fuji GX680; fortunately, the software won't accommodate 800 frames in a batch, so the problem is manageable!)

Guess I'll have to leave the subtle wonderfulness of aliasing to the cognoscenti who can appreciate it. Maybe it's like "Leica Glow" -- if you've gotta ask, you don't get it...

 

[Ranger 9]

Riccis,
mind if I swing by to take a look at your vaporcam? I live closer to you that any of these other guys....

He won't let you see it -- he's keeping it in a box guarded by Schrödinger's Cat!

They both exist in an indeterminate state until September 9. At that point, the vapor either condenses into a tangible Leica M9, or it doesn't. Either way, the cat is then out of the box AND out of the bag, if you take my meaning...

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Being someone who shoots in large batches, sometimes has to get the results out in a hurry, and doesn't need any more "issues" added to my life, I guess I'm one of those people who prefers a complaint-proof camera!

I just haven't got the patience to go through each image from an 800-frame take deciding which of two dozen convolution kernels will do the least-mediocre job of blurring out moires that didn't need to be there in the first place (which is exactly what I have to do at work when I need to shoot with the Fuji GX680; fortunately, the software won't accommodate 800 frames in a batch, so the problem is manageable!)

Guess I'll have to leave the subtle wonderfulness of aliasing to the cognoscenti who can appreciate it. Maybe it's like "Leica Glow" -- if you've gotta ask, you don't get it...

Really if you think about the nightmare they would have to deal with they figure make it as bullet proof as possible without issues. That has been working for them even though we complain about having the AA filter it is far less than if it was Moire issues. Honestly like you said people don't want to deal with that. Leica decided it was after IQ and that is why they use CCD and no AA filters. But try and tell all those Canon and Nikon shooters that. LOL

 

[John Black]

Plus, all the dSLR makers use AA filters, so it's an accepted norm. We're grading and comparing them relative to one and another - it's sort of like grading on the curve

 

[Ranger 9]

Leica decided it was after IQ and that is why they use CCD and no AA filters. But try and tell all those Canon and Nikon shooters that.

Yeah, don't do that -- some of them might say that Leica was really after compatibility with legacy lenses, and the IQ argument was just an attempt to turn necessity into a virtue. They might even contrast the M8's DxOMark score (59.4) with those of, say, the Canon 1DS Mk III (80.3) or Nikon D3x (88) re who's really after image quality and who isn't.

And of course that would be missing the whole point, so let's not bring it up!

 

[Guy Mancuso]

LOL . Several years ago I told Leica they get out of CCD and No AA filters than they would certainly lose me as a customer. I just love CCD sensors. Well they did lose me since I went to MF but i still support there CCD and no AA filters and I still like the M8 and DMR. To bad the DMR just did not have a bigger sensor at the time , might have changed a few things for me than. If this M9 comes out it certainly may have some horsepower to it

 

[doug]

Yeah, don't do that -- some of them might say that Leica was really after compatibility with legacy lenses, and the IQ argument was just an attempt to turn necessity into a virtue. They might even contrast the M8's DxOMark score (59.4) with those of, say, the Canon 1DS Mk III (80.3) or Nikon D3x (88) re who's really after image quality and who isn't.

And of course that would be missing the whole point, so let's not bring it up!

What's your purpose here? Is it to tell us that our preferences are wrong? I don't care what the mass market prefers, I'm more concerned about what works for me.

One thing I know is that the gallery owner I visited with last week was struck by the color quality and detail of my larger prints. Before our meeting he cautioned me that he already represents several wildlife photographers so unless I had something really breathtaking he probably wouldn't be very interested. His gallery also represents several other photographers including one of Canon's Explorers of Light. At the end of our meeting he selected several of my photos for display in the gallery - all made with the DMR. YMMV.

 

[Christopher]

Rant ON:
Oh please I can't hear that my DMR and M8 are so much better than my Canon or Nikon with the bad and evil AA Filter. This is only what some people here want to see, nothing more. Perhaps a selected group can see the difference in a file at 100%, but once edited and printed at let's say 16x24 or 20x30 99% of all people can't tell a ***** difference. Or do you really think you can tell the difference if you don't know who shot it or if there is a label on the side. I am pretty sure you can't the same way people can't really hear the difference between a audio cable which costs 1000$ compared to one which costs 5000$. However everybody who ones the expensive cable, hears this great difference. Until you do a real blind test) And before somebody starts, I have a MFDB, a Canon, a M8 and shot with a DMR for some time , so i know all files pretty well and I would not bet my name on beeing able to see the difference at reasonable print sizes.

Rant OFF:

I really don't mind AA filter that much, and I wouldn't mind a M9 with a CMOS and AA filter, but for example nice ISO up to 6400 or even higher. That would be fantastic. Working with a 1.2 lens at these ISO speeds at night. However I know that won't happen so I will be happy with a M9, a CCD sensor and usable ISO 800 ^^

 

[Paratom]

Christopher
I dont know if I could see a difference in a direct comparison in each and every shot.
But I feel that if I browse through my photos which have been made with different systems (M8, Nikon DSLR and Sinar MF) often those few images where you would say wow because of crispness, texture, depth but still with smooth tonal transitions are either from the M8 or the Sinar. I have some images which I like a lot from my Nikon as well but in somre arease I feel I can see where an AA filter could "cost" some of the texture of skin for example.
The other thing is that I have allways felt that sharpening is adding something to images which has not been in it before and I feel the less I need to sharpen the more natural and non-digital images look.
This is all just my impression.

Rant ON:
Oh please I can't hear that my DMR and M8 are so much better than my Canon or Nikon with the bad and evil AA Filter. This is only what some people here want to see, nothing more. Perhaps a selected group can see the difference in a file at 100%, but once edited and printed at let's say 16x24 or 20x30 99% of all people can't tell a ***** difference. Or do you really think you can tell the difference if you don't know who shot it or if there is a label on the side. I am pretty sure you can't the same way people can't really hear the difference between a audio cable which costs 1000$ compared to one which costs 5000$. However everybody who ones the expensive cable, hears this great difference. Until you do a real blind test) And before somebody starts, I have a MFDB, a Canon, a M8 and shot with a DMR for some time , so i know all files pretty well and I would not bet my name on beeing able to see the difference at reasonable print sizes.

Rant OFF:

I really don't mind AA filter that much, and I wouldn't mind a M9 with a CMOS and AA filter, but for example nice ISO up to 6400 or even higher. That would be fantastic. Working with a 1.2 lens at these ISO speeds at night. However I know that won't happen so I will be happy with a M9, a CCD sensor and usable ISO 800 ^^

 

[fotografz]

Rant ON:
Oh please I can't hear that my DMR and M8 are so much better than my Canon or Nikon with the bad and evil AA Filter. This is only what some people here want to see, nothing more. Perhaps a selected group can see the difference in a file at 100%, but once edited and printed at let's say 16x24 or 20x30 99% of all people can't tell a ***** difference. Or do you really think you can tell the difference if you don't know who shot it or if there is a label on the side. I am pretty sure you can't the same way people can't really hear the difference between a audio cable which costs 1000$ compared to one which costs 5000$. However everybody who ones the expensive cable, hears this great difference. Until you do a real blind test) And before somebody starts, I have a MFDB, a Canon, a M8 and shot with a DMR for some time , so i know all files pretty well and I would not bet my name on beeing able to see the difference at reasonable print sizes.

Rant OFF:

I really don't mind AA filter that much, and I wouldn't mind a M9 with a CMOS and AA filter, but for example nice ISO up to 6400 or even higher. That would be fantastic. Working with a 1.2 lens at these ISO speeds at night. However I know that won't happen so I will be happy with a M9, a CCD sensor and usable ISO 800 ^^

Not me. They have got to get the useable ISO over 800. 640 has been the limit so far IMHO. And the M8's 640 has been touted as conservative .... being more like 800 ... which I lean toward believing. I am hoping for a really solid 1250, but 1600 would be better!

Also, more intermediate steps would be welcome. Jumping from 320 to 640 to 1250 doesn't provide enough quick control. I use ISO 500, 1000 a lot with my DSLRs.

BTW, they need a smaller TTL bounce flash for the M digitals. How hard can that be these days? A slight bit of well controlled diffused fill goes a long way in helping ISO performance and controlling shutter speeds against subject movement in low light.

But if the strong rumors are true, then the full frame M9 camera is already done ... and I'll take it warts and all . I've been saving my Lincolns, Jeffersons and a lot of Benjamins in readiness. This is the ONLY new camera that is a must have for me. I cannot hack lugging pro DSLRs around for 8 hours at a wedding anymore ... which would include not lugging a S2 even if I could even afford one. The M digital is my "relief camera" for candid work. The better it gets, the more I can use it. :thumbup:

BTW, that the M9 is coming seems pretty certain. However, I've heard different timings for the launch. Hope it is September, with delivery in early Oct. But I also have heard speculation it would be announced in late October (maybe Photo-Plus?) with delivery end of November or early December. We'll see.

 

[fotografz]

Christopher
I dont know if I could see a difference in a direct comparison in each and every shot.
But I feel that if I browse through my photos which have been made with different systems (M8, Nikon DSLR and Sinar MF) often those few images where you would say wow because of crispness, texture, depth but still with smooth tonal transitions are either from the M8 or the Sinar. I have some images which I like a lot from my Nikon as well but in somre arease I feel I can see where an AA filter could "cost" some of the texture of skin for example.
The other thing is that I have allways felt that sharpening is adding something to images which has not been in it before and I feel the less I need to sharpen the more natural and non-digital images look.
This is all just my impression.

I can also easily pick out the M8 shots when they are mixed in with my Nikon DSLR and Sony work. Same for when I used 1 series Canons. Those differences are retained when printing BTW.

When I shoot weddings, all files from all cameras, as well as my second shooter's Canon 5D cameras, are dumped into one file and sorted by "time shot" to place them in chronological order. The M8 shots jump out at you.

The M8 pics have a certain look, rich color separation and a certain contrast snap .... which becomes even more apparent when B&W conversions are made .... probably equally as much to do with the lenses as the camera.

The exception to this is B&W conversions made from the D3X with the newer glass. Unlike my Sony A900, and the Canon 1DsMKIII before it, the Nikon renders midtones in a very similar manner to the M8 which provides a very pleasing B&W contrast range with that deep shadow black and white whites even while holding detail in both. This experience makes me suspect that the D3X's AA filter is weaker than the one that was in my 1DsMKIII.

 

[georgl]

Regarding AA-filters or not, here the purely scientific point-of-view (I'll hope my English doens't cause more irritation than before;-):

- We have a 6µm-pixel-pitch-sensor (like todays Dalsa, Kodak and Sony-sensors) which means the max. frequency this kind of sensor is capable to resolve is 83 linepairs/mm (Nyquist: you need two pixels to resolve one linepair or one pixel for each line) - there is absolutely no way such a sensor will be able to resolve more than that, it's simply impossible

- Whenever a higher frequency (>83lp/mm) "hits" this sensor, false information is created (alaising) which may look like real information due to simple test charts and tricky processing (jsut look how often dpreview claims lpph beyond Nyquist!) but it isn't, with a bayer-filtered/color-interpolating system it's even worse, it becomes this really nasty "colorful" moire we all fear!

- To avoid alaising, the contrast at the max. frequency (83lp/mm) has to be zero! So the S2-sensor with 7500pixels wideness will never be able to actually resolve 7500lines/3750linepairs!

- AA-filters blur the image, the actual design/manufacturing might be tricky, but the principle/goal is simple: reduce contrast at Nyquist-limit to zero, while not affecting lower frequencies (steep). Sadly, that's impossible with any low-pass-filter in the world, they ALWAYS reduce contrast below nyquist and that's their downside! This information is lost forever and - despite common believe - cannot be restored with any kind postprocessing/sharpening (only simple structures as lines/borders may appear that way)!
In fact, that's why all AA-filters are a compromise, they don't suppress contrast to zero (at Nyquist) to reduce the negative effect on lower frequencies, while still allowing a small amount of moire/alaising. Propably they've become better/steeper over time but the smaller pixel-pitches made it easier anyway, because the lenses have problems to deliver enough contrast up to Nyquist anway.

- What is the solution to this problem?
Oversampling! Build a sensor with many little photosites which is capable of resolving very high frequencies beyond the performance of the lenses, than downsample the image to the actual performance of the lenses. Professional video-cameras/scanners work that way.

- Why is no AA-filter better regarding IQ?
The high frequencies slightly below nyquist are not affected, enhancing microcontrast and information - impossible to retrieve by any post-processing! But when moire appears, it can be removed by the software/photographer WHERE it appears, of course much more work than just pressing one button but you can see and select moire and than remove it / make it invisible - an AA-filter always effects all images, everwhere! Of course the lost information cannot be retrieved but there isn't any information there in the AA-filtered-image, too!

 

[doug]

Oh please I can't hear that my DMR and M8 are so much better than my Canon or Nikon with the bad and evil AA Filter. This is only what some people here want to see, nothing more.

Sorry Christopher, the gallery owner had never heard of the DMR and the color quality and detail of the prints jumped out at him. His response, not mine.