Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2009/12/20
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Geoff: I'm sure it will eventually be fixed in firmware. Both the radial and asymmetrical shifts were issues that Kodak had on its own cameras. My point was that the M9, like the M8, was released to "it's perfect" cheerleading by hardcore Leica enthusiasts - and that again, waiting for the 2010 production run (or firmware, more likely) is starting to look like a good idea (for the same reason you wouldn't buy a car the first year a new platform comes out). Of course, with Leica's "let's spend as little as possible" development budget for M cameras (and now digital Ms), it could take a while. Leica will fix this color shift problem because it has to. One of the three major selling points of the M9 is that "wides are truly wide" (the other two are resolution and the ability to use your old lenses) But when you get to 21mm and below,* if the "wides that are truly wide" are limited to are newest-generation lenses in the $5,000-6000 range, this is not a very compelling point. And buying a new lens defeats the "re-using old lenses" justification: once you are buying a new camera and new lenses, you might as well be cross-shopping other systems. And let's not all be intentionally blind about the fact that Leica sells (and historically has sold) bodies *because* people have collections of other manufacturers' lenses (or because those were available). That's the only reason why manual lens coding made an appearance on the M9 - because all Leica lenses that could be used with the cameras could be coded. So that leaves? Cosina, Konica, Zeiss... Leica has, historically, had a symbiotic relationship with other optical manufacturers, whether authorized or not. C.f. the 1950s, when the only way Leica could sell cameras in the United States was to combine them with Japanese lenses that were subject to a lower duty. There may have even been no post-war IIIc, IIIf, IIIg, or M3 without that. Then there was the Minolta CL/CLE arrangement. Then the modern question: why did Leica allow Erwin Puts to publish, on Leica's web site, a Leica lens book that included the 15mm Cosina lens? Best, Dante *I know from experience that a 15mm CV works fine on an M8 as a "21mm" lens, and I haven't seen any systematic complaining about the 12mm as a "16mm" lens on that platform. Any focal length longer than that is either correctible by taking a step backward or getting one focal length shorter (for a couple of grand, max...). On Dec 18, 2009, at 10:50 PM, Geoff Hopkinson wrote: > OK then Dante. That would be a problem with those Cosina Voigtlander lenses > then, not Leica ;-) No worries. > I'd also seen a comment from PopFlash that Zeiss are not recommending their > ZM 4.5 21 on the M9 (but all other ZM lenses OK). I understand that the > latest free Cornerfix works well with that one (as it does with the > asymmetric overcorrection that has been reported with some samples of the > Elmar 18. I read that Leica engineers have seen the testing and samples > reported on that. Perhaps it will be addressed in the next firmware > release. > > I sold my ZM 18 (and that 21) a while back so I can't comment from > experience on those. I'm happy with 24 as my widest now on the M9 (which is > why I had the 18 for my M8). > > > 2009/12/19 Dante Stella <dstella1 at ameritech.net> > >> The 12mm and 15mm lenses are the ones causing consternation. >> >> Dante >> >> On Dec 18, 2009, at 5:42 PM, Geoff Hopkinson wrote: >> >>> Mine works fine including with my 24 and 28 wide open. The biggest >> problem >>> that people are reporting is simply that there aren't enough to go around >>> for all of the orders so far. >>> On the cover glass problem, there are six reports currently (from the >>> thousands of cameras delivered thus far), which is six too many of >> course. >>> Too early for the cause or causes to be determined. One camera was >> replaced >>> on the spot by the dealer (lucky customer that the dealer had another) >> and >>> one that was returned to Solms was repaired in 2 days. I hope the other 4 >>> customers can soon report similar rapid resolutions. >>> >>> 2009/12/19 Dante Stella <dstella1 at ameritech.net> >>> >>>> Bear in mind that replacing the sensor glass on an M8 requires a >>>> board-level replacement ($1,800) - so if this situation occurs with the >> M9, >>>> and you don't catch it in-warranty, you could be in for a world of hurt. >> I >>>> don't think Leica changed any of its procurement practices. I suspect >> that >>>> it simply lacks the clean room necessary to replace the glass to Leica >>>> cleanliness standards and can pass the massive cost of what should be a >> $300 >>>> repair to the end user. >>>> >>>> Oh yeah... M9, perfect the day it was released, no teething problems, >>>> investment for the ages, etc. So we have red shifting, complaints about >>>> wide-angle lenses, complaints about incomplete IR blocking, and now >> broken >>>> cover glasses. Every manufacturer of everything has problems early in >> the >>>> production run. It's unrealistic to expect that a digital camera pushed >> out >>>> the door in 18 months would be any different. >>>> >>>> And as my father said, "every car looks like a classic the year it comes >>>> out." >>>> >>>> Dante >>>> >>>> ____________ >>>> Dante Stella >>>> http://www.dantestella.com >>>> >>>> NO ARCHIVE >>>> >> -- >> Cheers >> Geoff >> http://www.pbase.com/hoppyman >> > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information