Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2009/12/20
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]On Dec 20, 2009, at 7:18 AM, Dante Stella wrote: > 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? good point... Steve > > 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information