Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2010/01/29
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Hi Henning, yep I agree that faster processing would be better. I accept the current state of play to get the other benefits because I seldom use any continuous shooting. On the occasions where I might, then four or six frames at 2fps or so will certainly get it done for me. Others find that more important of course. To me it's simply the wrong tool for that kind of shooting. Its just not a dSLR and never will be. In my opinion all of the current on-line discussions suggesting that an M should have LiveView and an EVF etc etc (adding more dSLR features) just miss the point. The market place appears to agree since Leica simply cannot produce M9s fast enough to meet demand currently. On the other hand the return to 24x36 is a nice convenience and now means that I have a fast 28 again and a 24 is plenty for me at the widest end. I've been able to dispose of my 18 which suits me as well. Auto bracketing options are a big plus for me if shooting landscapes or similar deliberately as are the much improved options for exposure adjustment. Image preview delay is a minor irrittion for me also although I have auto display of that turned off anyway. Zooming preview images is the most noticeably really sluggish for me. Let's see what the first firmware update brings I agree that the M8 is certainly suffiicient but enjoy the improvements that have come with the M9. I'm not concerned regarding comparison to the D3s which is a very different camera with very different capabilities. The higher ISO performance of the M9 (especially with the better processing coming on line for noise reduction in camera and LR3) suits me very well whereas others desire the ultra high ISOs of the D3s et al. I would rather have the performance of my M glass on the current sensor. I don't even own a dSLR currently although I can see some particular areas where it would be an advantage of course. They just aren't central to my photographic interests. I'm sure that I'll end up buying an M10 in three years or so as well! Very possibly it will be a large hit too although plenty of folks will be still expressing disappointment that it still won't have... (insert your favourite feature here). Actually I think the success of the M9 is what will make possible the continuing health of Leica Camera AG and any future developments at all. Cheers Geoff http://www.pbase.com/hoppyman On 30 January 2010 11:58, Henning Wulff <henningw at archiphoto.com> wrote: > Geoff, it may use 13 crickets on treadmills, but it's too slow. It's slower > than the M8, and the M8 is too sluggish and was too sluggish when it was > introduced. Leica faces special problems with the M8/9 sensor; that's a > given but processing after image acquisition has moved on since 2004, and > that's about the level the digital M's work at. > > There are various points in the M8/9 performance where you can tell this. > Turn on/ready to shoot should be essentially instantaneous. It is not. > Writing to cards should allow for essentially continuous shooting, > considering that the rate is only about 2 frames per second. It bogs down > completely after 8 or 10 shots. Image review should be near instantaneous, > and magnification should also be lag free. The metering etc. electronics > should not introduce lag time into a camera system that is a lot less > complex than most SLR's, but it clearly does. The general state of > electronics in 2010, and 2009, and all the way back to 2006 is that these > processes get down without noticing any delay. The problem might well be > with Jenoptik, but it's Leica we and all other customers have to deal with > and their final product we are using. So we can correctly blame Leica. > > This operational sluggishness is one of the main reasons I'm not terribly > interested in upgrading my M8 to an M9. I don't see the point of going to a > camera that is even less responsive than the sometimes inadequate M8. > > In earlier years the Leica film M was more responsive and better for low > light shooting than any SLR. Now the M9 falls well behind the D3s in > responsiveness and it certainly trails significantly in low light > performance. That leaves its advantage in size and weight and rangefinder > focussing (sometimes an advantage, sometimes not). On balance it's not hard > to see why Leica has trouble convincing people to buy its cameras in large > volumes. The present demand for M9's doesn't change that as 'large volume' > doesn't apply. > > The M9 has an advantage in image quality in my estimation especially with > the fantastic lenses, but if you are interested in getting a useable image > quickly under difficult conditions, better use a Nikon or Canon. > > I happen to think the image quality of the M8 is sufficient for a lot of > things, if not all but so is that of the Nikon D3s or even more so the > Canon > 5DII. > > I believe that the main thing that Leica has to do for the M10 or 9.2 or > whatever is to at least increase the processing power and make the camera a > lot more transparent by not having the photographer waiting for the darn > thing to finish thinking about something. I want the camera waiting for me, > not the other way around. > > > > > > At 11:00 AM +1000 1/30/10, Geoff Hopkinson wrote: > >> Howard the M9 uses two of the M8 processors but they are dealing with much >> more data as you noted. Stefan Daniel said that he is not yet happy with >> the >> processing time and has told his engineers to try to reduce this time. >> He also said that the decision to use the same processor rather than a >> derivative of the new Maestro was in order to reduce risk and the time >> frame >> in design development (which happened concurrently with the S2) The same >> development partners were used, being Jenoptik in this instance. >> >> Cheers >> Geoff >> http://www.pbase.com/hoppyman >> >> >> On 30 January 2010 09:36, H&ECummer <cummer at netvigator.com> wrote: >> >> Hi Luggers, >>> I have been following the discussion about M8/9 shutter lag with >>> interest. >>> My M8 seems plenty fast to me - much like my M4 - the last film M that I >>> possess. >>> BUT, an area where the digital M's seem slow is in image processing. >>> Henning alluded to this in his post. >>> If you take three or four pictures in quick succession - (like in a >>> panorama - or tracking motor >>> bikes - see my Bali pictures) the processor in my M8 grinds away for >>> several seconds processing >>> the shots - before you can take any more. This doesn't really cramp my >>> shooting style because I don't >>> usually shoot machine gun style with the M8 - but it is annoying when >>> compared with the Nikon D700 >>> where the processor is big enough to continuously shoot about 40 frames >>> and >>> I have never >>> been able to choke the camera. When I borrowed the M9 for a day in >>> Seattle >>> at the LHSA meeting >>> I found its processing to be even slower than the processing on my M8 - >>> and >>> it annoyed me. >>> Why would Leica use the same processor in a camera with 80% more pixels? >>> Cheers >>> Howard >>> (who likes his M8 despite its foibles and LOVES his D700) >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 >> > > -- > > * Henning J. Wulff > /|\ Wulff Photography & Design > /###\ mailto:henningw at archiphoto.com > |[ ]| http://www.archiphoto.com > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >