Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2012/08/31
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Le 31 ao?t 12 ? 12:27, FRANK DERNIE a ?crit : > Hi Henning, > I can't help feeling that all of the performance enhancements you > would like will (much?) need more battery capacity since they all > look like shortcomings due to trying to keep the battery as small as > possible, which would inevitably lead to the camera having to be > bigger and heavier. The M9 body volume is a tiny fraction of the > volume of any digital camera of anything like comparable > performance... > Frank > I doubt the battery is the reason why - think mirror box or taking heavy telezooms etc. not battery - the R8/9 were also bulky and battery size was irrelevant, yet they were handy BTW Ph > > >> ________________________________ >> From: Henning Wulff <henningw at archiphoto.com> >> To: Leica Users Group <lug at leica-users.org> >> Sent: Friday, 31 August 2012, 0:28 >> Subject: Re: [Leica] Monochrome II and III >> >> Mainly, and desparately needed: - these are the issues that are in >> fact holding me off ordering an MM immediately - >> Better buffer and image writing to card; faster display with zoom >> on LCD; better LCD so that you can judge your image better, should >> you choose to do so. Basically the electronics need to be up to the >> rest of the camera. If it can't do more than 2 frames per second, >> that's OK. What I don't like is having to wait for the camera. >> Ever. I don't with any other camera I now use, unless it's a P&S. I >> don't know if the production firmware allows for compressed DNG's, >> but uncompressed DNG's on the M9 are largely a waste of time and >> space as I have never been able to discern a difference in final >> output between uncompressed and compressed. If the electronics are >> up to dealing with the large files in a transparently speedy >> fashion, this becomes somewhat less of an issue. The file writing >> of the M9 with compressed is slow enough as it is; it doesn't need >> to be slowed additionally by not allowing a compressed format. >> Maybe there is a difference other than > theoretical between compressed a >> nd uncompressed on the MM, if it is available there or tested >> initially by Leica. >> >> In the 'Not so important but I'd like...' category:I'd also like >> the camera to get back to the size the pre-M8's were. I know that >> is difficult with the LCD screen requirements but I could better >> live with a deeper mount flange than the body thickness. Better >> battery and battery life. I'd prefer not having to remove the base >> and finding a place to put it to change batteries and cards. I also >> liked the minimal info display on the top panel of the M8; even a >> bit more would be welcome. >> >> Henning >> >> >> On 2012-08-30, at 12:36 PM, John McMaster wrote: >> >>> What do you think needs improved for the II and III? >>> >>> ;-) john >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> >>> I can hardly wait until the Monochrome II and then III are released. >>> The improvements will be greatly welcome. >>> >>> Maybe we'll see a Fuji Monochrome in the near future, or an >>> Olympus OMD-B&W. Digital altnernatives busting out all over. >>> >>> Cheers--Doug >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Leica Users Group. >>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >>> >> >> >> Henning Wulff >> henningw at archiphoto.com >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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