Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2012/08/31
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Henning understood on the electronics and responsiveness. Of course you are right about the buffer clearance time. The 2 frames per second is still relevant because that is the fastest way to fill that small buffer. I agree it is no speedster camera in operation. I never use mine that way for that reason. I use it like an M7 I guess (and have a dSLR too as mentioned) On battery anything even marginally physically wider will just not fit in the current form factor. Take a look with the lens off for the inner face of the battery chamber compared to the shutter. I'm by no means a battery expert. I used the D7000 battery I have for comparison. Are you aware of any comparable DLR designs that are significantly smaller? Maybe in the petite new OM-D? The key phrase is current form factor. In my view Leica Camera will not change that lightly. As for the M10 announcement, it is certainly widely expected. Let's see if my prediction on something else first is true on the day! They have been talking about a gap in their range below the M9 for sometime and of course all of the Liveview/ CMOS/ EVF hinting by assorted senior Solms folks. No doubt someone will repost this in September if I'm wrong ;-) Cheers, Geoff http://www.pbase.com/hoppyman On 1 September 2012 16:17, Henning Wulff <henningw at archiphoto.com> wrote: > > On 2012-08-31, at 2:54 PM, Geoff Hopkinson wrote: > > > Hi Henning. I think it is well recognised that the M9 is not a fast > > operating camera regarding processing times and frame rate. Those > > limitations apply whether shooting uncompressed or compressed DNG or JPG > or > > a combination. If you need more than those seven frames at half second > > intervals it is always going to stutter and hold you up. The Monochrom is > > the same but adds a killer capability for purists of course. > > > > .I've always considered my M9 as a basic but very compact full frame > > digital vehicle for the lenses. It is the wrong or at least not ideal > tool > > for some photography types. I sold one M lens (for a bit more than I > paid) > > and got a dSLR and a dedicated lens or three to start learning some > > fashion/action/macro/wildlife stuff too. > > > > A while back Stefan Daniel explained that the M9 design was the lowest > cost > > design that they could manage for a 'full frame' at the time and it used > as > > many M8 components as possible. At the time of the M9 genesis the S > system > > was being developed too and they admitted they they did not have the > > capacity nor funds for two major in-house projects simultaneously, hence > > the M9 being lowest risk design with as much M8 recycled as they could > > manage. > > > > In the case of the processor they used two instead of one but the amount > of > > data is much larger of course. At least partly due to the degree of > success > > of the M9 (and now the Blackstone partnership) their budget for > development > > has presumably improved since and they have previously said that they > > intended to use the 'Maestro' processor (developed for the S2) in future > > cameras. I would be surprised if the M10 does not use that and be more > > responsive. However when that camera will materialise is not known > despite > > speculation. I suspect that will not be at this Photokina but we will see > > another big development or two. Not long until we find out. > > > The processor and implementations issues have been known and are very > obvious in use. The issue isn't needing more than 2 frames a second, it's > waiting over half a minute (at best) to clear the buffer of those seven > shots. Half a minute, or actually 40 seconds, can be a lifetime when > photographing events. > > As far as I know the M10 will be announced at Photokina (probably Sept. > 17) and delivery will start approximately April. Seems reasonable. With the > dicounts and the general timeframe and product life of the M9, anything > else would be bad. > > > > On the battery capacity/design, I think the camera form factor is one of > > the limitations. I don't see how anything physically larger could be > used. > > Whether that form factor will be/should be different in some future > design > > is probably several discussions on their own. You noted how you would > > prefer that a future design get smaller again too. > > > The electronics in the M9 are clunky and take up way more space than they > should in a modern design. With a bit more LSI circuits a lot of space > could be saved as well as lower power requirements would prevail. I haven't > desinged this sort of stuff for decades, but the principles and the ongoing > development is still the same. Space for a larger battery could be found, > even in a smaller body, and the design could be more energy efficient even > if liveview was implemented. Just depends on the resources available and > the electronic partners they have. The S2 is out the door; the M9 has made > a lot of money for them - it's time to give the M10 the attention it > deserves. > > Henning > > > > > For comparison I'm looking at the Li-ion batteries from the Nikon D7000 > > next to the M8/M9 one. The Nikon one is 7V 1900mAh 14Wh and the Leica > 3.7V > > 1800mAh 6.7Wh. No contest! But you physically could not fit it within the > > M9 body. Tiny production numbers mean less options and higher costs too > of > > course. > > > > I'm sure that I will be lining up for the M10 whatever it looks like and > > whenever it appears providing it uses my lenses and the M still stands > for > > Messsucher ;-) Let's see what happens. > > > > Cheers, > > Geoff > > http://www.pbase.com/hoppyman > > > > > > > > On 1 September 2012 04:23, Henning Wulff <henningw at archiphoto.com> > wrote: > > > >> Hi Frank, > >> > >> There may be a bit of that, but faster processors do not necessarily use > >> more battery power, and on top of that the electronics are hardly > packaged > >> in a modern, efficient way in the M9. I think it might well be possible > to > >> have more efficient (less power hungry, faster and more capable > >> electronics) AND a larger battery in the M10. One can hope. > >> > >> Henning > >> > >> > >> > >> On 2012-08-31, at 3:27 AM, FRANK DERNIE wrote: > >> > >>> 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 > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>> ________________________________ > >>>> 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 > >>> > >> > >> > >> 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 > > > > > Henning Wulff > henningw at archiphoto.com > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >