Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2009/10/26
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Some valid points, Geoff, but also remind a bit of the controversy over whether a built-in light meter was really necessary. As for Daniels' comment, he would of course say it, wouldn't he? A bit like the Bordeaux wine chateaux, where the marketing manager will always insist that the most recently bottled vintage is the greatest ever. Cheers, Nathan Nathan Wajsman Alicante, Spain http://www.frozenlight.eu http://www.greatpix.eu http://www.nathanfoto.com Books: http://www.blurb.com/bookstore/search?search=wajsman&x=0&y=0 PICTURE OF THE WEEK: http://www.fotocycle.dk/paws Blog: http://www.fotocycle.dk/blog On Oct 27, 2009, at 1:47 AM, Geoff Hopkinson wrote: > Nathan this is one of those emotive issues with a range of opinions. > I don't think that anyone would ever object to better high ISO > performance > (whether we actually need it or just want it). Still anecdotally the > M9 is > reported to be about one stop better than the M8 in that regard. > Live View and video means a CMOS sensor which changes the character > of the > captured images too. > At least as expressed by many M users on line (and I agree) it would > be a > mistake to try to change any future M digital design to include more > dSLR > type features. > The same school of thought suggests that a dSLR is the best tool for > people > that want those other features. M users don't want their camera to > become > more expensive, more complex and larger to acommodate flip out LCDs > etc or > features that they don't want. > FWIW Stefan Daniel has said that he considers the M9 to be at the > upper > limit of features and complexity for an M.