Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2009/12/21
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Dante, You assume that Leica designed the M8/9 with extra memory for additional features. Leica has already admitted that there is very little space for this type of upgrade, at least in the M8, which does not look well for additional space in the M9, assuming they made the same design decisions. Granted since the M9 has this for their lenses, you could say there is room for other manufactures lenses. But then nobody else does this, so why would Leica do it? I would not hold my breath waiting for this. Gene ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dante Stella" <dstella1 at ameritech.net> To: "Leica Users Group" <lug at leica-users.org> Sent: Sunday, December 20, 2009 6:42:15 PM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central Subject: Re: [Leica] M9 Internal IR-Cut filter make the camera fragile to use? Frank: You're right that Leica has no obligation to do it. Despite the lack of a legal or moral imperative to do so, I think you'll see Leica address this issue as a matter of self-preservation. People like wide-angle lenses (as is evidenced by the explosion of wide-angle lenses on the market), and not everyone is going to shell out $13K for an M9 and a WATE. So should Leica forego all of the money as people start bailing for, say, the Nikon D3xs and the 17-35 Nikkor? My suspicion is that Leica will find a way to make every last Super-Angulon, Biogon, Heliar, etc., work so that it can keep its M9 volumes up. Kodak addressed radial shifts on the SLR/x series by having users shoot test exposures at a couple of apertures - and the camera itself did the computations on a one-time basis and created profiles (like Cornerfix but without involving a computer). Since this technology (and programming) has been out there for something like 6 years, it's surprising that it didn't make it into the M8 and M9. And the cat has long been out of the bag - bending the laws of physics using signal processing was already done in the M8 and is already done to a high degree in the M9. Regards, Dante On Dec 20, 2009, at 2:25 PM, FRANK DERNIE wrote: > A few simple points. The fact that Leica customers used to use non Leica > lenses on their film bodies does not mean -all- of them will work with > with their digital bodies for the reasons that have been quoted very many > times over the years. > When Puts did his lens tests on the 15mm CV lens Leica were not only still > only making film cameras but had made it clear that most RF lenses were > not suitable for digital. > After much pressure from the market Leica have made a brave, and IMO > successful, attempt to resolve these issues. It leaves a tiny number of > lenses both Leica and other makes, most designed when digital was unheard > of, that are not compatible. > They cannot repeal the laws of physics. Compensation for colour errors and > vignetting can be made up to an extent, though it has other implications > on dynamic range. > Most of my life the widest lens used on an M was 21mm, now we have the > 16mm WATE. > I don't know what the winging is about. The vast majority of M mount > lenses work brilliantly, a tiny number are incompatible. > There is no colour shift on the compatible lenses, so stick to using them. > If there is a non-Leica lens which needs correction software to work on > the Leica then its manufacturer should supply this to its customers. It > has bugger all to do with Leica. > Frank > > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: Dante Stella <dstella1 at ameritech.net> > To: Leica Users Group <lug at leica-users.org> > Sent: Sunday, 20 December, 2009 15:18:55 > Subject: Re: [Leica] M9 Internal IR-Cut filter make the camera fragile to > use? > > 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? > > 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > 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