Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2010/11/08

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] Comparison M9, R9
From: grduprey at (grduprey at
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2010 14:43:37 -0600 (CST)


Thanks, now that you mention it, i do remember their name mentioned in 
reference to the M8/9.  They do a nice job with the M firmware, but they 
need to interface with the software wizards at Imacon and apply some of 
their wizardry to the M8/9 package.  By the way i'd buy a M9 in a second if 
I had the money right now.  ;-)


----- Original Message -----
From: "Geoff Hopkinson" <hopsternew at>
To: "Leica Users Group" <lug at>
Sent: Monday, November 8, 2010 2:06:56 PM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central
Subject: Re: [Leica] Comparison M9, R9

Gene, for your interest, the firmware for the M8 and M9 was constructed by
Jenoptik to Leica Camera's specifications. The improvements (in noise
reduction for example) were in part a result of a cooperation with
researchers at the University of Cologne (Universit?t zu K?ln).


On 9 November 2010 03:51, <grduprey at> wrote:

> Mark,
> I'm not saying the imaging qualities of the M9 sensor are inferior, as I'm
> sure they are far better.  However, what I am saying is that whoever Leica
> is using for their firmware on the M8/9 does not have the experience or
> expertise in the color management/dynamic range area as Imacon's people.
>  Probably why Hasselblad bought them and then cancelled the contract with
> Leica, among other reasons.  After all, for 2 10.3MB sensors, one has image
> files of 10 MB, and the other has files of 19MB, there has to be allot more
> going on in the firmware for such a large difference.  Yes, I know the M9 
> is
> 18MB, so the comparison is for the M8 and DMR here.
> Cheers,
> Gene

Leica Users Group.
See for more information