Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Leica M9

Reply
Thread Tools

Leica M9

 
 
Dave U. Random
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-10-2009
Wired
http://xrl.us/bfjrn2

Leica decided that yesterday would be a great day to bury
news under the twin stacks of Apple iPod announcements and
Beatles releases. Leica in fact announced some of its most
significant products for years. First, the M9.

The M9, sequel to the M8, is the company’s first full frame
digital rangefinder. The 18 megapixel CCD sensor, developed
by Kodak, is the same size as a 35mm frame, which means the
M9 can use all of Leica’s M-lenses at their originally
intended focal lengths. It also consigns the M8 and it’s
crop-sensor lenses to the curiosity shoppe of history.

The body itself has seen a few tweaks in button positions,
but the real changes are internal. The Kodak sensor adds
new micro-lenses which help corral the light onto the
pixels — all sensors have these tiny lenses over the photo-
sites, but rangefinders are a special case: the rear of the
lens is so close to the sensor that the angle of incidence
is particularly sharp. These new micro-lenses bend the
light to fit. The glass sensor cover has also been
redesigned and now cuts out infrared light. Previously
Leica’s workaround was to add a filter.

The shutter, too, is new, and is “microprocessor-
controlled”. Leica says that it is “particularly silent”,
which, given the legendary whisper-quiet M-series shutters
of old, is probably true. It runs up to 1/4000th of a
second and offers a maximum flash sync speed of
1/180th/sec. Stick it on your Christmas list now.

And that’s it. What? You want to know the price? $8,000,
but Amazon will let you have it for a mere $7,000 when it
ships: http://xrl.us/LeicaM9Amazon

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
BobS
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-10-2009

"Dave U. Random" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Wired
> http://xrl.us/bfjrn2
>
> Leica decided that yesterday would be a great day to bury
>snip.........




The following post was added to the above review *after* the original
post. Just passing it on as clarification

"A quick correction here, the focal length doesn't change regardless of
how large the sensor is. Focal length is focal length whether the
film/ccd is 8*10, 35mm, or 2 1/4. The spread of light on the film/ccd
may be different but that's it. I hate to write one of those comments
that say get it right, but you folks write for a geek audience, so come
on. If you don't know what focal length means, look it up."



 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Pete D
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-11-2009

"rwalker" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 16:53:02 -0400, "BobS" <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Dave U. Random" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>news:51dfbe2f818d35a1e7aefeaf4ef6c0c3@anonymitae t-im-inter.net...
>>> Wired
>>> http://xrl.us/bfjrn2
>>>
>>> Leica decided that yesterday would be a great day to bury
>>>snip.........

>>
>>
>>
>>The following post was added to the above review *after* the original
>>post. Just passing it on as clarification
>>
>>"A quick correction here, the focal length doesn't change regardless of
>>how large the sensor is. Focal length is focal length whether the
>>film/ccd is 8*10, 35mm, or 2 1/4. The spread of light on the film/ccd
>>may be different but that's it. I hate to write one of those comments
>>that say get it right, but you folks write for a geek audience, so come
>>on. If you don't know what focal length means, look it up."
>>
>>

> I thought the same thing. My Canon 50 mm. lens remains 50 mm. whether
> I use it on my Digital Rebel/350D, or on my 35 mm. EOS 10s, or on my
> APS film IX.


The reality is that it is an "effective focal length" depending to which
camera it is attached.



 
Reply With Quote
 
Bowser
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-11-2009


"Pete D" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:4aaa0a69$0$27627$(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> "rwalker" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 16:53:02 -0400, "BobS" <(E-Mail Removed)>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Dave U. Random" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>news:51dfbe2f818d35a1e7aefeaf4ef6c0c3@anonymita et-im-inter.net...
>>>> Wired
>>>> http://xrl.us/bfjrn2
>>>>
>>>> Leica decided that yesterday would be a great day to bury
>>>>snip.........
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>The following post was added to the above review *after* the original
>>>post. Just passing it on as clarification
>>>
>>>"A quick correction here, the focal length doesn't change regardless of
>>>how large the sensor is. Focal length is focal length whether the
>>>film/ccd is 8*10, 35mm, or 2 1/4. The spread of light on the film/ccd
>>>may be different but that's it. I hate to write one of those comments
>>>that say get it right, but you folks write for a geek audience, so come
>>>on. If you don't know what focal length means, look it up."
>>>
>>>

>> I thought the same thing. My Canon 50 mm. lens remains 50 mm. whether
>> I use it on my Digital Rebel/350D, or on my 35 mm. EOS 10s, or on my
>> APS film IX.

>
> The reality is that it is an "effective focal length" depending to which
> camera it is attached.


Nope. The focal length of any lens (except zooms) is constant. The angle of
view captured is a function of the size of the film or sensor. Moving a 50mm
lens from a 5D to a 7D does not alter it's focal length.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Robert Coe
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-12-2009
On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 18:30:04 +1000, "Pete D" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
:
: "rwalker" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
: news:(E-Mail Removed)...
: > On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 16:53:02 -0400, "BobS" <(E-Mail Removed)>
: > wrote:
: >
: >>
: >>"Dave U. Random" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
: >>news:51dfbe2f818d35a1e7aefeaf4ef6c0c3@anonymitae t-im-inter.net...
: >>> Wired
: >>> http://xrl.us/bfjrn2
: >>>
: >>> Leica decided that yesterday would be a great day to bury
: >>>snip.........
: >>
: >>
: >>
: >>The following post was added to the above review *after* the original
: >>post. Just passing it on as clarification
: >>
: >>"A quick correction here, the focal length doesn't change regardless of
: >>how large the sensor is. Focal length is focal length whether the
: >>film/ccd is 8*10, 35mm, or 2 1/4. The spread of light on the film/ccd
: >>may be different but that's it. I hate to write one of those comments
: >>that say get it right, but you folks write for a geek audience, so come
: >>on. If you don't know what focal length means, look it up."
: >>
: >>
: > I thought the same thing. My Canon 50 mm. lens remains 50 mm. whether
: > I use it on my Digital Rebel/350D, or on my 35 mm. EOS 10s, or on my
: > APS film IX.
:
: The reality is that it is an "effective focal length" depending to which
: camera it is attached.

The reality is that we ought to stop talking as though a lens's "effective"
focal length on a camera most of us don't own is a sensible way to get our
heads around that lens's performance on the cameras we actually use. When I
bought my first digital SLR, I made it a point to start thinking in terms of
how each lens worked on that camera and not, say, on my old film Nikon. It
isn't that hard to learn that 30mm is a "normal" lens, 50mm is a mild
telephoto or portrain lens, 18mm (rather than 28mm) is a wide angle, etc. Once
I got used to it, I found it to be a much simpler way to go.

Bob
 
Reply With Quote
 
Miles Bader
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-13-2009
rwalker <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>>The reality is that we ought to stop talking as though a lens's "effective"
>>focal length on a camera most of us don't own is a sensible way to get our
>>heads around that lens's performance on the cameras we actually use.

>
> Exactly.


Maybe it would be better to use angle-of-view or something more widely
instead of focal length, since that's largely what people are interested
in...

-Miles

--
Laughter, n. An interior convulsion, producing a distortion of the features
and accompanied by inarticulate noises. It is infectious and, though
intermittent, incurable.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Robert Coe
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-13-2009
On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 11:05:49 +0900, Miles Bader <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
: rwalker <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
: >>The reality is that we ought to stop talking as though a lens's "effective"
: >>focal length on a camera most of us don't own is a sensible way to get our
: >>heads around that lens's performance on the cameras we actually use.
: >
: > Exactly.
:
: Maybe it would be better to use angle-of-view or something more widely
: instead of focal length, since that's largely what people are interested
: in...

I dunno. Angle of view isn't a concept that comes naturally. Very few people
can look at a scene and see intuitively what angle of view they want their
picture to subtend. (I certainly can't, and I have a better mathematical
background than most.) But most photographers are at least attuned to the
concept of focal length and can usually learn to select the right lens for a
given scene (especially if most of their lenses are zooms). If we were
starting from scratch, I guess the angle-of-view idea has merit. Given where
we are now, I think I'd stick with focal length.

Bob
 
Reply With Quote
 
David J Taylor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-13-2009
"Robert Coe" <> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
[]
> I dunno. Angle of view isn't a concept that comes naturally. Very few
> people
> can look at a scene and see intuitively what angle of view they want
> their
> picture to subtend. (I certainly can't, and I have a better mathematical
> background than most.) But most photographers are at least attuned to
> the
> concept of focal length and can usually learn to select the right lens
> for a
> given scene (especially if most of their lenses are zooms). If we were
> starting from scratch, I guess the angle-of-view idea has merit. Given
> where
> we are now, I think I'd stick with focal length.
>
> Bob


In broad terms, angle of view /is/ something which comes naturally -
although it tends to be described as "wide-angle", "normal" and
"telephoto". Tying it down to exact numbers does not come naturally to
most folks, though, except to photographers who think in "35mm
equivalent"! <G>

David

 
Reply With Quote
 
Miles Bader
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-13-2009
Robert Coe <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
> : Maybe it would be better to use angle-of-view or something more widely
> : instead of focal length, since that's largely what people are interested
> : in...
>
> I dunno. Angle of view isn't a concept that comes naturally. Very few
> people can look at a scene and see intuitively what angle of view they
> want their picture to subtend. But most photographers are at least
> attuned to the concept of focal length and can usually learn to select
> the right lens for a given scene (especially if most of their lenses
> are zooms). If we were starting from scratch, I guess the
> angle-of-view idea has merit. Given where we are now, I think I'd
> stick with focal length.


Sure, for most people, AOV would just be a slightly arbitrary number
(though less so than focal-length), and they'd have to get used to it.

However, right now with digital cameras and various crop-factors, many
people are having to relearn all of this stuff anyway, often for
multiple different cameras, ... maybe it wouldn't be all that much more
work to switch to something which is constant across formats?

At least, the lens manuf.s could start writing AOV on their lenses to
make things easier for the future...

-Miles

--
Bigot, n. One who is obstinately and zealously attached to an opinion that
you do not entertain.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Eric Stevens
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-13-2009
On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 02:36:59 +0900, Miles Bader <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Robert Coe <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>> : Maybe it would be better to use angle-of-view or something more widely
>> : instead of focal length, since that's largely what people are interested
>> : in...
>>
>> I dunno. Angle of view isn't a concept that comes naturally. Very few
>> people can look at a scene and see intuitively what angle of view they
>> want their picture to subtend. But most photographers are at least
>> attuned to the concept of focal length and can usually learn to select
>> the right lens for a given scene (especially if most of their lenses
>> are zooms). If we were starting from scratch, I guess the
>> angle-of-view idea has merit. Given where we are now, I think I'd
>> stick with focal length.

>
>Sure, for most people, AOV would just be a slightly arbitrary number
>(though less so than focal-length), and they'd have to get used to it.
>
>However, right now with digital cameras and various crop-factors, many
>people are having to relearn all of this stuff anyway, often for
>multiple different cameras, ... maybe it wouldn't be all that much more
>work to switch to something which is constant across formats?
>
>At least, the lens manuf.s could start writing AOV on their lenses to
>make things easier for the future...
>

In the context we have been discussing, AOV is not solely dependant on
the lens. Sensor/film dimensions are required to be factored into the
calculation.

Over the years I have used many different film sizes (4"x5", 1/4
plate, postcard, various 120 film formats, 35mm, 1/2 frame 35mm) and
have found that I quickly learn what lens length does what with each
camera. I don't really see it as a problem.



Eric Stevens
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
What is best (non-Leica) digital slr back for Leica R lenses? TJ Digital Photography 13 12-23-2007 10:46 PM
Is Lumix Leica real Leica? John Navas Digital Photography 1 11-18-2007 09:16 AM
Has Leica given up on digital photography? ArtKramr Digital Photography 25 11-26-2003 02:13 AM
Minox digital Leica M3 2.1MP norpinal Digital Photography 1 09-06-2003 06:02 PM
re: Leica D7 next year _ Digital Photography 5 07-21-2003 04:57 AM



Advertisments