Leica M9

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Dave U. Random, Sep 10, 2009.

  1. 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
     
    Dave U. Random, Sep 10, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Dave U. Random

    BobS Guest

    "Dave U. Random" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > 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."
     
    BobS, Sep 10, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Dave U. Random

    Pete D Guest

    "rwalker" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 16:53:02 -0400, "BobS" <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >>
    >>"Dave U. Random" <> wrote in message
    >>news:...
    >>> 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.
     
    Pete D, Sep 11, 2009
    #3
  4. Dave U. Random

    Bowser Guest

    "Pete D" <> wrote in message
    news:4aaa0a69$0$27627$...
    >
    > "rwalker" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 16:53:02 -0400, "BobS" <>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>>
    >>>"Dave U. Random" <> wrote in message
    >>>news:...
    >>>> 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.
     
    Bowser, Sep 11, 2009
    #4
  5. Dave U. Random

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 18:30:04 +1000, "Pete D" <> wrote:
    :
    : "rwalker" <> wrote in message
    : news:...
    : > On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 16:53:02 -0400, "BobS" <>
    : > wrote:
    : >
    : >>
    : >>"Dave U. Random" <> wrote in message
    : >>news:...
    : >>> 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
     
    Robert Coe, Sep 12, 2009
    #5
  6. Dave U. Random

    Miles Bader Guest

    rwalker <> 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.
     
    Miles Bader, Sep 13, 2009
    #6
  7. Dave U. Random

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 11:05:49 +0900, Miles Bader <> wrote:
    : rwalker <> 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
     
    Robert Coe, Sep 13, 2009
    #7
  8. "Robert Coe" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    []
    > 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
     
    David J Taylor, Sep 13, 2009
    #8
  9. Dave U. Random

    Miles Bader Guest

    Robert Coe <> 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.
     
    Miles Bader, Sep 13, 2009
    #9
  10. Dave U. Random

    Eric Stevens Guest

    On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 02:36:59 +0900, Miles Bader <> wrote:

    >Robert Coe <> 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
     
    Eric Stevens, Sep 13, 2009
    #10
  11. Dave U. Random

    Dave Cohen Guest

    Eric Stevens wrote:
    > On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 02:36:59 +0900, Miles Bader <> wrote:
    >
    >> Robert Coe <> 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


    Twelve or so posts concerning focal length vs effective length. Nothing
    concerning the original post, what a group.
     
    Dave Cohen, Sep 14, 2009
    #11
  12. Dave U. Random

    Miles Bader Guest

    Dave Cohen <> writes:
    > Twelve or so posts concerning focal length vs effective length. Nothing
    > concerning the original post, what a group.


    Hmm, well... the whole AA-filter thing gives me the impression that
    Leica doesn't really understand what they're doing with digital
    photography, and are sort of coasting on past reputation.

    That's kind of sad and depressing...

    -Miles

    --
    Electricity, n. The cause of all natural phenomena not known to be caused by
    something else.
     
    Miles Bader, Sep 14, 2009
    #12
  13. "Dave Cohen" <> wrote in message
    news:h8jtps$l6c$-september.org...
    []
    > Twelve or so posts concerning focal length vs effective length. Nothing
    > concerning the original post, what a group.


    You might expect to find discussions about a rangefinder camera in
    rec.photo.digital.rangefinder, and more general discussions about how to
    represent lens field of view here.

    David
     
    David J Taylor, Sep 14, 2009
    #13
  14. Dave U. Random

    Eric Stevens Guest

    On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 19:04:25 -0400, Dave Cohen <>
    wrote:

    >Eric Stevens wrote:
    >> On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 02:36:59 +0900, Miles Bader <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> Robert Coe <> 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

    >
    >Twelve or so posts concerning focal length vs effective length. Nothing
    >concerning the original post, what a group.


    Having said all that, you have still not been able to address the
    original point. Even more, you have not added anything worthwhile to
    the direction in which the thread had branched. What are you really
    trying to prove?



    Eric Stevens
     
    Eric Stevens, Sep 14, 2009
    #14
  15. Dave U. Random

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 19:04:25 -0400, Dave Cohen <> wrote:
    : Eric Stevens wrote:
    : > On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 02:36:59 +0900, Miles Bader <> wrote:
    : >
    : >> Robert Coe <> 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
    :
    : Twelve or so posts concerning focal length vs effective length. Nothing
    : concerning the original post, what a group.

    The original post was about a rangefinder camera that costs $8000. And you
    actually think it odd that we're not still talking about that?

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Sep 15, 2009
    #15
  16. Dave U. Random

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 11:31:51 +0900, Miles Bader <> wrote:
    : Dave Cohen <> writes:
    : > Twelve or so posts concerning focal length vs effective length.
    : > Nothing concerning the original post, what a group.
    :
    : Hmm, well... the whole AA-filter thing gives me the impression that
    : Leica doesn't really understand what they're doing with digital
    : photography, and are sort of coasting on past reputation.
    :
    : That's kind of sad and depressing...

    Leica no longer matters in real life. You might as well wring your hands over
    the demise of the Pontiac.

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Sep 15, 2009
    #16
  17. Dave U. Random

    Miles Bader Guest

    Robert Coe <> writes:
    > : Hmm, well... the whole AA-filter thing gives me the impression that
    > : Leica doesn't really understand what they're doing with digital
    > : photography, and are sort of coasting on past reputation.
    > :
    > : That's kind of sad and depressing...
    >
    > Leica no longer matters in real life. You might as well wring your hands over
    > the demise of the Pontiac.


    I think if they could avoid the "bad pictures" trap, they could usefully
    keep their niche as a high-quality luxury brand, bare bones in terms of
    features but still good for people that want a well-built small camera
    that takes very good pictures and has brand cachet. They've done pretty
    well with that formula for a long time.

    But if people get the idea that the quality isn't there...

    -Miles

    --
    80% of success is just showing up. --Woody Allen
     
    Miles Bader, Sep 15, 2009
    #17
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. _

    re: Leica D7 next year

    _, Jul 16, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    632
  2. norpinal

    Minox digital Leica M3 2.1MP

    norpinal, Sep 6, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    705
    Paul H.
    Sep 6, 2003
  3. ArtKramr

    Has Leica given up on digital photography?

    ArtKramr, Nov 24, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    25
    Views:
    912
    Tom Monego
    Nov 26, 2003
  4. John Navas

    Is Lumix Leica real Leica?

    John Navas, Nov 17, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    689
    Dennis Pogson
    Nov 18, 2007
  5. TJ
    Replies:
    13
    Views:
    1,834
    Tony Polson
    Dec 23, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page