Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2012/08/31
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Hi Frank, There may be a bit of that, but faster processors do not necessarily use more battery power, and on top of that the electronics are hardly packaged in a modern, efficient way in the M9. I think it might well be possible to have more efficient (less power hungry, faster and more capable electronics) AND a larger battery in the M10. One can hope. Henning On 2012-08-31, at 3:27 AM, FRANK DERNIE wrote: > Hi Henning, > I can't help feeling that all of the performance enhancements you would > like will (much?) need more battery capacity since they all look like > shortcomings due to trying to keep the battery as small as possible, which > would inevitably lead to the camera having to be bigger and heavier. The > M9 body volume is a tiny fraction of the volume of any digital camera of > anything like comparable performance... > Frank > > > >> ________________________________ >> From: Henning Wulff <henningw at archiphoto.com> >> To: Leica Users Group <lug at leica-users.org> >> Sent: Friday, 31 August 2012, 0:28 >> Subject: Re: [Leica] Monochrome II and III >> >> Mainly, and desparately needed: - these are the issues that are in fact >> holding me off ordering an MM immediately - >> Better buffer and image writing to card; faster display with zoom on LCD; >> better LCD so that you can judge your image better, should you choose to >> do so. Basically the electronics need to be up to the rest of the camera. >> If it can't do more than 2 frames per second, that's OK. What I don't >> like is having to wait for the camera. Ever. I don't with any other >> camera I now use, unless it's a P&S. I don't know if the production >> firmware allows for compressed DNG's, but uncompressed DNG's on the M9 >> are largely a waste of time and space as I have never been able to >> discern a difference in final output between uncompressed and compressed. >> If the electronics are up to dealing with the large files in a >> transparently speedy fashion, this becomes somewhat less of an issue. The >> file writing of the M9 with compressed is slow enough as it is; it >> doesn't need to be slowed additionally by not allowing a compressed >> format. Maybe there is a difference other than > theoretical between compressed a >> nd uncompressed on the MM, if it is available there or tested initially >> by Leica. >> >> In the 'Not so important but I'd like...' category:I'd also like the >> camera to get back to the size the pre-M8's were. I know that is >> difficult with the LCD screen requirements but I could better live with a >> deeper mount flange than the body thickness. Better battery and battery >> life. I'd prefer not having to remove the base and finding a place to put >> it to change batteries and cards. I also liked the minimal info display >> on the top panel of the M8; even a bit more would be welcome. >> >> Henning >> >> >> On 2012-08-30, at 12:36 PM, John McMaster wrote: >> >>> What do you think needs improved for the II and III? >>> >>> ;-) john >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> >>> I can hardly wait until the Monochrome II and then III are released. >>> The improvements will be greatly welcome. >>> >>> Maybe we'll see a Fuji Monochrome in the near future, or an Olympus >>> OMD-B&W. Digital altnernatives busting out all over. >>> >>> Cheers--Doug >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Leica Users Group. >>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >>> >> >> >> Henning Wulff >> henningw at archiphoto.com >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > Henning Wulff henningw at archiphoto.com