Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2012/08/31

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

Subject: [Leica] Monochrome II and III
From: hopsternew at gmail.com (Geoff Hopkinson)
Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2012 07:54:32 +1000
References: <1346355327.98058.YahooMailClassic@web126006.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <80F9701439F20347874CE5E4E03C22E995E3EB5D@WHIZZMAIL02.whizz.org> <59903679-C0A8-40D7-81C9-3F068A3DFC70@archiphoto.com> <1346408838.20219.YahooMailNeo@web87404.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> <C9E67944-CEE1-4A0E-A645-ACCC7A264EBD@archiphoto.com>

Hi Henning. I think it is well recognised that the M9 is not a fast
operating camera regarding processing times and frame rate. Those
limitations apply whether shooting uncompressed or compressed DNG or JPG or
a combination. If you need more than those seven frames at half second
intervals it is always going to stutter and hold you up. The Monochrom is
the same but adds a killer capability for purists of course.

.I've always considered my M9 as a basic but very compact full frame
digital vehicle for the lenses. It is the wrong or at least not ideal tool
for some photography types. I sold one M lens (for a bit more than I paid)
and got a dSLR and a dedicated lens or three  to start learning some
fashion/action/macro/wildlife stuff too.

A while back Stefan Daniel explained that the M9 design was the lowest cost
design that they could manage for a 'full frame' at the time and it used as
many M8 components as possible. At the time of the M9 genesis the S system
was being developed too and they admitted they they did not have the
capacity nor funds for two major in-house projects simultaneously, hence
the M9 being lowest risk design with as much M8 recycled as they could
manage.

In the case of the processor they used two instead of one but the amount of
data is much larger of course. At least partly due to the degree of success
of the M9 (and now the Blackstone partnership) their budget for development
has presumably improved since and they have previously said that they
intended to use the 'Maestro' processor (developed for the S2) in future
cameras. I would be surprised if the M10 does not use that and be more
responsive. However when that camera will materialise is not known despite
speculation. I suspect that will not be at this Photokina but we will see
another big development or two. Not long until we find out.

On the battery capacity/design, I think the camera form factor is one of
the limitations. I don't see how anything physically larger could be used.
 Whether that form factor will be/should be different in some future design
is probably several discussions on their own. You noted how you would
prefer that a future design get smaller again too.

For comparison I'm looking at the Li-ion batteries from the Nikon D7000
next to the M8/M9 one. The Nikon one is 7V 1900mAh 14Wh and the Leica 3.7V
1800mAh 6.7Wh. No contest! But you physically could not fit it within the
M9 body. Tiny production numbers mean less options and higher costs too of
course.

I'm sure that I will be lining up for the M10 whatever it looks like and
whenever it appears providing it uses my lenses and the M still stands for
Messsucher ;-) Let's see what happens.

Cheers,
Geoff
http://www.pbase.com/hoppyman



On 1 September 2012 04:23, Henning Wulff <henningw at archiphoto.com> wrote:

> 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
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>


Replies: Reply from henningw at archiphoto.com (Henning Wulff) ([Leica] Monochrome II and III)
In reply to: Message from douglasnygren at yahoo.com (Douglas Nygren) ([Leica] Monochrome II and III)
Message from john at mcmaster.co.nz (John McMaster) ([Leica] Monochrome II and III)
Message from henningw at archiphoto.com (Henning Wulff) ([Leica] Monochrome II and III)
Message from frank.dernie at btinternet.com (FRANK DERNIE) ([Leica] Monochrome II and III)
Message from henningw at archiphoto.com (Henning Wulff) ([Leica] Monochrome II and III)