Jump to content

When can we expect a reasonably good screen and fast image review?


movito

Recommended Posts

So, here's a quick sanity check... All these paragons of photographic virtue with bigger rear screens are either physically bigger already (DSLRs) or designed to be held at arm's length with that peculiar "fastidious zombie" grasp. What matters to me is the amount of real-estate on the back of the camera that I can use to grasp it firmly while holding it to my eye without accidentally thumbing a button or sticking prints on a screen. Most modern digicompacts have already gone too far in this regard.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

...I'd rather have a tool that does the job I need it for well rather than something that just looks good at club meetings.

 

...and the point that I, and many others make is that there are probably tools that are better for the job that YOU need it for than this one.

 

A chisel is a fine tool for carving wood. You can also use it to slice cheese. If you need to slice cheese you don't start by buying a chisel and wishing that it was a cheese knife and arguing that it should be modified to suit that purpose.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

Link to post
Share on other sites

...and the point that I, and many others make is that there are probably tools that are better for the job that YOU need it for than this one.

 

A chisel is a fine tool for carving wood. You can also use it to slice cheese. If you need to slice cheese you don't start by buying a chisel and wishing that it was a cheese knife and arguing that it should be modified to suit that purpose.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

 

I think we've already had the 'those that like to have one foot stuck in the past/those that like to look forward to the future' debate Bill, so I'm not going there. I don't think it's your position to suggest to me what tools I should be using to do my job. Nor is it anyone else's, just because they enter panic mode whenever anyone suggests what they regard as an improvement that doesn't take away form. Debate and huff and puff to your hearts content, but I'll use what I please to get the look that I want and exert my right to request improvements where I see they're required. You didn't write the book, you certainly don't own the company. As such, I suggest you respect those who dare to differ without resorting to radical (and somewhat presumptuous) suggestions that they're using the wrong equipment. This, IMO, is one of the fundamental flaws of this forum - 'M elitism' and the fear of change, which leads to the berating of anyone who offers up an improvement suggestion.

 

Time moves on and with it comes change. Some for better, some for worse. I know what I want, you seem to know what you want. Let's leave it at that, eh?

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think Bill is talking about form, i think functionality is more on his mind. I agree that there is always room for improvement, but there are no reasons to graft functions onto the M whatever that are better on other tools, and certainly not at the expense of the concept of the Leica M series. Up until now Leica has done a great job retaining the basic ideas of the M3 in the latest iterations, and I am sure they will not deviate. It would be suicide.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think Bill is talking about form, i think functionality is more on his mind. I agree that there is always room for improvement, but there are no reasons to graft functions onto the M whatever that are better on other tools, and certainly not at the expense of the concept of the Leica M series. Up until now Leica has done a great job retaining the basic ideas of the M3 in the latest iterations, and I am sure they will not deviate. It would be suicide.

 

I firmly believe that the suggestions I have made serve only to improve the M, NOT turn it into something it isn't. There are reasons I bought the M in the first place so what would be the point in Leica taking a different direction. As you state, it would be suicide. Similarly, staying putt would also be suicide. So there has to be a compromise somewhere.

 

The other thing is, there seems to be some God written rule which some members doggedly adhere to that the Leica M should only be used as a street camera. Quite why is beyond me, and surely it serves Leica better if people use it for other purposes as well, thereby increasing the customer base. Why come out with a lens like the Noctilux and then limit it's capabilities to street work when it's capable of creating beautiful portraits. Unfortunately, portraits wide open require critical focus, and this (for me) is where the M9 fails. It doesn't have to though, hence my various suggestions which - and let me just reiterate this for the panic brigade - would not move the M away from it's core values (IMO)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think that real estate on the rear of the camera for a 3 inch LCD screen would be a problem if that sensor were to be used on the M10.

 

It's interesting to see how large that is. I wonder if it's the astronomical use that drives that? After all, a few Hasselblad sensors stuck together would soon get to 268 mpixel, in a much smaller area.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for your recommendation, which you freely give having no knowledge of the type of photography I would like this feature improved for. My recommendation is to keep such wisdom to yourself, unless it's applicable to the case at hand (which it is not).

 

 

Dabow, your are welcome.

 

The reason why I join this forum is that I enjoy to discuss the different point of views and learn from the experience of other users. In this respect I kindly decline your recommendation. You might reevaluate your motivation to join this forum.

 

Kind regards,

Steve

Edited by jaapv
quotemark added
Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't seen much about street shooting in this thread, anyway I am not guilty. I am probably the worst street shooter on the forum, so I tend to stay far from the subject.

For me the M(9) is far more universal than many would give it credit. I think the changes that will be created for a successor will be non-invasive in a superficial sense, complicated as they might be to implement. Things like weatherproofing, a better LCD at the same size, processing improvements through newer electronic technology, maybe even a new sensor if Leica can find one they like and such are far more likely than vast changes in specifications, hybrid viewfinders, focus confirmation and the rest that have been proposed in this forum.

 

 

Btw. Your M9 should not fail in critical focus on portraits, on the contrary, that is one of its strong points.

 

I firmly believe that the suggestions I have made serve only to improve the M, NOT turn it into something it isn't. There are reasons I bought the M in the first place so what would be the point in Leica taking a different direction. As you state, it would be suicide. Similarly, staying putt would also be suicide. So there has to be a compromise somewhere.

 

The other thing is, there seems to be some God written rule which some members doggedly adhere to that the Leica M should only be used as a street camera. Quite why is beyond me, and surely it serves Leica better if people use it for other purposes as well, thereby increasing the customer base. Why come out with a lens like the Noctilux and then limit it's capabilities to street work when it's capable of creating beautiful portraits. Unfortunately, portraits wide open require critical focus, and this (for me) is where the M9 fails. It doesn't have to though, hence my various suggestions which - and let me just reiterate this for the panic brigade - would not move the M away from it's core values (IMO)

Edited by jaapv
Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't seen much about street shooting in this thread, anyway I am not guilty. I am probably the worst street shooter on the forum, so I tend to stay far from the subject.

 

You're going to have to get behind me in the queue for that accolade :)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

So, here's a quick sanity check... All these paragons of photographic virtue with bigger rear screens are either physically bigger already (DSLRs) or designed to be held at arm's length with that peculiar "fastidious zombie" grasp. What matters to me is the amount of real-estate on the back of the camera that I can use to grasp it firmly while holding it to my eye without accidentally thumbing a button or sticking prints on a screen. Most modern digicompacts have already gone too far in this regard.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

 

I think a larger screen can be added without risk of messing with a button or smudging a screen (beyond the fact that a larger screen will always have more area to smudge). . The whole left edge of the camera back can be used for whatever you want, your hand isn't there, it's under the base and lens. Leica has allowed more room than is required for the left side buttons by a fair measure, I'd expect little "real estate" trouble fitting a wider screen.

 

I also agree that if doing it screws up the camera, Leica should not (and will not) do it.

 

Until later,

 

Clyde

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are more elegant solutions to allow an external monitor to connect with an M. So, instead of Leica changing everything in the camera they can simply add a wifi chip and connect with everything.

Either way however, Leica should make the current screen OLED if possible for lower power and better llumination. They also need to make it faster too. But come on guys, seriously, don't tell me that you need that shitty LCD monitor to validate your focus: just trust the RF mechanism and your eyes, and you will never miss focus again.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I also cannot imagine that the correct focus can be evaluated on a small rear screen in a reliable way, no matter if it is 2.5 or 3 inches. Please think about how an M camera would look like with a really large screen. In addition, please think about the power consumption with all technical add-ons one could imagine (wifi, GPS, etc.). In the end, somebody calls for an integrated shoe-shining brush or a built-in coffee mill... ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dabow, your are welcome.

 

The reason why I join this forum is that I enjoy to discuss the different point of views and learn from the experience of other users. In this respect I kindly decline your recommendation. You might reevaluate your motivation to join this forum.

 

Kind regards,

Steve

 

Might I? Is that yet another recommendation Steve?

 

Discuss and learn. Perhaps you'd better add teaching to that.

 

Your original recommendation was presumptuous and ill informed. Perhaps, therefore, there's a lesson in there to be learned. Let's leave it at that :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Btw. Your M9 should not fail in critical focus on portraits, on the contrary, that is one of its strong points.

 

Well, as I've mentioned elsewhere, glasses are an issue for me and I struggle to obtain critical focus where I want it as much as I would like, especially in portrait mode. Some of that is my issue. Some of it is, as I see it, a camera failing that could be improved upon.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

... I struggle to obtain critical focus where I want it as much as I would like, especially in portrait mode....

 

If by "portrait mode" you mean "portrait orientation" or "vertical orientation," my experience has been that one focuses first with the camera held horizontal, then rotates it to vertical. Otherwise, the hands get in the way.

 

Once you've got focus set, you lean in and out to get the subject into that focus position.

 

Just my experience. My eyeglasses and yours probably aren't the same, though, Dave. ;)

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I also cannot imagine that the correct focus can be evaluated on a small rear screen in a reliable way, no matter if it is 2.5 or 3 inches.

 

You don't have to imagine this. Just look at some other screens using a magnified view. Additionally, the newest Phase One backs can overlay a "focus mask" on the image. Likewise, the Sony Nex have "focus peaking." So there currently are various ways to make use of the LCD to judge or confirm focus. The inclusion of an LCD for instant image review is one of the defining features of digital photography compared with film photography.

 

I don't see why Leica would have any interest in fighting this just because some current users want to work as if they are still shooting with a film camera. Leica is making a digital camera not a film camera substitute. Most people in the world already expect to be able to quickly go through nice clear images when reviewed on the back of any camera, whether you expect this or not. And they also expect to be able to instantly zoom into them to judge expression and focus.

 

If Leica can't keep up with these expectations, what is their defense... "Our cameras are for people who are so competent that they aren't interested in quickly reviewing images and confirming focus?" That sounds like an arrogant excuse for not advancing their technology. I don't think Leica will try to sell this viewpoint as they would look pathetic to do so. I'd expect the M10 to have a good high res LCD, probably 3", with new electronics that allow for fast image review and quick zooming to judge focus.

 

I remember years ago when the Alpa rep was trying to convince me that a semi-auto diaphragm and stopped down metering was better. Or when Hasselblad photographers had to put up with the lack of an instant return mirror. Yes people were able to work within these limitations but from a camera design standpoint, these were just lame excuses.

Edited by AlanG
  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...