Jump to content

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


movito

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

A larger display at the M9 would be nice to have (and we have read a lot of criticism about the display of the X1), however, there are always certain limitations.

 

I am more concerned with resolution than size. I would not change the design of the camera in order to accommodate a larger screen. But resolution and image quality (and visibility under sunlight, etc.) should be improved.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I am more concerned with resolution than size. I would not change the design of the camera in order to accommodate a larger screen. But resolution and image quality (and visibility under sunlight, etc.) should be improved.

 

Sally Mann probably uses a black cloth,... improvise dont blame tool.

 

Sally Mann - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

But the OP asked when, answer

 

this year.

next year

sometime

never.

 

Noel

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would expect anyone who is serious about their photography would realise that an LCD screen (no matter how good the quality) isn't suitable, image wise, for gauging exposure accuracy. Speed improvement is always a bonus though, IMO.

 

Alan's point is a valid one. Just last week I was shooting someone's portrait. They asked to see some of the shots. Sorry to say I find this question an embarrassment now with my M9 and don't usually offer unless asked. The sitters comment pretty much summed it up - "It's not very clear. I think you need a better camera" I suspect they were probably comparing with the LCD on their P&S.

 

I'm genuinely amazed. I have never had that reaction, and I've used a D700 with its 3 inch hi-res screen alongside my M9 and no one has ever even mentioned the difference. I don't believe they even noticed or cared, because they all understand the screen is only a rough impression anyway.

 

I've stopped using the D700 now because I prefer the M9 and quite honestly the screen has not once caused me a problem, because it does its job in displaying histograms, confirming framing if I've for example used my 21 without a VF, and reminding me what I took when I started earlier in the day, before even more of my brain cells had evaporated.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I don't have an M9 as of yet, but I believe my M8.2 experience qualifies me to make a comment. I don't find the Leica LCD to be an issue in any way. I've shot Nikon DSLRS since the D1 and while each new Nikon generation has improved the resolution and usefulness of the LCD I still find that they are pretty much useless for anything other than reviewing image composition and the histogram. I can't judge critical focus with them.

 

When I am shooting my M8.2 I don't get the impression that I have stepped back in terms of LCD utility relative to my D3 or D700. In fact, I really appreciate that the histogram reflects the exposure of the part of the image I have zoomed to. My Nikons don't do this. On balance I would say the Leica LCD is more useful than that of my Nikons.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks! Yes, there might be few 2.5" screens to choose from. Still, I'd expect a bit more development in four years. A 3" screen would mess up the lines at the back of the camera, but I'd gladly sacrifice that concinnity/elegant balance of form for better image review.

 

 

I looked through specs for other current cameras that have 2.5" screens and I haven't seen any that are higher resolution. (Although there may be some available somewhere and perhaps some of these 2.5" screens are "better" in some other ways.) Anyway, it leads me to think that Leica may not have an alternative but to incorporate a 3" or 3.5" LCD in the future regardless of the body changes this may require.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Talk about tail wagging the dog...

 

Conversation in Solms R&D Department:

 

"Let's add a 3.5" screen on the M10"

 

"Great idea. What impact will that have on the body?"

 

"The body will need to be at least the size of an M5"

 

"Excellent... Just what our customers have been demanding since 1975"

 

Door slams on R&D engineer on his way out...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, but I do not buy the idea that there's no space for a 3" screen within the existing footprint. My Nikon P7000 has such a screen with a scratch shrugging glass cover and it is much smaller than an M8/M9.

 

The space to the left of the 5 buttons is unused when the camera is held correctly and with a little bit of shuffling could accomodate the extra 9mm width required. Height? An extra 7mm is required which could be obtained by fractionally increasing the height of the camera or a cutout into the top of the camera.

 

Before the M9 was introduced, I was convinced that Leica could not fit a FF sensor into the M8 castings; I admit I was wrong, but without taking an M9 apart, I still do not know how they did it. I would hate to think the current size of the M8/M9 is going to be the size of M cameras for evermore and nor should Leica think that all future M cameras must use the same pair of castings. I would not mind a few mm change here or there, especially if it allows things such as a 3" screen and a better rangefinder/viewfinder. This would of course annoy those who have bought one of the vile (IMHO) Luigi cases which in any case increase the size of the camera significantly.

 

The one dimension I would like to see reduced is the thickness. Go back to a film M and you realise what a porker the Digital M is by comparison.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have an M9 as of yet, but I believe my M8.2 experience qualifies me to make a comment. I don't find the Leica LCD to be an issue in any way. I've shot Nikon DSLRS since the D1 and while each new Nikon generation has improved the resolution and usefulness of the LCD I still find that they are pretty much useless for anything other than reviewing image composition and the histogram. I can't judge critical focus with them.

 

When I am shooting my M8.2 I don't get the impression that I have stepped back in terms of LCD utility relative to my D3 or D700. In fact, I really appreciate that the histogram reflects the exposure of the part of the image I have zoomed to. My Nikons don't do this. On balance I would say the Leica LCD is more useful than that of my Nikons.

The screen is OK on the M8, but on the M9 with its higher pixel count the shortcomings become painfully obvious. At full zoom it is simply fuzzy. The few times I use it to zoom in I stop one step short.
Link to post
Share on other sites

For me an improvement for that screen would be one that uses the least amount of power and also one that can be seen under heavy sunlight. If one screen has 4x times the pixels, then it also consumes 4x the power sort of. OLED screens can help with both power and brightness

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good for Sally Mann. Perhaps Leica should supply a black cloth with their digital RF's then.

Hi

 

Gucci made fortune after he turned his bags inside out, simple to blue tack on a generic shade.

 

Leica productioned the M4-P and on rangefinders so they needed after market aids, for about 20 years (to 2000) to allow them to work, what makes you think Solms have rescently transported to Ja land, - a La Startrek?

 

Noel

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

 

Gucci made fortune after he turned his bags inside out, simple to blue tack on a generic shade.

 

Leica productioned the M4-P and on rangefinders so they needed after market aids, for about 20 years (to 2000) to allow them to work, what makes you think Solms have rescently transported to Ja land, - a La Startrek?

 

Noel

 

Sorry, I didn't understand any of that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

 

Sorry ...

 

Leica are not customer focused, e.g. their top of range model the M6 had a compromised range finder throughout its 16 years of production, 3rd party people produced work arounds, while Leica milked the cow...

 

The M8 and M9 range finders are ok now & multi coated throughout, but assuming Leica have changed, may be rather optimistic.

 

Leica FAQ — RF patch flare

 

The rangefinder was a primary thing, for the M6, the rear screen nice to have, & rather expensive for the numbers amortised.

 

Noel

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have an M9 as of yet, but I believe my M8.2 experience qualifies me to make a comment.

 

I wouldn't count on your M8(.2) experience being a guide. You may be in for a shock when you actually see an M9 LCD.

 

The M9 LCD image is not the same as that on the M8s. It is substantially contrastier (ironically - an attempt to make the image MORE visible in sunlight than the M8 LCD).

 

Generally speaking, the M9 LCD clips about 2 stops off the shadows (i.e, when finally viewed on a computer, the M9 images have far more actual shadow detail than the LCD revealed).

 

I'm not sure if that is a inherent difference in the actual LCD device itself, or instead, a difference in the firmware driving the LCD, which may be imposing a higher gamma on the images.

 

Similarly, the lower sharpness at full zoom may also be "programming" rather than actual LCD limitations. Leica may be creating preview jpegs that are lower res (say, 6-8 Mpixels instead of the full 18), to save processing time/power.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Snipped .........

 

Hi

 

Sorry ...

 

Leica are not customer focused, e.g. their top of range model the M6 had a compromised range finder throughout its 16 years of production, 3rd party people produced work arounds, while Leica milked the cow......

 

Noel

 

I have no wish to sound like a fan as opposed to a discriminating user, but I do think its a little harsh to describe a company that was battling for survival and trying to protect some values, as well as products, that the mass market was leaving behind as "milking the cow."

 

I bought two M6s when they were current, and I'm glad we were "milked", because had we not been, Leica wouldn't be here now. And despite their faults, I'm rather glad they are.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no wish to sound like a fan as opposed to a discriminating user, but I do think its a little harsh to describe a company that was battling for survival and trying to protect some values, as well as products, that the mass market was leaving behind as "milking the cow."

 

I bought two M6s when they were current, and I'm glad we were "milked", because had we not been, Leica wouldn't be here now. And despite their faults, I'm rather glad they are.

Two points here the M6 and the LCD

The changes to the rangefinder were minor simplifications that saved a very small amount but make the rangefinder unusable in some environments e.g. gigs with Fresnels and profiles.

A different LCD might be a lot more expensive as it is a different component and different firmware, e.g. to map more pixels on to enhanced display. It does not necessarily lose a shot...

If Leica did not react to customer complaints for the M6, (and some M4-P and some M4-2) will they do anything about the LCD?

They have addressed the rfdr for the M7 and MP (and M8 and M9) after 16 years, so donno.

Noel

Edited by Xmas
spelling
Link to post
Share on other sites

Talk about tail wagging the dog...

 

Conversation in Solms R&D Department:

 

"Let's add a 3.5" screen on the M10"

 

"Great idea. What impact will that have on the body?"

 

"The body will need to be at least the size of an M5"

 

"Excellent... Just what our customers have been demanding since 1975"

 

Door slams on R&D engineer on his way out...

 

That sounds pretty unimaginative to me considering the tiny size of the latest Olympus M4/3rds, Sony Nex and many other cameras that have larger LCDs and a similar number of buttons and controls on the back.

 

This is very simple in my mind. If virtually all other good and many cheap p&s cameras have larger higher res LCDs I don't see how Leica cannot include one on the M10. People are used to seeing images at a certain quality level on cellphone and camera LCDs now. Anything short of what people are used to will look dated. Let's say hypothetically that Leica plans to introduce the M10 in 2012 and plans on selling it for three years. Do you think a 2.5" LCD will fly in 2014 and 2015? (Even assuming there is an improved 2.5" LCD available.)

 

I'd expect they'll also replace all of the electronics with newer and faster more integrated technology. This will free up some space inside and there is a lot of room on the back already. If many other companies have built all kinds of smaller cameras with 3" and larger LCDs in the past why wouldn't Leica's engineers be able to do this in the near future?

Edited by AlanG
  • Like 1
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...