brt3 Posted November 1, 2009 Author Share #21 Posted November 1, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) The responses here are interesting, as this subject seems to arouse some quite polarized responses. Clearly, this is a subject few are neutral about... My feeling is that by offering this as a feature that can either be used (by those so inclined) or abandoned (by those who wish to do so), Leica helps to insure their survival. They certainly face challenges, and it will be a BIG challenge to integrate helpful technologies -- where possible -- without polarizing these two different groups. I happen to believe that we can have our cake and eat it too. That's the beauty of many technologies; they can be adapted to meet the requirements of each different user. This is not a new idea, but it also seems to me that Leica will need to change or die. With the S2 they clearly seem to be embracing change. WIthout embracing a shift to digital they might already be dead. So, change will always be coming; the challenge is how to integrate this in a way that maximizes the potential of the M platform without ruining it. I am glad I'm not the one making these choices. In the end, the measure will be Leica's longevity. I'd rather see them irritate some people if it ensures their survival -- as long as their products continue to allow those with the skill to produce the best possible images. Lastly, these things are only "shovels". A lot of us get caught up in emotional attachments to technology. PC vs. Mac, digital vs. film, etc.. All these things are only tools -- shovels, if you will. If you need to work in the garden grab a spade; if you need to make a bigger (of different) hole, use a different shovel. The tool is not the point -- it's the end result that matters. I, for one, think Leica has a long future ahead and that they will continue to produce some very lovely tools that help bring us closer to the art of capturing images, at a time when some technology seems to be isolating us from that process. The fact that these tools are also works of art, in their own right, is icing on the cake... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted November 1, 2009 Posted November 1, 2009 Hi brt3, Take a look here Lens to camera feedback: how far will Leica go?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
earleygallery Posted November 1, 2009 Share #22 Posted November 1, 2009 Apart from everyone pays the extra cost - whether its a wanted feature or not. What exactly would such a chip do? I mean, what real difference would there be to any given image, and would it be for the better? Aren't Leica lenses capable of performing well enough as they are, even on a digital camera? I understand the need for some in camera trickery for wideangle lenses on the M8 and M9, fair enough, but what else exactly is required? I just read about 'curves' and the such but what about the end result? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill Posted November 1, 2009 Share #23 Posted November 1, 2009 I happen to believe that we can have our cake and eat it too. That's the beauty of many technologies; they can adapt to meet the requirements of each different user. = bloatware - Wiktionary Like James, I don't want to pay for something I will never, ever use. Cake eating is a suitable analogy. Regards, Bill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mby Posted November 1, 2009 Share #24 Posted November 1, 2009 There will always be progress; and all of us in this forum are already part of it. Just ask yourselves: did HCB or photographers of his class need aspherical lenses? - Did he even need a Leica? Fortunately, progress creates more choices if implemented right... Best regards, Michael Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted November 1, 2009 Share #25 Posted November 1, 2009 ...progress creates more choices... How many rangefinders were available 50 years ago in your opinion? And how many photo brands? Progress creates sometimes more sometimes less choices but always more gadgets. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BigSplash Posted November 2, 2009 Share #26 Posted November 2, 2009 Come on then. Spill the beans. Tell me what I am missing. Thanks No... Read the comments I have already made on this thread and elsewhere. Read what others have written also. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BigSplash Posted November 2, 2009 Share #27 Posted November 2, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) No, Andy, you are not. I wonder sometimes why some people who post here ever bought into Leica in the first place. Taking this to it's logical conclusion, let's all just use identical lenses on identical bodies. Massive economies of scale will result, of course, because everyone will buy exactly the same kit. There will be no need for anything else, because everything will be done in post processing. Want that Lomo colour craziness? Click on the "Lomography" icon on your editing software. Want that Leica glow? Click on... Even better, just load your "perfect" image up into the Cloud, and let the viewer decide how they want to see it... Perfect. Sterile, sterile, sterile. Why not just outsource the whole thing? Just buy a postcard. Regards, Bill Bill I suggest you stick with film and avoid any post production. I suggest Black & White as it is easier yet gives fabulous classic results. Maybe move to colour later, but dont get into using a colour enlarger as it is really time consuming, and too many knobs to twiddle....Use a local processing capability, some are really very good. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted November 2, 2009 Share #28 Posted November 2, 2009 Thanks for your help Now, let me go and count my PMs, I just want to check something. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BigSplash Posted November 2, 2009 Share #29 Posted November 2, 2009 The responses here are interesting, as this subject seems to arouse some quite polarized responses. Clearly, this is a subject few are neutral about... ......My feeling is that by offering this as a feature that can either be used (by those so inclined) or abandoned (by those who wish to do so), Leica helps to insure their survival. ....., change will always be coming; the challenge is how to integrate this in a way that maximizes the potential of the M platform without ruining it./quote] I agree with you and interpret this as driving the following requirements: M bayonet should never change, and if some innovation is required it should not be at the expense of disallowing an old M lens to be used on future generations of camera. Film M users have had many years of evolution in terms of lenses and camera bodies and Leica M cameras do their job very well. Digital cameras in general are in a state of continuous evolution with Leica, Canon, Nikon leading the pack in the 35mm sensor arena. Arguably Leica with the M9 is ahead of Canon 5DII (see LFI this month) and perhaps behind Canon 1D ......Leica has the advantage of no Aliasing Filter, which seems to be a huge differentiator in terms of image quality. M9 is now late in issuing firmware upgrades for niggles that are known about, but who cares these I am sure will get fixed Leica has the opportunity to take S2 knowhow, especially the Maestro chipset and further differentiate compared to Canon & Nikon. The question for me is what else can Leica do to improve a camera that is already excellent? I used to think Auto Focus...but I now tend to agree that would add size, noise, to the M9 which should if anything be shrunk in size to M6 proportions and NOT increased...Anyhow Rangefinder focussing is faster, and more accurate so AF is a retrograde step. Chipping the lens to send aperture size is likely to give better results in post production and is something that hopefully Leica is looking at going forward for future generations. Some threads suggest that the current results from a M9 are excellent so why chip........I personally believe that this needs looking at in much more detail as my own experience of wrestling with Lightroom and Phase One suggests that there is more to image quality than getting the white balance correct. I believe that not having aperture data available could be like having one hand tied as lenses do behave differently at different apertures. Lastly, these things are only "shovels". A lot of us get caught up in emotional attachments to technology. PC vs. Mac, digital vs. film, etc.. All these things are only tools -- shovels, if you will. If you need to work in the garden grab a spade; if you need to make a bigger (of different) hole, use a different shovel. The tool is not the point -- it's the end result that matters./quote] I, for one, think Leica has a long future ahead and that they will continue to produce some very lovely tools that help bring us closer to the art of capturing images, at a time when some technology seems to be isolating us from that process. The fact that these tools are also works of art, in their own right, is icing on the cake... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill Posted November 2, 2009 Share #30 Posted November 2, 2009 Bill I suggest... Yes, Frank, I've seen your "suggestions" before... I have no truck with those who insult me. ...if you wish to continue your nasty little personal attack on me, I shall expect your PM. I'm waiting... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
brt3 Posted November 2, 2009 Author Share #31 Posted November 2, 2009 How about this; at the very least Leica could sell each lens with access to data that could then be used in one's computer to correct for any little imperfections -- automatically, if desired, when the photos are loaded into the computer. I think this is along the lines of what you're getting at. At some point perhaps this could be expanded to incorporate direct connection between the lens and the body, as suggested by BigSplash above. I'm not trying to convince anyone I'm right and I'm fine with others disagreeing. However, everyone seems focused on my first comment -- which mentioned "chipping" the lens. As you can see above, I proposed an alternative which might be a good compromise. Which is, run each and every new lens through QC, run detailed diagnostics on each lens, and have this data accessible, via an online database -- to those who want to run corrections on their computers. This "digital fingerprint" could be coded in a way that prevents Those Who Like to Measure from comparing lenses and falling prey to the "my lens is better than yours" syndrome... This would allow those who want lovely aberration to keep it -- but would give the option of a higher level of correction to those who don't. This could be done to a greater degree of sophistication than what we are seeing in the 6-bit system, as it would actually correlate to the exact measurements of each individual lens. However, I also realize it lacks the real-time aperture data that would also be nice for some to have. And, BTW -- if I end up with that mint Nocti 1.0 which I seek, I will probably ignore any digital correction and hold onto most of that glorious aberration. I just want the option -- and I want Leica to keep current in a way that doesn't discard the past. One last thing; I find it interesting that people who oppose change are posting their opposition to it online in a digital format. No flames, please -- I just like the ironic potential of that phrase... Best to all here, regardless, and to each his own. There is no "right" way on this -- though it will be interesting to see what steps Leica takes on the M line and which path they choose. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
redbaron Posted November 2, 2009 Share #32 Posted November 2, 2009 How does recording the aperture value improve image quality Frank? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.