Digital MP as a platform for all future Sensor/Electronic upgrades; possible?

[MarkM6]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

M8, M8.2, M9, M?.... stop it.

 

Why not strip it down to a basic, i.e., manual wind, no LCD or just a basic display of settings and call it a Digital MP, MPD, DMP, MD, or whatever but most importantly make it a platform so it can have the future upgrade of sensor and processor. Charge it US$9,000 (in 2009-Dollar!)

 

Hack, you can even claim it "green" because of the reuse! And yes; throw in biodegradable shutter, i.e., rubberized cloth!

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[erl]

Sorry Mark. What do you want? A digital or analog camera? If Analog, you have the choice of M7 or MP if I remember correctly. Both superb. Nothing more to desire.

 

If you want a digital, then I suggest the current offering of M8.2 or M9 are superb examples of that medium.

 

If you want to mix the two, then maybe you should re-think your needs, or buy both.

 

You are the photography, the cameras are the tools, usually.

[Bo_Lorentzen]

Actually, its a intriguing thought.

 

basically most M cameras have the same base and backside, one should easily be able to make a sensor module, and a electronics box about the size of a M winder. this could work on most film M boxes.

 

not arguing the M8 or M9, still waiting for the 9 to arrive, but I would spend money on a full-frame adapted to my M6 for sure.

 

.

[zlatkob]

Green and reusable are good. But digital with the LCD is the best technology to come to photography in a very long time. And you can turn the LCD off any time it bothers you. I would rather wish for a better LCD than no LCD. Suggesting a camera that is simpler than the M9, and more expensive, makes little sense to me. Sorry!

[MarkM6]

Green and reusable are good. But digital with the LCD is the best technology to come to photography in a very long time. And you can turn the LCD off any time it bothers you. I would rather wish for a better LCD than no LCD. Suggesting a camera that is simpler than the M9, and more expensive, makes little sense to me. Sorry!

 

This isn't about M9, M8.2 or M8; all are wonderful cameras and open a brand new path to digital rangefinder.

 

All I am suggesting is 1 - Eliminate those that are not essential 2 - make the chassis upgradable with new sensor and/or image processor; at the factory of course. In order to make less parts needing to upgrade, MP represents simplicity.

 

Just imagine if the M8/8.2 were upgradable to M9, M?, ... specifications; wouldn't you have paid more in the first place?

[diogenis]

How can you even suggest that there are non essentials in a M9?

Besides, Stephan explained to us all: the M9 is the camera he ever wanted, minus speed in drawing picture on that LCD

[MarkM6]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

How can you even suggest that there are non essentials in a M9? Besides, Stephan explained to us all: the M9 is the camera he ever wanted, minus speed in drawing picture on that LCD

 

there... even Stephan want to upgrade his LCD before his M9 is a few months old.

 

Again, this isn't about M8-M9 or LCD; this is something I always wonder from seeing digital camera become out dated every 3-4 years. If Leica determines that LCD is essential, so leave it, but make it upgradable.

[erl]

Upgradeable is nice in theory, I would go for it probably, but it seems to not make business sense for Leica. Presumably that is why they they scrapped that plan originally.

 

Also, your idea of a 'perfect' Leica' is probably different from mine, which is different from the next guy and so on. Hence, the M9 'one size fits all.' .... and pretty well I might add.

[jamriman]

Sounds like you want an R-D1 with an MP body. I'd buy one but Leica would soon go broke. My R-D1 satisfies my analog needs.

[250swb]

Its an intriguing idea, an upgradeable camera, but I think you'd find the bits that can be upgraded are the expensive bits, and the box they are packaged in (the body and lens mount) are the cheap bits.

 

In fact I think you would find the body to be so cheap that people will just order a new body along with the new sensor and electronic module. It would be like Ford offering the latest engine and drive train in your ten year old Focus, you'd take the new bodywork and interior as well wouldn't you for a few extra quid, rather than go further and faster but with a spring sticking up through your seat?

 

Steve

[Jager]

From an engineering and production standpoint, an upgradeable digital camera is pretty much a non-starter. A few minor discrete components might be able to be upgraded - for a generation or two. But the major components - the sensor, DSP, and associated electronics will typically have different form factors, electrical requirements, and physical interfaces from one generation to the next. Not to mention that you would also have to design components that plug together rather than being soldered. That would lead to higher cost to manufacture as well as increased opportunity for camera failure.

 

Imagine if Apple had tried to push an upgradeable laptop several years ago when they moved to Intel. Beyond the increased manufacturing costs and higher failure rates that would have been introduced at that time, they would have locked themselves into the interfaces and form factors of the physical chipsets at the time. Their current line of very thin, unibody laptops would never have seen the light of day - as those laptop designs are very much dependent on the far smaller and far more dense chip sets that weren't even a gleam in anybody's eye back then.

[aesop]

... a future-proof digital camera? Get real, folks. Then think of the operational (im)practicalities relating to a "new sensor launch and upgrade". Even the Nikons and Canons of this world, with all their muscle, would struggle to swing it. Oh, and incidentally, it does not make business sense.

 

So, it might sound intriguing, but only if you don't get it. Coffee, anyone?

 

 

 

.

[aesop]

From an engineering and production standpoint, an upgradeable digital camera is pretty much a non-starter. A few minor discrete components might be able to be upgraded - for a generation or two. But the major components - the sensor, DSP, and associated electronics will typically have different form factors, electrical requirements, and physical interfaces from one generation to the next. Not to mention that you would also have to design components that plug together rather than being soldered. That would lead to higher cost to manufacture as well as increased opportunity for camera failure.

 

Imagine if Apple had tried to push an upgradeable laptop several years ago when they moved to Intel. Beyond the increased manufacturing costs and higher failure rates that would have been introduced at that time, they would have locked themselves into the capabilities of the physical chipsets at the time. Their current line of very thin, unibody laptops would never have seen the light of day - as those laptop designs are very much dependent on the far smaller and far more dense chip sets that weren't even a gleam in anybody's eye back then.

 

 

...well said, Jeff - pretty much what I was trying to articulate to my good friends here, except I am not very patient. But I do try.

[lars_bergquist]

The idea is not as stupid as it may seem. It has in fact a sound kernel.

 

Most screw thread Leicas could be upgraded. You could take a fixed-lens Leica I ('A') and upgrade it in 1931 to a Leica I interchangeable, in 1933 to a Leica III and in 1952 to what might be called a 'Leica IIIa with f sync'. I have encountered such cameras. This option did no doubt sell a lot of cameras to people who would not have been able to afford, or justify, going the whole expensive hog at one leap -- even had the hog existed at that time!

 

A M9 body has three really expensive components: The finder/rangefinder assembly, the shutter, and the sensor. All three can be changed (much sensor-related electronics sits on the sensor card). The camera is repairable, after all. And suppose that a Voice from Solms intoned: "Yes, there is an A/D converter in your camera that malfunctions. So we are sorry but you must scrap the camera, even though the cost of that chip is just thirty euros. We designed a € 6,000 throwaway camera, you see." This would not likely generate much repeat business.

 

In a new thriftier, 'greener' world we cannot design such products. They will not be bought. It would not be the Leica way, either. I can send a M3 to Solms for service. It remains to take that ethos into the digital age. And if it can be repaired, then it can in principle be upgraded, too.

 

The old man from the Screwy Age

[Leicaiste]

M8, M8.2, M9, M?.... stop it.

 

Why not strip it down to a basic, i.e., manual wind, no LCD or just a basic display of settings and call it a Digital MP, MPD, DMP, MD, or whatever but most importantly make it a platform so it can have the future upgrade of sensor and processor. Charge it US$9,000 (in 2009-Dollar!!

 

As I said It before Leica did that with the DMR on the R8/R9 and it was a big failure leadind to the extinction of the R line.

 

I don't think they will try it again.

 

Lucien

[aesop]

The idea is not as stupid as it may seem. It has in fact a sound kernel.

 

Most screw thread Leicas could be upgraded. You could take a fixed-lens Leica I ('A') and upgrade it in 1931 to a Leica I interchangeable, in 1933 to a Leica III and in 1952 to what might be called a 'Leica IIIa with f sync'. I have encountered such cameras. This option did no doubt sell a lot of cameras to people who would not have been able to afford, or justify, going the whole expensive hog at one leap -- even had the hog existed at that time!

 

A M9 body has three really expensive components: The finder/rangefinder assembly, the shutter, and the sensor. All three can be changed (much sensor-related electronics sits on the sensor card). The camera is repairable, after all. And suppose that a Voice from Solms intoned: "Yes, there is an A/D converter in your camera that malfunctions. So we are sorry but you must scrap the camera, even though the cost of that chip is just thirty euros. We designed a € 6,000 throwaway camera, you see." This would not likely generate much repeat business.

 

In a new thriftier, 'greener' world we cannot design such products. They will not be bought. It would not be the Leica way, either. I can send a M3 to Solms for service. It remains to take that ethos into the digital age. And if it can be repaired, then it can in principle be upgraded, too.

 

The old man from the Screwy Age

 

 

...theoretically, all electrical componentry can be repaired or replaced. It is more a question of managing Leica's resources. And I daresay industry dynamics have changed somewhat since the '30s - the sort of bandwidth/clout Leica enjoyed back then simply does not exist any more.

 

We are talking about a company that needs to tread carefully here, not one in its prime.

[MarkM6]

Its an intriguing idea, an upgradeable camera, but I think you'd find the bits that can be upgraded are the expensive bits, and the box they are packaged in (the body and lens mount) are the cheap bits.

 

In fact I think you would find the body to be so cheap that people will just order a new body along with the new sensor and electronic module. It would be like Ford offering the latest engine and drive train in your ten year old Focus, you'd take the new bodywork and interior as well wouldn't you for a few extra quid, rather than go further and faster but with a spring sticking up through your seat?

Steve

 

Leica Rangefinder cameras were never built like a car; much less a Ford! How can a body be so cheap if you were to start with, say US$9000?

 

 

Imagine if Apple had tried to push an upgradeable laptop several years ago when they moved to Intel. Beyond the increased manufacturing costs and higher failure rates that would have been introduced at that time, they would have locked themselves into the interfaces and form factors of the physical chipsets at the time. Their current line of very thin, unibody laptops would never have seen the light of day - as those laptop designs are very much dependent on the far smaller and far more dense chip sets that weren't even a gleam in anybody's eye back then.

 

Apple is a company who puts a lot of emphasis on the Industrial Design. That also makes all their machines out dated after a few years. How much change are we seeing in M Rangefinders? I do not believe that the M body is an industrial design but rather it was developed from functionality.

 

As I said It before Leica did that with the DMR on the R8/R9 and it was a big failure leadind to the extinction of the R line.

 

I don't think they will try it again.

 

Lucien

 

In my opinion.... it was Leica fault tried to compete in SLR/DSLR. Japanese manufacturers got that segment nailed for many years when Leica's true identity have always been in the Rangefinder.

 

In my opinion, it was the SLR market that Lecia already failed to keep up.

 

...theoretically, all electrical componentry can be repaired or replaced. It is more a question of managing Leica's resources. And I daresay industry dynamics have changed somewhat since the '30s - the sort of bandwidth/clout Leica enjoyed back then simply does not exist any more.

 

We are talking about a company that needs to tread carefully here, not one in its prime.

 

It will create more of a study growth. Yes, the "industry dynamics" has changed; it was changed back to the responsible ways. If the resources were so scarce, how are they offering all sort of special editions MP's with custom leather, finishes and engravings?

 

Do any of us wonder that the real profit margin for the Leica is in their M lenses and not the bodies?

 

Leica break the barrier with M9 when just a few years back people are saying that M lenses sit so close to the film plane that a full-size sensor in Rangefinder was impossible.

 

How wonderful will it be to lead the industry again with infinitely upgradeable platform?

 

My Christmas whish!!!

[ljclark]

Apple is a company who puts a lot of emphasis on the Industrial Design. That also makes all their machines out dated after a few years. How much change are we seeing in M Rangefinders? I do not believe that the M body is an industrial design but rather it was developed from functionality.

 

Whatever you see as the basic shell, keyboard, and display of a laptop is based just as much on functionality as is a Leica RF. What really changes from one model to the next for those key elements? The differences are mostly window dressing, with not very much difference between any of the laptop clamshells when you look at similar price points? Design, not engineering.

 

I have a netbook, a laptop, and a desktop. The first two are essentially throw-aways. If I get three years out of either, I'm satisfied. When I get the replacements, the functionality will be very close. The desktop, however, follows your model of upgradeability. With mine, I can trace a line of components back to the Zeos I bought in 1990. All the pieces from the Zeos are gone, but there is an unbroken chain of upgrades that you could trace.

 

So which of those computers am I going to carry with me on Metro when I go into work...Or even in the car on a trip? The one that has unlimited upgrade potential? Or one of the functional disposables? (BTW..The shipping weight of just the case for my last desktop upgrade was 45 pounds.)

 

I must admit I get a bit weary of all the bright boys who come up with these ideas, but not the funds, wisdom, or energy to execute them. The DPReview forums are polluted with failed CEOs and failed product engineers -- which is one of the reasons I rarely go there anymore. I mean, really...do you honestly think that nobody at Leica ever thought about producing a castrato version of the M8/M9?

 

But if you think those cameras are a really good idea, why not get the funding lined up, and then contract Leica as a design/manufacturing OEM for 5,000 or 10,000 bodies. Then all you'll have to do is sell them.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[aesop]

 

<snip>If the resources were so scarce, how are they offering all sort of special editions MP's with custom leather, finishes and engravings?

 

 

 

...basic Economics 101, MarkM6. Leica will charge you handsomely (EUR 270.00 for a top plate engraving, anyone?) for aesthetic variations of a product which, under the hood, remains the same as the standard fare. It makes astonishing business sense, and the customer feels very special. Win-win.

 

Resources are not limited to camera parts but include trained personnel, inter alia - if you wish to discuss further, feel free to send your camera body in to Leica and see what the typical turnaround is like for a 1-2 hour job. You will get the picture (and my point) much quicker than any fancy e-mail thread can illustrate.

 

 

.

[Googaliser]

From an engineering and production standpoint, an upgradeable digital camera is pretty much a non-starter. A few minor discrete components might be able to be upgraded - for a generation or two. But the major components - the sensor, DSP, and associated electronics will typically have different form factors, electrical requirements, and physical interfaces from one generation to the next. Not to mention that you would also have to design components that plug together rather than being soldered. That would lead to higher cost to manufacture as well as increased opportunity for camera failure.

 

Imagine if Apple had tried to push an upgradeable laptop several years ago when they moved to Intel. Beyond the increased manufacturing costs and higher failure rates that would have been introduced at that time, they would have locked themselves into the interfaces and form factors of the physical chipsets at the time. Their current line of very thin, unibody laptops would never have seen the light of day - as those laptop designs are very much dependent on the far smaller and far more dense chip sets that weren't even a gleam in anybody's eye back then.

 

RED / Index

 

.....predicated entirely on a modular approach.

If the stills cameras due soon make as much of a splash as the video cameras did in Hollywood - ALL manufacturers should feel nervous