sfokevin Posted December 8, 2009 Share #21 Posted December 8, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) Would removing the LCD and deleting all the other thing you mention reduce the cost of making an M camera by 1/2? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted December 8, 2009 Posted December 8, 2009 Hi sfokevin, Take a look here M9.2 /10 No Display Half Price?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
marknorton Posted December 8, 2009 Share #22 Posted December 8, 2009 Would removing the LCD and deleting all the other thing you mention reduce the cost of making an M camera by 1/2? No, of course it wouldn't. My guess, and it is only that, is that the three most expensive components in the camera are the sensor, the rangefinder and the top brass cover. Then would come the actual shutter, the electronics with the LCD and shutter motor wind somewhat further down the list. I think the OP has been indulging in a flight of fantasy... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest malland Posted December 8, 2009 Share #23 Posted December 8, 2009 "Flight of fantasy" is what everyone else is indulging in who wants to eliminate the LCD and pretend he or she is not using a digital camera, for the reasons stated in some of the posts above. The trouble with the M9 is not there is an LCD but the latter is of such low quality, compared to what is available on a lowly small-sensor like the Ricoh GRD3 930,000 pixel display, that it renders viewing pictures and exposure much less effective than it could be. —Mitch/Pranburi Flickr: Mitch Alland's Photostream Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
venividivici Posted December 8, 2009 Share #24 Posted December 8, 2009 http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m8-forum/39671-would-you-like-digital-mp-like.html Had the same idea 2 yrs ago. Haha Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samir Jahjah Posted December 8, 2009 Share #25 Posted December 8, 2009 <Presuming Firmware is solid>If Leica built a Digital M sans LCD Display, (w/ Frame/Battery window, Manual ISO, No JPG)... At half the price of the M9; Would you buy one? Manual Shutter Winder (M9-m)..? Any takers? -Max Another yes ! Even at the same price! In addition the simpler electronics would likely reduce further noises in the image! And why not a manual wind that also charge some capacitors with sufficient energy to capture the image and save it ! And no more battery ... but then this would cost MORE than the M9 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill Posted December 8, 2009 Share #26 Posted December 8, 2009 ...and people accuse ME of being a Luddite... Regards, Bill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
blatent liar Posted December 8, 2009 Author Share #27 Posted December 8, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m8-forum/39671-would-you-like-digital-mp-like.html Had the same idea 2 yrs ago. Haha Thanks -- As always I'm late to the party. I was too broke to pay attention two years back after my M8/Nocti. purchase. In any case, I am aware that the Mechanical Build will always cost more than a chip or two with some software -- however, large swaths of this current camera simply do not get used. The case for a more basic M Digital is not a gripe about the display or current M9, but a concept in simplification. (i.e. slow JPG engine, Thicker body, Battery life, Shutter re-cock dB, Write speed, etc...). I do not mis-believe the camera sans Display is "Half Price", I simply posture that it may be a marketable item. Perhaps another vendor may beat them to that game. BTW, I love the thinking about a manual winder building charge for the Meter. Savvy. -Max Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke_Miller Posted December 8, 2009 Share #28 Posted December 8, 2009 While I have only had my M8.2 for little over a month I am not new to digital photography. I started digital with a Nikon D1 in 2002. Previously I shot film cameras starting in the mid-1950s. I give that background as preface to the following observation regarding the LCD on a digital camera. I have grown more as a photographer since 2002 than in the previous 45 or so years. The reason is the instant feedback provided by the data available on the LCD. I was too lazy to take notes when shooting with my film cameras so I never really knew why some images were technically good while others were bad. Was it missed focus or camera shake? Usually no way to know after the fact. Was my light meter giving the proper exposure or is the white dress blowing out? By the time I get the prints back it is a moot point. I got better, quicker, as a photographer by getting the immediate feedback as to what worked and what did not. I believe the LCD also enhances the performance of the digital M. I love available light shooting, particularly in difficult light. That often means slow shutter speeds. With the LCD I know immediately whether I successfully hand held my 28mm 'cron at f 2 and 1/15 sec or if I have to go up a stop in ISO. I know that at higher ISOs I need to push the exposure to the right as far as possible while holding the highlights in order to minimize high ISO noise in an image. Often this means overriding what the camera thinks is proper exposure. The histogram on the LCD lets me know if I was successful and a three channel histogram (a la M9) will let me do it better. While I understand the view held by some that "real" Ms don't have LCDs (my M4 did not have one) I disagree. I submit that the digital Ms are not just Ms that don't require film, but Ms that are capable of captures that film Ms are incapable of. In my opinion that requires the LCD. But that is just my opinion, I could be wrong. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
blatent liar Posted December 8, 2009 Author Share #29 Posted December 8, 2009 . In my opinion that requires the LCD. But that is just my opinion, I could be wrong. Luke Thanks your "opinion" of course, your opinion can't be wrong. and I like your thoughts. My initial query is for theoretical takers on a pared down 'M digital', and was never meant to suggest that the M9 or future iteration should be shelled to appeal only to MP geeks like myself. Just If anyone but me and the other few who drafted the idea well before me, had company on the lonely planet "MPd" (heresy). Cheers Max Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marknorton Posted December 8, 2009 Share #30 Posted December 8, 2009 ...and people accuse ME of being a Luddite... I am surprised Bill hasn't seen fit to comment on the OP's affectation in using the word "sans", twice. As Miss Piggy said, "Pretentious? Moi?". There's a perfectly adequate English word, "without", though I accept it's 3 more characters to type. Alternatively, given the country of origin of the camera under discussion, he could have used "ohne" instead. Hochgestochen? Mich? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke_Miller Posted December 8, 2009 Share #31 Posted December 8, 2009 I guess I am not fully understanding the goal of the pared down digital M. Is it to reduce size and complexity? Is the wish to have a digital M with a form factor of the MP? That does not really appeal to me. When I got my M4 in 1967 I was impressed with how much bigger it was relative to my Leica III clone (a Nicca Type IIIs). The film door made the body thicker than the earlier models that loaded film through the bottom. And even though the integrated focus patch and viewfinder (with frame lines) was much more convenient than the separate focus and viewing window models - we paid a price in size and complexity. And lost the adjustable diopter to boot! If I were to consider giving up my LCD I would need more. Why not a minimalist and LCD-less digital Leica with the form factor of the Leica III? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
blatent liar Posted December 8, 2009 Author Share #32 Posted December 8, 2009 As with Photographing or Typing, I always wear sansabelt slacks. With or without my slacks on, I sit scorned for poor judgement. Whether contemplating my fantasy camera without LCD, or my M9 (without film), or my MP without 'Auto', or my M7 without auto ISO, I guess i'll have to go without reprisal for the reiteration (re-use) of the word s_ns; However, you are correct, I should have chosen another juicy word like ohne, and next chance, i'll run "Microsoft repeated catchphrase/lexicon checker", before posting. Thanks for your help -miss piggy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
zlatkob Posted December 8, 2009 Share #33 Posted December 8, 2009 Had the same idea 2 yrs ago. Haha I had pretty much the same reply 2 years ago... Still on the lookout for that simpler cheaper version of Microsoft Word that doesn't utilize a computer's screen at all, but rather prints each letter directly to your printer as you type, with no opportunity to make corrections except with the white fluid after everything is printed. To simulate the classic analog medium (a "typewriter"), it will require a "carriage" return at the end of every line of text. I don't want any usless bels and wistles lik a xpensive spel chekker. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
noah_addis Posted December 8, 2009 Share #34 Posted December 8, 2009 I'm not sure why some people are so firmly against this idea. It's not like anyone would force you to work with such a camera. Look, it's never gonna happen. But the fact that some of us would like one clearly shows there is some interest. And for good reason, in my opinion. I've been doing this long enough that I don't need an LCD to tell me if I've taken a good photograph. However, as I said sometimes the temptation to check the LCD when I should be concentrating on the situation is very strong. And I can't say for sure if I've missed photographs while I was looking at the LCD, but I do feel more engaged with my subjects when shooting film. Also, photography can be a very mental game. If I'm doing a shoot and nothing is working out well, then the last thing I need is to stare at bad photos on an LCD, it can ruin my mindset and make me frustrated. Better to focus on the situation at hand and really concentrate. Sometimes not knowing what I have is better, since in the end it really makes me think more. Sometimes the converse is true, I'll make a few very good photographs and then I'll feel content, instead of staying focused on doing more good work. The LCD can be a benefit, but for some it can also be a distraction. In my opinion it's not necessary. I never had problems with focus or exposure when shooting chromes, so the same is true for digital. If, and this is a big if, the camera could be more compact and/or have better battery life with no LCD and a thumb wind, then it would be well worth it to give up the LCD. Again, I know this camera will never exist. But I don't understand why some are so firmly against the idea. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
zlatkob Posted December 8, 2009 Share #35 Posted December 8, 2009 I'm not sure why some people are so firmly against this idea. It's not like anyone would force you to work with such a camera. Noah, this works both ways! When I suggest losing the baseplate, etc., some people respond very, very firmly against it. My reply to them is the same as yours: "It's not like anyone would force you to work with such a camera." Your arguments for why an LCD can be distracting are excellent and true. No argument with that. But the simplest, most obvious solution is to turn the darned thing OFF. That just takes a little discipline. I don't do that, but I do set the review time to just 2 seconds on all of my cameras. I'm surprised you've never had a failure (either mechanical or human error) for which an LCD would have saved the day by alerting you immediately. The reasons why I'm so firmly against any LCD-less digital camera ... First, it confuses two technologies (film and digital) which, while having similar uses, are different. To make one appear to work like the other is a backwards design enterprise. It's like designing a car that will drive like a horse and carriage, or making a computer with the interface of a familiar typewriter (i.e., no screen). It's like saying a skyscraper would be more appealing if it were covered with straw thatching like a hut. Some design choices are just really baaaad. Second, the LCD-less digital camera promotes a false simplicity at the expense of function. It loses vital digital camera benefits and functions; it's a crippled tool that requires new workarounds just to provide the normal and basic functions of its medium (like showing a histogram). And third, the power-saving appeal is a false promise. Yes, the LCD uses power and having no LCD would save battery power, but so would turning the thing OFF. And any workarounds to occasionally see the image (a PDA, a plug-in LCD, a Polaroid, etc.) inevitably consume power or resources in their own way. LCDs that use less power and/or better batteries seem to be the more sensible design goals. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nhabedi Posted December 9, 2009 Share #36 Posted December 9, 2009 But the simplest, most obvious solution is to turn the darned thing OFF. The "don't use it" argument can of course be applied to other things as well: Let's add scene modes, video, and sound effects to the M10. Why not? If you don't like, just turn it off... Seriously, I think there are two main design decisions behind the M9: Reduce as much as possible, i.e. remove everything that's not needed. (As with its predecessors.) Build a digital camera that's as close to an analog M as possible. An M10 without an LCD would fit with this philosophy and I would like it although I agree with Noah that we'll never see it. What for me surprisingly is a good compromise is an LCD screen that can be "closed" as on the Epson RD-1 or on the Panasonic G1. It's still there if you really, really need it, but it ain't as distracting as a screen that's merely turned off. The problem of course is that with such a screen the M10 would probably be thicker than the M9 and nobody wants that... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
zlatkob Posted December 9, 2009 Share #37 Posted December 9, 2009 Seriously, I think there are two main design decisions behind the M9: Build a digital camera that's as close to an analog M as possible. That doesn't seem to be an accurate description, as far as I can see. The design goal seems to be to build a digital camera that functions as much as practical like an analog M and uses M lenses. If the design goal were to get as close to an analog M as possible, then you have to do dis-functional things like remove the LCD. In other words, the goal then becomes building an imitation of an analog camera ... a digital replica of an analog device, a computer that looks like a typewriter, etc. The next logical step is to introduce 36-frame memory cards that look exactly like 35mm film canisters, because that makes the digital camera as close to an analog one as possible. A wind lever and a rewind knob would both be essential additions, and you would have to use them both. But that's not the M9: the LCD and buttons on the back speak to the design decisions just as much as the rangefinder and the M-mount. I think that the desire to imitate film cameras is likely rooted in nostalgia, which is not a sound foundation for design decisions, at least not for anything practical. Let's imagine, just as a thought experiment, that every film camera in history, including every Leica M, always had an LCD to give an instant preview of the image recorded on the film. If you grew up with a film M that had an LCD on the back, and you learned to turn the LCD off when not needed, would you now seriously wish for a new digital M with no LCD? I don't think so; I think nearly all of us would wish to keep the "old" and familiar LCD on the camera. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bo_Lorentzen Posted December 9, 2009 Share #38 Posted December 9, 2009 zlatkob, Its not about "getting rid of" the display. everybody agrees on the virtues and advantages of the LCD. no argument here. BTW I did have a pro-digital with no screen, Nikon Fujix made them, the E series, shocking modern things in 1995ish at 1280x960pix - we never even knew we needed the screen, shot complete jobs and them put the PCMCIA card in the powerbook for review. The issue is, keeping it simple, reducing distractions, in whatever silly form these might be, including but not limited to removing the buttons and displays from the backside of the camera. those who like the wind arm, is not nessesary interested in it for the recharging ability, but simply for a work-flow standpoint as much as potential power source.. (or at least that is what Im guessing). I would enjoy working with a screen less camera, not always, but when I choose to use it. Noah's idea of putting the adjustments under the baseplate sounds perfect to me. set the camera, make a few dial selections and button it up, then focus on photographing. VERY appealing. . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nhabedi Posted December 9, 2009 Share #39 Posted December 9, 2009 That doesn't seem to be an accurate description, as far as I can see. Yes, as far as you can see. That's why I wrote "I think". We simply disagree on this and we both don't know what the real design philosophy is. I think that the desire to imitate film cameras is likely rooted in nostalgia I wasn't talking about imitating film cameras. When I said "as close to an analog M as possible" I obviously meant "as close to its predecessors" as possible. Judging from how the M8/M9 looks and from what people write on this forum, it seems pretty obvious to me that people really want this and Leica is trying hard to achieve it. Think about how most of us feel uncomfortable about the M8/M9 being slightly thicker than the film Ms. Or think about the fate of the M5... This has nothing to do with memory cards that look like film canisters. We're talking about things that can be omitted although every other company thinks they are needed (I already mentioned scene modes and sound effects) and about things that might be useful although nobody else has them. That could be a digital camera without an LCD screen (it wouldn't be the first one) or it could be a digital camera with a wind lever (see the Epson). In both cases, there are viable practical reasons for some to ask for this although you might disagree. Note that nobody so far asked for rewind knob - because it simply doesn't make sense. But we don't have to discuss this any further and there's no reason for you to defend your LCD screen. Nobody is going to take it away from you... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
giordano Posted December 9, 2009 Share #40 Posted December 9, 2009 The reasons why I'm so firmly against any LCD-less digital camera ... First, it confuses two technologies (film and digital) which, while having similar uses, are different. To make one appear to work like the other is a backwards design enterprise. It's like designing a car that will drive like a horse and carriage, or making a computer with the interface of a familiar typewriter (i.e., no screen). And it's not as if it hasn't been tried. The Electric Dogcart - and for a modern version see The Extraordinary Aaglander – Keeping the Horseless Carriage Alive | Autosavant 1950s computer terminal Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.