Interesting Piece

[andalus]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

over at the "Online Photographer" about a bunch of new digital cameras released over the past year or so and less than 10 employ 4/3 or larger sensor/interchangeable lenses, etc.

Just a hunch, but maybe the market is now so saturated, and more importantly, the degree of new technical innovation is flagging rapidly.

 

Again, let me state I am no expert on cameras or camera markets, and have owned an M9 for a week and that's my first ever digital camera, but it does occur to me that maybe...

 

a camera as good as the M9 is going to be around for years, maybe is NOT going to be "obsolete" three years from now, that its technology, while perhaps not as sophisticated at top line dslrs, is damn good enough and perhaps even the M10 isn't going to be such a big deal, such as leap, as Leica took going to full frame in such a relatively small form factor.

 

Well, you get my drift here, and I am wondering if the technology really is bumping up against some limits which in a roundabout way make the M9 NOT in any sense a "wasting" treasure...

 

Wonder what other LF members think? Perhaps read the OP story first.

[snaggs]

I think we've come to the point where megapixels matters less. Other things would get me more excited, like a version with the cloth shutter and hand shutter cocking )

 

Daniel.

[ashwinrao1]

I do think that the M9 is quite an accomplishment which will be hard to beat. The Megapixel race is over. I imagine that a next-gen M will have some cosmetic upgrades, all discussed ad nauseum (saph glass, higher res screen, faster chipset to process images) along with a sensor with better DR or ISO capabilities...though, given the quality many are acheiving with the M9, it may be a hard camera to beat, even at 3 years.

[jaques]

even if there is new technology- I don't see the m9 (or the M3) ever being truly 'obsolete'. If the goal is photography- and there is agreement that the M9 takes good photographs- then how can future cameras render it obsolete?

[Peter H]

I think its largely true that the battle will be fought on other grounds than megapixel count.

 

A big problem (and benefit) that digital has brought us is that whereas an awful lot of R&D used to go into producing better and more varied films from which to choose, that development now goes into sensors. So, to keep up with what is, sadly, a viciously competitive world, you have to change cameras.

 

If you can overcome this mindset and not be beguiled by, for example, the temptation to try shooting at 120,000 ISO without noise, there's no need to consider changing your camera.

 

But as the manufacturers know, that's not human nature, generally speaking.

 

Otherwise a better strategy for them might be to follow the analogy of the printer manufacturers and sell the body at a loss and make bigger than ever profits from the increased demand for ever-better lenses, which is where we are most likely to continue spending. No?

 

Peter H