Ruhayat Posted June 24, 2011 Share #481 Posted June 24, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) I read it through and, to sum up, he basically wants the M10 to be a dSLR? WTF? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted June 24, 2011 Posted June 24, 2011 Hi Ruhayat, Take a look here Open Letter to Leica — 10 Ways To Improve the M9 Rangefinder. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
diogenis Posted June 24, 2011 Share #482 Posted June 24, 2011 I read it through and, to sum up, he basically wants the M10 to be a dSLR? WTF? Yes. That is what he wanted for some years now... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
diogenis Posted June 24, 2011 Share #483 Posted June 24, 2011 Alan, personally I don't understand what is the point of using this light field technology, since the current sensor technology is limited and cannot suport the other one. If, we are in that stage where we can get this technology and KEEP current resolutions in our photos then fine. Otherwise we can wait a decade when sensors can get in the Gigabyte range and light field technology can provide detailed photos Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pop Posted June 24, 2011 Share #484 Posted June 24, 2011 ... what is the point of using this light field technology... Since photographs are made for different purposes, the market at large can and will support wildly different technologies in support of those purposes. Make the light field camera a stereo device and I see a huge (potential) market for the thing, regardless of its resolution. Photographs of traffic accidents, sites of crimes, indeed any kind of damage where insurance might be involved or where the exact placement of things is to be documented could profit hugely from that technology, I believe. Whether mom and pop would choose it for their family snapshots is another story. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ruhayat Posted June 24, 2011 Share #485 Posted June 24, 2011 Yes. That is what he wanted for some years now... Then perhaps he should buy the S2, if he wants a camera from Leica with all those features he's asking for. Otherwise, I see no reason why he's still sticking with a rangefinder. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwilliamsphotography Posted June 24, 2011 Share #486 Posted June 24, 2011 Alan, we are delving into some very interesting areas of creative philosophy here. You mentioned "oil paints in tubes" which is an excellent example of technology used without altering the basic methodology of painting itself ... which I personally am an advocate of ... like Hasselblad's True Focus, or Phase One's Focus Masking and touch screen technologies which solve real issues while shooting ... as opposed to fixing something afterwards. I'm not a wholesale advocate of "Fixing" types of applied technology ... although there are some that are pretty sweet, like the lens corrections now in software which fix what the lenses designers cannot. However, that's not effecting the shooting experience or any creative decision process. I was actually trained as a painter and we had to make our own paints in order to establish a base of knowledge. I also practiced Sumi painting, and one of the keys to the process that DID effect the outcome was taking the time to grind your own inks in the traditional Japanese manner. Speaking of results oriented: My actual career was Advertising, and was an Art Director then Creative Director for over 40 years before recently retiring. I loved all that technology brought to that business over that span of time. Digital revolutionized the process of film editing, as it did the use of Type in print work. But I also took note of how sloppy the use of type became and tends to still be so. I don't agree that those involved with the process aren't as passionate about the results. Those that carry an Alpa camera with an 80 meg back to some remote location are doing so to bring back something ... but the methodical process is a major part of their experience. I see the use of a Rangefinder for its intended usage in a similar manner. Unlike Diglloyd, I personally don't want my rangefinder camera to become more like something else ... I'd prefer technology be used to make it more of what it is ... which seems a more practical POV than what might happen much later. My druthers for the M digital is not some application of science that further removes the photographer from the equation, but instead aids the photographer in applying their craft ... digital cameras introduced the aid of an LCD and histogram ... so I think it is a crime that the best rangefinder camera available has one of the poorest LCDs. Simple technology like weather sealing should have been on the M9 from the start, and moving forward it would be interesting whether some sort of light amplification couldn't be employed in the rangefinder without altering the basic photographer's experience using a rangefinder. Even simple stuff like the absence of a sync port and a properly proportioned bounce/swivel TTL speed-light for the M9 lessens its application as a results oriented tool. That kind of basic technology would have much more effect on making a M digital a more viable tool, while not altering the basic experience of rangefinder photography and all that implies regarding results. Get the basics right before even thinking about anything else that might be, could be, or even will be. -Marc Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ruhayat Posted June 24, 2011 Share #487 Posted June 24, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) If I may, the M is an anachronism. It's a way of life which some people choose to adopt, but seems backwards to others. As a system it's a bit like electing to forgo modern amenities to a certain extent and embrace a pseudo-Amish existence. And by doing so you also have to willfully submit to the dictates of that particular system. It's no good trying to become Amish, and then whinge about not having running water, for example. Is the M system the pinnacle of the rangefinder design philosophy? The current Zeiss Ikon suggests otherwise - there are indeed ways in which the rangefinder as a camera can be refined. But you do so at the risk of increasing weight and size. Just look at the Ikon vs M8, and the M8 vs M6TTL, and the M6TTL vs a meterless Leica. There is only a fraction of a difference between an M6TTL and an M4-P, but when I handled an M4-P in a shop I could feel a difference compared to my M6TTL - so even a small amount of increase in size and weight matters. An M is what it is. You can put in the bells and whistles and make it an Ikon, but it will have an ergonomic toll. Some people might say when you buy a digital M you are already paying this toll already, since compared to a film M, a digital M is bigger. True. But if you turned it into a digital Ikon, it would be bigger still. And you'll be able to feel it. Give me an M as it is. I have no need for autofocus beeps or autofocus assist lights or other supposed automated focusing aids - in fact I always turn these off in my dSLRs because (a) they are distracting (and that's only when they're not pissing people off!) and ( in most instances, they don't work as advertised, anyway. To me the solution is simple: can't focus accurately with an M? Get a magnifier, or get a dSLR. Otherwise, if you're going to put motors into the horse cart, maybe you should opt for something other than the Amish system. I'm no luddite, but what I am saying is, this is what Leica has to offer, and if you don;t like it, then maybe you should be writing open letters to Cosina instead to get them to deliver the camera you want. Me, my next purchase would probably be an M4-P, because like my Leica R-E, it is a camera that gives me all that I want, and nothing more. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ruhayat Posted June 24, 2011 Share #488 Posted June 24, 2011 As an example: I do like the focusing system on the M3 - focus in the magnified smaller window, compose in the non-magnified bigger one. But it's slower than using a single focusing window. I always thought what a good idea it would be if technology could give us this dual system in a single window. And my Leica Digilux 2 delivered that - turn the lens in manual focus mode and the magnifier pops up. Excellent. Except that I then found that I hated it. It was distracting and disorienting, and not as "pure" as my M6 focusing. So my solution: buy a 1.25x magnifier, since I usually use my M with the 90mm Summicron anyway. Quick and easy. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ruhayat Posted June 24, 2011 Share #489 Posted June 24, 2011 As for the bottomplate, sure it's a pain, but I am fond of it (and I eventually even got used to using it ). I believe Leica when they say it adds to the overall stability of the camera - I have plenty of cameras with open backs, and they never feel as solid as an M to me, always clattering or flexing in one way or another. But most of all, it's just what I'd call charm. My ideal digital M would be one without any opening at all, and you'd simply transfer files and charge batteries on a single wire from a hidden socket in the bottomplate (something that Apple might think of). But I'm not opposed to the bottomplate. It slows me down. And that's one of the things I bought a Leica for. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter H Posted June 24, 2011 Share #490 Posted June 24, 2011 ...If I may, the M is an anachronism.... Survivors tend not to be anachronisms. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted June 24, 2011 Share #491 Posted June 24, 2011 Marc, I agree with all your points about the M and I bet it will gradually evolve in the ways you suggest. I think a more ruggedized version would be a good idea. I am kind of surprised that they came out with the M9-P and couldn't see the way to put a better LCD in it. (Canon once improved and even enlarged the screen going from a 1DII to a slightly improved 1DIIn.) I do believe the basic methodology of photography comes down to just these two things - where you point the camera, and when you press the button. The rest is just whatever technology and craftsmanship you prefer to support those actions. Understanding the philosophy of many M users, I would not expect the M to change very much unless the demands for the camera by those users also change. This philosophy has a lot to do with how they relate to using a camera rather than just what that camera can do for them. And the fact that Leica has a loyal base that seems to keep buying new models allows them to steadily increase prices on bodies and lenses. But that pricing model may work against expanding this base. If M cameras don't change much, I do wonder where new users will come from for future similar models once the camera has reached a saturation point of older models. (E.g. Linhof has made the Master Technika for so long that I wonder how many buy a new one rather than a much less expensive used one.) However just because Leica has a successful system that they feel they can depend on to be profitable for a while, does not mean they can ignore technological developments in camera design. While some question the advantage of a Lytro photo, from a camera maker's viewpoint it could be very significant and leave them uncompetitive in the future. Consider how much simpler a Lytro camera can be and eventually how much less expensive to make than building focusing systems into cameras and lenses. And I'm not sure what implications this has for lens design. This has no immediate implication for the M but will have impact at some point. Couple that to people being sure they can get a picture in focus and you have a system that could have more impact on the industry than the adoption of AF had. Why would companies spend money to research and build improved rangefinders or AF systems if they could just change the sensor and image processing and eliminate the entire focusing system? But more to the point, a Leica with Lytro technology would be the ultimate tool for advancing the Leica philosophy of using a small quick camera to capture the decisive moment under a wide range of lighting conditions. Unfortunately for Leica, I think this will kind of homogenize cameras and Leica will have to figure out how to remain unique. Maybe their lens designs and a great optical viewfinder can make a difference. Consider if the current aperture ring only changed depth of field and did not affect brightness and you have another advantage for Lytro. I can't see why Leica would stick with rangefinders, focusing mounts, and cams if there is a better way. We just have to wait and see if Lytro or something similar advances to the point where it will become a better way. But new technology seems to often have a tendency to take over. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ruhayat Posted June 24, 2011 Share #492 Posted June 24, 2011 Survivors tend not to be anachronisms. "The intentional use of older, often obsolete cultural artifacts may be regarded as anachronistic. For example, it could be considered anachronistic for a modern-day person to wear a top-hat, write with a quill, or use a typewriter. Such choices may reflect an eccentricity, or an aesthetic preference." From Wikipedia Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted June 24, 2011 Share #493 Posted June 24, 2011 ...From Wikipedia Must be right then. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pop Posted June 24, 2011 Share #494 Posted June 24, 2011 "The intentional use of older, often obsolete cultural artifacts may be regarded as anachronistic. For example, it could be considered anachronistic for a modern-day person to wear a top-hat, write with a quill, or use a typewriter. Such choices may reflect an eccentricity, or an aesthetic preference."From Wikipedia Yes, somewhat correct. Which parts of an M type camera strike you in particular as obsolete? Sensor with Bayer color array? Tripod socket? Detachable lens? LCD on back? Precision range finder? High quality lens? Full format sensor with aspect ratio of 3:2? Metal body? Lugs for fastening strap? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted June 24, 2011 Share #495 Posted June 24, 2011 ...Which parts of an M type camera strike you in particular as obsolete?... Dangerous questions. Let me start: 1. Rangefinder. That of the M3 was more accurate 60 years ago. 2. Shutter / winder noise. That of film Ms has been much quieter since the fivetees. 3. Ergonomics. Film Ms were not slippery like soap bars, did not need accessories like thumbs up or hand grip and allowed all sorts of controls w/o chimping. 4. Shutter speeds. 1/8000s is common nowadays. 5. Sync speed. Even my old D70 can do 1/500s. Enough for today but don't ask the question again. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pop Posted June 24, 2011 Share #496 Posted June 24, 2011 Dangerous questions. Let me start:... These are just things you don't like. These are not obsolete parts or properties. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted June 24, 2011 Share #497 Posted June 24, 2011 These are just things you don't like. These are not obsolete parts or properties. No no i do like those old things, all my Leicas have been somewhat obsolete at the exception of the M3 but i like them much. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjh Posted June 24, 2011 Share #498 Posted June 24, 2011 2. Shutter / winder noise. That of film Ms has been much quieter since the fivetees. Yeah, but that quiet cloth shutter has long been obsolete … ;-) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted June 24, 2011 Share #499 Posted June 24, 2011 The shutter noise isn't the issue for me, it's the motor noise. I'd love a manual advance option, but suppose it's not in demand, nor likely. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted June 24, 2011 Share #500 Posted June 24, 2011 Yes of course the culprit is not the shutter but the winder. We could use motor winders in the past but they were not mandatory. Put a Leica shutter in a R-D1 and it won't be noisier than a film M. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.