Red Dot Fever Posted June 13, 2011 Share #1 Posted June 13, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) Oh No!!! here we go again I hear some of you saying, my ears are burning already That's the beauty of free speech you hear me say. So if you are happy with the way the M9 and don't feel it needs any improvement what so ever is then now is a good time to stop reading this post. Been reading the Leica forums for a while now and given much thought to the discussions regarding the changes I would make to the successor to the M9. To make a camera that will appeal to a new generation of Leica users who are yet to experience the Leica system while still keeping true to the Leica M system. To stay true, the shell of the the camera would stay the same. The rangefinder focus would stay the same with a twist which I will get to later. Basically it would feel like an M9 when using. The three changes are as follows........... (1) While still keeping with the same rangefinder experience I would also ad a feature whereby at a flick of a switch (similar to the Fuji X100) you could see a live view through the viewfinder. To determine accurate focus, the parts that are in focus glow a bright yellow. Much the the same way of some high end digital video cameras. Very easy way to focus. Plus there is no need to focus and recompose if your subject is not centered because even if your subject is say in the very bottom right hand corner of the frame the camera will still tell you if the subject is focus or not. (2) The resolution would be a five stage setting all with RAW capabilities. 12, 18, 24 and 30 & 36 megapixels. The user would determine how important high resolution is dictated be the image they are taking at the time. (3) A three way sensor whereby the user could determine whether they required high resloution, extended dynamic range or high iso capabilities. (Much like the technology in some Fuji compacts) The way this would work is in order for you to have one at a high setting you would need to sacrifice the others a little. If you wanted 36 megapixels the dynamic range and high iso capabilities would have to drop On the other hand if you needed to take a shot in low light or fast moving objects that required fast shutter speeds and you required the lowest noise possible you would dial that in and the maximum resolution and dynamic range would drop. If you were shooting a wedding in bright sunlight (white dress, black suit) you may want the high dynamic range feature to preserve your highlight and shadow detail and of course your resolution and low light capabilities would also drop. Not that you would need low light capabilities in bright sunlight. You would be able to have a variance of all three features. The factory default would be say 33% resolution 33% DR 33% ISO (don't ask where the other 1% went) You could simply dial one up in any increments and the other two would reciprocate. Just a thought. Cheers, Ben Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted June 13, 2011 Posted June 13, 2011 Hi Red Dot Fever, Take a look here Three changes I would make to the M9. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
AlanJW Posted June 13, 2011 Share #2 Posted June 13, 2011 Sounds to me like you need a Fuji. Enjoy it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted June 13, 2011 Share #3 Posted June 13, 2011 You have a vivid imagination... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted June 13, 2011 Share #4 Posted June 13, 2011 Having followed similar discussions on this forum, I've come to the conclusion I would not want any of these things on any future M I might buy. Could be wrong, but at this stage, they don't appeal. I like the optical rangefinder pretty much as it is. It could be improved - I think I would prefer it if rather than having the frame lines, the entire viewfinder was used (I assume it is possible to make this part of the coupling, so you could do away with the framelines lever, and I wouldn't need to keep adding an additional viewfinder for my 21). Focus really only seems to be an issue for lenses with focus shift (I don't (think) I have any). I was out with a friend paragliding on the weekend - he took around 150 air to air shots with his Nikon (not sure which model - not an SLR), and I was surprised at the number of shots he missed because of shutter lag, and frankly average autofocus. I'm not really interested in different resolutions and RAW capabilities. I just like the sensor to record the shot in the best way possible. I have no shortage of storage, and post processing sometimes retrieves a pleasing image. Cheers John Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Dot Fever Posted June 13, 2011 Author Share #5 Posted June 13, 2011 I have a Fuji but I love the Leica glass. If Fuji made an M mount I'd be there Sounds to me like you need a Fuji. Enjoy it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Dot Fever Posted June 13, 2011 Author Share #6 Posted June 13, 2011 Hi John, To my knowledge no company makes a sensor that excels in all three at the same time. High relsoution, DR and high iso low noise. Hence my suggestion of sacrificing one off each other. I know this technology is here and now. Cheers, Ben Having followed similar discussions on this forum, I've come to the conclusion I would not want any of these things on any future M I might buy. Could be wrong, but at this stage, they don't appeal. I like the optical rangefinder pretty much as it is. It could be improved - I think I would prefer it if rather than having the frame lines, the entire viewfinder was used (I assume it is possible to make this part of the coupling, so you could do away with the framelines lever, and I wouldn't need to keep adding an additional viewfinder for my 21). Focus really only seems to be an issue for lenses with focus shift (I don't (think) I have any). I was out with a friend paragliding on the weekend - he took around 150 air to air shots with his Nikon (not sure which model - not an SLR), and I was surprised at the number of shots he missed because of shutter lag, and frankly average autofocus. I'm not really interested in different resolutions and RAW capabilities. I just like the sensor to record the shot in the best way possible. I have no shortage of storage, and post processing sometimes retrieves a pleasing image. Cheers John Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Dot Fever Posted June 13, 2011 Author Share #7 Posted June 13, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) LOL! Hi Jaap. Yes you are right there, but only when it comes to actually taking the shot. Everything else I have suggested is already in the technology of other cameras. So nothing really new or imaginative on my behalf, but thanks for the compliment all the same. Cheers, Ben You have a vivid imagination... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted June 13, 2011 Share #8 Posted June 13, 2011 More innovative than the usual suggestions here - but: 1. I never, ever have found focusing on a screen to be preferable, or easier, than just snapping a split-image together. I always used the split prism in SLRs - and left SLRs behind when split-prism screens disappeared (except for lenses just not available for the M - 180 and above). I had a video camera with the "focused points" flashing in yellow (well, actually, I could pick the color). Used it once - fugedabatit! About like having a security guard stick his hand over the lens, in terms of following the subject and keeping track of the moments that were happening. 2. Here I agree, with reservations. I could use the option of lower resolution RAW traded off for better high ISO performance. One of the PhaseOne backs can "bin" pixels to give one either 60 Mpixels of full res, or 15 Mpixels with a couple of stops of improved ISO. I don't know if that can be done with anything other than a factor of 4, though. Just getting a smaller file doesn't excite me. I have sRAW1 and sRAW 2 on my Canon 5D2, and never use them. If a picture isn't worth full res - it isn't worth more than grabbing a P&S (unless there is a serious improvement in some other way, like much lower noise). The other reservation is - I have my doubts about cramming 36 Mpixels on a 24 x 36 sensor. I'm sure someone will do it - I just suspect the usable ISOs will top out at 400. Unless it can produce a good ISO 3200 by "binning" down to 9 Mpixels, it will be a camera that happens to someone else, not me. 3. I assume we are talking: FinePix HS20EXR / HS22EXR | features - The Debut of a New Technology - EXR CMOS | Fujifilm Global So far as I can see, there is no way to vary this on a scale - a bit more DR, a bit less resolution. There are three discrete settings - pick 1, 2, or 3; not some of each. If the pixels are paired up for more DR or more sensitivity, the resolution is cut by half - period. And if they are paired up for DR, they can't also be binned for more sensitivity. And the sensor doesn't actually change, it is all done in processing the pixel output via different patterns. It's a pretty slick idea - but they only show one sample, in the hi-res mode, which looks pretty low-res to me. A l-o-t of noise reduction and/or AA filtering being applied even at ISO 100. I bet Leica would go nuts trying to apply M9 lens corrections differentially to paired or unpaired pixels, too Especially on the diagonal. I'm not trying to discourage creative thinking. I just like to play devil's (or engineer's) advocate. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
diogenis Posted June 13, 2011 Share #9 Posted June 13, 2011 Your ideas one by one: #1: The x100 solution, maybe works to AF cameras but it won't work to the superior optical VF of an M. It's virtues are: clear unobstructive view, very bright, and very simple to use. If you start adding this and that, it will come at a cost. Both in power (you need juice to drive the electronics) and in weight/bulk. Instead, Leica can improve the VF by giving us a rotating dial for diopter correction for those with eyesight problems and maybe if it's possible add some sort of magnification lens. #2: This will add in complexity and maybe introduce mistakes. Also maybe it's just a function of post processing too. And there is a problem of available CCD sensors and manufacturers... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.