When can we expect a reasonably good screen and fast image review?

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Well, these armchair engineers are pretty brilliant imo, it is not easy to make a camera out of hot air.

[diogenis]

Liberace?

΅

No. lol Walter da Silva, chief designer of VW group and also Porsche I think

[Advertisement]

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

[andybarton]

[Double Negative]

...Porsche has grown dramatically and Leica has not....

 

Certainly not long-term, but I'd say things are looking up for them this year... Looks dramatic to me.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[zlatkob]

Interesting. Our approaches differ greatly here (and please understand I'm not against a better screen in the slightest, except as a priority requirement. I won't complain when it happens, though)

 

But even when I show the LCD to clients (and yeah, I know they ask--but not for colour critical things) I always tell them it only gives the vaguest idea of what a print might look like. I do that with the Leica and the Nikon both.

 

That's not an excuse, by the way, but the truth from my perspective. YMMV.

 

FWIW, I can tell what their makeup is going to look like from looking at that screen, but they can't, most certainly.

 

I'm not seeing a difference. A peek at the LCD is not for "color critical" analysis. It's just to get a sense for how they'll photograph. The LCD is not "accurate" on any camera, at least insofar as it doesn't show anticipated post-processing. Nevertheless, it doesn't hurt to have an impressive easy-to-see LCD.

 

You're thinking is perfectly reasonable in not being against a better LCD. I don't see it as a priority requirement either; I bought the camera knowing that the LCD is adequate but not great.

 

I just think some people are unreasonable in their active opposition to improving any detail on the camera -- as if it is perfect and beyond improvement. I mean, how can anyone scoff at improving the LCD as "feature bloat"?

 

Everything suggests that the reason the M9 is such a big seller is because Leica IMPROVED upon its digital predecessors. Somehow, full-frame, better high ISO, and proper IR-filtration are not "feature bloat", but a better & faster LCD would be "feature bloat". I don't understand that logic.

 

So, how can people be so anti-improvement in their words, and then be so pro-improvement in their buying habits? I think that if people where honestly anti-improvement give-me-a-minimalist-tool-only, they would have rejected the M9 as "feature bloated" -- but they obviously didn't. You will recall how I took this alleged "minimalist" philosophy to its absurd conclusion in another thread, arguing in favor of removing numerous "feature bloating" functions that are already on the M9.

 

And people who are against improvement are just as much armchair engineers as those who are in favor of improvement. They pretend to know the future of technology and presume that improvement is neither desirable nor likely. Happily, they are often proven wrong.

[AlanG]

You dont want to understand that technology is always used in favor of the project at hand. If Porsche would have made a camera out of carbon fibers maybe it would sell 0 units, because you buy a camera for the pictures it makes. Leica on the other hand have, regardless of what anyone believes about technology, a proven sales record for its flagship camera. Those who buy them understand that a M9+lenses makes an unbeatable combo, in things that matter most. Those folks that do need fps for their work, look elsewhere and everyone is happy.

 

 

They can charge a huge premium for a titanium cover and base but couldn't sell a carbon fiber version? Give them time. Who is debating if the M can make good photos? Steel and titanium bicycles work great too. Consider what Porsche and other high end sports cars are all about... light weight materials, high technology, speed, performance. I just don't think the comparison with Porsche is germane because if Porsche made the M it would have faster processing and a better screen already. Whereas many here are against Leica embracing the ideals that define Porsche.

 

Regardless of what the M10 offers and when it comes out, I can't see it not having new and faster electronics and a better screen. And if they haven't been updated already, it is not because the people at Leica think the current method is somehow the best.

Edited July 7, 2011 by AlanG

[wildlightphoto]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

So, how can people be so anti-improvement in their words, and then be so pro-improvement in their buying habits?

 

I'd like to see evidence that anti-improvement people are the same individuals who buy the new, improved models. I'd like to see evidence that people are actually against improvement. I'd like to see evidence that the exising M9 LCD is 'unreasonable', as the OP's question implies. Isn't reasonableness subjective?

 

I'd like to see evidence that putting the LCD from mom's Canon S90 on an M camera doesn't compromise some other performance spec. And I'd like to see evidence that people who insist that design changes are possible are aware of the many compromises that go into each and every aspect of a camera's usability and performance.

[Swanny66]

I don't care about the screen. But some people are chastising posters as if they have an MBA in electrical/chemical engineering from Stanford. I think people are just discussing desires and others are getting too worried about design how-to's. When one of the individuals commenting on engineering shows proof of experience in design, etc. on a system such as the M9 I will really take their comments seriously. Owning Leica equipment for 30+ years does not make an person qualified in designing a camera system. Until then, it is all hot air and speculation. I will wait until Leica comes out with something worthwhile like High ISO performance. I trust Leica to do what is right in the evolution of the digital M system. The screen improvement is a bonus.

 

Let's enjoy our cameras and not flame people on a board. In reality, if someone spoke to me in person in the condescending way they do on here to some posters, they would most likely be enjoying a liquid diet for 4-6 weeks. So please....let's be civil to one another.

[zlatkob]

I'd like to see evidence that anti-improvement people are the same individuals who buy the new, improved models. I'd like to see evidence that people are actually against improvement. I'd like to see evidence that the exising M9 LCD is 'unreasonable', as the OP's question implies. Isn't reasonableness subjective?

 

I'd like to see evidence that putting the LCD from mom's Canon S90 on an M camera doesn't compromise some other performance spec. And I'd like to see evidence that people who insist that design changes are possible are aware of the many compromises that go into each and every aspect of a camera's usability and performance.

 

So ... ask the "anti-improvement people" whether they bought the M9?

 

Are people really against improvement? ... Seems they like to say they are. But when the new camera comes along ...

 

The OP's questions about the LCD where pretty specific and interesting. Your question about it being "unreasonable" is rhetorical.

 

No one seriously suggested actually putting the (discontinued) S90's LCD on an M camera, just a better LCD. So that question too is rhetorical.

 

People who insist that design changes are possible have the weight of history on their side. Remember when a digital M was "impossible"? Remember when people suggested that the M8 could be improved in significant ways and ... Voila! ... it was. Someone who presumes that an improved LCD will compromise "each and every aspect of the camera's usability and performance" would seem to have the burden of proof on that. Of course, as people on both sides of this argument are being armchair engineers, it is all just speculation.

[jaapv]

Shifting bases - anti-featuritis has transmogrified into anti-improvement. I do not know one member on this forum who is against improvement. The problem starts when one attempts to define the nature of the improvement.

Edited July 7, 2011 by jaapv

[zlatkob]

Shifting bases - anti-featuritis has transmogrified into anti-improvement. I do not know one member on this forum who is against improvement. The problem starts when one attempts to define the nature of the improvement.

 

Go back to post #5 ... pro-improvement (faster, better LCD) was transmogrified into pro-featuritis ... and got about 17 votes of Thanks!

[dwbell]

This isn't a court of law - we don't need irrefutable evidence to discuss things we would like to see on future M's surely? For all of your evidence one could just as easily ask for evidence to the contrary. But that would also make for unbelievably boring threads, or more there of maybe.

[wildlightphoto]

Are people really against improvement? ... Seems they like to say they are. But when the new camera comes along ...

 

Specifics, please. Otherwise it's just hot air.

 

The OP's questions about the LCD where pretty specific and interesting. Your question about it being "unreasonable" is rhetorical.

 

Please re-read the thread title.

 

Remember when a digital M was "impossible"?

 

It was at one time. It takes engineers, time and money to make the impossible happen. Space flight used to be impossible too.

 

Someone who presumes that an improved LCD will compromise "each and every aspect of the camera's usability and performance" would seem to have the burden of proof on that.

 

I'm not presuming that it will. I'm aware that it might.

 

Of course, as people on both sides of this argument are being armchair engineers, it is all just speculation.

 

I'm a mechanical engineer writing engineering software for a living. I might have a clue.

[jaapv]

Go back to post #5 ... pro-improvement (faster, better LCD) was transmogrified into pro-featuritis ... and got about 17 votes of Thanks!

To make my position clear, I am anti-feature bloat and for a better LCD - said so before.

[dwbell]

To make my position clear, I am anti-feature bloat and for a better LCD - said so before.

 

No no, sorry jaapv, not allowable. Pick a side, black or white. A better LCD is feature bloat! Haven't you read the thread?

[pgk]

Improvement means change. Some of us clearly don't want change for change's sake.

 

Let me explain via a story. I shoot underwater. I used to use a Canon 1DS in a housing. Along came the 1DS MkII - a better improved model - and one which apart from a few control adjustments, seemed to be a small upgrade. Wrong! Its body dimensions, if measured, revealed that it was marginally different (around 1mm in height if I remember correctly) meaning that a new housing was required or the MkI housing had to be modified. An extreme case, but an example of how an improvement can be very frustrating. Continuity can be a valuable asset.

 

Now clearly I am not suggesting that the M8/9/10 should all be absolutely identical, but I do value continuity - familiarity as the M camera evolution has demonstrated, is a very useful attribute. But I do have to ask myself when I see a thread with a title like this one; why is there a belief that the screen is not reasonably good already - and in my case the screen is perfectly acceptable in that it delivers the data that I require (exposure histogram and composition). A 'better' screen might make this data look nicer but that's all it will achieve as far as I can see, unless that is, the back of the camera together with its switch gear is completely redesigned to accommodate a larger screen.

 

If this happens then so be it, but personally speaking, whilst I am not against improvement, I don't see any absolute necessity for a 'better' screen. The current one is, as far as I am concerned, fit for purpose. Some exponents of an improved and better screen seem to want the entire purpose of the screen to be altered too - it should provide monitor quality visual feedback (under all lighting conditions), allow live view, review focus precisely, etc. All very laudable, but certainly not what I want out of a digital M. I have some of these attributes on my 5D2, and whilst I do regularly use them (I was shooting 10mm long, live lobster larvae for a client this morning and had to review every shot to ensure that I had images with sharp eyes), the 5D2 has become IMHO somewhat bloated with features many of which I do not and never will use.

 

Keeping such a discussion civil should be easy enough but all too often seems to degenerate into pro and anti camps these days. It would be interesting to know whether the exponents of each 'side' are long or short term M users and how many started as film M shooters. I'd guess (and I may well be very wrong) that those of us who value the simplistic, traditional approach to M photography originally shot film Ms?

[zlatkob]

Specifics, please. Otherwise it's just hot air.

 

Please re-read the thread title.

 

It was at one time. It takes engineers, time and money to make the impossible happen. Space flight used to be impossible too.

 

I'm not presuming that it will. I'm aware that it might.

 

I'm a mechanical engineer writing engineering software for a living. I might have a clue.

 

The specifics are that when someone suggests an improvement, such as a better & faster LCD, there is strong wave of opposition (post #5, its 17 Thanks! and related posts). It seems that many forum members equate improvement with featuritis. I'm not going to research past threads, but if you suggest improvements to the battery, memory buffer, high ISO, dynamic range, etc., the same thing will happen: a wave of opposition. And if and when Leica improves any of those things ... watch the sales go UP.

 

Please re-read the thread title and post #1. The questions in post #1 are specific and interesting.

 

Yes, engineers, time and money can make great things happen. Hence, it seems perfectly reasonable to inquire about potential improvements.

 

As a mechanical engineer, you are well aware of the potential for technical advancements. And you are obviously aware that a faster & better LCD on a future model won't necessarily "compromise each and every aspect of the camera's usability and performance". So I don't quite understand your viewpoint in this thread.

Edited July 7, 2011 by zlatkob

[Double Negative]

There's definitely nothing wrong with improvements, refinements, evolution - or whatever you want to call it. I think it's safe to assume that most M folks start to draw the line when people try to turn the M into a DSLR though. It flies in the face of reason for selecting the "M lifestyle" in the first place... And if you want to call me an "anti-improvement person" for the latter - you go right ahead!

[diogenis]

But the thing Zlatkob is. that you just dont define what you want. You just say a better LCD. Well I want a better LCD too, but this is not the way things work.

You guys want a larger screen and at least 1Mp density. But guess what? This kind of screen will never fit in the body of an M, unless you want to change dramaticaly the whole camera. And even if you do make this happen then you also need a biggger battery, because quadruple the pixel density, plust the bigger size, add and a faster processor, well all this will mean more power.

Slowly but steadily you guys drag us in the dSLR you admire and we will not take the bait.

If you don't prioritize your needs we will just say the bigger the faster the more dense etc... but you don't compromise

Edited July 7, 2011 by diogenis

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[AlanG]

But the thins Zlatkob is. that you just dont define what you want. You just say a better LCD. Well I want a better LCD too, but this is not the way things work.

You guys want a larger screen and at least 1Mp density. But guess what? This kind of screen will never fit in the body of an M, unless you want to change dramaticaly the whole camera. And even if you do make this happen then you also need a biggger battery, because quadruple the pixel density, plust the bigger size, add and a faster processor, well all this will mean more power.

Slowly but steadily you guys drag us in the dSLR you admire and we will not take the bait.

If you don't prioritize your needs we will just say the bigger the faster the more dense etc... but you don't compromise

 

Unfortunately for this argument, batteries on cameras have gotten smaller or stayed the same size as the processing speed and screen resolution and screen size have increased. Shots per charge has often increased too. If Leica is actually incapable of making these kinds of improvements on the M10 I think it would be pretty sad.