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

[diogenis]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

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.

 

I am not so sure this is true.

One can claim that silicon is getting more efficient but we are talking about 4x the transistors here. Faster processors too. These things cost power. Also a complete redesign of the interior too. I am not saying that you can succeed in keeping power down, but then what about size? physical size? And in the end what will be the point?

Will you still be able to see that screen against the sun without using your Zakuto? No.

Will the screen be able to display decent colors? No.

Will it help you with focusing? No, you still need to learn the RF mechanism, or visit the optician.

[dwbell]

 

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

 

 

You're really comfortable with that line? You're happy setting up a DSLR vs M9 users visual? Despite us all pretty much owning and having shelled out thousands of dollars for M9's in here? You don't think it might be worded better?

 

[Advertisement]

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

[dwbell]

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!

 

Absolutely, but asking if we might have a better screen and faster operation? How do we get from there to "leave my M alone go buy a DSLR heathen!" without passing through rational discussion and explanation of the perceived limitations? That's the bit that irks me about this thread/forum.

 

See my post above. You'd pretty much think that the 5DII forum and the M9 forum from dpreview had been merged and left to fight it out. We're all in the same club folks - there is no them versus us in here. Or at least there shouldn't be.

[zlatkob]

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!

 

That's the huge straw man often brought into these arguments. Proposed improvements and refinements are often portrayed as trying to turn the M into a DSLR. The straw man is followed with a plea to please buy a DSLR already and leave us alone.

 

What's funny is that many proposed improvements -- like a better LCD -- have nothing to do with turning the M into a DSLR. For example, a digital M can shoot for 7 frames at 2 frames per second. A film M with motor winder can shoot 36 frames at 3 fames per second. If you suggest that a digital M should simply shoot as fast as a film M, forum opposition will be strong: you will be told that an M is not for machine gun style spray & pray shooting, and you will be told to stop trying to turn the M into a DSLR. But if Leica introduces that specific improvement to the M, just bringing the digital M up to the speed of the film M, it will be a significant selling point.

[AlanG]

I am not so sure this is true.

One can claim that silicon is getting more efficient but we are talking about 4x the transistors here. Faster processors too. These things cost power. Also a complete redesign of the interior too. I am not saying that you can succeed in keeping power down, but then what about size? physical size? And in the end what will be the point?

Will you still be able to see that screen against the sun without using your Zakuto? No.

Will the screen be able to display decent colors? No.

Will it help you with focusing? No, you still need to learn the RF mechanism, or visit the optician.

 

It is true about the power. There are countless cameras that are tiny and have large screens and small batteries. They are often used with the screen on all of the time for framing. Many cameras have become smaller as the screens got larger and the cameras got faster. I think that virtually all digital cameras have become more energy efficient over the years. I really have to wonder if you actually have studied what is currently on the market if you don't understand this or are simply pulling biased opinions out of the air with no evidence to support them.

 

The Canon 1D series used to have much larger batteries than they have today. Yet the newer cameras now are faster, have better and larger screens, and shoot more images per charge. The 5DII is more efficient than the 5D and got a larger better screen, faster electronics, additional features, and remained the same size. The same is true with many other models from various companies including many DSLRs, APS mirrorless, and M4/3rd cameras which have become smaller with each generation. Just look at the new Olympus Pen models and Sony Nex C3 if you don't believe me. Where are the examples of cameras that support your opinions?

 

The rest of the points are irrelevant. As the screen improves it gets more useful under more situations even if it does not become perfect.

 

So much has changed since the M8 was designed that this is pretty much a moot point as far as I can see. How can Leica make an M10 without all new electronics and a better screen? What would be the point?

Edited July 7, 2011 by AlanG

[Double Negative]

@dwbell, zlatkob: I would agree that a better LCD, faster operation or improving the frame rate are all indeed improvements/refinements and don't alter the basic functionality of the camera. I'm sure all three would be universally accepted.

 

But talk of completely new features like video, live view, etc. start to encroach upon the "DSLRification" of the M I'd say. Could they be done with the M? I'm sure they could. But why should they? There are cameras out there that already do this or that. Why the need to change all these things about the M? I might argue that if you need all these features, then the M is simply the wrong tool for you. Change YOUR tool, not THE tool(s).

 

Not like I have a lengthy experience, but those that do - don't like change. After all, there's a reason the M has remained largely unchanged for nearly 60 years. Just because Leica is popular and "cool" now, and in some ways competing in the digital landscape - doesn't mean that the M needs to radically change to "keep up." Keep in mind too that Leica is a relatively small operation. They don't have the infrastructure to handle a dozen different bodies and feature sets, etc. They do certain things, simply and extremely well, and some of us like them for exactly that reason. Simplicity goes a long way, for many reasons.

 

Just as an example. Pick up an M3 and an M9. You could pretty much use either, interchangeably and without reading manuals. Now take a Canon EF and a 5D. Radically different in just about every way possible and more than likely you'll need a manual for the 5D at least initially.

[Xmas]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

So much has changed since the M8 was designed that this is pretty much a moot point as far as I can see. How can Leica make an M10 without all new electronics and a better screen? What would be the point?

 

I'd accept that the M9 is a M8 with a larger sensor.

And that Leica may already have potential obselence problems with M8/M9 components.

And they might need to go to more modern piece parts, not necessarily a better screen, merely one that will be available for a lot longer, a processor ditto and new processor will normally be faster and lower power.

But I'd like a cheaper M10, a used M8 is too expensive to buy and it too expensive in life cycle costs compared to a M2. An X100 ditto.

So I have no reason to change, most of my acquantances have bought and sold a M8 only a small % have kept, (if I exclude forum members).

So I dont see myself buying a M10. Do you need an M10?

 

Noel

[wildlightphoto]

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.

 

I'll type this nice and slow so you can understand it. I did not write that a better LCD will necessarily "compromise each and every aspect of the camera's usability and performance". I wrote that it might, not that it will. The concept is that there are often, not always but often unintended or undesired changes in seemingly unrelated areas as a result of a feature's change.

 

All I ask is that people be aware that unintended changes might be caused by a desired change. In other words, be careful what you ask for, you might get it.

 

Improved high ISO performance is a good example. In the absence of technological improvement, better high ISO performance comes at the cost of poorer low ISO color gradation. The technological improvement that will allow both excellent high ISO performance and existing low ISO color gradation isn't something one can schedule or predict, it will likely be the result of one or more flashes of genius from a team of brilliant engineers developed at great expense. Many of us want better high ISO performance, many others of us are unwilling to sacrifice the low ISO color gradation we now enjoy to get it.

 

At the present stage of sensor development (and understanding of quantum physics) that's the tradeoff we face. There are other tradeoffs associated with a bigger LCD, or with faster frame rates, or buffer size, or whatever specification collides with your working style. Marketing BS to the contrary, the M9 is full of compromises, some of which are easy to live with, some are irksome, but they're all a part of a single take-it-or-leave-it package. In this respect no other camera is any different.

Edited July 7, 2011 by wildlightphoto

[AlanG]

I'll type this nice and slow so you can understand it. I did not write that a better LCD will necessarily "compromise each and every aspect of the camera's usability and performance". I wrote that it might, not that it will. The concept is that there are often, not always but often unintended or undesired changes in seemingly unrelated areas as a result of a feature's change.

 

All I ask is that people be aware that unintended changes might be caused by a desired change. In other words, be careful what you ask for, you might get it.

 

Improved high ISO performance is a good example. In the absence of technological improvement, better high ISO performance comes at the cost of poorer low ISO color gradation. The technological improvement that will allow both excellent high ISO performance and existing low ISO color gradation isn't something one can schedule or predict, it will likely be the result of one or more flashes of genius from a team of brilliant engineers developed at great expense. Many of us want better high ISO performance, many others of us are unwilling to sacrifice the low ISO color gradation we now enjoy to get it.

 

At the present stage of sensor development (and understanding of quantum physics) that's the tradeoff we face. There are other tradeoffs associated with a bigger LCD, or with faster frame rates, or buffer size, or whatever specification collides with your working style. Marketing BS to the contrary, the M9 is full of compromises, some of which are easy to live with, some are irksome, but they're all a part of a single take-it-or-leave-it package. In this respect no other camera is any different.

 

Besides the speculation and probably needless worrying, can you point us to some examples where the addition of a larger higher res LCD and faster image processing has led to a reduction of image quality or had other adverse consequences?

[dwbell]

Besides the speculation ...

 

... bad manners, lack of civility ...

 

and probably needless worrying, can you point us to some examples where the addition of a larger higher res LCD and faster image processing has led to a reduction of image quality or had other adverse consequences?

[andybarton]

Can we keep this thread civil, please?

 

Thank you

[dwbell]

I was adding text into your response Alan.

 

"I'll type this nice and slow so you can understand" is school yard behaviour at best.

[Dabow]

I was adding text into your response Alan.

 

"I'll type this nice and slow so you can understand" is school yard behaviour at best.

 

Absolutely, in firm agreement. Completely uncalled for. This thread started off fine but, as is typical with threads that dare touch on Leica product change, seems to bring out not only the defensive but very offensive from a certain element that I would like to think are old enough to know better. Very poor show.

[AlanG]

I was adding text into your response Alan.

 

"I'll type this nice and slow so you can understand" is school yard behaviour at best.

 

Sorry that I misunderstood. I deleted that post.

[zlatkob]

In the absence of technological improvement...

 

If I understand correctly, your arguments against improving the camera are based on an absence of technological improvement which then necessitates unwanted tradeoffs & compromises. Got it. However, if I were a mechanical engineer, I would probably bet on some technological improvement happening in the future ... not its absence.

[NZDavid]

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

 

Exactly. Change does not always mean improvement. Newer is not always better.

 

One of the joys of the M system is its simplicity. The challenge has been to add sophisticated computer technology without compromising the classic shape. Most people would agree Leica has done remarkably well.

 

A better LCD, along with ongoing improvements in sensor design and software, are all steps along that path. (I would also add, tweaking the digital control interface.) Surely, they are not too much to handle? Any other more fundamental changes -- replacing the range/viewfinder with an EVF, for example -- would effectively spell the end of the M. It would be a whole new kind of camera.

[zlatkob]

Improved high ISO performance is a good example. In the absence of technological improvement, better high ISO performance comes at the cost of poorer low ISO color gradation. The technological improvement that will allow both excellent high ISO performance and existing low ISO color gradation isn't something one can schedule or predict, it will likely be the result of one or more flashes of genius from a team of brilliant engineers developed at great expense.

 

Look at the history of digital cameras, from the first ones to the present, and there have been improvements upon improvements upon improvements. From their first digital cameras to their latest, Nikon and Canon have massively improved high ISO performance and low ISO performance, not to mention so many other aspects of camera performance (such as batteries that are both smaller and longer-lasting). The flashes of genius keep coming. This may not be so evident when looking at last year's model vs. this year's, but it is very evident when looking at, say, the last 10 years of digital camera evolution. So I will assume, with no schedule in mind ... and maybe wrongly ... that some future technological improvement will occur.

[adan]

AlanG - just out of curiosity, do you think all cameras made should be identical? Same screen size, same live-view, same whatever? I just ask because it does seem that your attitude is that "if Canon/Panasonic/Nikon/cellphones are doing it, Leica should do it."

 

Is a single "übercamera" design, that is all things to all people, really your ideal?

[AlanG]

AlanG - just out of curiosity, do you think all cameras made should be identical? Same screen size, same live-view, same whatever? I just ask because it does seem that your attitude is that "if Canon/Panasonic/Nikon/cellphones are doing it, Leica should do it."

 

Is a single "übercamera" design, that is all things to all people, really your ideal?

 

I don't see how my view of cameras has anything to do with adding a better and or larger screen and new electronics as I can't see a company designing a camera today and basing it on 5-6 year old electronic technology. You are really taking this off subject.

 

Yes all cameras should be identical. An 8x10 should be just like a Minox spy camera only larger. Squeeze it together in the same way to advance a huge roll of film. That would be great and make the 8x10 much faster. Also, why can't we have large flexible LCDs that can simply roll up into the base of a tiny camera? Think it can't happen?

 

I think what you and some others miss in all of the generalizations about less is more and Leica being special and all of that is this is simply a digital camera, not a major lifestyle choice. Well it may be for some of you but I think digital photography has moved pretty far away from most of what I consider to be the fantasy and nostalgic view of what some define as the traditional role for a Leica. In my mind it was conceived as a small fast versatile tool and progressed along those lines for a while until the company pretty much gave up on advancing it anymore and simply decided that it could only be a niche player. If the camera fails to keep up with technology it will not be as useful as a photographic tool as some others. Leica now has the opportunity to use technology to allow the camera play a much larger role. Whether you appreciate it for that or not, some will.

 

So I think Leica should make use of whatever technology they have that will lead to the camera being the best possible combination of these attributes - versatility, frame rate, clearest and largest LCD that will fit, best focusing and framing accuracy possible, smallest size, lightest body, ergonomic controls, good battery life, largest buffer, best resolution and overall image quality over the widest possible range of ISOs, and still retain an optical viewfinder/rangefinder that also might be improved by the application of a new design. The way Leica balances the importance and implementation of these features will determine what the end product will be. Leica has been working under the restriction of needing the camera to be compatible with its legacy lenses and keep some kind of vague "traditional" look and feeling alive to please some of its existing customers. Various companies have similar performance objectives but work within a different set of restrictions such as prioritizing costs, size, more features, greater choice of lenses, etc. A lot of people use MF field cameras without using ground glass focusing at all. They just zone focus and shoot test shots to adjust framing and zoom in to judge focus. So there has been change in these traditional cameras too. And most MF DSLRs are auto focus for some good reasons I suspect.

 

There sure have been a lot of interesting developments in camera design in recent years as a result of technology and innovation. And cameras are not all the same just because they have larger sharper screens and faster image processing are they? That being said, I don't see twin lens reflexes or "press" cameras making a comeback any time soon. And most people don't by a Master Technika for the rangefinder these days.

Edited July 7, 2011 by AlanG

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[wildlightphoto]

If I understand correctly, your arguments against improving the camera are based on an absence of technological improvement which then necessitates unwanted tradeoffs & compromises. Got it.

 

No you don't get it (typing very very slowly): I'm not arguing against improving the camera. I'm advocating understanding the tradeoffs.

 

However, if I were a mechanical engineer, I would probably bet on some technological improvement happening in the future ... not its absence.

 

You can bet on some technological improvement, but not what the improvement will be or when it will be commercially viable.

 

Look at the history of digital cameras, from the first ones to the present, and there have been improvements upon improvements upon improvements. From their first digital cameras to their latest, Nikon and Canon have massively improved high ISO performance and low ISO performance.

 

And with all their flashes of genius the makers of CaNikon's cameras have yet to equal the color quality of the DMR from 2005. The Kodak sensor in the DMR is optimized for color quality, not for high ISO performance. CaNikon have chosen a different optimization. Neither is "right" or "wrong", "good" or "bad". Just different optimization for different goals.

Edited July 7, 2011 by wildlightphoto