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

[mjh]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Honestly I don’t understand what this thread is about. Leica might introduce an M10 some time next year or whenever and when they do, the new model might sport a faster CPU, higher resolution LCD and whatever else people want. But until then, the M9 is what we’ve got, with all its perceived deficiencies. So what’s the use of agonizing about display size, resolution, or whatever? Either you can live with what the M9 offers or you cannot. Complaining that the M9’s specs should be different from what they are is neither here nor there.

[Swanny66]

I think the agonizing has nothing to do with a screen. It has to do with the advancement of the M9 system. Some want it to be like an M3 and the others want it to be like a Mk4. I prefer to leave the evolution to the experts at Leica.

[Advertisement]

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

[wildlightphoto]

I prefer to leave the evolution to the experts at Leica.

 

+1

 

And either I buy it or I don't. It seems that for now the compromises Leica has chosen meet the needs of quite a few photographers as reflected in last year's sales figures.

 

For the next few years, there will be some changes that will reflect advancing technology and the perceived wants and needs of camera buyers.but my crystal ball can't predict whether Leica's compromises for the next camera will fall flat or score a grand slam. Either I buy it or I don't, it's not the end of the world either way.

[rosuna]

It is relevant for planning an investment in a M camera.

 

Should you buy a M9 now or wait one year and a half (at least) for a new model?

 

A rich person would buy a M9 now and a M10 next year, but if you can make on such investment only every 6 or 7 years, for instance, the handicaps of the M9 are relevant for the final decision.

 

This explains why so many people is thinking, writing and complaining endlessly about these M9's flaws or weak points...

 

Do those flaws have practical relevance? How much better the new camera will be? How much different? What about the relative prices, reliability, quality of the components? When the new camera will be available? Etc.

 

It does not make sense because the uncomfortable position of the potential buyer is not due to lack of a careful consideration of all the factors involved in the decision. It is due to lack of information. When a bit of information comes from Leica, all the process of evaluation starts again. Dr. Kaufmann and Mr. Schopf's words regarding the new system camera in 2012 and the M9-P is the explanation of this new "round".

[NZDavid]

+2. The OP's question was pretty simple. Next year probably for some evolutionary changes to the M9. Other whizzbang features could happily form part of a whole new camera, sometime, maybe, for whoever wants them.

[adan]

"It is relevant for planning an investment in a M camera."

 

Ruben, frankly, anyone who thinks of buying a camera, any camera, as "an investment" is out of touch with reality. Unless one is trying to kid a "significant other" about the expenditure, it is self-delusion, and rather pompous, stuffy self-delusion at that.

 

Except for A) professionals who will actually earn an immediate return on their money through practical use, or collectors who will stash it away to acquire collectible value in 50 years - buying a camera is no more an "investment" than is buying a summer vacation or a cruise. It's fun money - large or small.

 

The M8 was replaced after two years, the M8.2 after one year. There will be a "new" M of some kind (or two, or three) long before 6 or 7 years have passed. That is how digital photography goes.

 

So there are two ways to "afford" a digital camera:

 

a) be among those for whom bi- or triennial upgrades are pocket money (usually not me!)

 

be among those who have the self-assurance to be comfortable with something that "works" for a decade, even if it is no longer the "newest and best" after the first 2-3 years.

 

Anyone who can't fit into one of those two groups really can't "afford" whatever camera they are considering (M9, D3x, 1DsIII, A1200) - and should probably downsize their ambitions to something that will fit their comfort level, or their wallet every three years.

 

Can someone happily, joyfully buy an M9 today, exactly as it is? If not, it is a bad idea to get one.

[zlatkob]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

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

 

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

 

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.

 

OK, so you're not against improving the camera, you're just advocating understanding the tradeoffs. In the complete absence of any technological improvement, it will be impossible to improve the camera's LCD without a tradeoff that worsens the camera in some way. Therefore, in the complete absence of any technological improvement, it will be best to maintain the current LCD. That's probably correct ... in the complete absence of technological improvement.

 

However, considering the incredible stream of technological improvement in screen technology, in digital camera technology, and in the technology world generally, and the huge economic incentives for further improvement, how likely is it that there will be a complete absence of further technological improvement in screens, such that this worsening of the camera is of real concern?

 

Unfortunately, the DMR of 2005 has been discontinued despite its color optimization. I'm not sure what that proves about the advance of technology. We don't know whether it could have been further developed for both improved high ISO performance and low ISO color. Nor can we be sure that Canon or Nikon (or others) won't exceed its color quality at some point in the future (assuming you're correct that they haven't).

 

P.S. After a moderator wrote "Can we keep this thread civil, please?" and a couple of people commented on your "slow typing" remark, you felt the need to repeat it once more, with emphasis.

Edited July 8, 2011 by zlatkob

[zlatkob]

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

 

I don't see how a screen improvement will turn the M into a DSLR. Each generation of the iPhone seems to offer a higher resolution screen and a faster processor, and yet it doesn't seem to get bigger. Nor does it dramatically turn into an Android or Blackberry or some other device. Should Apple discontinue further improvement of their iPhone screen for fear that it will turn into some other device?

[wildlightphoto]

OK, so you're not against improving the camera, you're just advocating understanding the tradeoffs.

 

Thank you.

 

... considering the incredible stream of technological improvement in screen technology, in digital camera technology, and in the technology world generally, and the huge economic incentives for further improvement, how likely is it that there will be a complete absence of further technological improvement in screens, such that this worsening of the camera is of real concern?

 

I don't think either you or I can answer that question definitively. The tradeoff might come in the form of better screen or bigger buffer, but not both. Or it might be slightly better screen instead of much better screen and much better buffer instead of slightly better buffer. Or any number of other compromises. Another hypothetical compromise might be brining the camera to market on schedule without a desired feature because a supplier of a critical component of the feature will take 6 months to recover from a tsunami.

 

 

Unfortunately, the DMR of 2005 has been discontinued despite its color optimization. I'm not sure what that proves about the advance of technology.

 

It's an example of a compromise. Despite advancing technology no camera or sensor maker has been able to provide both DMR-like color quality and D3s-like high ISO capabilities.

 

P.S. After a moderator wrote "Can we keep this thread civil, please?" and a couple of people commented on your "slow typing" remark, you felt the need to repeat it once more, with emphasis.

 

Was this remark necessary? I don't consider mis-representing my position to be very nice.

Edited July 8, 2011 by wildlightphoto

[diogenis]

I don't see how a screen improvement will turn the M into a DSLR. Each generation of the iPhone seems to offer a higher resolution screen and a faster processor, and yet it doesn't seem to get bigger. Nor does it dramatically turn into an Android or Blackberry or some other device. Should Apple discontinue further improvement of their iPhone screen for fear that it will turn into some other device?

 

This is getting boring.

I don't see how a bigger screen, which will also come at a cost of change of dimensions, will help me with shooting. But a better contrast one will.

The iphone is camera? How can you compare a phone with a camera? Then I can tell you that my big plasma TV has a better screen than my Leica has.

 

And Alan, how can you compare a small p&s to a curtain shutter FF camera? Most p&s I used to know had significantly less batteries and required recharging. they couldnt last for 3 hours if you let them on. Those LCD screens were the main reason for that.

[diogenis]

It is relevant for planning an investment in a M camera.

 

Should you buy a M9 now or wait one year and a half (at least) for a new model?

 

A rich person would buy a M9 now and a M10 next year, but if you can make on such investment only every 6 or 7 years, for instance, the handicaps of the M9 are relevant for the final decision.

 

This explains why so many people is thinking, writing and complaining endlessly about these M9's flaws or weak points...

 

Do those flaws have practical relevance? How much better the new camera will be? How much different? What about the relative prices, reliability, quality of the components? When the new camera will be available? Etc.

 

It does not make sense because the uncomfortable position of the potential buyer is not due to lack of a careful consideration of all the factors involved in the decision. It is due to lack of information. When a bit of information comes from Leica, all the process of evaluation starts again. Dr. Kaufmann and Mr. Schopf's words regarding the new system camera in 2012 and the M9-P is the explanation of this new "round".

 

Easy to answer that:

Is there anything you need in that M9 and it is not there?

If you feel like that, then just wait for M10 and buy it.

[AlanG]

And Alan, how can you compare a small p&s to a curtain shutter FF camera? Most p&s I used to know had significantly less batteries and required recharging. they couldnt last for 3 hours if you let them on. Those LCD screens were the main reason for that.

 

Please don't make me actually list this stuff for DSLRs. Just believe me that they really have gotten more efficient with each new model despite the increase in speed, larger file size, and larger higher res LCDs. You can look all of this up on various camera test sites and see if you can find newer models that are less efficient than the models they replaced. Maybe there are a few exceptions somewhere. And did you ever see the batteries on laptop computers from 20 years ago that would only run for an hour or so?

 

I don't see too many users of other brands complaining that their cameras are too fast, the screens are too large, or too detailed, or that the older models shot more images per charge or had bigger buffers. All despite file sizes being larger too.

 

So why are you worrying that Leica won't be able to do this? This is a modern camera manufacturer isn't it? Have you no faith in their ability to do something as simple as update the electronics and LCD in a camera by specifying newer components from various suppliers as many other camera companies do? We're not asking them to make their own image processing chips or LCD panels. We're long past the days when this was magic.

Edited July 8, 2011 by AlanG

[xrogers]

This is getting boring.

 

You ain't just whistling Dixie.

 

I don't see how a bigger screen, which will also come at a cost of change of dimensions, will help me with shooting. But a better contrast one will.

 

But maybe it won't require a change of dimensions---that's for Leica to figure out. And I agree, better contrast is more important than size. I'll also be happy to take both better tonal accuracy and better resolution.

 

How about making it quieter (why does that cocking motor need to be so loud?). I miss the 2-meter framelines from the M8u, and would really like framelines that could be much more accurate at all distances (maybe LCD?). Better high ISO would be nice, but even nicer would be more dynamic range at low ISO (even if it means adding a lower base ISO---to each their own). Maybe Leica can make the next M use a higher resolution CCD that supports pixel binning---give us landscapers more pixels to work with, and the street shooters higher sensitivity at lower resolution.

 

It's great that nobody has seriously brought up the dreaded live view in this thread. That always causes a hockey game to break out.

 

I bet Leica engineers are looking at every one of these items, throwing out what is currently impossible, analyzing what remains, and deciding what features can meet the constraints they've been given for the M10. Despite its warts, the M9 is my favorite digital camera, and I hope the M10 is enough better to warrant what almost certainly will be an absurdly high price.

 

Until later,

 

Clyde

[AlanG]

Then I can tell you that my big plasma TV has a better screen than my Leica has.

 

 

So why did you buy this over a smaller less detailed TV?

[zlatkob]

Thank you.

I think we can agree that there are numerous hypothetical tradeoffs ... hypothetical because we don't know the state of screen technology 1, 3, 5 or 10 years from now.

[NZDavid]

So why did you buy this over a smaller less detailed TV?

 

In fact, big-screen TVs (42-55" and above) are seldom as detailed as smaller screen TVs. (One exception I have seen was a very pricey Bang & Olufsen which was superb.) Smaller screen TVs have less real estate but often better picture quality. A lot depends on viewing distance which negates the differences in practical terms. I don't think this applies to camera LCDs, though, where differences are in inches, or millimeters, and you are always viewing them close-up.

[bill]

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.

 

And therein lies the rub - do you really not see it? For some it is a tool, for others a toy. The reality lies somewhere in between but I would wager that for all the main "pro-spec" cameras from Canon, Nikon et al, sales to amateurs outstrip sales to pros by a factor of x.

 

What is that if not a "lifestyle choice"? I will further wager that the number of pro-spec cameras that are used to their design limits in real life can be counted on the fingers of one foot. Most are massively overengineered for the use they get. We all make lifestyle choices - the watch on my wrist, and probably that of most here will function at 1000ft - I won't.

 

Ignore the "lifestyle choosers" and you ignore your major market - and that way lies ruin.

 

Thank you, incidentally to whoever introduced TVs. What a fine example of dead-end "technological advancement" 3-D TV is. Because-we-can-gimmickery rather than market-driven evolution incarnate.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[brill64]

[*]when can we expect a digital M with a 920' dot screen (or better)?

 

[*]is there a rational explanation for today's sub-standard screen?

 

for these two questions perhaps the answer might be, when contracted supplies of the current screens, plastic & sapphire have all been used up.

[diogenis]

So why did you buy this over a smaller less detailed TV?

 

Because I deeply believe, that in it's new model say it M10, Leica will give us a monochromatic black/white LCD screen . Actually I don't believe, I hope...

...With saphire glass ofcourse

 

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.

 

so what? Let people live their myth. Why do you care? They pay valuable $$$ like you dont they?

Edited July 8, 2011 by diogenis

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[rosuna]

"It is relevant for planning an investment in a M camera."

 

Ruben, frankly, anyone who thinks of buying a camera, any camera, as "an investment" is out of touch with reality. Unless one is trying to kid a "significant other" about the expenditure, it is self-delusion, and rather pompous, stuffy self-delusion at that.

 

I mean "investment" in a broad sense. Use "expenditure" if you want.

 

The key problem here is the M9 is a quite expensive camera, and it has some particularities. All digital cameras, even large sensor medium format dinosaurs, have evolved towards a new set of standards. So people is asking if a $7,000 dollars investment (of resources) or expenditure in a M9 at this moment makes sense, if you consider a minimum amortization period and the probable dates for a new model. The more we approach Photokina 2012 and new technologies appear in the market, the more frequent these "discussions" will be at the forum.