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

[Jamie Roberts]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Yes I know live view is a bad thing because it gives you additional shooting ability. And it is always good to keep Leica from adding anything that would let you use the camera for a greater range of possibilities. But how is turning it into a wifi host somehow right along the lines of what "Leica Photography" is all about?

 

{snipped}

 

I think you're being facetious... But just in case...

 

Look, no-one is trying to keep Leica from adding anything that would let you use the camera for a greater range of possibilities. That's just not true, ok?

 

But we're not talking about the M9 being a wifi host, technically, but just a simple wifi client... it's kinda one-way, and conceptually it's just storage--wireless or wired or in-camera. Wifi storage, or wifi or 3G tethering to cloud storage, or tethered wired storage--and the subsequent automated display--is just, in the end, another form of digital storage, which the digital Ms already have. You can even think of it as just (polaroid) "film" if you like.

 

It's just no different from a capture design perspective--from someone shooting to an SD card, then physically running and dumping the card somewhere everyone can see it... get it?

 

But it's a lot faster than this and does open up opportunities. That's a nice value-add that doesn't really change anything important on a digital M.

 

But Live View is a fundamentally different approach to *capture*... and that undercuts the design philosophy of the camera. I don't want to have to re-explain that, ok? Maybe someday, when EVFs are actually superior to optical VFs, it will happen anyway, and actually enhance the M experience, but I do believe those days are a long way off IMO. And maybe that's the whole point: I don't see an EVF to match the optical RF for at least two or three generations of digital M. I could be wrong, of course, but that expectation colours my (and other's) comments, no doubt.

 

As for the whole C1 thing, I don't know--they really have dropped a lot of support for Leica--there isn't even an S2 profile AFAIK (and I love C1). But hot folders would work, if you could write a USB throughput application (I wonder if the M8 host would work? Probably not )

 

There's no real technical barrier to different storage modes on the digital M, except maybe the all-metal case Evidently at least (can't find the thread right now), or people would be just using the SD / Wifi clients available now.

 

Having said all that, tethering is kinda special purpose, and Leica doesn't exactly have a ton of software resources or expertise. I'd rather them put what they do have into faster previewing, to tell you the truth, and better / faster / bulletproof SD card support

 

It's all about priorities. And in any case, there may be not much market for a tethered M--not that I'm against it in any way at all.

Edited July 15, 2011 by Jamie Roberts

[denoir]

To me there is only one critical issue with the image preview and it's the fact that you can't zoom to the actual pixels. A high res screen and faster preview would be very nice, but the ability to check focus exactly is an essential function. What you get with the M9 now is that it zooms on a low rez JPEG preview of the image and that simply isn't good enough.

 

It would be easy to add an option in the firmware for the quality of that JPEG preview. Or they could simply add a function that renders a high definition version on demand.

 

Incidentally the Canon 5DII has the same issue although to a much, much lesser degree. On the 7D Canon has increased the preview JPEG resolution and solved that issue.

 

 

But Live View is a fundamentally different approach to *capture*... and that undercuts the design philosophy of the camera.

 

Not if you keep the optical viewfinder. You could say that an EVF could undercut the design philosophy, but hardly the addition of a function that you in no way would have to use or that would somehow reduce your ability to use the camera as you would any other M-series camera. I've never understood the opposition against live view. If you don't like it, don't use it. It's an additional function that you don't even have to be aware of - much less use.

Edited July 15, 2011 by denoir

[Advertisement]

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

[AlanG]

I think you're being facetious... But just in case...

 

 

Not at all. You said, "But Live View is a fundamentally different approach to *capture*... and that undercuts the design philosophy of the camera."

 

In my opinion, live view is an additional feature that doesn't undercut the design philosophy in any way. In fact it re-invigorates the design philosophy that included through the lens viewing devices from early on and of course the Visoflex housing and special lenses starting back in the mid-30s. It is only since the discontinuation of these devices that one has been forced to use the Leica M in a much narrower way than was previously intended. (Unless one had access to these older devices of course.) If you go back to the earliest models, a coupled rangefinder was not in the original design so I don't know when using one became part of any "philosophy."

 

What if you shoot from the hip without even looking though the viewfinder? Are you "dissing" the design philosophy and not using the camera properly? So holding the camera up and looking at a screen would be so much more offensive to the "philosophy" than shooting blind?

 

Certainly digital transmission from the camera to a separate device was not envisioned as any part of Leica's original design philosophy.

Edited July 15, 2011 by AlanG

[bill]

I've never understood the opposition against live view. If you don't like it, don't use it. It's an additional function that you don't even have to be aware of - much less use.

 

I don't want to pay for it. I don't want its additional functional complexity in my camera. Why should I be forced to pay for something I do not want, do not need and will never use?

 

When you order a meal in a restaurant are you happy to be served with dishes you do not want in addition to your meal? Are you happy to pay for those unwanted "extras"? Why is this so hard to grasp?

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[denoir]

I don't want to pay for it. I don't want its additional functional complexity in my camera. Why should I be forced to pay for something I do not want, do not need and will never use?

 

You are not paying for a custom made camera, but a mass produced product. The same reason why I'm paying for various JPEG modes the camera has although I only shoot RAW.

 

You are buying a package with features that are designed to appeal to a broad audience. Subsequently you will pay for features that you won't use while others will pay for features you will use and they won't. And a *lot* of current M9 users want live view as evidenced by it being a recurring theme here on the forum.

[denoir]

In the grand scheme of things the price might actually be lower. LV requires CMOS and as a general rule CMOS sensors are cheaper than CCD sensors. The rest is mostly software which is relatively cheap to develop. An M10 would have to have new electronics anyway as the M8/M9 stuff is seriously outdated.

 

All of this will of course depend on the type of bulk deal they can get for the sensors. Given the popularity of the M9, they may dare to order a larger batch of sensor for the M10, reducing the price per unit.

 

All speculation of course, but with so many free parameters in the equation we can't really say anything about the price LV or no LV.

 

I'm pretty confident though that we'll see a serious update of the camera and probably live view. The great thing about Kauffman as CEO is that understands that Leica does not exist in a vacuum and that hardcore conservatives who think that everything has been going downhill since the M3 are not enough of a market segment to sustain the company.

 

He, unlike his predecessors that nearly killed the company by making it into an irrelevant curiosity understands that the Leica products must to some degree to be able to compete with what the other camera producers have to offer. From interviews that he has given it seems clear that he is perfectly aware that the current profitability is thanks to new M9 users, not old hardcore Leica loyalists. And most of those new users will go somewhere else as easily as they chose Leica this round.

 

Leica has to tread carefully to remain unique and distinct while at the same time keeping up with technological development. It is what they have been failing at since the 1970's until recently and it almost killed the company.

 

Fortunately the current management seems to be aware of it and largely ignores the ultra conservative faction of the user base. So I have good hopes for the future technological development of the M line.

Edited July 15, 2011 by denoir

[AlanG]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I don't want to pay for it. I don't want its additional functional complexity in my camera. Why should I be forced to pay for something I do not want, do not need and will never use?

 

Bill

 

Are you happy to have the wifi capability added as some have proposed?

 

Can you show us cases where live view cameras were more expensive than non-live view models they replaced? Considering that $100 cameras have live view, what aspects of the technology do you think will cost so much?

Edited July 16, 2011 by AlanG

[Swanny66]

I think a small minority people are wishing/wanting the next M camera to be like a M3. Whether you like it or not, they are most likely going to add things like a new screen, better high iso, etc. And you don't have to buy it. For those people that don't like that, they have the MP you can readily buy and feel all nostalgic with. Or M6, M6TTL, etc.

 

As with everything (nearly), there is a level of compromise we all are going to have to deal with. But I look forward to a few improvements as the M series evolves.

[Swanny66]

I don't want to pay for it. I don't want its additional functional complexity in my camera. Why should I be forced to pay for something I do not want, do not need and will never use?

 

When you order a meal in a restaurant are you happy to be served with dishes you do not want in addition to your meal? Are you happy to pay for those unwanted "extras"? Why is this so hard to grasp?

 

Regards,

 

Bill

 

Please ask the next chef you see to whip you up a 50mm Noc. As you can see....the comparison is not necessarily relatable

[diogenis]

Actually, thunderbolt could be proved a very solid foundation for Leica to finally dump that useless USB port for something fast and also with the ability to project directly in monitors or shoot tethered.

No one has done it either, its a fairly new IO interface.

[AlanG]

Actually, thunderbolt could be proved a very solid foundation for Leica to finally dump that useless USB port for something fast and also with the ability to project directly in monitors or shoot tethered.

No one has done it either, its a fairly new IO interface.

 

I don't know if the speed of the USB 2 port is that much of a bottleneck vs. the speed the image is processed in the camera and recreated via the tethering software. But of course faster ports will be used over time. With Capture One another factor is the speed it builds the "proxies" before you see an image on the computer. This is computer speed related and won't be helped much by a faster port. Poxies are basically large previews of the raw files.

 

In any case, wifi or other wireless methods have a way to go before you'd be able to scroll through images and zoom in to check focus nearly as quickly as one can currently do those things on the back of most cameras.

[diogenis]

I don't know if the speed of the USB 2 port is that much of a bottleneck vs. the speed the image is processed in the camera and recreated via the tethering software. But of course faster ports will be used over time. With Capture One another factor is the speed it builds the "proxies" before you see an image on the computer. This is computer speed related and won't be helped much by a faster port. Poxies are basically large previews of the raw files.

 

In any case, wifi or other wireless methods have a way to go before you'd be able to scroll through images and zoom in to check focus nearly as quickly as one can currently do those things on the back of most cameras.

 

Lightpeak is going to be used to connect anything from monitors to disks and more. It looks promising and very fast. Ofcourse it will need new chips and sftware to cotrol it but those will be already built.

[bill]

I think a small minority people are wishing/wanting the next M camera to be like a M3. Whether you like it or not, they are most likely going to add things like a new screen, better high iso, etc. And you don't have to buy it. For those people that don't like that, they have the MP you can readily buy and feel all nostalgic with. Or M6, M6TTL, etc.

 

As with everything (nearly), there is a level of compromise we all are going to have to deal with. But I look forward to a few improvements as the M series evolves.

 

Whereas I think a small minority of people are wishing/wanting the next M camera to be like a DSLR. Whether they like it or not, Leica are most likely not going to add things that constitute bloatware. And you don't have to buy it. For those people that don't like that, they have the DSLRs you can readily buy and feel all out of control with with. Or NEX, etc.

 

As with everything (nearly), there is a level of compromise we all are going to have to deal with. But I too look forward to a few improvements as the M series evolves.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[AlanG]

Whereas I think a small minority of people are wishing/wanting the next M camera to be like a DSLR.

 

You say this as some kind of slur.

 

Perhaps the resistance to adding technology to the M can be described in some other way than saying it makes it "DSLR like" as there is no requirement for a DSLR to be more technologically advanced than an M9 is. And many have been less advanced. Live view was common on p&s cameras long before DSLRs incorporated it. AF and many other features are not confined to the world of DSLRs either. I seem to recall early rangefinder type film cameras and the SX70 were among the first to incorporate AF back in the 70s before the Maxxum got it. IS technology was used in binoculars before it came to cameras.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but does not DSLR stand for "digital single lens reflex?" Other than the viewing methods, is there some other intrinsic difference between 35mm reflex cameras and 35mm rangefinder cameras? So unless Leica re-introduces the Visoflex or makes a 35mm DSLR in place of the M, I don't see how it will be like a DSLR unless you distort the definition of that term to simply mean something pejorative.

 

What the addition of the latest technology, whether that is AF, IS, wifi, etc., does to any camera is makes it more "modern like" than "DSLR like." Consider that the first DSLRs didn't even have LCDs. And I don't think any MD DSLs have IS, live view (except maybe a primitive version) and some of the other features that are common in 35mm DSLRs. So doesn't it simply come down to not wanting the M to be more technologically advanced? It just happens that 35mm DSLR's have generally incorporated the latest technology. But it could as easily have been the other way around if Leica had pioneered and incorporated any of this technology first as there is nothing about the rangefinder design that says it has to be technologically behind DSLRs.

Edited July 16, 2011 by AlanG

[pop]

What the addition of the latest technology, whether that is AF, IS, wifi, etc., does to any camera is makes it more "modern like" than "DSLR like." ... But it could as easily have been the other way around if Leica had pioneered and incorporated any of this technology first as there is nothing about the rangefinder design that says it has to be technologically behind DSLRs.

 

Adding wheels to a bicycle does not make a more modern bicycle.

 

Who says that DSLRs are technologically more advanced than other designs such as rangefinders? They're different, to be sure, and address other needs.

[Xmas]

Hi Guys

 

[ot alert]

The teathering option with USB is something you can do with a M8 or M9 so is off topic and I apologise, for the destraction.

[/ot alert]

 

Software (i.e. firmware) is not cheap, an enhanced screen or different sensor would need new software so would need a large sales prospect to allow the development costs to be written off. Leica would need to anticipate a 25k prodction run.

 

Leica have always been very concervative, and have not always listened to customer complaints, even when the development cost and production cost would have been small.

 

A M10 might well have new interfaces, new battery form factor, etc., the M8 M9 step was not really a change...

 

Noel

[AlanG]

Adding wheels to a bicycle does not make a more modern bicycle.

 

Who says that DSLRs are technologically more advanced than other designs such as rangefinders? They're different, to be sure, and address other needs.

 

I specifically did not say this. I said it only happens that most DSLRs incorporate the latest technology. There is no reason that other cameras could not also do so. And various "mirrorless" systems are proving this. I did not say that DSLRs are an intrinsically more advanced design. Although historically they have been a more versatile platform. But this too could change if additional technology is incorporated into a rangefinder camera. The addition of live view to DSLRs did not stop them from being reflex cameras. Likewise Leica could add IS, AF, live view, wifi and the kitchen sink to the M yet it will still be a rangefinder camera.

 

I also am not saying that you have to prefer a camera that incorporates the latest or the greatest amount of technology. Only that this is something that camera manufacturers have to consider when designing a new model. E.g. Leica could have chosen to add AF and IS to the M a long time ago had they desired. It has nothing to do with RF vs. DSLR designs which just define the viewing systems. And Nikon still offers some MF lenses (along with Zeiss MF lenses) so there must be a market for these "low tech" lenses on DSLRs.

Edited July 17, 2011 by AlanG

[Swanny66]

Whereas I think a small minority of people are wishing/wanting the next M camera to be like a DSLR. Whether they like it or not, Leica are most likely not going to add things that constitute bloatware. And you don't have to buy it. For those people that don't like that, they have the DSLRs you can readily buy and feel all out of control with with. Or NEX, etc.

 

As with everything (nearly), there is a level of compromise we all are going to have to deal with. But I too look forward to a few improvements as the M series evolves.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

 

I also agree with this. And I think people can go buy what they are are looking for in a Canon/Nikon body without waiting/wanting leica to produce what is basically a dslr. I like Leica's for size, image quality, and I enjoy film photography. I don't care what Leica does as long as it is reasonable improvements without trying to make the M series a DSLR. A new screen, better high iso performance, are not going to put a burden on the camera. I don't understand live view desire with the M9 My mk4 has it and I have never used it.

[AlanG]

I also agree with this. And I think people can go buy what they are are looking for in a Canon/Nikon body without waiting/wanting leica to produce what is basically a dslr. I like Leica's for size, image quality, and I enjoy film photography. I don't care what Leica does as long as it is reasonable improvements without trying to make the M series a DSLR. A new screen, better high iso performance, are not going to put a burden on the camera. I don't understand live view desire with the M9 My mk4 has it and I have never used it.

 

 

What is your definition of DSLR? Maybe that is the problem here because the only thing I see different between a rangefinder and an SLR is the viewing/focusing system. Anything else has to do with specific features that have been included in either design.

Edited July 17, 2011 by AlanG

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Swanny66]

And the size. I think most don't want to compromise the size for features. I know I don't.