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

[diogenis]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

My post explaining how screens are used to judge focus was in response to a poster that said he didn't think they could be used to judge focus.

 

I don't think it is relevant that some users don't use the screen or are happy with the screen and speed of electronics as is. When camera companies introduce new models, it is pretty normal for them to include the latest technology in them. I don't see Leica having much future if their design philosophy is to keep the same basic electronic technology in a camera for three model cycles or longer while everyone else passes them by in speed and LCD quality.

 

Considering this was all designed by a third party, I would think that now that Leica has developed in house expertise that Leica's designers will leap to the opportunity to re-design it so that it is all Leica. Why else did they get these people?

Leica is a camera maker. that is solely focused in picture quality and not in tech gizmos (at least if we believe what its boss says). Their M line is their flagship product as is clearly indicated by their boss again. M cameras have, after 50+ years of evolution an established design (much like the 911) that Leica do not intend to change. Obviously inner workings, electronics, software etc, can change following evolution and only if there is a need for that: for example, power efficiency, speed etc...

Edited July 6, 2011 by diogenis

[AlanG]

Well Leitz and subsequently Leica have e.g.

 

- kept the same shutter from 1925 until now in their film cameras

-- ok so the III has a slow speed escapment & self timer

-- IIIC introduced ball bearings &

-- the M a non rotating dial

-- the M7 a electromagnet release for 2nd blind

--- Nikon and Canon copied but went to titanium & teflon coated steel

- retained bottom loading

--- Canon went to a door in '55

- went to a f/1.2 5cm in '66

-- admittedly an aspherical

--- Canon went to f1.2 in '55

- retained a knob rewind until '67

--- Canon went to flip out fast rewind crank in '55

 

Leitz went to the measuring viewfinder, non rotating dial and baynet in '53, but this was force majeur driven by a compromise in their patents, from WWII...

 

They have always been minimilist in past, you are anticipating that the Leopard is going to change its spots... rather than natural selection taking place.

 

The other significant change is the M8 and M9 are not like the film M and Barnack maintainable with Swiss watchmakers screw drivers, pencil erasers and needle nosed pliers. The famous engineers quote was '...there is indeed remarkably little inside a Leica...' see following. This tied maintenance increases the cost of ownership - considerably.

I'd accept the M6 and M7 started this trend.

 

There used to be a local Leica repair centre (in London) now it is post to Solms.

 

Noel

quote in 'Minature and Precision Cameras' byJ.Lipinski

 

At this point they can't even make the shutter for the M9. All of the above simply indicates how Leica steadily gave up market share to other companies that pushed the envelope and innovated. This continued for decades. I don't believe the current management at Leica sees that as a winning strategy. They were pretty near being out of business a few years ago and if anything saved them, it was the willingness to incorporate new technology into new cameras. (Much of it from outside vendors.) They might even come up with some original ideas once their electronic and software engineers start stretching their legs.

 

I think they'll milk the M9 for as long as possible but will have no choice but to update the technology before it is played out. I can't see why else they are developing the in-house resources for this. And I can't see them selling an X2 and other models that will have more modern technology inside and outside than the M10 will have. But maybe sales will hold up on an unchanged M9 for 5-10 more years or so. I can't say but I doubt that is Leica's plan. In designing the S2 I think Leica developed the resources and the engineers came up with ideas that they will apply to the M at some point before long.

Edited July 6, 2011 by AlanG

[Advertisement]

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

[Xmas]

All of the above simply indicates how Leica steadily gave up market share to other companies that pushed the envelope and innovated. This continued for decades. I don't believe the current management at Leica sees that as a winning strategy. They were pretty near being out of business a few years ago and if anything saved them, it was the willingness to incorporate new technology into new cameras.

 

I think they'll milk the M9 for as long as possible but will have no choice but to update the technology before it is played out. I can't see why else they are developing the in-house resources for this. And I can't see them selling an X2 and other models that have more modern technology inside than the M10. But maybe sales will hold up on an unchanged M9 for 5-10 more years or so. I can't say but I doubt that is Leica's plan.

 

Throughout 58 to 60 Leitz's M2 slugged it out with Canon's P and sold 1:1 although the Canon was significantly cheaper, Canon were using better manufacturing - Deming style. Leitz did well against the Nikon rfdrs as well.

 

Nikon (and later Canon) went to SLRs, in '59, now DLSRs and outsold Leitz by seling 'system' cameras.

 

Leica tried SLR and DSLR but have given up (with the R series) you may want Leica to compete with the D compacts, X100, Ricoh interchangable sensor, etc., I dont know if they want to, I'd accept they may like the idea, but spending the money, may be too difficult for them.

 

I've not got a X100 or Ricoh, but must of the time I use a Canon P instead of a M2, a better camera, in every way, for me. At the time '58 I'd a bought a M2 new, as Leitz marketing was better... the M2 has a quieter shutter, the only tradeoff it has.

 

Noel

[AlanG]

Throughout 58 to 60 Leitz's M2 slugged it out with Canon's P and sold 1:1 although the Canon was significantly cheaper, Canon were using better manufacturing - Deming style. Leitz did well against the Nikon rfdrs as well.

 

Nikon (and later Canon) went to SLRs, in '59, now DLSRs and outsold Leitz by seling 'system' cameras.

 

Leica tried SLR and DSLR but have given up (with the R series) you may want Leica to compete with the D compacts, X100, Ricoh interchangable sensor, etc., I dont know if they want to, I'd accept they may like the idea, but spending the money, may be too difficult for them.

 

I've not got a X100 or Ricoh, but must of the time I use a Canon P instead of a M2, a better camera, in every way, for me. At the time '58 I'd a bought a M2 new, as Leitz marketing was better... the M2 has a quieter shutter, the only tradeoff it has.

 

Noel

 

What is with all of these old cameras? Why don't we spend our time comparing the 62 Chevy Impala with the 62 Ford Galaxy 500 instead? The only thing that is saving Leica is their move to new digital cameras. Don't you think that is a wake-up call?

Edited July 6, 2011 by AlanG

[Jamie Roberts]

Those who think the screen is not required for focus confirmation have never used a Noctilux or first version 35mm Summilux.

 

[AlanG]

Leica is a camera maker. that is solely focused in picture quality and not in tech gizmos (at least if we believe what its boss says). Their M line is their flagship product as is clearly indicated by their boss again. M cameras have, after 50+ years of evolution an established design (much like the 911) that Leica do not intend to change. Obviously inner workings, electronics, software etc, can change following evolution and only if there is a need for that: for example, power efficiency, speed etc...

 

From this response I don't know if you expect Leica to update the electronics and LCD or not. If you are comparing Leica to Porsche, I think you are in for a surprise when it comes to Porsche utilizing technology, making significant changes to the 911, and embracing and pioneering innovation in general. Something that maybe Leica is getting around to doing more of.

 

1965 911 - 130 horsepower air cooled engine with rear wheel drive.

 

2011 911 has many variants and much technology has been added to all models. Some are 4 wheel drive. The GT RS uses a 620 horsepower liquid cooled engine.

 

I really don't see any similarity between the philosophy at Porsche and the old philosophy at Leica. I think the current management has its own philosophy that will play out over the next few years if they become more profitable and can dedicate more resources to R&D and innovation. Whereas Porsche is kind of the Nikon of the sports car world.

Edited July 6, 2011 by AlanG

[Jamie Roberts]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Yet, strangely, the vast majority of such people did in fact switch to digital......despite there being no advantage. Your good selves included presumably as you're posting in the digital forum?

 

LOL... now come on, please. No-one said--even in this mostly ridiculous thread--that there was no advantage to digital shooting over film

 

But focusing isn't really one of them, sorry: many people have indeed shot the Noctilux, or pre-ASPH 35, or any number of other tricky to focus lenses on film (and they're not *that* tricky, in truth).

 

The LCD on the M9 would be fine if the processor was up to the task of showing better previews. Would I want a better screen in the next M--or even in my m9? Sure. Give me an iPhone 4's resolution in the same amount of space (or a bit larger) and I'll be happy. But the size of it won't help me focus better. A better, faster preview processing algorithm, however, would--even with the screen we have now (and FWIW it is better since the firmware update IMO). So for me the screen upgrade itself is low-priority given the other places I'd like to see improvements.

 

Alan had a great idea in another thread: I'd even like a "focus screen" confirmation like Capture One does. Just something to show me that the computer in the camera thinks that what I shot is contrasty enough to probably be in focus

 

You should be able to program that even given the M9's current specs, and it's all it would take to address the old "did I get the shot or not?" syndrome.

Edited July 6, 2011 by Jamie Roberts

[Jamie Roberts]

It is good to have a mirror and a brief speech ready in case this situation arises:

 

Q: "Can you do a test shot to see how the makeup looks when photographed?"

 

A: "No, sorry! Not with this M camera — it is only for the shot of niece roundhousing or a champaign cork in flight. But don't worry, I shall do the formals with a 5x4, TLR or Blad on a tripod. {Snipped}

 

Zlatko, very funny

 

But quite dumb too: are seriously suggesting you give colour and exposure critical information to your client from the back of a dSLR screen?

 

I truly, truly hope not. You may as well use your iPhone: the newest ones have the best screens out there.

 

Yes, I show people stuff that I'm enthused about from time to time--and I even do that on the M9--it's never been embarrassing and they like it. But come off it with the makeup check / colour thing: that's just ridiculous IMO.

Edited July 6, 2011 by Jamie Roberts

[diogenis]

I really don't see any similarity between the philosophy at Porsche and the old philosophy at Leica. I think the current management has its own philosophy that will play out over the next few years if they become more profitable and can dedicate more resources to R&D and innovation. Whereas Porsche is kind of the Nikon of the sports car world.

 

They keep their basic designs for decades. That's the similarity.

No matter what they invent in the future their M line will keep its core characteristics.

For instance they will try to keep the dimensions/weight. They will try to keep the manual focus with RF, the legacy lenses etc.

[zlatkob]

Zlatko, very funny

 

But quite dumb too: are seriously suggesting you give colour and exposure critical information to your client from the back of a dSLR screen?

 

I truly, truly hope not. You may as well use your iPhone: the newest ones have the best screens out there.

 

Yes, I show people stuff that I'm enthused about from time to time--and I even do that on the M9--it's never been embarrassing and they like it. But come off it with the makeup check / colour thing: that's just ridiculous IMO.

 

I'm not suggesting it ... I'm saying it happens. They ask for it from time to time. I would rather show them how stunning they look, even on a small screen, than make a string of excuses that I learned on this forum. Try to explain that the image looks sub-standard because a better LCD would have ruined the pure simplicity of the minimalist tool by pushing it over the edge of feature bloat ...

 

The LCD has many uses and this is certainly not a big one. But I think it goes to the point that less is not always more. Sometimes less is just really less and could stand a bit of improvement. The comparison to the Porsche 911 is really encouraging in this regard.

Edited July 6, 2011 by zlatkob

[Double Negative]

Yet, strangely, the vast majority of such people did in fact switch to digital......despite there being no advantage. Your good selves included presumably as you're posting in the digital forum?

 

I still shoot plenty of film, as well as digital. I just don't feel the need to bitch about every M model that comes out and scrutinize every feature I felt that Leica slighted me out of. I need four controls; ISO, aperture, shutter speed and focus. Everything else is a bonus.

[dwbell]

I still shoot plenty of film, as well as digital. I just don't feel the need to bitch about every M model that comes out and scrutinize every feature I felt that Leica slighted me out of. I need four controls; ISO, aperture, shutter speed and focus. Everything else is a bonus.

 

Don't get me started on them burying my third exposure control in a menu instead of giving it a physical dial...... just where the rewind knob would have been fine thank you. Then you can loose the frikin' screen for all I care.....

[AlanG]

 

Alan had a great idea in another thread: I'd even like a "focus screen" confirmation like Capture One does. Just something to show me that the computer in the camera thinks that what I shot is contrasty enough to probably be in focus

 

 

Yes I think this would be a good idea for any camera company to incorporate in the image review. Fast, clear, and simple. But maybe Phase One has a lock on the technology and doesn't want to license it. This is an example of the kinds of original ideas that Leica or any company could try to come up with that will improve the usability of the camera.

 

Since Phase One and Hasselblad are selling high resolution, they are also very inclined to look for ways of securing sharp focus to make the most of that resolution.

 

I find that fast magnified view on a good LCD is very useful - not just to judge sharpness. E.g. when I shoot a group photo, I often zoom in and check to see if everyone's eyes are open and each person has a good expression. I usually can shoot a few frames, keep the subjects in place while I quickly look at them and then shoot some more if necessary before moving on. But you need fast review and zoom capability for this and if you don't have this capability, you might not even realize how useful it could be to you.

[jonoslack]

I still shoot plenty of film, as well as digital. I just don't feel the need to bitch about every M model that comes out and scrutinize every feature I felt that Leica slighted me out of. I need four controls; ISO, aperture, shutter speed and focus. Everything else is a bonus.

 

Or possibly not a bonus . .. just an addition.

but as to the original question, surely the answer is with the M10?

The M8 followed by the M9 was a last gasp attempt at redemption . . . and a refinement of that concept . . . which came off - I'm not sure that we need (or should expect) any revelations with the M10, but surely it should have a good screen and a fast processor. . . why wouldn't it?

[Xmas]

The only thing that is saving Leica is their move to new digital cameras.

 

I'd say it is keeping them going just long enough for final rites.

 

Their management style and production efficiency does not seem to have improved.

 

Noel

[AlanG]

They keep their basic designs for decades.

 

In the case of the Porsche 911 that "basic" design now extends to 23 different models starting from $80,000 up to $245,000. Then there are four Boxster models from $48,000 to $62,000 and 4 Cayman models from $52,000 to $66,000. (All prices are before adding options.) And of course there are the larger cars and SUVs that they also make. What Porsche is doing is trying to give Porsche buyers a lot of choices.

 

They really aren't worrying about whether someone embraces or hates a given bit of new technology. When it comes to the 911, you could buy a new one every year with general assurance that it has the latest technology and is state of the art as far as sports car design and performance goes. Can you say that about the Leica M?

 

I have a friend who has owned about 20 Porsche 911s over the years. (Along with many other sports cars.) Do you wonder why he keeps buying new 911s? Besides the fact that he is a fanatic, I think it is for the technology and performance, not for the tradition. He's big on having the latest and greatest and gets excited about the newest ceramic braking system or whatever. Despite the fact that he isn't going to be racing or driving so fast any more. That has not been the concept behind the Leica M which has been all about only updating technology when they are forced to. (This may be changing.)

 

As I said, I think Porsche has been a lot more like Nikon than it is like Leica. (Yes today's Nikon can also use old lenses.) I don't know why Leica didn't follow a high technology future the way Porsche and Nikon did but perhaps Leica could have become the Nikon of the camera world today if they had done so.

Edited July 6, 2011 by AlanG

[Xmas]

... the M10, but surely it should have a good screen and a fast processor. . . why wouldn't it?

 

Well if they went to CMOS for high ISO they would need a new processor, and a new screen might be cheaper than current, so it would be like a new M8/M9 development, new micro lenses, new problems etc.

 

But they might not sell as many M10 as M9, difficult trade off for a manufacturer. The effective speed of picture rendering might not seem much quicker, like your new PC for windows 7 still seems slow even with a new super fast processor chip...

 

It is like the R series they have decided to kill it, the R owners are not terribly happy.

 

If the S series sold like M9 then they might kill the M10.

 

If the S series bombs like M5, then they might have even more limted options...

 

Noel

[Double Negative]

Well, I think if we let Leica do their thing and allow them enough time they can "perfect" the M10. Surely the M9 can hold us over a little longer... Better that than rush them to release an M10 only to bemoan them afterwards for listening to us, yet leaving out all the features. You can't have both. I wouldn't expect anything radical; like the 911 - it will evolve. Better screen, higher resolution and maybe those newfangled LED framelines. Who knows.

 

Just leave the video and five pages of menus to the DSLR folks, hmm? Personally, I applaud the M's simplicity. For one thing, I need glasses to read, but not to shoot. I get along very well without them with the M. Other digital cameras not so much (like the G9, which I sold).

[diogenis]

In the case of the Porsche 911 that "basic" design now extends to 23 different models starting from $80,000 up to $245,000. Then there are four Boxster models from $48,000 to $62,000 and 4 Cayman models from $52,000 to $66,000. (All prices are before adding options.) And of course there are the larger cars and SUVs that they also make. What Porsche is doing is trying to give Porsche buyers a lot of choices.

 

In the porsche site there are 5 main models with variants.

Of the 5 main models there is only ONE called 911 with several variants. Meaning with hardtop or not, spoilers or not etc. The main design is the same. Panamera, Cayenne, Cayman, boxster are different design.

In Leica site there are the M system (the flagship ala Dr. Kaufmann) the S system and the compacts. Within the M system all cameras share the same design principles. The S and the compacts are different.

Leica and Porsche share one common: the 911 is their most succesful line and in the Leica side the M is the most succesful product line.

Both companies give their buyers a lot of choices, Leica also gives the option of some extra customization on demand. So, now what?

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[AlanG]

In the porsche site there are 5 main models with variants.

Of the 5 main models there is only ONE called 911 with several variants. Meaning with hardtop or not, spoilers or not etc. The main design is the same. Panamera, Cayenne, Cayman, boxster are different design.

In Leica site there are the M system (the flagship ala Dr. Kaufmann) the S system and the compacts. Within the M system all cameras share the same design principles. The S and the compacts are different.

Leica and Porsche share one common: the 911 is their most succesful line and in the Leica side the M is the most succesful product line.

Both companies give their buyers a lot of choices, Leica also gives the option of some extra customization on demand. So, now what?

 

Look this car stuff is stupid. But Porsche has been into pioneering and incorporating the latest technology and Leica has not. Porsche has grown dramatically and Leica has not.

 

FWIW here is what Porsche shows for choices of 911 models. You can quibble over what you consider to be a variation but this is what Porsche designates as different models. And they have more differences than an M9 and an M9P have. Plus there are countless options.

 

What this has to do with a better screen and electronics in the M9 I don't know. Except that if Porsche made cameras, the question would not be coming up because they would be leading the pack with technology, innovation, and features. A Porsche camera would be very ergonomically shaped and would be made of carbon fiber. It would have the most advanced AF, live view, high ISO capability, the best video, and it would shoot at 12 fps or more. It would be a rival in every way to the best from Nikon and Canon and would not be a Leica M9. Sorry. We may as well compare Leica to Boeing.

 

All 911 Models - All Porsche Vehicles - HOME - Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG

Edited July 7, 2011 by AlanG