ho_co Posted July 25, 2011 Share #61 Posted July 25, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) Another problem with the assumptions of the OP is that they assume a straight-line development. Yet we know that the real world doesn't follow straight lines for very long. I think Erwin Puts raises a far more interesting and apropos question about the future of digital photography in the section "Electronic music" of his current Blog post. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted July 25, 2011 Posted July 25, 2011 Hi ho_co, Take a look here Future of 35mm format lenses. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
ho_co Posted July 25, 2011 Share #62 Posted July 25, 2011 Another problem with the assumptions of the OP is that they assume a straight-line development. Yet we know that the real world doesn't follow straight lines for very long. I think Erwin Puts raises a far more interesting and apropos question about the future of digital photography in the section "Electronic music" of his current Blog post. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted July 25, 2011 Share #63 Posted July 25, 2011 So if MF digital camera appears, at affordable price and size... Perhaps you should go back and read the responses to this argument. MF will always be generally bigger and more expensive than 35mm format, just as it always has been. Any technology that goes into future MF can also go into future 35mm format and, as history shows, even the folks who care about IQ and interchangeable lenses will most frequently opt for the smaller, less expensive gear...with the smaller, but plenty high enough quality, sensor. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted July 25, 2011 Share #64 Posted July 25, 2011 So if MF digital camera appears, at affordable price and size... Perhaps you should go back and read the responses to this argument. MF will always be generally bigger and more expensive than 35mm format, just as it always has been. Any technology that goes into future MF can also go into future 35mm format and, as history shows, even the folks who care about IQ and interchangeable lenses will most frequently opt for the smaller, less expensive gear...with the smaller, but plenty high enough quality, sensor. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
treeplanter Posted July 25, 2011 Share #65 Posted July 25, 2011 Mind mentioning some, please? It's not for the sake of arguing (I have absolutely no reason to) but to shrink a bit my ignorance... Schneider made a 80mm F2.0 Xenotar for the Rollei 6000 series camera. Jim B. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
treeplanter Posted July 25, 2011 Share #66 Posted July 25, 2011 Mind mentioning some, please? It's not for the sake of arguing (I have absolutely no reason to) but to shrink a bit my ignorance... Schneider made a 80mm F2.0 Xenotar for the Rollei 6000 series camera. Jim B. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted July 25, 2011 Share #67 Posted July 25, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) In film days, 35mm was the smallest format that could give you decent image quality (and how I wrestled with it to get it!) Sub-miniature cameras like the Minox were novelties, 'stunt cameras'. Many amateurs, I included, used medium format for that grainless, creamy image and the detail that eluded us with 35mm. Today, very decent image quality is to be had from digital compacts with sensors that make the Minox film format look large. APS-C sensors, including that in the X1, beat 35mm film hands down. I did not exchange my M8 for a M9 because I needed more resolution or definition, but because I wanted to use my M lenses the way they were meant to be used. By objective measures, i.e. by the reproduction of subject structures and detail, without extraneous side effects like grain, I get superior results with my M9 to what I got with any roll film format. 35mm is the new medium format – the format for people who value technical quality. So the evolution is not going in the direction of larger formats. It is plain to see that it is going in the direction of the people who want to be able to make phone calls from their cameras. To an increasing section of the public, the mobile phone does all they want done, or are capable of doing whatever the tool they use, and it is threatening the present compact category. For most people, convenience is the criterion that beats all others, if they are even considered. We should also understand that with time, printing on paper will become an exceptional technique, used for the picture you want to hang on your wall (and how much wall space do you have? Do you live in Buckingham Palace?) I have more boxes full of analog prints than I know how to store. The natural habitat of the digital still picture is the digital screen, just as the optical projection screen was the natural habitat of Kodachrome. So if there exists a threat to the 'full format', it comes from below, not from above. The old man who came out of the darkroom Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted July 25, 2011 Share #68 Posted July 25, 2011 In film days, 35mm was the smallest format that could give you decent image quality (and how I wrestled with it to get it!) Sub-miniature cameras like the Minox were novelties, 'stunt cameras'. Many amateurs, I included, used medium format for that grainless, creamy image and the detail that eluded us with 35mm. Today, very decent image quality is to be had from digital compacts with sensors that make the Minox film format look large. APS-C sensors, including that in the X1, beat 35mm film hands down. I did not exchange my M8 for a M9 because I needed more resolution or definition, but because I wanted to use my M lenses the way they were meant to be used. By objective measures, i.e. by the reproduction of subject structures and detail, without extraneous side effects like grain, I get superior results with my M9 to what I got with any roll film format. 35mm is the new medium format – the format for people who value technical quality. So the evolution is not going in the direction of larger formats. It is plain to see that it is going in the direction of the people who want to be able to make phone calls from their cameras. To an increasing section of the public, the mobile phone does all they want done, or are capable of doing whatever the tool they use, and it is threatening the present compact category. For most people, convenience is the criterion that beats all others, if they are even considered. We should also understand that with time, printing on paper will become an exceptional technique, used for the picture you want to hang on your wall (and how much wall space do you have? Do you live in Buckingham Palace?) I have more boxes full of analog prints than I know how to store. The natural habitat of the digital still picture is the digital screen, just as the optical projection screen was the natural habitat of Kodachrome. So if there exists a threat to the 'full format', it comes from below, not from above. The old man who came out of the darkroom Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pop Posted July 25, 2011 Share #69 Posted July 25, 2011 So the evolution is not going in the direction of larger formats. I'm not sure if it's correct to speak of "evolution" in the singular. The market for photographic materials and devices has been divided into several fractions for quite some time. Who remembers instamatic, 110, aps, which had been aimed at the sunday shooter market? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pop Posted July 25, 2011 Share #70 Posted July 25, 2011 So the evolution is not going in the direction of larger formats. I'm not sure if it's correct to speak of "evolution" in the singular. The market for photographic materials and devices has been divided into several fractions for quite some time. Who remembers instamatic, 110, aps, which had been aimed at the sunday shooter market? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted July 25, 2011 Share #71 Posted July 25, 2011 I'm not sure if it's correct to speak of "evolution" in the singular. The market for photographic materials and devices has been divided into several fractions for quite some time. Who remembers instamatic, 110, aps, which had been aimed at the sunday shooter market? That is evidence for my argument, not for your argument. With the development of technology, much more different things become possible. But 'possible' does not mean 'desirable' or saleable'. Who remembers the digital wristwatch? And now even the wristwatch is on its way out, because with a mobile phone as the new pocket watch, who needs a wristwatch? And it should be clear that when I speak of evolution, I mean the evolution of a specific market segment, that of the people who are interested in making pictures. the old man Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted July 25, 2011 Share #72 Posted July 25, 2011 I'm not sure if it's correct to speak of "evolution" in the singular. The market for photographic materials and devices has been divided into several fractions for quite some time. Who remembers instamatic, 110, aps, which had been aimed at the sunday shooter market? That is evidence for my argument, not for your argument. With the development of technology, much more different things become possible. But 'possible' does not mean 'desirable' or saleable'. Who remembers the digital wristwatch? And now even the wristwatch is on its way out, because with a mobile phone as the new pocket watch, who needs a wristwatch? And it should be clear that when I speak of evolution, I mean the evolution of a specific market segment, that of the people who are interested in making pictures. the old man Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted July 25, 2011 Share #73 Posted July 25, 2011 I'm not convinced by your argument, Lars. Why did the M8 go to the M9?Much as I dislike car arguments, I think the following is apt: The fact that cars get faster and more comfortable ( a Toyota Yaris wiill outperform a 1940ies Rolls Royce in all respects) has not led to smaller cheaper cars displacing the BMWs and Mercedeses. Rather, the performance increase has been seen in all classes. Just as the performance increase can be seen in the S2 as well as in a cell-phone, keeping medium format alive besides making great "spy cameras" as we used to call them, in the form of the i-phone. In my perception it is the demand for quality per size going up, not the demand for quality staying stable and the size going down. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted July 25, 2011 Share #74 Posted July 25, 2011 I'm not convinced by your argument, Lars. Why did the M8 go to the M9?Much as I dislike car arguments, I think the following is apt: The fact that cars get faster and more comfortable ( a Toyota Yaris wiill outperform a 1940ies Rolls Royce in all respects) has not led to smaller cheaper cars displacing the BMWs and Mercedeses. Rather, the performance increase has been seen in all classes. Just as the performance increase can be seen in the S2 as well as in a cell-phone, keeping medium format alive besides making great "spy cameras" as we used to call them, in the form of the i-phone. In my perception it is the demand for quality per size going up, not the demand for quality staying stable and the size going down. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted July 25, 2011 Share #75 Posted July 25, 2011 ...The natural habitat of the digital still picture is the digital screen... So if there exists a threat to the 'full format', it comes from below, not from above... +1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted July 25, 2011 Share #76 Posted July 25, 2011 ...The natural habitat of the digital still picture is the digital screen... So if there exists a threat to the 'full format', it comes from below, not from above... +1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted July 25, 2011 Share #77 Posted July 25, 2011 Then why are photoalbum services growing so rapidly? I think for holiday and family snaps that is the natural habitat. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted July 25, 2011 Share #78 Posted July 25, 2011 Then why are photoalbum services growing so rapidly? I think for holiday and family snaps that is the natural habitat. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SJP Posted July 25, 2011 Share #79 Posted July 25, 2011 @Jaap, IIRC the M9 was introduced because many M8 users were claiming that they were using "less of their lens" than would be possible on FF. This is a contentious point of view, as by definition you are always using all of your lens regardless of crop factor. Anyway, Leica saw a market opportunity (partially forced by stagnating M8 sales due to FF rumors) and introduced the M9 with a few problems, notably vignetting and purple edge. Both of these "issues" have been solved by now, but this requires considerable post processing in the camera (the firmware updates/tweaking of algorithms). This is something they tried to avoid & was the reason that Leica for a long time believed that a digital M was not possible. The M8 was a compromise (e.g. requiring 6 bit coding esp. for wide lenses) even before the IR problem cropped up requiring further in camera PP. The M9 is even more so a compromise, however successful it may be in its current state of development. Another point view might be that the M9 is at the (cutting) edge of what is technically possible. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SJP Posted July 25, 2011 Share #80 Posted July 25, 2011 @Jaap, IIRC the M9 was introduced because many M8 users were claiming that they were using "less of their lens" than would be possible on FF. This is a contentious point of view, as by definition you are always using all of your lens regardless of crop factor. Anyway, Leica saw a market opportunity (partially forced by stagnating M8 sales due to FF rumors) and introduced the M9 with a few problems, notably vignetting and purple edge. Both of these "issues" have been solved by now, but this requires considerable post processing in the camera (the firmware updates/tweaking of algorithms). This is something they tried to avoid & was the reason that Leica for a long time believed that a digital M was not possible. The M8 was a compromise (e.g. requiring 6 bit coding esp. for wide lenses) even before the IR problem cropped up requiring further in camera PP. The M9 is even more so a compromise, however successful it may be in its current state of development. Another point view might be that the M9 is at the (cutting) edge of what is technically possible. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.