Maestro processor

[rramesh]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

In the recent interview with Volker Zimmer (Leica)/ Mike Frazier (Fujitsu) (LFI 1/2013), it is mentioned that the M film speed is limited to 25 images per second due to the limit in the current Maestro processor.

 

It may be likely that we will see a Maestro 2 processor down the road.

 

Can these upgrades be applied to the current M, or will we see a new one for each upgrade?

[Guest borge]

Talking about upgrades to a camera that still isn't officially on the market is kind of a waste of time really.

 

My guess: Maestro 2 in the Typ 241 3-4 years down the road.

[marknorton]

What upgrades there have ever been - M8 to M8u, M9 to M9-P have been cosmetic. A small number of largely cosmetic parts replaced without affecting anything functional (though I accept the viewfinder frames are borderline). What electronic upgrades there have been have been to improve reliability (the T2 transistor problem) and again not functional enhancements.

 

It's highly unlikely that a hypothetical faster chip set would be available as an upgrade. Increase the speed of a processor and the power consumption and heat generation both increase too so it's not just a case of installing a new logic board.

[k-hawinkler]

I guess camera upgrades are similar to supercomputer upgrades.

It's easily done in computing and called a forklift upgrade!

Simply, you take out the old and put in the new. Done.

On paper though that total exchange technically qualifies as an upgrade!

[mjh]

There is no precedent with Leica cameras but we know what other vendors such as Canon and Nikon do: Processor development is largely independent from camera development; once a new processor becomes available, all the new models get it, but if, for example, the new processor arrives one year after a camera with a three years product cycle has been introduced, this line of cameras has to wait another two years before it gets the new processor (or maybe its successor). Or to put it more simply: Processor development doesn’t drive camera development. (On the other hand, the direction of processor development is informed by the direction camera development is intended to take.)

[barjohn]

if it is limited to 25fps, then EVF performance will be horrid. Even 60fps isn't very good. At 120fps motion starts to look a little better.

[marknorton]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Those who have used the EVF can comment but we already know the M is not for action or sports photography.

[FlorianM]

if it is limited to 25fps, then EVF performance will be horrid. Even 60fps isn't very good. At 120fps motion starts to look a little better.

 

25fps is at 1080p (1920x1080). When driving the (lower rez) EVF I suspect it will be better.

[jdlaing]

Those who have used the EVF can comment but we already know the M is not for action or sports photography.

 

The EVF increases your chance at a higher keeper rate for those type images.

[mjh]

I must say that at 30 fps the EVF works quite well (i.e. not ‘horrid’ at all). If there is a problem with action shots it wouldn’t be the viewfinder’s frame rate or its latency, but the shutter lag. If short reaction times are mandatory one is better served with the optical viewfinder.

[Guest borge]

I'm gonna be 100% honest. 30fps EVF sucks. Jaggy and lagged movements due to a slow refresh rate. Slow exposure updates to the same.

 

I have used cameras with EVF's extensively and 30 fps is not fun to use. The ONLY EVF that I actually felt really comfortable using, and which I think could possibly replace a optical viewfinder - is the EVF of the Olympus OM-D E-M5. It has a 120 fps EVF.

 

The Nex and Fuji X series cameras with 30 fps and 60 fps EVF's are not fun to use. 60 fps is better than 30, but 120 fps is the "magic number" where things start to feel natural.

 

There is no better or worse regarding this. 30 fps is 30 fps wether it is Leica, Sony, Fuji or whatever. It is a physical technical limit that won't be better or worse no matter who made the product and what it costs.

 

So... Don't expect the 30 fps EVF to work wonders even if it has a red dot on it.

 

This also means that the Maestro processor is sort of technically outdated compared to many other brands at it's launch.

[jaques]

somehow it doesn't surprise me that some of the tech is outdated before it is released. Leica do not seem to good at implementing cutting edge tech: like the LCD on the M9 which was horribly outdated the day it was released.

 

It is a shame though...

[barjohn]

I'm gonna be 100% honest. 30fps EVF sucks. Jaggy and lagged movements due to a slow refresh rate. Slow exposure updates to the same.

 

I have used cameras with EVF's extensively and 30 fps is not fun to use. The ONLY EVF that I actually felt really comfortable using, and which I think could possibly replace a optical viewfinder - is the EVF of the Olympus OM-D E-M5. It has a 120 fps EVF.

 

The Nex and Fuji X series cameras with 30 fps and 60 fps EVF's are not fun to use. 60 fps is better than 30, but 120 fps is the "magic number" where things start to feel natural.

 

There is no better or worse regarding this. 30 fps is 30 fps wether it is Leica, Sony, Fuji or whatever. It is a physical technical limit that won't be better or worse no matter who made the product and what it costs.

 

So... Don't expect the 30 fps EVF to work wonders even if it has a red dot on it.

 

This also means that the Maestro processor is sort of technically outdated compared to many other brands at it's launch.

 

I couldn't agree with you more. However, I will add one more EVF that seems to work well and that is the one on the RX-1. I have tried all of the other ones and own the one that Leica will be using for use on an Olympus and it is not comparable to the OMD or RX-1 EVFs.

[andyedward]

if it is limited to 25fps, then EVF performance will be horrid. Even 60fps isn't very good. At 120fps motion starts to look a little better.

 

All the new bells and whistles on the new M are of little use to me. If 25fps for the EVF isnt sufficient, and live view is only effective on a tripod, then the rangefinder would be the only useable focusing method for the street shooting I do. Fortunately, I happen to think the RF is the best way to focus, and despite the limitations of 25fps and live view, the new M will be a very good camera. I would prefer a version of the M with just the RF, but acknowledge that I could simply ignore the evf and live view.

 

If live view and the EVF prove to be unpopular with the majority of M users, the current price rise in R glass will hopefully subside back to reasonable levels

[Guest borge]

LIve View is nice for composing landscape shots with ultrawides. Other than that, I really don't understand the whole EVF thing. Everyone wants an optical viewfinder not an EVF... So what is the fuzz all about? The best thing about the M cameras is the optical rangefinder. It is the only unique feature that makes it sell a lot, besides it's size.

 

For landscape type of shooting and macro Live View is better to use anyway since the camera most certainly will be on a tripod. That is when live view is a really nice thing to have... But not an EVF.

 

I have used OVF's for seven years and EVF's for two years before moving to the M system and I really don't see any reason to purchase the separate EVF module at all. Live View is better for when you need precision framing and focusing anyway - especially if the camera is on a tripod.

[lct]

We can use the EVF for landscape and macro don't we. How many of us did shoot moving subjects with a Visoflex anyway? But 30 fps is 30 fps and letting believe it just makes a slight difference with 60 or 120 fps doesn't sound very serious.

[mjh]

Isn’t it funny how 24 fps is deemed good enough for movies (‘The Hobbit’ notwithstanding), but a 30 fps EVF is presumed useless?

 

Btw, how many of those damning the M’s live view have actually used it?

[andyedward]

Isn’t it funny how 24 fps is deemed good enough for movies (‘The Hobbit’ notwithstanding), but a 30 fps EVF is presumed useless?

 

Btw, how many of those damning the M’s live view have actually used it?

 

From my experience of live view, on a d3x and a d700, I needed a tripod to get anywhere close to accurate focus. I wonder what percentage of new M owners will carry a tripod with them and actually use it?

[chris_tribble]

Those who have used the EVF can comment but we already know the M is not for action or sports photography.

 

The shots in the jazz club were all with the EVF and I couldn't have got them without it. Same for the shot of St Pauls. Accurate focus with the 135 Apo Telyt suddenly got easy.

 

re the M being suitable for action of sports - I'd not agree in general - if you're close enough it's great! However, action / sports + LONG LENSES + the M is not a good combination in my experience (and yes, I know that some of us have taken stunning motor sports or soccer or nature with Visoflex etc, but for me, a modern DSLR has the edge here...)

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Guest borge]

Isn’t it funny how 24 fps is deemed good enough for movies (‘The Hobbit’ notwithstanding), but a 30 fps EVF is presumed useless?

 

Btw, how many of those damning the M’s live view have actually used it?

 

Uh, you can't really compare the two at all. I won't even bother to explain why as it should be pretty obvious. Unless you want to watch edited and processed movies (cinema) in the EVF? Then it will probably work fine at 25/30fps just like any TV set.

 

Based on your post I assume you aren't very experienced in regards to EVF's, refresh rates and how fps affects motion blur and perceived quality?

 

You can't compare a controlled scenario (cinema movie) with an uncontrollable scenario (live usage).

 

It isn't useless but in mid 2013 (launch time) it should have been a whole lot better, and at the cost it should have set a standard for others to follow. An EVF is an EVF. It isn't more or less difficult for any company to make it (or source parts for it). The technical limitations are the same for all the companies. It isn't a refined specialist product like optics or rangefinder mechanisms for example.

 

I have worked with optics, sensors and software for high quality video conferencing systems for years. Dealing with motion blur (and how the user experiences) it has been a big part of the challenge due to bandwith limitations on network links or the lack of proper QoS implimitations in large scale networks with priority on video signalling and media. All sorts of software techniques have been tested for years on how to compensate for framerate limitations but there isn't a single software implimitation that has worked so far (we were even working down to 7 fps and trying to improve the experience).