Jump to content

NEW M.. This year.. This Fall...


EdwardM

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Agree. Some in this thread seem to feel that the SL, being the "higher" camera should have the most megapixels. I think they are distict lines, not distinguished by their level, but by their concept.

 

The other thing to consider is that perhaps we're getting to the point of marginal gains. 24MP is actually plenty, EVF has reached a stage where it is better than good enough, video is excellent etc.  What comes next is refinement. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

x
  • Replies 2.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Agree. Some in this thread seem to feel that the SL, being the "higher" camera should have the most megapixels. I think they are distict lines, not distinguished by their level, but by their concept.

  

I agree. For the SL the frame rate and data transfer rate limited the sensor to 24MP. This does not necessarily applies to the new M. Whether a higher MP sensor is available for Leica might be a different story.

 

Steve

Link to post
Share on other sites

The other thing to consider is that perhaps we're getting to the point of marginal gains. 24MP is actually plenty, EVF has reached a stage where it is better than good enough, video is excellent etc.  What comes next is refinement. 

 

I don't agree.

 

You and I can't predict what, in ten or twenty years' time, our minimum requirements will be, aside from a nice cup of tea and a blanket across our knees.

 

It's tempting to say that what we have now is good enough (many people prefer what they never actually had twenty or more years ago) and everything else is just refinement, or even superfluous, but a huge, overwhelming amount of technology has come about not because the potential users or customers were clamouring for it but just because it became possible.  And then uses were found for it, and those uses became indispensable until a new technology replaced them, and so it goes.

 

Our cameras are perfectly capable of satisfying and exceeding the abilities of all but a very few of us, and have been for a good long time. That almost never prevents progress, for reasons that i think are fairly self-evident don't you?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Our cameras are perfectly capable of satisfying and exceeding the abilities of all but a very few of us, and have been for a good long time. 

And that's been true across various brands.  We're living in great times gear-wise.....IQ hasn't been a limitation for some time (although one would never know it on almost any camera forum), but technology will march on....whether we need it or not.

 

Jeff

Link to post
Share on other sites

And that's been true across various brands. We're living in great times gear-wise.....IQ hasn't been a limitation for some time (although one would never know it on almost any camera forum), but technology will march on....whether we need it or not.

 

Jeff

Yep, that's exactly what I mean.

 

We won't need it but it won't take long before we'll be certain that we do. Believing otherwise is largely self-delusion, though as always there's bound to be one or two wise and honourable exceptions too modest to speak up about it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't agree.

 

You and I can't predict what, in ten or twenty years' time, our minimum requirements will be, aside from a nice cup of tea and a blanket across our knees.

 

It's tempting to say that what we have now is good enough (many people prefer what they never actually had twenty or more years ago) and everything else is just refinement, or even superfluous, but a huge, overwhelming amount of technology has come about not because the potential users or customers were clamouring for it but just because it became possible.  And then uses were found for it, and those uses became indispensable until a new technology replaced them, and so it goes.

 

Our cameras are perfectly capable of satisfying and exceeding the abilities of all but a very few of us, and have been for a good long time. That almost never prevents progress, for reasons that i think are fairly self-evident don't you?

 

I do. I agree entirely. But I hope, against hope, that consumerism will change in our generation. I feel this way every time I pick up my father's hammer ...

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

(I like to acknowledge his merit also because in 2008, several months before the S2 intro, when in the Forum people used to discuss about the possibility of a new "Digital R", I made a post speculating that if they would make one "it could be more than 24x36 " ... and none complimented me months after :( )

 

 

I still don't think he fully guessed right this time Luigi.......but I did 'acknowledge his merit' regarding the Q's frame lines (in my post 424 on page 22 of this thread)  :)

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I do. I agree entirely. But I hope, against hope, that consumerism will change in our generation. I feel this way every time I pick up my father's hammer ...

 

You can either have growth, innovation and progress or stagnation and death. It is not good to have things stand still, and this is why consumerism is not a bad thing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You can either have growth, innovation and progress or stagnation and death. It is not good to have things stand still, and this is why consumerism is not a bad thing.

All nice in theory but many industries have bucked that trend including the entire Swiss watch making industry .....
Link to post
Share on other sites

All nice in theory but many industries have bucked that trend including the entire Swiss watch making industry .....

 

I thought it was the innovations of Swatch that rescued the Swiss watch making industry.

 

Until Swatch came along with new ideas, the Swiss watchmaking industry was in dire straights, but innovation saved the day, and created the leeway for some other Swiss manufacturers to find their own new niches in the higher end of the market, sometimes called the jewellery market, not in any offensive sense.

 

Is this not right?

 

PS, I've just realised how many cliches and mixed metaphors  I've managed to squeeze into one sentence. Beat that...

Link to post
Share on other sites

To be black and white about this there is nothing wrong with colourful mixed metaphors. Monochrome ones might cause a nasty taste while smelling of success. Anyway, it's a level playing field but let's not get to slide down the leveraged slippery slope into kicking into the long grass when we can hit the ball for six into the next century. Take a rain check and think of a ball park figure while hoisting the flag and seeing who salutes ...

 

OK I have run out of nonsense for now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Things will not stand still and that is good for the consumer.  Competition produces results.

Digital was and is a disruptive technology that is not going to stand still, and the pace of innovation has been extremely rapid.   Not just megapixels, but finders and screens and video and new formats, all of which was finally recognized as a competitive challenge by Leica, who had spent 50 years refining film technology, in the process missing the SLR boat, missing the commercial significance of autofocus, and stagnated until they woke up to a photographic world that tipping in many ways away from Leica's strengths.   Call it consumerism or something else, Leica was properly worried that it was in danger of becoming irrelevant and finally woke up. I call it responding the the marketplace.  What would have happened had Leica decided that it was going to stand pat?   At best we might have some Panaleicas, and nothing homegrown.     No digital M, no Q, no SL, no nothing.   IMHO, consumer driven competition is working out well for us, so let us not complain.  Nostalgia is going to get us nowhere, 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...