IkarusJohn Posted March 16, 2016 Share #541 Posted March 16, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) a real 50 ISO would be awesome. Agreed Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted March 16, 2016 Posted March 16, 2016 Hi IkarusJohn, Take a look here New Leica M in September 2016? The speculations.. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
IkarusJohn Posted March 16, 2016 Share #542 Posted March 16, 2016 Hello: I feel the fidelity of the SL, in spite of it's sensor's smaller size, is better than the A7rMKII. The sensor fidelity of my M240 is better than my Canon body, IMO. Like it or not, some professionals require a higher MP count for certain applications. Wouldn't it be of benefit to Leica to allow for it's customer to have a larger MP sensor retrofitted (exchanged) to an existing body, the SL and the new M? I know that a larger MP sensor requires more processing power, etc., but one would think that having this advantage would make an expensive Leica body, more of an option to a shooter that is concerned about obsolescence. The sensors in the SL and the A7r2 are the same size, aren't they (in general terms) - 35mm format? I'm not sure what "sensor fidelity" is, or how one might measure it. Certainly, some photographers (not just professionals) would like a higher MP count. Paul J for example has written a number of times of this need, and there have been others. The idea of "upgrading" sensors has been floated a few times (me included). There have been a deluge of technical reasons why this is not possible (which I find unconvincing - suppliers build what manufacturers want, rather than manufacturers being constrained by what suppliers will make - provided you order enough). The real problem seems to be the economics of Leica designing their cameras to allow for this (there was a suggestion the M8 would be the last ever camera you buy). The idea of a beautifully made Leica camera being ditched because a cheap bit of electronics has become unavailable still breaks my heart (and my bank balance) - so far, it has only been the M9 sensor, and I could have had it repaired, so I can't really complain. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter H Posted March 17, 2016 Share #543 Posted March 17, 2016 Maybe Leica, of all companies, are exactly the company to take the exchangeable sensor idea seriously. The premium we pay for our M cameras is not for the sensor, and not for the lenses either since we buy those separately with their own appropriately premium prices attached. We pay a premium for a body that bar the electrics is capable of lasting a lifetime. If the electrics were designed in such a way as to allow the body a genuinely long life I'm pretty sure Leica could charge a further premium on both the body and each new generation of electric contents. I don't believe it's impossible, though I can see plenty of difficulties. Which is why Leica, with their access to plenty of courageous customers and their equally courageous wallets, is the very company to take on this idea. Ricoh tried it and proved that there are takers but they couldn't provide the entire package, understandably. Come on Leica, be brave again. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdlaing Posted March 19, 2016 Share #544 Posted March 19, 2016 You're never ever going to get a changeable sensor on a Leica camera. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottw Posted March 19, 2016 Share #545 Posted March 19, 2016 My wish list for the M 240's successor (most important for me first): * Thinner body, like the film Ms. Leica already did that for the Q, please please please repeat the feat on the M * Built-in diopter correction. People age and their eyes change, you know * Better high ISO performance, useable at up ISO 12,500 will be heaven-send for me. * Wireless connections to smartphones, just like the Q * Faster data throughput thru the hot shoe, i.e. better external viewfinder * Lighter body, the M 262 is a step in the right direction * Some autofocus accessories for the M lens I was spoilt after using the Leica Q for the past year. Many of the items are the wish list are copied from the Q! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lykafile Posted March 20, 2016 Share #546 Posted March 20, 2016 +1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheshireCat Posted March 20, 2016 Share #547 Posted March 20, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) You're never ever going to get a changeable sensor on a Leica camera. ... Also because it does not make any sense. A newer, advanced sensor usually requires newer, advanced chips and electronics. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted March 20, 2016 Share #548 Posted March 20, 2016 Well, in theory the camera could be made modular. I.e., the mechanical parts retained, the electronics replaced as a module. It would be an expensive exercise though, even by Leica standards, and it would probably make the camera considerably larger. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter H Posted March 20, 2016 Share #549 Posted March 20, 2016 ... Also because it does not make any sense. A newer, advanced sensor usually requires newer, advanced chips and electronics. Yes. This is a sign that while there's plenty of development and progression in product specifications and paralell competition, there's precious little genuine innovation and creativity going on in the camera market. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmahto Posted March 20, 2016 Share #550 Posted March 20, 2016 Well, in theory the camera could be made modular. I.e., the mechanical parts retained, the electronics replaced as a module. It would be an expensive exercise though, even by Leica standards, and it would probably make the camera considerably larger. From a manufacturer's point of view it makes sense to make it modular to keep the manufacturing cost down and I am sure Leica designers think of that. Whether that translates into cheaper camera or sensor upgradable camera (by Leica) depends on market pressure... And I can guess what would Leica choose in today's market. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted March 20, 2016 Share #551 Posted March 20, 2016 [...] I would love 1/16000 too. Might the FP slit at 1/16000 be small enough to introduce diffraction? . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheshireCat Posted March 20, 2016 Share #552 Posted March 20, 2016 Might the FP slit at 1/16000 be small enough to introduce diffraction? Interesting point. However, this does not seem to be a problem for Leica, as my lenses all stop down to f/16. Besides, diffraction is better than overexposed Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted March 20, 2016 Share #553 Posted March 20, 2016 Actually 1/8000 was slightly into diffraction. They went to 1/4000 by slowing down the curtains at the same slit width. The object was to reduce the noise. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted March 20, 2016 Share #554 Posted March 20, 2016 Well, in theory the camera could be made modular. I.e., the mechanical parts retained, the electronics replaced as a module. It would be an expensive exercise though, even by Leica standards, and it would probably make the camera considerably larger. http://www.imx.nl/photo/blog/files/fb74289494cf638033000008f6f3c35e-28.html Excerpt... "I once asked the engineers of the digital Leica camera why it was not possible to create a modular camera that could be upgraded component by component when the modules themselves could not be repaired. The answer was quite simple: to change the sensor would imply to change the whole printed circuit with all electronics and connections. This is almost like assembling a new camera. It ca be done however and LG has demonstrated a start with its new G5. The ill-fated LUP (Leica Upgrade Program) for the M8 was a marketing failure. but is was the expression of the engineers of Leica to hold on to the traditional values of the company. If an M9 fails the response of the company is simply: buy a new M. Instead of more features I would plead for less functionality and more modularity." Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ski542002 Posted March 20, 2016 Share #555 Posted March 20, 2016 Great. A $7,500 piece of precision equipment that in 3-5 years (maybe sooner to remain competitive professionally), becomes a disposable paperweight. So the answer from any manufacturer is, go out and buy another piece of $7,500 precision equipment. At least the lenses remain relevant for the long-haul. Remember the old days, buy a Canon F1, Nikon F, or film-M and it would last it seems, forever. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pop Posted March 20, 2016 Share #556 Posted March 20, 2016 Great. A $7,500 piece of precision equipment that in 3-5 years (maybe sooner to remain competitive professionally), becomes a disposable paperweight. So the answer from any manufacturer is, go out and buy another piece of $7,500 precision equipment. At least the lenses remain relevant for the long-haul. Remember the old days, buy a Canon F1, Nikon F, or film-M and it would last it seems, forever. The $7500 piece of precision equipment will keep on working, presumably, quite a bit longer than three or five years. If you feel you have to replace your equipment just because new equipment has been introduced into the market which does one thing or the other more, or better, or faster: that's been the case with the leading film systems, too. So, what's the problem? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted March 20, 2016 Share #557 Posted March 20, 2016 At least the lenses remain relevant for the long-haul. Remember the old days, buy a Canon F1, Nikon F, or film-M and it would last it seems, forever. I was one of those miscreants known as an urban daily newspaper photographer. We used Nikon F, abused and battered them. When one was battered to broken we separated the body from the back, prism, focusing screen, strap and motor wind and got a new body. So, they did break, but the modular nature kept our desk drawers full of parts. Oh, the Leicas (usually M4) were dented, black enamel worn, but did not break. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted March 20, 2016 Share #558 Posted March 20, 2016 The $7500 piece of precision equipment will keep on working, presumably, quite a bit longer than three or five years. If you feel you have to replace your equipment just because new equipment has been introduced into the market which does one thing or the other more, or better, or faster: that's been the case with the leading film systems, too. So, what's the problem? To be fair, I don't think ski542002 was saying that at all. Perhaps you were not involved in the discussion, but when the LCDs for the M8 could not be replaced, we had a similar discussion. The general "wisdom" here was that it was unrealistic to expect electronic components to last a long time, and certainly anyone who believed Leica's "camera for life" marketing was stupid. My conclusion was that if anything was stupid, it was paying over $7,000 for a camera which Leica was unable to fix after a horrifyingly short period of time. I digress - ski542002 wasn't complaining that a new model would come out in 3-5 years - that wouldn't make your existing camera a paperweight. Leica being unable to fix it would. Jeff's excerpt from Erwin Puts' article is more illuminating. I've heard a number of arguments against modularity over the years: you have to change the motherboard etc, and the dimensions are different (I think this was Michael Haussmann) - actually, that's only the case if the supplier makes the sensor and related electronics to a different size. The M digital camera has changed little in size (compared to others) since the M3 was introduced. Order enough parts, a supplier will make them to the dimensions you need. the cost of replacing the sensor and motherboard makes such a programme unrealistic (this one from Leica, I think) - that, surely, is a choice for the camera owner? I've had three sensor replacements, I think. Leica seemed to manage this quite easily under warranty. When I got corrosion on my M9, I also had the choice, and Leica has undertaken to replace the sensor on my Monochrom if ti fails. Surely, the cost can't be out of proportion to the upgrade price offered for a new camera. it's a marketing disaster (new from Leica above) - why? If no one wants a replacement (and many won't), then there is no cost to Leica. The marketing problem is if everyone wants a sensor upgrade and they won't buy new cameras. That is not to say that future functionality would be included in the upgrade - the suggestion is largely over sensor upgrades. My suspicion is that it is easier for Leica to simply sell new cameras, and putting pressure on Customer Services is not something it wants to contemplate. I find that very shortsighted. Leica is exactly the sort of company that should more away from the disposability of modern electronics - it is also consistent with its perception of a camera for life. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pop Posted March 20, 2016 Share #559 Posted March 20, 2016 To be fair, I don't think ski542002 was saying that at all. Only ski can tell. I am perfectly aware of the M8 LCD fiasco. I am also aware of the M9 sensor near-fiasco. I don't think expecting a digital camera to remain in working order for several decades is reasonable. I'm trying to imagine a portable consumer device launched in - say - 1996 that could be upgraded with a new FF sensor, the whole support ecosystem and a new power supply (a.k.a. battery) in a manner which is not equivalent to scrapping the whole box and sending a new one. To be quite truthful, I don't think a camera manufacturer who built its first digital camera in 2008 (and did not even build the electronic parts itself) would be be even capable of designing a system of that modularity. If Leica succeeds in stocking spare parts for at least ten years after the production period, we might expect an M type camera to remain serviceable for about fifteen years, a bit more for mechanical parts. In theory, that is. That's quite a bit shorter than an M3 or M2, but it's not three to five years. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted March 20, 2016 Share #560 Posted March 20, 2016 Yes - but it is unrealistic to suppose that Leica will be unable to fix a camera in 3-5 years. They plan for at least ten after production end, and in the few (two) cases that they were unable to meet the target the reasons were clear, despite Leica's embarrassment. I fully expect my M9 to be functional 15 years after I bought it in 2009, and the same for my M240 bought in 2013. 2028 - It remains to be seen whether I will be functional and repairable by then... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.