Michael Geschlecht Posted February 3, 2017 Share #81 Posted February 3, 2017 Advertisement (gone after registration) Michael, Interchangeability is not the same as upgradability. The examples you give (tires, chock absorbers, lenses etc) are interchangable items with diffent characteristics. Upgradability is something different. It is producing a platform with today technology that opens up for future improvements by replacing components in the future not with other characteristics but with improved characteristics. I strongly believe this is valid for software, history has proved that for hardware it was never a great succes especially in high end digital products. Improvement works best on ALL aspects of the product. Just my opinion. Hello Stef, Thank you for your reply. I used the examples I did, including tires & shock absorbers, as examples where previous models could be replaced with components with "improved characteristics". BOTH your examples & my examples are viable mechanisms for doing the same thing. I simply see my alternative as less wasteful & more efficient. Why get rid of what is perfectly useful & then replace it with what is essentially the same thing? For example: We have the empirical evidence that for example, there have not been significant improvements in things like range/viewfinders which are a significant portion of the total cost of any "M" camera, film or digital. Why get a new range/viewfinder every time there is an improvement in the digital portion of the camera? Why get a new shutter every time there is an improvement in the digital portion of the camera? Why get a new body shell every time there is an improvement in the digital portion of the camera? And so on. Best Regards, Michael Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted February 3, 2017 Posted February 3, 2017 Hi Michael Geschlecht, Take a look here M 11 will be around in less than 4 years. The speculations and facts.. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
pop Posted February 3, 2017 Share #82 Posted February 3, 2017 I still don't get this at all. Presumably the EVF is from the sensor. .... The Leica patent describing a solid state, digital rangefinder uses in addition to the lens and sensor of the camera two tiny cameras positioned where the two rangefinder windows in the M are. Think of the cameras built into phones. The on-board computer mixes the images from the two small cameras and shifts one to the left or right, depending on the distance set on the main lens. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Geschlecht Posted February 3, 2017 Share #83 Posted February 3, 2017 (edited) Hello Again Stef, Interesting thought:Back in the first half of the 20th Century: When the decision was made to add a permanently attached range/viewfinder to the Original Leica the decision was made that the range/viewfinder mechanism would have to be constructed so that it fit in the space between the rewind & the shutter speed dial & was not above a certain height. It also had to be designed so that it could be added to already existent cameras & operate correctly. This theoretical range/viewfinder was, in fact, built & integrated successfully into the Leica System. When digital photography for 35mm photography was first introduced in the 1980's there was a lot of discussion about designing interchangeable moduls to occupy the space in pre-existant 35mm cameras that was then being taken up by the film & the film's winding & storage mechanisms & spaces. For whatever reason(s) this did not occur. It was often said that the state of technological development did not allow for the miniaturization of components so that this could be done. Those days are long past. There is no technological barrier today to developing a purely mechanical 35mm sized camera in which components of digital moduls could be housed in such a way that: As improvements in sensor design come about: An interchangeable module can be removed & replaced with an upgraded version. By the way: That also goes for other components such as range/viewfinders which have already been exchangeable & upgradeable for years. Best Regards, Michael Edited February 3, 2017 by Michael Geschlecht Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Spencer Posted February 3, 2017 Share #84 Posted February 3, 2017 The Leica patent describing a solid state, digital rangefinder uses in addition to the lens and sensor of the camera two tiny cameras positioned where the two rangefinder windows in the M are. Think of the cameras built into phones. The on-board computer mixes the images from the two small cameras and shifts one to the left or right, depending on the distance set on the main lens. Ok, so we are talking about 3 different sensors. The main one for taking the image and one for each of the two cameras. I think we are a long way away from that being implemented and personally I would not be that interested, but that system is at least close to a reimagining of the rangefinder as digital. Still seems overly complex and I can't see how it would be worth it and there are still some very tough issues to solve (how to to interface a mechanical lens with the little camera controlling the rangefinder patch; and how to project the rangefinder patch onto the EVF so that it accurately indicates distance). I can't see how it would be a step forward at all, but maybe I just lack vision. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pop Posted February 3, 2017 Share #85 Posted February 3, 2017 (edited) Ok, so we are talking about 3 different sensors. The main one for taking the image and one for each of the two cameras. I think we are a long way away from that being implemented and personally I would not be that interested, but that system is at least close to a reimagining of the rangefinder as digital. Still seems overly complex and I can't see how it would be worth it and there are still some very tough issues to solve (how to to interface a mechanical lens with the little camera controlling the rangefinder patch; and how to project the rangefinder patch onto the EVF so that it accurately indicates distance). I can't see how it would be a step forward at all, but maybe I just lack vision. I bought a Fuji stereo camera just a few years ago. The whole camera cost in the range of perhaps €150 in a shop. I suspect that this is cheaper than the optomechanical rangefinder in a Leica M. Most parts of the implementation would be straightforward and not complex at all. The only thing about that kind of solid state rangefinder which might be a bit demanding would be an accurate coupling of the distance setting of the lens into the camera. Edit: here's a link to the patent under discussion: http://www.google.com/patents/DE102012009975B4?cl=en Edited February 3, 2017 by pop Added link to patent Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
otto.f Posted February 3, 2017 Share #86 Posted February 3, 2017 (edited) This idea of starting to think about the M11 the day after the M10 was brought out, is really panting consumerism. With hollow eyes. Reminds me of those lonely poor people at a gamble machine in Las Vegas frantically sucking on a cigarette and slurping whiskey. How void, how uninterested in photography, how un-Leica-like. Edited February 3, 2017 by otto.f 6 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted February 3, 2017 Share #87 Posted February 3, 2017 Advertisement (gone after registration) As I understand their concept, the rangefinder is a true digital mechanism. [...] Of course! It had been right in front of our eyes for decades, the Jetsons' camera! . Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirk Mandeville Posted February 3, 2017 Share #88 Posted February 3, 2017 IMHO the " Optical " will always be important, for me and for Leica , no , very important. Let's look at the binoculars. I cannot imagine to see a full electronic option there. For me it's alway a question how close I am to the subject and until now, the electronic option is not near enough for me. To much interference between the subject and my eye. It's the reason I choose for a rangefinder. The day I cannot see the difference anymore between the looking-glas from a rangefinder optical system and an electronic system I will be convinced, but until that day I 'm very happy with my optical viewfinder. Optical and electronic can be easily melded. Several companies are making electro-optical binoculars for the military right now, which can penetrate fog, smoke, and sand to provide a crisp clear image. Technology is progressing at a rapid pace, and I fully expect Leica is working toward ways to incorporate it into their existing systems. I expect we will see a hybrid electro-optical digital rangefinder camera from them within a decade. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Geschlecht Posted February 3, 2017 Share #89 Posted February 3, 2017 (edited) Ok, so we are talking about 3 different sensors. The main one for taking the image and one for each of the two cameras. I think we are a long way away from that being implemented and personally I would not be that interested, but that system is at least close to a reimagining of the rangefinder as digital. Still seems overly complex and I can't see how it would be worth it and there are still some very tough issues to solve (how to to interface a mechanical lens with the little camera controlling the rangefinder patch; and how to project the rangefinder patch onto the EVF so that it accurately indicates distance). I can't see how it would be a step forward at all, but maybe I just lack vision. Hello Steve, It appears that we are looking at a significantly cheaper to build range/viewfinder system which would be coupled with letting Leica move away from the optical/mechanical range/viewfinder which has been both the Hero & the Achillies Heel of the various "M" cameras. Both film & digital. Hero because it has allowed Leitz/Leica to be in a somewhat unique position in terms of its market share of the high quality lens business. Achillies Heel because of the need for highly skilled workers who are involved with an expensive technology that is from the First Half of the 20th Century. A technology that is pretty much unrelated to their current direction of development. Best Regards, Michael Edited February 3, 2017 by Michael Geschlecht Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cirke Posted February 3, 2017 Share #90 Posted February 3, 2017 (edited) This idea of starting to think about the M11 the day after the M10 was brought out, is really panting consumerism. With hollow eyes. Reminds me of those lonely poor people at a gamble machine in Las Vegas frantically sucking on a cigarette and slurping whiskey. How void, how uninterested in photography, how un-Leica-like. Or maybe the M10 is not at all what many of us were waiting For me the M10 is a disappointment I don't think what could be the M11 but what could or should be the next M240, or eventually how much I can get for my M lenses Edited February 3, 2017 by siangue Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
otto.f Posted February 4, 2017 Share #91 Posted February 4, 2017 Or maybe the M10 is not at all what many of us were waiting For me the M10 is a disappointment I don't think what could be the M11 but what could or should be the next M240, or eventually how much I can get for my M lenses Then you are probably not an M photographer 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Spencer Posted February 4, 2017 Share #92 Posted February 4, 2017 I bought a Fuji stereo camera just a few years ago. The whole camera cost in the range of perhaps €150 in a shop. I suspect that this is cheaper than the optomechanical rangefinder in a Leica M. Most parts of the implementation would be straightforward and not complex at all. The only thing about that kind of solid state rangefinder which might be a bit demanding would be an accurate coupling of the distance setting of the lens into the camera. Edit: here's a link to the patent under discussion: http://www.google.com/patents/DE102012009975B4?cl=en Cheaper yes, but would it be desirable over the optical version--I suspect not at least for me. Would it be desirably over the EVFs that have now become common in mirrorless cameras--again I suspect not at least for me. I think it would be a very clumsy focussing aid for an EVF and I can't see what it would improve. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Spencer Posted February 4, 2017 Share #93 Posted February 4, 2017 (edited) Hello Steve, It appears that we are looking at a significantly cheaper to build range/viewfinder system which would be coupled with letting Leica move away from the optical/mechanical range/viewfinder which has been both the Hero & the Achillies Heel of the various "M" cameras. Both film & digital. Hero because it has allowed Leitz/Leica to be in a somewhat unique position in terms of its market share of the high quality lens business. Achillies Heel because of the need for highly skilled workers who are involved with an expensive technology that is from the First Half of the 20th Century. A technology that is pretty much unrelated to their current direction of development. Best Regards, Michael There are other systems that would let them move away from an optical rangefinder--namely an EVF that they already use in the SL and I can't see how this system would be cheaper than an EVF as an EVF is only one component of it. I can't see how it would be a useful focussing aid over the one's that are already used either. It seems it would be clumsy and its only advantage is that it would mimic the way an optical rangefinder works--but I have a lot of doubts it would really seem all that similar. So, I can't see it happening, but hey maybe I am wrong. Edited February 4, 2017 by Steve Spencer Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NB23 Posted February 4, 2017 Share #94 Posted February 4, 2017 Round sensor Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avatar Posted February 4, 2017 Share #95 Posted February 4, 2017 100 grams lighter. Thank you in advance. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lax Jought Posted February 4, 2017 Share #96 Posted February 4, 2017 Or maybe the M10 is not at all what many of us were waiting For me the M10 is a disappointment I don't think what could be the M11 but what could or should be the next M240, or eventually how much I can get for my M lenses This will probably be the strangest thing I've ever heard from someone who presumably has had any experience with an M. Especially without any context or explanation. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cirke Posted February 4, 2017 Share #97 Posted February 4, 2017 (edited) This will probably be the strangest thing I've ever heard from someone who presumably has had any experience with an M. Especially without any context or explanation. The context is very simple, I have a M only for the lenses and for the compact system, never for the RF The best camera for me today is my iPhone 7+ but I don't like the files Edited February 4, 2017 by siangue Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cirke Posted February 4, 2017 Share #98 Posted February 4, 2017 Then you are probably not an M photographer a M photographer ? stange way to see photography Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted February 4, 2017 Share #99 Posted February 4, 2017 The context is very simple, I have a M only for the lenses and for the compact system, never for the RF The best camera for me today is my iPhone 7+ but I don't like the files Well, given that Leica has again made clear that the rangefinder to them is the core of the system, I do think that you are missing something here. 5 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DES Posted February 4, 2017 Share #100 Posted February 4, 2017 I would like a larger sensor say CMOS 30MP. This would increase resolution, dynamic range and hopefully cut noise... Albert I have waited since the M9 to get an upgrade from my M8 that fit my requirements...I hoped that a future M10 might do that.....and although this looks a beauty, it still doesn't have 30mp... and having used my D800E it is a must for landscape. Fujis latest fits the bill so well.....but I would prefer to use my Leica glass if poss. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.