Jump to content
rchrd

XY/CL design vs TL design

Recommended Posts

Exactly!

By the same argument, only beautiful people should take photographs!

Or one should only take photographs of beautiful people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By the same argument, only beautiful people should take photographs!

Or one should only take photographs of beautiful people.

What?! Nobody has argued that. Nor does that follow from the idea that things should be aesthetically designed. People are beautiful period. Photography particularly is in the field of exposing human beauty and celebrating it. We find beauty in babies, fat people, old people, skinny people, sexually attractive people, muscley people, in all ethnicities etc because that beauty is actually there! By the way, for your argument to work at all, it has to assume as a premise that only some people are beautiful. Edited by rchrd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

If I could adequately define beauty, the world would beat a path to my door. But I observe, and I believe others have observed the same, that people find things beautiful that have elements of symmetry, simplicity, regularity and clarity - and these can be seen in abstracts as well as concrete objects.

 

 

That does not explain Rococo and Baroque...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What?! Nobody has argued that. Nor does that follow from the idea that things should be aesthetically designed. People are beautiful period. Photography particularly is in the field of exposing human beauty and celebrating it. We find beauty in babies, fat people, old people, skinny people, sexually attractive people, muscley people, in all ethnicities etc because that beauty is actually there! By the way, for your argument to work at all, it has to assume as a premise that only some people are beautiful.

I'm sorry if I misunderstood you, but I was responding to your agreement that "aesthetic qualities shouldn't be lost on image makers" as part of an argument that the XY should not be ugly ("horrible" in your word). If you expect one of the tools to be beautiful, shouldn't you expect the tool user to be beautiful, and the subject? I'm glad that you think all people are beautiful - the world needs that sort of view - but convention suggests otherwise.

 

Please don't take my statements too seriously. The discussion helps fill in the time before seeing the XY/Clooney in reality next week, when I expect its functionality to take centre stage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I don’t mean to sound argumentative. Just trying to have a friendly but thorough discussion! Objects are different from subjects (persons). It is a huge value distinction made by ethicists and in philosophy of aesthetics. It is why we use the word “objectification”, to point out the viewing of someone as an object rather than a subject with inherent value, beauty, and dignity in virtue of what they are. People are valuable intrinsically and they don’t lose value simply because you have no use for them or they are not to your liking. A camera on the other hand is purely extrinsic in its value, and can lose its value since it depends on the satisfaction of the user. So holding aesthetic standards for a camera doesn’t imply anything about human value and is a “categorical mistake”. For example, it would be absurd to blame art for not furthering our understanding of science, because art is not concerned with advancing science. They have to be judged by different standards. Humans are not cameras, which can be objectified or merely valued for its function. Photographers are vitaly important in exposing the beauty of person, since our photographs can provide the content of a moral perspective. The design ethos I have mentioned before believes form/aesthetics is married to function and in good design, they are necessarily tied together.

Edited by rchrd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry if I misunderstood you, but I was responding to your agreement that "aesthetic qualities shouldn't be lost on image makers" as part of an argument that the XY should not be ugly ("horrible" in your word). If you expect one of the tools to be beautiful, shouldn't you expect the tool user to be beautiful, and the subject? I'm glad that you think all people are beautiful - the world needs that sort of view - but convention suggests otherwise.

 

Please don't take my statements too seriously. The discussion helps fill in the time before seeing the XY/Clooney in reality next week, when I expect its functionality to take centre stage.

 

 

Hopefully image quality will also get a look in!

 

As much as I love the look and feel, and functionality, of my Leica cameras, in truth they are little more than sensor holders.  The reality is that the sensor will be fabulous, the in camera processing just right, and the bit that makes the difference is the lenses.  I view my camera system as being first, lenses (SL, M & TL) and the cameras just part of the whole system with different functionality - the SL top of the rung colour camera, the Monochrom fantastic resolution in B&W and the TL2 compact.

 

I'm sure the XY or CL or whatever it is will find a place, and it will add another option and therefore improve Leica's bottom line.  Unlike the X cameras, having an L mount just makes it another choice, which won't be a bad thing.

 

Doesn't sound like it has the SL EVF, though.  For that, we'll have to wait and see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hopefully image quality will also get a look in!

..............

Yes, I meant how it worked as a camera, rather than how it looked as an object.

Edited by LocalHero1953

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hopefully image quality will also get a look in!

Second that! Seeing that nobody has any interest in purchasing my Vario-Elmar 105-280, I rather hope to supplement my rather practical  - and esteemed- MFT long lens system with a high-image-quality Leica option. I was looking into finding an user-grade SL, but a high-end APS-C camera might just fit the bill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Probably not, but my black and nickel trio will be celebrating their 170th birthday around that time. I won't be around for the occasion, of course.

 

William

I believe one reason many digital cameras won’t have longevity will be the unavaiability of replacement batteries and chargers. My X-Vario charger has failed twice in exactly the same way, with a piece of broken plastic. No chargers, no batteries equal no camera.

 

Cheers,

Mike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe one reason many digital cameras won’t have longevity will be the unavaiability of replacement batteries and chargers. My X-Vario charger has failed twice in exactly the same way, with a piece of broken plastic. No chargers, no batteries equal no camera.

Cheers,

Mike

Also (apart from the point that I do like the new design very much), let’s hope Leica has improved the battery latch plastic that has broken so often on the X cameras. It looks like an X battery door on the new model, so let’s hope they don’t just replicate the previous flimsy design internally. Aesthetics are important, but so is day-to-day durability for users.

 

Cheers again,

Mike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We seem to assume that a benefit of going to an APS-C frame coverage will be to have a smaller camera.  But this hasn't been easy.  The Fuji X-Pro2 puts autofocus, and a hybrid viewfinder and their compact f/2 series of lenses into a package noticeably larger than an M10.  Here's a comparison between the two with 50/2.0 and 50-eff/2.0 lenses:

S1010326 by scott kirkpatrick, on Flickr

 

so if the CL is an effort to pull the X platform up to TL standards, it makes sense to me.  I'll be interested to see if it ends up smaller than an M10.

Edited by scott kirkpatrick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Autofocus makes things bigger, much bigger. 

 

The real strength of the M system is the small manual focus lenses. That makes the system small. Super small. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe one reason many digital cameras won’t have longevity will be the unavaiability of replacement batteries and chargers. My X-Vario charger has failed twice in exactly the same way, with a piece of broken plastic. No chargers, no batteries equal no camera.

 

Cheers,

Mike

 

Its not just about batteries. Electronic goods are inherently designed to have a short life span or to be replaced. When has anyone here last had an electric kettle repaired? Who here still uses a 40 year old television? How many of us are still using a 15 year old mobile phone ( I am sure some will put their hands up)? It is not just electronic goods as, apart from those that are collectors or vintage items, most of us do not drive cars that are more than 25 years old. Car manufacturers keep producing 'new and improved' models and it is the same with cameras. This forum would probably have to close down or survive in a much smaller format if there was not an endless supply of new digital cameras from Leica AG to discuss. Now to contradict all of that somewhat, some of the earliest digital cameras are starting to become collector (apart from user) items. Most of the millions of digital cameras made up to this will not survive, however, as there will always be something new to replace them.

 

One of the great features of the original Leica camera, as designed by Barnack, is that it was made in a way that it could easily be repaired. The Contax, for example, was probably a more advanced design, but if it broke down it was very difficult to repair. One issue that will arise for older Leicas will, of course, be the fact that repair persons will be getting older and most will not be replaced. The same applies to other classic cameras such as Rolleis. 

 

Predicting the future is always dangerous, but it is much easier to predict a future for items that have already survived for a long time than it is for those which are brand new.

 

The new CL, to be launched next week, should be viewed as just the latest electronic wonder camera which will be replaced within a few years. Any other approach would be illogical in the light of what we know about electronic goods.

 

William

Edited by willeica

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Autofocus makes things bigger, much bigger. 

The real strength of the M system is the small manual focus lenses. That makes the system small. Super small. 

 

My Fuji X-E2 has AF but is significantly smaller than my M cameras. Only excuse for the size of the X-pro2 is its hybrid viewfinder. The XY/CL would not have that excuse if it is not significantly smaller unless it has a bigger EVF than those of its APS-C competitors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No zooms please. They are just the start of gigantism. That SL above with a zoom and a flash is a real 'turn off'.  Also no separate EVF that I have seen from Leica so far is really that good. Leica have an opportunity to enter the EVF world with a lightweight reasonably high quality camera next week. Let us hope they take that opportunity and exploit it well.

 

Leica could also produce a much better separate EVF for the M10, but I doubt if we will see that next week.

 

William

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...