Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
marknorton

Hot Air and Broken Promises - 2

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Not accusing anyone of lying - however Ed (Shootist) was told by his Leica rep that to change the framelines, the entire viewfinder is replaced which, as my "Anatomy of the Leica M8 Framelines" showed, is unlikely. Therefore, you don't always want to believe what you are told.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
... the Leica strategy reminds me of something I've been told IBM used to do decades ago when they dominated the mainframe and mini-computer markets. They would typically offer a few versions of any computer, with different performance. But unbeknownst to most of their customers, all the computers had identical hardware. The difference was in the compilers, where the slower models shipped with compilers that inserted no-ops (instructions that take time but do nothing) into the otherwise optimized, compiled code. This was back in the day where the only available compiler was the one that shipped with the computer.

 

 

I hadn't heard Mark's "soaker routine" story and can't dispute it, but I worked at IBM starting not so very long after the 360 introduction and still have some of the microarchitecture manuals that describe in (public) detail what the differences between each of the machines in the 360 and 370 series amounted to -- the mainframes and minis that were sold from the 1960s until the late 1980s. There was only one instruction set, and only one compiler. But each instruction was implemented on the machines in microcode, and the path lengths got very long for complex instructions on the smaller, less expensive machines. This was not a trick to keep them slow, but because there just wasn't much hardware there to use. The faster machines had much bigger buffers, alternate paths to absorb processing delays, caches etc, as well as being built out of faster silicon circuits running with faster clocks. So a floating point divide could range from three cycles at the top of the line to several thousand on an entry system. RISC architecture, which focused on getting every instruction down to one cycle changed the game, making compiler technology much more important by removing the special purpose instructions from the machines entirely. That approach also came from IBM, and is now inside just about every general purpose CPU selling, from Intel's to the fastest game and graphics chips.

 

Just wanted to correct the misstatements quoted. This has nothing to do with the common practice in consumer electronics of shipping all functions but enabling only those which the customer has chosen to pay for. This is what makes possible hacks that enable extra function by eliminating a branch somewhere in the shipped code.

 

scott

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Canon 300D despite its plastic body had exactly the same electronics as the 10D. Just the firmware was different and there was a slightly different button configuration. Some Russian wrote a firmware crack, which gave the 300D virtually the same functionality as the 10D.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I finally had the opportunity to hold the M8.2 at a local photo expo today. I must say there was quite a difference, it is as most have said what the M8 should have been. Taking it off the discrete mode I could not tell much of a difference compared with my original M8 which I brought specifically for this purpose. It was of course noisy so I may have noticed more of a difference in a quieter environment. I politely told the rep I was very disappointed that this was not available as an upgrade and would he please pass that on. I know there are a number of people here who think it is ridiculous to even be slightly annoyed at what many believe to a failure of commitment. But I intend to raise the issue whenever I can. If nobody says anything then certainly nothing will happen to change any decisions made. Even if nothing changes it will make Leica a bit more careful and honest in the future. For my part I am withholding any business going their way, at least until an M9 or the discrete mode is made available. Some seriously nice lenses though

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not accusing anyone of lying - however Ed (Shootist) was told by his Leica rep that to change the framelines, the entire viewfinder is replaced which, as my "Anatomy of the Leica M8 Framelines" showed, is unlikely. Therefore, you don't always want to believe what you are told.

 

I never said you did accused them for lying.

I said you implied that they would if they had to.

A 100+ yrs old company simply can't remain top for long with lies. And a rep is not the 100+ yrs old company it represents: he is just a salesman. I don't believe in conspiracy theories and Scott clearly raises the myth with IBM, which is another big company with history. It is not an easy task to control every single human in a company as if it were a single living organism. I believe this is what actually happened with Lee and got the sack, and yet, Leica really tries to remedy the situation and at the same time preserve its past. I am still not convinced why an M8.2 can be so much different from an M8.u (the upgraded one with the silent shutter) since the only real diffference is that discrete shutter function. Many testify that the camera looks and feels different. Focuses better, feels more tight and more. Well others say that its the same thing. Some said that with the new firmware (v2.0) Leica had fixed partly the ISO 1250-2500 noise. I am listening to all these testimonies but I find it hard to believe them. So, I choose to believe Leica and trust that Leica won't implement a very "secret" feature without ever telling us.

Some don't. Fine I can accept that.

 

In short: you have lost your faith with them. I believe you better stay away of anything Leica, than enduring this torture

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Canon 300D despite its plastic body had exactly the same electronics as the 10D. Just the firmware was different and there was a slightly different button configuration. Some Russian wrote a firmware crack, which gave the 300D virtually the same functionality as the 10D.

 

True!

 

But the Canon 300D was released AFTER the 10D for a much cheaper price than the 10D. The cheap plastic body of the Canon 300D and the limited firmware options made of the 300D a completely different consumer camera. Canon didn't committed itself to an upgrade of the 10D: Canon 10D users would have been very angry if after a commitment made from Canon for perpetual upgrades of the 10D, Canon replaces it with a 10D MK II being the only difference with the original 10D just a firmware upgrade.

 

And if my memory is good, Leica said that the only model they will sell will be the original M8. All M8 upgrades will be only optional.

 

ArtZ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I never said you did accused them for lying.

... I am still not convinced why an M8.2 can be so much different from an M8.u (the upgraded one with the silent shutter) since the only real diffference is that discrete shutter function.

 

As an M8.2 owner I like to add that I have not utilized the discrete function as the M8.2 is discrete even without it because of the low noise of the shutter. I haven't found it necessary so far to take a picture, to go away and recock the shutter later. Thus in my point of view I do not understand the fuss.

 

Regards

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As an M8.2 owner ......... Thus in my point of view I do not understand the fuss.

 

I think a little understanding of the position people with an M8.0 find themselves in regarding the upgrade and what was promised a long time ago might help,

.

 

It's very easy for those who have no financial interest in an M8.0 to pass a "slightly" disconnected opinion as to the validity of the disquiet felt by those who have. I would never suggest that one must have or have owned a M8.0 to be in a position to comment, but I would suggest that those who just "don't get it" don't seem to be M8.0 owners and it's quiet obvious they don't feel any sense of being let down.

 

Having owned both a M8.0 from day one and now a M8.2, all I can say is the M8.2 just feels a more polished offering in the hand, yet remains very familiar in use. I happy I don't find myself in the middle of the upgrade debacle, but I do understand the frustration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I hadn't heard Mark's "soaker routine" story and can't dispute it, but I worked at IBM starting not so very long after the 360 introduction and still have some of the microarchitecture manuals that describe in (public) detail what the differences between each of the machines in the 360 and 370 series amounted to -- the mainframes and minis that were sold from the 1960s until the late 1980s. There was only one instruction set, and only one compiler. But each instruction was implemented on the machines in microcode, and the path lengths got very long for complex instructions on the smaller, less expensive machines. This was not a trick to keep them slow, but because there just wasn't much hardware there to use. The faster machines had much bigger buffers, alternate paths to absorb processing delays, caches etc, as well as being built out of faster silicon circuits running with faster clocks. So a floating point divide could range from three cycles at the top of the line to several thousand on an entry system. RISC architecture, which focused on getting every instruction down to one cycle changed the game, making compiler technology much more important by removing the special purpose instructions from the machines entirely. That approach also came from IBM, and is now inside just about every general purpose CPU selling, from Intel's to the fastest game and graphics chips.

 

Just wanted to correct the misstatements quoted. This has nothing to do with the common practice in consumer electronics of shipping all functions but enabling only those which the customer has chosen to pay for. This is what makes possible hacks that enable extra function by eliminating a branch somewhere in the shipped code.

 

scott

 

Well, you are clearly in a better position than I to know about this. As I said, it is merely something I was told and in truth I can't even remember where. I think it was as an undergrad in either an OS or computer architecture class...Oh well, never let the truth ruin a good story

 

David

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
True!

 

But the Canon 300D was released AFTER the 10D for a much cheaper price than the 10D. The cheap plastic body of the Canon 300D and the limited firmware options made of the 300D a completely different consumer camera. Canon didn't committed itself to an upgrade of the 10D: Canon 10D users would have been very angry if after a commitment made from Canon for perpetual upgrades of the 10D, Canon replaces it with a 10D MK II being the only difference with the original 10D just a firmware upgrade.

 

And if my memory is good, Leica said that the only model they will sell will be the original M8. All M8 upgrades will be only optional.

 

ArtZ

 

It was, like the IBM stories, just an example of same innards, downgraded software.

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...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue., Read more about our Privacy Policy