marknorton Posted August 8, 2009 Share #1 Posted August 8, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) Before we get too excited about the idea of a new system camera, we need to remember the words "Digilux 3". It was supposed to be a system camera, the lens road-map which never happened. A true system camera has to be more than that. A system camera to me means one I can use with a wide variety of things old and new to suit my photographic purpose. I don't know C but that's one reason I like N cameras. Old glass as well as new glass. Remote control leads with banana plugs. There's talk here about an M8.3, cropped, updated and an M9, new, FF. Traditional, cautious, incremental. They may well do that but I'm also wondering whether they've been able to think out of the box and come up with something much more radical. Think of the DMR concept updated. Think of an imaging back, choice of cropped or FF. Maestro. Updatable. Disposable (sort of) as technology moves on. Then think of a range of camera bodies and adapters. M, R, S. FT, MFT, maybe even F and L. A choice of viewfinders - M rangefinder, EVF, Live View, Mirror box. Stable, Legacy, Compatible. A value proposition re-invented. It's interesting that in the M8, there's only about 10 connections between the functional "back" of the camera and the functional "front". Easy-peasy and with modern high speed serial devices, that could be reduced some more. All you really need is power and a high speed bi-directional serial interface. So here's my "dream" product range: One of: - 12MP cropped back - 24MP full frame back paired with one of: - Rangefinder body for M glass - Reflex body for R, S, F, L glass - P&S body for M, FT, MFT, Live View/EVF Who wouldn't buy into that concept? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted August 8, 2009 Posted August 8, 2009 Hi marknorton, Take a look here Thoughts on a new System Camera. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
giordano Posted August 8, 2009 Share #2 Posted August 8, 2009 I'd certainly want to buy in - but if it's hand-made in Germany I won't be able to afford it. Have you thought about how the rangefinder could be re-designed so as to shift the burden of precision away from the final assembly and onto the machine-made components? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted August 8, 2009 Share #3 Posted August 8, 2009 Think of the DMR concept updated. Think of an imaging back, choice of cropped or FF. Maestro. Updatable. Disposable (sort of) as technology moves on. Then think of a range of camera bodies and adapters. M, R, S. FT, MFT, maybe even F and L. A choice of viewfinders - M rangefinder, EVF, Live View, Mirror box. Stable, Legacy, Compatible. A value proposition re-invented. Sounds like Leica should be partnering with another Danish company... real "Plug and Play" LEGO.com Factory Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosuna Posted August 8, 2009 Share #4 Posted August 8, 2009 Before we get too excited about the idea of a new system camera, we need to remember the words "Digilux 3". It was supposed to be a system camera, the lens road-map which never happened. A true system camera has to be more than that. A system camera to me means one I can use with a wide variety of things old and new to suit my photographic purpose. I don't know C but that's one reason I like N cameras. Old glass as well as new glass. Remote control leads with banana plugs. There's talk here about an M8.3, cropped, updated and an M9, new, FF. Traditional, cautious, incremental. They may well do that but I'm also wondering whether they've been able to think out of the box and come up with something much more radical. Think of the DMR concept updated. Think of an imaging back, choice of cropped or FF. Maestro. Updatable. Disposable (sort of) as technology moves on. Then think of a range of camera bodies and adapters. M, R, S. FT, MFT, maybe even F and L. A choice of viewfinders - M rangefinder, EVF, Live View, Mirror box. Stable, Legacy, Compatible. A value proposition re-invented. It's interesting that in the M8, there's only about 10 connections between the functional "back" of the camera and the functional "front". Easy-peasy and with modern high speed serial devices, that could be reduced some more. All you really need is power and a high speed bi-directional serial interface. So here's my "dream" product range: One of: - 12MP cropped back - 24MP full frame back paired with one of: - Rangefinder body for M glass - Reflex body for R, S, F, L glass - P&S body for M, FT, MFT, Live View/EVF Who wouldn't buy into that concept? Too much modularity never worked well in the market. Look at Sinar M system. Beautiful but expensive. The S2 camera goes in a different direction too. Hasselblad H system or Mamiya 645AF cameras were modular, to some extent. But ergonomy and integration are the design target now. Pentax 645 prototype follows the same idea (but Leica did it much better with the S2). I think your idea bring a lot of ergonomy and cost problems, and it cannot work. The rangefinder model wouldn't be as good as a true M is, the reflex model wouldn't be as good (ergonomically) as a integrated reflex, etc. An the system would be super expensive. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pierovitch Posted August 8, 2009 Share #5 Posted August 8, 2009 An M body with live view is the only missing component in the R M or any other slr lens you want to use. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marknorton Posted August 8, 2009 Author Share #6 Posted August 8, 2009 Yes, but here we are looking at a new M8.2 and/or M9; those of us who buy will be buying, probably, a further copy of the Leica M rangefinder, another shutter and motor wind, more batteries, more chargers, more bundled software, more cables, more stuff when actually all we want is the upgraded back functionality. In terms of value retention, digital cameras are bad news. Components like the rangefinder will never reach the end of their working lives because the electronics which are inseparately bundled with them will render the camera obsolete or irreparable. The Leica model of long working life and value retention doesn't apply. So why not provide the ability to upgrade what changes and keep what stays the same? Similarly, if you want to shoot M rangefinder some days, DSLR the next, why all the duplication? Why not have a body for rangefinder and one for DSLR with the ability to move the expensive bit - the 24MP sensor and processing electronics - between the two? It will be interesting to see what Leica eventually announce. What we definitely do not need is another lens mount nor the hapless marketing hype which surrounded the Digilux 3. Most users - even those coming to Leica for the first time - will have some legacy baggage - cameras and lenses - and Leica will gain more new customers by allowing them to make use of what they already have. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosuna Posted August 8, 2009 Share #7 Posted August 8, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) You are right, Mark. An easily upgradable camera would be a great idea, but the tolerances of the system would have to be very strict. It is difficult to do that "modularity" in small cameras, because you have to separate the upgradable electronic parts and the remain (mechanic components) of the camera into two separate "boxes". Weather seals would be difficult too. You have that "concept" in MF cameras, but the body + back is large and not very ergonomic. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
J Mitchum Posted August 9, 2009 Share #8 Posted August 9, 2009 We need to keep in mind that Leica considers the D-Lux 4 a system camera. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tobey bilek Posted August 9, 2009 Share #9 Posted August 9, 2009 I don`t require anything but a full frame sensor instead of film. Anything else and they screwed up the camera. So start with an MP and add the sensor. Everything else remains the same. Simple and don`t add a bunch of junk. I would care if ISO was 25 to 400 either. I expect the same shutter durability as the MP too. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rsolomon Posted August 9, 2009 Share #10 Posted August 9, 2009 ..... In terms of value retention, digital cameras are bad news. Components like the rangefinder will never reach the end of their working lives because the electronics which are inseparately bundled with them will render the camera obsolete or irreparable. The Leica model of long working life and value retention doesn't apply. So why not provide the ability to upgrade what changes and keep what stays the same? ......... What we definitely do not need is another lens mount nor the hapless marketing hype which surrounded the Digilux 3........ I agree !, I ownder if leica does ? Leica value is really about lenses NOT camera bodies ! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrc Posted August 9, 2009 Share #11 Posted August 9, 2009 I think one problem would be getting the necessary precision in a user-exchangeable sensor module. I've wrecked CF card readers by bending the pins, and so have become very careful about inserting the cards into my Nikons. The precision required of that is of quite a lower order than would be required in positioning a sensor, I would think, but would be of even a greater order of delicacy. More likely would be a sensor module that could be shared between camera versions and exchanged at the factory, so when time came to move from an M10 to an M11, you'd send in the body and get back a new module in the same body, with the savings of a few hundred to a couple of thousand dollars, perhaps... It also seems to me that the micro-lenses needed for a FF M sensor might screw up the light distribution inside a DSLR... I'm more interested in alternate solutions for dedicated M-lens cameras, like a Panasonic G1F-type camera with attachable electronic viewfinder, built specifically for the M lenses, not as a replacement for the M bodies, but as an additional option for the lens set. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosuna Posted August 9, 2009 Share #12 Posted August 9, 2009 I'm more interested in alternate solutions for dedicated M-lens cameras, like a Panasonic G1F-type camera with attachable electronic viewfinder, built specifically for the M lenses, not as a replacement for the M bodies, but as an additional option for the lens set. The problem with that is the autodiaphragm. I think it would be easier to develop for R lenses, or for new AF lenses on M mount. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosuna Posted August 9, 2009 Share #13 Posted August 9, 2009 I'm more interested in alternate solutions for dedicated M-lens cameras, like a Panasonic G1F-type camera with attachable electronic viewfinder, built specifically for the M lenses, not as a replacement for the M bodies, but as an additional option for the lens set. The problem with that is the autodiaphragm. I think it would be easier to develop for R lenses, or for new AF lenses on M mount. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
barjohn Posted August 9, 2009 Share #14 Posted August 9, 2009 I think Mark's idea is right on. Using a module that inserted from the bottom of the body on nicely machines rails within the body and with minimal electrical contacts at the top of the module where it mated inside the body, mainly power and a USB3 high speed serial connection, the module could be made that was not much larger than the sensor. Using two such modules, with the second one containing all of the image processing would allow upgrades to imaging and processing independently from one another. The use of a standard interface between the modules and using a similar serial bus for all of the mechanical switch electronics would integrate mechanics and electronics in a minimal package. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted August 9, 2009 Share #15 Posted August 9, 2009 I think the concept is several years too late. Especially making things that are mechanically complex when electronics can eliminate many of the mechanical bits. I bet every manufacturer is looking at developing EVF cameras. (Yes there are obstacles to overcome and SLRs and rangefinders may have a few years left.) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.