Moore's Law Applied to Leica: Ur-Leica to M9 Considered

robklurfield

robklurfield

eclipse
Local time
9:26 PM
Joined
Mar 1, 2009
Messages
7,849
I am relatively new to the site and love it. Many interesting, smart, funny people and some many good photographers. That said, I find the many posts, polls and rants about future Leica developments to be amusing and sometimes even downright silly -- even when I agree with them. To put this in context, Leica development, even at its usual glacial pace (well, at least glacial in the sense of pre-global warming glaciers), has sped up much like a very dialed-back version of Moore's Law (about computer memory/speed doubling every um, what was it, 2 yrs, 3 yrs... gosh, my memory is shot).

Think about it. When did Herr Barnack first make a camera an Ur-Leica? How long from then until the era of the classic screw-mounts? How long from the beginning of that era until the start of the venerable M's? From 1954 it took what, 23 years, for Leica to give us the film loading ease of the M4. 23 years to drop take-up spool! From then, how long for metering in the camera? Until TTL metering? etc, etc.

After owning an M4, CL and M6, I was an early adopter of the Digilux 2. I enjoyed it and still have it (well, I kind of ceded it to my wife, who still has a 1969 Nikkormat). I was a little less quick to adopt the M8. Only because of money. In fact, it became, financially, an either/or (see Kierkegaard, again... "do it or don't, you'll regret both"), as I could only afford the M8 by letting go of my beloved M4 and more often used M6. No regrets. The M8 is great.

Anyway, I would hope the M8 will serve me as well and as long as did my first M8 (26 years). Would I like some of the gizmos and geegaws we all pine for on RFF? Sure. Can I live with out 'em? Absolutely.

To afford the M8 and I went from a three lens kit (35, 50DR and 90) to a single lens (2.8 28mm). No regrets.

What what be good for us in the M9? Maybe a digital Leica MD. No extraneous stuff. Just the best sensor they can make. No RF (wow, that would be a big sacrifice, wouldn't it?). No meter. No nuthin'. One wide lens and a simple viewfinder. Then, we'd rediscover the hidden photographers in us. Not sure I'm ready for that.

Those who are serious about wanting live view, etc. should consider a nice DSLR as a second cam. The M8 reminds me about what brought my first camera (a Pentax MX) to my first good camera (an M4).

Anyway, IMHO...
 
No one wants to argue???

No one wants to argue???

Feeling a little bit of the provocateur in me when I wrote the initial post, I was hoping to stimulate some healthy debate or, at least, solicit some strong opinions. Does no one want to argue??? Come on guys and gals.
 
Dear Rob just to fullfil your wish for some arguements:

"Give that guy a shoebox!"

"I am so tired of those Leicabashing posts..."

"Dear Rob! That's just what I thought! So I had my M8 de-digitized and on of those pinhole pancakes from China added inlieu of a lens and guess what? My photos got that strange glow...."

"I don want to hijack that post but the las time i used my horseman..."

"There is a camera like that: The Kodak Brownie! (notices the photo and edits the whole post)"


"Is that a Kodak Brownie next to the M8? My grandfather used to have one........."

Ok I did my best!
Best regards
Des
 
Last edited:
Every morning I go to this forum in hopes of finding:

Hi, I'm a newbie and I just LOVE this forum. I finally got up the nerve to bid on an MD body. Some other guy and I ran the price on up to $7,836 dollars but I won! Today the Fed-Ex gal delivered the parcel and I was just SO excited that I slashed my hand TWICE (!) with the utility knife as I cut through the tape and opened the now dripping with blood parcel. I even got some on the brand new wall to wall carpeting, a trail of drops from the dining room to my study. (Wait til the wife sees it!)

Imagine my dissapointment when I unpacked a camera lacking both a viewfinder and a rangefinder. I then removed the body cap (isn't that what it's called?) and the base plate, flipped up the back door, and admired the quality of the finish and traditional German workmanship. Suddenly I realized that there was no needle, no lights, no battery, no meter cell in front of the shutter, and it has that take-up thingie, a place for a roll of film, rewind crank, etc.

If they call it an "MD" where is the DIGITAL stuff? Thank you for your answers.
 
Last edited:
Yes I did take my drugs last night, and this morning also! Lamictal. It's an anti-seizure medication because I have epilepsy. I then smoked some hand rolled cigarettes to get my nicotine levels up to optimum. French research indicates that it can prevent, or at least delay, the onset of Alzheimers. If I'm going to die of lung cancer I want to still have a functioning brain so I can write about the experience. And I'm on my third cup of coffee.
 
Al - bought 'baccy lately? The new SCHIP tax should pretty much kill off the Roll-Your-Own enthusiasts. What is it, 2,000% now?

Didn't hit pipes as hard, but I am sure our time will come.

Sorry to hijack the thread... um, ok, how 'bout "which wide lens on the new Ur/M9 would you like to see?" I sniff a poll coming soon...
 
Yup, the 'baccy tax is an imposition to be sure, nearly tripling the price of a 6 oz. tin, but the tins used to 7 oz. a few years ago and go back a bit more and they were an honest 8 oz. Most folks still call them a half pound can. I remember when a tin was $1.85, but the a pack of Camels was 27 cents and North Carolina didn't tax cigarettes. People stocked up at $1.85 a carton back in the sixties. Now a pack of smokes is close to $5 here in Miami, plus sales tax. I can roll about 12 packs from that tin of 'baccy.

Kodak is the big loser here. I "roll my own" with film also...LOL It's also going to cause a major financial problem for everybody down the road if French research is correct about nicotine preventing Alzheimers.
 
The thing about Moore's Law is that it isn't a law of nature, or even of technology. It's merely a guiding principle internal to Intel's product development roadmap, that dictates the planned shrinkage of microprocessor architecture, through continual process development, that results in smaller gate architecture and metalization thinner and shorter, resulting in transistors that consume less power and circuits that operate faster, due to shorter wiring distances.

From a marketing perspective this permits these shrunk-down circuits to be sold for higher profits, since more of them fit on a silicon wafer (and the cost of manufacturing is wafer-based, not chip-based,) and also that smaller chip sizes yield better, since there is less area in each die to collect surface contaminants from the processing environment. The increased speed and reduced power consumption also contributes to the increased profitability offered by Moore's Law, since these higher performing chips can be sold for more money.

I don't see an equivalent product development roadmap in Leica's future. The rest of the digital camera manufacturers seem to be attempting to follow a version of Moore's Law, guided by more firmware control of camera features, resulting in less mechanical parts and hence less manufacturing cost, and also a trend toward higher cell density in image sensors.

~Joe
 
Joe, I appreciate your far more accurate and succinct exposition of Moore's Law. I didn't mean my reference to be a directly equivalent one. I was focused primarily on the notion that "progress" seems to come faster these days than it once did. I like the slower pace of Leica's releasing new technology because it gives me a little confidence that what I buy has a better than average chance of avoiding short term obsolesence. There are many products out there with such amazingly deep backward compatibility as a Leica (put an adapter on a 70-yr old lens and shot with it on the latest M body... who else does something like that???).

Enough seriousness for now. What I really want is a camera that will make my bed, do my dishes, walk the dogs and pay my bills (thereby freeing me up to take more photos).
 
Compatibility in the Leicaflex/Leica R system is a joke. This cam, that cam, and the other cam. The 'flexes were too big and weren't shaped to fit the hand while the R's felt like Minoltas, which they were.
 
JoeV said:
The thing about Moore's Law is that it isn't a law of nature, or even of technology. It's merely a guiding principle internal to Intel's product development roadmap, that dictates the planned shrinkage of microprocessor architecture, through continual process development, that results in smaller gate architecture and metalization thinner and shorter, resulting in transistors that consume less power and circuits that operate faster, due to shorter wiring distances.

From a marketing perspective this permits these shrunk-down circuits to be sold for higher profits, since more of them fit on a silicon wafer (and the cost of manufacturing is wafer-based, not chip-based,) and also that smaller chip sizes yield better, since there is less area in each die to collect surface contaminants from the processing environment. The increased speed and reduced power consumption also contributes to the increased profitability offered by Moore's Law, since these higher performing chips can be sold for more money.

I don't see an equivalent product development roadmap in Leica's future. The rest of the digital camera manufacturers seem to be attempting to follow a version of Moore's Law, guided by more firmware control of camera features, resulting in less mechanical parts and hence less manufacturing cost, and also a trend toward higher cell density in image sensors.

~Joe
Click to expand...


And I am fairly reliably informed that Moore didn't postulate a 'law' in any case. It was an off the cuff remark, grabbed by marketeers and media types and subsequently blown out of all context. A bit like asking someone rich and famous their view on world affairs - there is not necessarily a correlation of knowledge or wisdom - you know Bill Gates postulates on world trends or models on helping hungry people in other countries etc. Nothing personal, but the questions are being put to them for the wrong reasons usually.

\end soapbox mode\
 
Gee whiz. If I'd known this thread was going evolve into musings and debate on epistemology and such, I'd have thrown in a sentence or two about Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle on which I am also only partially informed.;) That certainly would have sparked some serious contentiousness. Does the act of merely photographing an event alter the event? By shooting the shooter below, did I alter the state of her quantum mechanics and throw her shot out of focus?

3462693526_beacd740b6.jpg

http://www.flickr.com/photos/37531245@N08/3462693526/sizes/l/
 
Moore's law related transistor counts to costs - i.e. he basically said that the number of transistors it was possible to put in an IC at a reasonable cost would double every x years - i.e. every dollar would buy you twice as many transistors on a IC in 1970 as in 1965. There's nothing specifically Intel about it, and I would imagine that it doesn't lead to higher profits per chip (after all, a 8080 probably cost as much or more in 1980 than the latest Intel processor now) but instead helps to grow the number of applications in which semiconductors can be economically used (which I guess must in turn help profits or at least turnover, but I'm way out of my depth here).

There's a good article about it here:

http://arstechnica.com/hardware/news/2008/09/moore.ars
 
The period stated by Moore was roughly every 18 months. Unfortunately this "law" is not going to hold for much longer as we approach fundamental limits; there are some new lithographic techniques being evolved to bring us down to the last few microns but beyond that someone's gonna have to come up with something new.

Edit: To keep this vaguely on topic, I would argue that outside of the semiconductor industry there's not many industries (certainly not cameras) that could sustain a Moore-style progression.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom