rdeleskie
Well-known
High ISO and dynamic range have replaced megapixels in the marketers' bullet points, and we've come to expect advances with each new generation.
What's missing in the race to noiseless ISO 24000 with a full 15 stops of latitude, I think, is that much of what we consider to be the essence of the photographic aesthetic was based on inherent limitations of the media, and how photographers turned these limitations into artistic advantage. Grainy, high-speed photography connotes a style more than a technological deficit. The restricted dynamic range of colour slide film is central to the look of chromes, and so on. Things change so quickly now that very little has time to stick, or to establish itself, let alone coalesce into a style. Does anyone wax poetic about the Nikon D70 "look," or labour to recreate the particular aesthetic of a Canon 5D MkI in photoshop? Will there be a Panasonic LX3 plug-in for the iPhone one day? No, and there probably shouldn't be: I don't suspect think the output of any of these cameras is really distinct enough to warrant nostalgic devotion to the particularities of the images they produce (I'm not knocking the cameras - they are all very fine). Viewed in hindsight, they all seem like stepping stones on the path to technological perfection (as measured in DR, ISO, NR, etc.). I suspect such perfection, if achieved, will be rather boring. I already can't honestly tell the difference between a RAW file from a Canon 5D mkII and a Nikon D700 taken under normal lighting conditions just by looking at them, and I suspect what differences there are erode a little with each new camera release.
This is not a film vs. digital tirade, not at all. I just wonder if the trajectory of sensor design and "improvement" has become a little too...sterile. It's interesting that the digital cameras people around here seem to speak about with great affection are, strictly speaking, technologically "inferior" compared to the latest and greatest: e.g., the RD-1 with it's 6MP; the M8 with its IR issues (and I know this is a rangefinder site
). I have a particular liking for the colours produced by the jpegs I get out of my EPL2 (I never shoot that camera in RAW, and do very little to it in post), even though it is "only" 12MP MFT.
Anyhow, I guess the question (for me) is how much happier will we be with our cameras when ISO 24000 looks exactly like ISO 400, and our night photography starts looking like it was shot on ASA 100 film in the mid-afternoon? Something tells me we'll be too hard at work in Aperture/Lightroom/Photoshop crushing the blacks, pushing the mids, adding noise and twiddling with various "film look" plug-ins to bother asking.
What's missing in the race to noiseless ISO 24000 with a full 15 stops of latitude, I think, is that much of what we consider to be the essence of the photographic aesthetic was based on inherent limitations of the media, and how photographers turned these limitations into artistic advantage. Grainy, high-speed photography connotes a style more than a technological deficit. The restricted dynamic range of colour slide film is central to the look of chromes, and so on. Things change so quickly now that very little has time to stick, or to establish itself, let alone coalesce into a style. Does anyone wax poetic about the Nikon D70 "look," or labour to recreate the particular aesthetic of a Canon 5D MkI in photoshop? Will there be a Panasonic LX3 plug-in for the iPhone one day? No, and there probably shouldn't be: I don't suspect think the output of any of these cameras is really distinct enough to warrant nostalgic devotion to the particularities of the images they produce (I'm not knocking the cameras - they are all very fine). Viewed in hindsight, they all seem like stepping stones on the path to technological perfection (as measured in DR, ISO, NR, etc.). I suspect such perfection, if achieved, will be rather boring. I already can't honestly tell the difference between a RAW file from a Canon 5D mkII and a Nikon D700 taken under normal lighting conditions just by looking at them, and I suspect what differences there are erode a little with each new camera release.
This is not a film vs. digital tirade, not at all. I just wonder if the trajectory of sensor design and "improvement" has become a little too...sterile. It's interesting that the digital cameras people around here seem to speak about with great affection are, strictly speaking, technologically "inferior" compared to the latest and greatest: e.g., the RD-1 with it's 6MP; the M8 with its IR issues (and I know this is a rangefinder site
). I have a particular liking for the colours produced by the jpegs I get out of my EPL2 (I never shoot that camera in RAW, and do very little to it in post), even though it is "only" 12MP MFT.Anyhow, I guess the question (for me) is how much happier will we be with our cameras when ISO 24000 looks exactly like ISO 400, and our night photography starts looking like it was shot on ASA 100 film in the mid-afternoon? Something tells me we'll be too hard at work in Aperture/Lightroom/Photoshop crushing the blacks, pushing the mids, adding noise and twiddling with various "film look" plug-ins to bother asking.
Last edited:
jky
Well-known
I've mentioned this before - the D700 is by far the best camera I've ever had.
It's 12mp is enough for me and its performance (AF, matrix in particular) is absolutely stellar. The only move I'd ever consider is when Nikon puts that FF sensor in a D90/D7000 body (plus that smooth K5 shutter!)....
I agree that the D700 & D3 had set such a high standard... imagine a digital SLR with a 4 yr turnover?... eons in digital terms!
The Meaness
Well-known
The answer is no. All the factors have been mentioned already, slimmer body, better performance w/wide angles, improved dynamic range (the biggest one for me), etc. All mean there's more work to be done.
flip
良かったね！
If not for Leica's apparent need to scramble for cash with new versions of everything, the simple needs and consistency of the preferred form factor of Leica users begs the creation of interchangeable sensor backs. Does anything else have to change other than sensors and firmware?
maddoc
... likes film again.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Of course it'll change -- and seeing it's a Leica, there'll be people who'll whine and snivel that the M11 doesn't have that magical 'look' the M9 had.
The only thing I'd particularly like on an M9.2 is better high ISO, and when it arrives, it's hardly going to persuade me to spend that much money all over again. In fact, I'd guess that for every person who even mildly regrets the absence of high ISO, there are ten who are engaged in empty specmanship. Likewise weather sealing, a slimmer body, the return of the top-mounted counter, a PC flash synch... Sure, there's lots that can be added, and will be added, but I suspect that most Leica users won't bother to buy every new model as it comes out, partly because they can't afford to, and partly because they can't be bothered.
Cheers,
R.
The only thing I'd particularly like on an M9.2 is better high ISO, and when it arrives, it's hardly going to persuade me to spend that much money all over again. In fact, I'd guess that for every person who even mildly regrets the absence of high ISO, there are ten who are engaged in empty specmanship. Likewise weather sealing, a slimmer body, the return of the top-mounted counter, a PC flash synch... Sure, there's lots that can be added, and will be added, but I suspect that most Leica users won't bother to buy every new model as it comes out, partly because they can't afford to, and partly because they can't be bothered.
Cheers,
R.
kshapero
South Florida Man
Thanks for all the rants. Much enjoyed.
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
The lack of live view is a *major* deficiency. Without it truly critical focusing is in many cases impossible, so it can be exceedingly difficult to take full advantage of the technical capabilities of those outstanding lenses. Live view also eliminates parallax —really useful for close-up work. Tethered shooting would also be pretty sweet.
Last edited:
Yhbv24
Member
No. The M9 isn't even a great camera. It's too expensive for what it offers, it has higher noise at high ISOs than the competition, and it doesn't work well with wide-angle lenses.
That said, it's a good camera, and currently the only 35mm format digital SLR that exists. The only reason cameras like the M8 and RD1 are "popular" only because they are the only M-mount digital alternatives to the M9.
One can't predict what will happen in 10-15 years in terms of photography technology. Even digital cameras a few years old are rarely seen. I never see Nikon D100s or Canon 10Ds anymore, because they have become obsolete.
The M9 will last longer than, say, a D700 IMO, because it's currently the only option, not because its technology is superior.
That said, it's a good camera, and currently the only 35mm format digital SLR that exists. The only reason cameras like the M8 and RD1 are "popular" only because they are the only M-mount digital alternatives to the M9.
One can't predict what will happen in 10-15 years in terms of photography technology. Even digital cameras a few years old are rarely seen. I never see Nikon D100s or Canon 10Ds anymore, because they have become obsolete.
The M9 will last longer than, say, a D700 IMO, because it's currently the only option, not because its technology is superior.
bizarrius
the great
excuse me but the D700 and 5D mark2 is not competition to the M9. they are too fat, too complicated, too noisy (in shutter actuation), their colors are too fake and flat, they have autofocus and programs, they are mass production items, (they are made in japan
) they forgot what is photography all about, their lenses are mainly plastic,you need stablisers to take pictures with low shutter speeds, you can't manual focus to save your life with em and mainly, they have mirrors and you have a black out the moment you take a picture. if i don't see and feel the moment i take the picture then i have lost half the trip.(and i never had a problem with wide lenses with the M9 i dont know what you are saying. have you ever heard of the coding kit? )
the M9 has nothing to do with dSLRs and there is no such thing as competition with the D700 etc. different story. if your answer is "they both take pictures" then why does a hasselblad cost more than 5 times the M9 and still has worse ISO ? :|
(i'm not saying that the hasselblad is worse than the M9, i am just trying to proove a point. that high ISO is not the ONLY thing in photography and probably one of the last things i would think personally before buying a camera. High ISO for me is 1600. anything higher than that HAS to be noisy. thats how it has allways been with photography.)
Last edited:
MartinP
Veteran
The M9 has the wrong sort of sensor for live-view without streaking doesn't it? It might be a trade off, but there are more quality benefits from CCD sensors than there is convenience from live-view in CMOS. For video/live-view, CMOS chips use a rolling-shutter idea - somewhat like the interlaced-scan on old crt monitors - while CCDs apparently don't. The extra circuitry needed to run CCDs like that means the few CCD video cameras (thinking cinema quality here) are very expensive.
Everyone is allowed their own opinion though
Everyone is allowed their own opinion though
flip
良かったね！
In my quirky imagination, I imagine the screen, sensor, and logic center being swappable. I also want a hoverbike. i think your wish list is absolutely in the future so long as Leica is producing cameras.
kshapero
South Florida Man
I could not say it better. If the M9 comes as close as anything can to a digital M7 which includes the legacies of the M3 and M6, then what else to an RF purist can it offer?excuse me but the D700 and 5D mark2 is not competition to the M9. they are too fat, too complicated, too noisy (in shutter actuation), their colors are too fake and flat, they have autofocus and programs, they are mass production items, (they are made in japan
(and i never had a problem with wide lenses with the M9 i dont know what you are saying. have you ever heard of the coding kit? )
the M9 has nothing to do with dSLRs and there is no such thing as competition with the D700 etc. different story. if your answer is "they both take pictures" then why does a hasselblad cost more than 5 times the M9 and still has worse ISO ? :|
(i'm not saying that the hasselblad is worse than the M9, i am just trying to proove a point. that high ISO is not the ONLY thing in photography and probably one of the last things i would think personally before buying a camera. High ISO for me is 1600. anything higher than that HAS to be noisy. thats how it has allways been with photography.)
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
they are too fat, too complicated, too noisy (in shutter actuation), their colors are too fake and flat, they have autofocus and programs, they are mass production items, (they are made in japan
Now all you people who hate DSLR's be sure to cut and paste this rant into a notebook or text document somewhere so that when you feel like paying out on the poor DSLR you can save yourself some typing by retrieving it and pasting it into your post!
Leigh Youdale
Well-known
I'm thinking that it will be on the basis of "changeover" parts replacement. For example, the flash sync on my Bessa R4A played up a while back. The solution was not to try to repair it but simply to replace the circuit board under the top plate which controls all the electronics in the camera including the meter and shutter. Cost about $125. It would probably have cost more in technician's labour if he'd tried to repair the actual fault in the flash circuit.
Same thing is happening with cars. Now they're pretty much all computer controlled as far as engine management is concerned. Nobody is going to try to repair a circuit board. Once they've run the diagnostic computer analysis to confirm where the fault is they just put in a new replacement PCB and you drive away!
hxpham
Established
bizarrius
the great
They're just tools
you can't put a nail on the wall with the black and decker drill. you need a hammer.
They are just tools and each tool has its own price and use.
user237428934
User deletion pending
Yes. But we all know that there is no single photo that can be taken by a Leica M that cannot be taken by a DSLR. That's not true the other way round. So the more versatile tool is the DSLR. If one tool is more fun to use, is a completely different thing.
Last edited:
A "revolutionary" Digital Leica M would need a sensor other than CMOS or CCD. It would require a sensor with the same properties as film. Able to accept light at any angle, and sensitive to visible light only. Silicon sensors depend on IR absorbing filters or IR reflecting filters. CMOS requires light coming in close to perpendicular to the sensor. CCD is better, but still vignettes.
So- Thin film sensors based on Gallium Arsenide will meet the requirements. Now somebody just needs to make it.
Until then, I will be happy with the M9 for a very long time.
So- Thin film sensors based on Gallium Arsenide will meet the requirements. Now somebody just needs to make it.
Until then, I will be happy with the M9 for a very long time.
LCT
ex-newbie
A 1:1 viewfinder.