ywenz
Veteran
rxmd said:
good argument, except that leica didn't get the M involved with digital back in the 3 megapixel days because it was arrogant and did not see the death of film beyond the horizon.
John Camp
Well-known
"We had a doubling of bus bandwidth about 3 years ago. Clock speeds of
64bit computers are catching up to 32bit computers now. Multi-core is
coming. Nothing has slowed down, computer performance is increasing
steadily..."
But the acceleration is slowing. The first real consumer computer, the TRS80 Model 1, was introduced in 1977 with 4k of ram and mass storage on a cassette deck. Four years later, you could buy an IBM PC with 16K ram expandable to 256k, and up to two floppy drives. That's a hell of a lot bigger jump than going from lots of bandwidth to twice as much in three years...
Computer and cameras are all getting better; but the rate of increase on any given task is slowing...There will not be a camera that is in any objective way "twice as good" as an M8 in the next 5-6 years. And if there is, it'll be so spectacular that not only the Leica, but all film, as well, will be dead as a doorknob.
JC
64bit computers are catching up to 32bit computers now. Multi-core is
coming. Nothing has slowed down, computer performance is increasing
steadily..."
But the acceleration is slowing. The first real consumer computer, the TRS80 Model 1, was introduced in 1977 with 4k of ram and mass storage on a cassette deck. Four years later, you could buy an IBM PC with 16K ram expandable to 256k, and up to two floppy drives. That's a hell of a lot bigger jump than going from lots of bandwidth to twice as much in three years...
Computer and cameras are all getting better; but the rate of increase on any given task is slowing...There will not be a camera that is in any objective way "twice as good" as an M8 in the next 5-6 years. And if there is, it'll be so spectacular that not only the Leica, but all film, as well, will be dead as a doorknob.
JC
C
ch1
Guest
John Camp said:
John,
You remind me of ME!
As did I when I "barged in here" a year ago, you just want to convince the rest of us to see the "rightness" of your viewpoints"
It doesn't work here - why not just enjoy your kit - post some W/NW threads and have some fun?
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Ah- where did you read that? The reason was that they were not satisfied with the quality. As a matter of fact Leica went digital in 1997 with the introduction of scanner-type studio camera's, so it seems fairly certain that they did see the writing on the wall, but wanted to wait with small formats until the digital alphabet was sophisticated enough to spell "film is dead"ywenz said:
petermcwerner
Member
In 1998, Leica introduced the award winning Leica S1 high end digital camera. Leica S1 has a CCD chip with resolution of 5140 s 5140 pixels and 36 bit depth. According to Leica, S1 could create a picture 17" x 17" with dymanic range of 2000:1, rivalling the best of 35mm transparancy. The model was priced at $21,500.
John Camp
Well-known
"John,
You remind me of ME!
As did I when I "barged in here" a year ago, you just want to convince the rest of us to see the "rightness" of your viewpoints"
It doesn't work here - why not just enjoy your kit - post some W/NW threads and have some fun?"You are wrong there, John. You might have stopped using the
constantly improving computer technology in the form of a fast
computer at home, but not everybody has."
That's a little patronizing, isn't it? I was simply having an amiable disagreement with Bill, in which I think there's about a 40% chance that he's right and I'm wrong; I'm not trying to press anything on anybody, I was just trying to express a viewpoint.
"You are wrong there, John. You might have stopped using the
constantly improving computer technology in the form of a fast
computer at home, but not everybody has."
I really don't have any argument with you; we don't even disagree, although you seem to think so. I am constantly improving my computer tech, and expect to upgrade sometime next year form my present Mac collection to the new Intel Macs. What I was arguing was that the pace of (practical) change has slowed. The arrival of cells phones was a revolution. The addition of cell phone cameras does not compare. The arrival of "Vista" (assuming it ever arrives) will be good, but the change from DOS to Windows was revolutionary. If you get a dual core 64-bit computer, how much faster can you word process? How much faster can you browse the net? Would you believe "no faster?" The arrival of computer word processing and the net were both revolutionary. The arrival of dual-core 64-bit word processing will not be.
The argument that I am making isn't that computers aren't becoming more and more important, and the technology better and better, I'm simply saying that in my lifetime I've seen a large number of technical revolutions -- the arrival of mass-market TV, space travel, desk-top computers, etc. The further refinements of these things do not seem revoutionary; they seem llike refinements.
My point with the digital cameras was that as revolutionary as the first four or five years were -- say, from 1999 to 2004 -- the future is more going to involve refinement than revolution. If Canon goes to 22 mp, does that mean you can't do good work with a 16mp 1DsII? Of course not. The question that started all of this is whether the M8 will be obsolete in a couple of years, if digital cameras will have to turn every two or three years or become obsolete. My view is, "No." I think they have reached a level of refinement where people will use them with satisfaction for much longer than that. I do think that new models will show improvements, just as the M6 had improvements over the M3. But it will be more like that, than, say, the M3 over the Brownie. That was a revolution. From M3 to M6 was refinement.
In this argument, Bill has taken a different position. He is a smart guy and he may be right. I happen to disagree with him on this point, but if I saw him out hitchhiking, I wouldn't try to run him over, at least, not more than once.
JC
You remind me of ME!
As did I when I "barged in here" a year ago, you just want to convince the rest of us to see the "rightness" of your viewpoints"
It doesn't work here - why not just enjoy your kit - post some W/NW threads and have some fun?"You are wrong there, John. You might have stopped using the
constantly improving computer technology in the form of a fast
computer at home, but not everybody has."
That's a little patronizing, isn't it? I was simply having an amiable disagreement with Bill, in which I think there's about a 40% chance that he's right and I'm wrong; I'm not trying to press anything on anybody, I was just trying to express a viewpoint.
"You are wrong there, John. You might have stopped using the
constantly improving computer technology in the form of a fast
computer at home, but not everybody has."
I really don't have any argument with you; we don't even disagree, although you seem to think so. I am constantly improving my computer tech, and expect to upgrade sometime next year form my present Mac collection to the new Intel Macs. What I was arguing was that the pace of (practical) change has slowed. The arrival of cells phones was a revolution. The addition of cell phone cameras does not compare. The arrival of "Vista" (assuming it ever arrives) will be good, but the change from DOS to Windows was revolutionary. If you get a dual core 64-bit computer, how much faster can you word process? How much faster can you browse the net? Would you believe "no faster?" The arrival of computer word processing and the net were both revolutionary. The arrival of dual-core 64-bit word processing will not be.
The argument that I am making isn't that computers aren't becoming more and more important, and the technology better and better, I'm simply saying that in my lifetime I've seen a large number of technical revolutions -- the arrival of mass-market TV, space travel, desk-top computers, etc. The further refinements of these things do not seem revoutionary; they seem llike refinements.
My point with the digital cameras was that as revolutionary as the first four or five years were -- say, from 1999 to 2004 -- the future is more going to involve refinement than revolution. If Canon goes to 22 mp, does that mean you can't do good work with a 16mp 1DsII? Of course not. The question that started all of this is whether the M8 will be obsolete in a couple of years, if digital cameras will have to turn every two or three years or become obsolete. My view is, "No." I think they have reached a level of refinement where people will use them with satisfaction for much longer than that. I do think that new models will show improvements, just as the M6 had improvements over the M3. But it will be more like that, than, say, the M3 over the Brownie. That was a revolution. From M3 to M6 was refinement.
In this argument, Bill has taken a different position. He is a smart guy and he may be right. I happen to disagree with him on this point, but if I saw him out hitchhiking, I wouldn't try to run him over, at least, not more than once.
JC
C
ch1
Guest
John Camp said:
John,
If there is anything I can assure you of it is that I was not commening on any discourse you might have with Bill. I never comment on what I do not read!
Ciao.
Let's get along gentlemen
bmattock
Veteran
Also sprach Zarathustra
Hey, I don't know if that if fair Bill.
I saw a guy same facial hair as in your avatar, leaning back, smoking, driving a pick up this morning.
You have a twin in CT.
I saw a guy same facial hair as in your avatar, leaning back, smoking, driving a pick up this morning.
You have a twin in CT.
bmattock
Veteran
rover said:
Boys from Brazil, baby. We're everywhere.
Mark Norton
Well-known
Gosh, this thread has got pretty heavy and slightly unpleasant.
The Leica M8 is a welcome introduction against a background of total demand for film falling to 1% of its 1998 level in 10 years. The M8 will be a snapshot of current technology, will become outdated quite quickly and value retention will be much less than we are used to.
We're all used to this trend - I have spent far more on laptops over the years than I will ever spend on Leica digital bodies. Those laptops were bought to do a job and more than paid for themselves and I'm quite sure the Leica will be just the same. But whereas those laptops got to the point of being unable to run current "stuff", the M8 will go on producing images which fully exploit my Leica glass for years to come even if there's a replacement which does better.
I'm excited and my lenses are going off to be coded next week. Only one of them, a pre-1992 Summilux 50mm cannot be coded.
The Leica M8 is a welcome introduction against a background of total demand for film falling to 1% of its 1998 level in 10 years. The M8 will be a snapshot of current technology, will become outdated quite quickly and value retention will be much less than we are used to.
We're all used to this trend - I have spent far more on laptops over the years than I will ever spend on Leica digital bodies. Those laptops were bought to do a job and more than paid for themselves and I'm quite sure the Leica will be just the same. But whereas those laptops got to the point of being unable to run current "stuff", the M8 will go on producing images which fully exploit my Leica glass for years to come even if there's a replacement which does better.
I'm excited and my lenses are going off to be coded next week. Only one of them, a pre-1992 Summilux 50mm cannot be coded.
petermcwerner
Member
Thank you Mark for bringing this thread back to sense and to a more pleasant disussion.
I'm excited and my lenses are going off to be coded next week.
Mine are all old. I had sold my last M3 and am left with no M body after going first Nikon Reflex then DMR and all-digital. I am excited and ordered an M8 but I want to see the practical results with the lenses I have. I wonder whether I shall still like handling a rangefinder before investing in new glass.
I would be curious to hear if there are many other users like me who had abandoned RF completely and are now thinking of taking the plunge again.
I'm excited and my lenses are going off to be coded next week.
Mine are all old. I had sold my last M3 and am left with no M body after going first Nikon Reflex then DMR and all-digital. I am excited and ordered an M8 but I want to see the practical results with the lenses I have. I wonder whether I shall still like handling a rangefinder before investing in new glass.
I would be curious to hear if there are many other users like me who had abandoned RF completely and are now thinking of taking the plunge again.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
I cannot fail to be surprised by people that will complain bitterly about the writeoff of digital camera's and then go out to collect their new car from the dealer, writing off 5000 Euro in the first ten kilometers....
S
Socke
Guest
petermcwerner said:
I think this statement is a much better indicator for Leicas prosperity than any financial statements issued by the company.
Sounds as if they're on the right track and have a product for which there is a strong demand.
S
Socke
Guest
jaapv said:
Wasn't that when you mount the license plate?
But I think it just depends on your expectations and how you feel about what you buy and what for.
Not all cars loose value, some rise significantly. And what a Ferrari Enzo is to one person is a Leica MP3 to another.
Buying an expensive camera is a stretch for most of us, even those who earn their money with cameras. Those who use cameras professionaly get their money back with the pictures they sell, but what about all the others?
Most of us don't buy cars for recreational purposes but most of us buy cameras for that reason.
John Camp
Well-known
Is the lens coding already being done? If so, where can I read about it?
JC
JC
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Ben Z
Veteran
Mark Norton said:
I also have the pre-1992 Summilux (I don't understand why it can't be coded, it's the same optics as the 1994+ Summilux), also a vers. III 35 Cron and a vers. I 90 Tele-Elmarit and a 1960s chrome rigid 50 Cron, none of which can be coded. Plus I will need to use my Voitlander 15mm in place of a 21mm, and I have the 12mm to use in place of the 15. The only lenses I have that can be coded are a pre-ASPH 90 Cron and pre-ASPH 21 Elmarit, probably my two least-used lenses. If there's any chance of me being able to afford an M8 it's definitely not if I also have to sell most of my lenses and buy newer ones and then pay to have those coded. So I will wait until someone has tested the same lens with and without coding and reports on just what if any differences can be seen, and whether it isn't possible to perhaps write a Photoshop action for each lens that will do the same thing at zero cost. I owned a rather complete set of non-ROM lenses and an R8 for over a year and found no reason to want to have my lenses converted to ROM. Finally, if I did decide to have my codable lenses coded I would just buy the rear flanges from Leica and screw them on myself. No way I would ship my lenses off and wait a few months to get them back, just to have someone swap rear flanges. I also think it may be possible on the non-codable lenses to have a machine shop mill in the oval recesses and then fill them with paint, so that I could code my E43 50 Lux as an E46 50 Lux. Time will tell. Meantime I'm sitting tight. BTW I also can see no reason why I couldn't use my 135/4 on the M8. Add the 1.25 magnifyer for increased focusing accuracy, and mask off any 135mm accessory finder to match the crop factor (put the camera up on a tripod and compare the captured image on the LCD, or just slap a 180 on an SLR). And BTW Leica says the Visoflex will work on the M8, and obviously those lenses can't be coded through to the camera.
Last edited:
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
I couldn't agree more about the 135, Ben. But Leica doesn't say it is impossible to use, just inadvisable. As soon as I have my M8 I'll post some 135 shots.