Daneinbalto
Established
It seems the M9 doesn't have live view. Wouldn't it be a good idea if it had? Although I prefer shooting through an optical viewfinder, occasional use of live view would be more useful on a dRF like the M9 than on a dSLR because it would make up for the RF's inherent shortcomings when it comes to adjusting a polarizer and use graded filters. It would also make it easier to fine-tune composition of tripod shots, and possibly to check DOF.
I understand that live view may affect image quality negatively because keeping the sensor on generates heat which in turn promotes digital noise. But the user manual could come with a warning against this.
Why would Leica forgo live view? Afraid people will be using live view exclusively, making noisy pictures and blaming the camera? Are there technical obstacles? Or is it simply a matter of "purity"? If there is no good reason to leave it out, then it might be possible to add it in the next firmware upgrade.
I understand that live view may affect image quality negatively because keeping the sensor on generates heat which in turn promotes digital noise. But the user manual could come with a warning against this.
Why would Leica forgo live view? Afraid people will be using live view exclusively, making noisy pictures and blaming the camera? Are there technical obstacles? Or is it simply a matter of "purity"? If there is no good reason to leave it out, then it might be possible to add it in the next firmware upgrade.
scottwallick
ambition ≥ skill
Shutter cocking is an issue that comes to mind. Perhaps I'm wrong, but the shutter would have to remain open (uncocked), then cock, and again open to expose the sensor, as compared to just the single opening and exposing.
But I am probably wrong.
HenningW
Well-known
Live view doesn't really work with CCD's. You need CMOS sensors for that at present, and you would have a different quality to the shots. Also, Live view creates serious lag, and that is something Leica users generally couldn't stand.
Polarizers are easy to use on an RF. Grad filters aren't, but tripod shooting with grad filters is starting to get pretty far away for RF's strong points. The points you mention as RF's inherent shortcomings are not always seen as shortcomings, but if you do you should probably be using a DSLR (which has other shortcomings).
Live view, if it didn't introduce such serious shortcoming might be useful, but the downsides are too serious at this point.
Polarizers are easy to use on an RF. Grad filters aren't, but tripod shooting with grad filters is starting to get pretty far away for RF's strong points. The points you mention as RF's inherent shortcomings are not always seen as shortcomings, but if you do you should probably be using a DSLR (which has other shortcomings).
Live view, if it didn't introduce such serious shortcoming might be useful, but the downsides are too serious at this point.
There are certainly Liveview CCD cameras: my Kodak DCS120 from 1997 for one.
The shutter would have to stay open, making it more complex.
It would be a battery hog.
Personally, I would be fine with a Digital camera without LCD viewscreens.
The shutter would have to stay open, making it more complex.
It would be a battery hog.
Personally, I would be fine with a Digital camera without LCD viewscreens.
Daneinbalto
Established
I hadn't thought about the fact that the shutter would need to stay open during live view.
Maybe "shortcomings" is too strong a word. I realize that each format SLR, RF, landscape camera, P&S etc. has its justification. But if the ability to occasionally look through the lens to easily adjust a polarizer could be added to an RF without other trade-offs, then I would definitely see it as a plus rather than the opposite. I think that's what you are saying with you last sentence, so it seems we agree.
.
Maybe "shortcomings" is too strong a word. I realize that each format SLR, RF, landscape camera, P&S etc. has its justification. But if the ability to occasionally look through the lens to easily adjust a polarizer could be added to an RF without other trade-offs, then I would definitely see it as a plus rather than the opposite. I think that's what you are saying with you last sentence, so it seems we agree.
.
SLR's have advantages in some instances: polarizing filters are easier to use on them. There are workarounds. The easiest is to carry two polarizers, both with index marks. Use one on the camera, the other just look through for the orientation you want. Then use the index marks to set the one on the camera. Remember those old movies of the Hollywood directors holding the lenses and filters up to view a scene? That can be you. Or just use an SLR for situations that they are best at.
ferider
Veteran
Keeping the shutter open is easy. Power might be the biggest issue.
Not only providing it - getting rid of it via cooling, too.
Roland.
johnastovall
Light Hunter - RIP 2010
The easier thing to do is just get the correct Leica polarizer system and use it.
bwcolor
Veteran
Stephan Daniel: M9 Product Manager Addresses This Question
Stephan Daniel: M9 Product Manager Addresses This Question
http://www.vimeo.com/6344220
Stephan Daniel: M9 Product Manager Addresses This Question
http://www.vimeo.com/6344220
Daneinbalto
Established
Do you remember where in the video? (it's a hour long)