ashrafazlan
Established
If it is because of R&D, then M9 prices should go down in a year yes? Somehow I have a hard time imagining that 
Jim Evidon
Jim
I started out shooting RAW+jpeg fine with my M8 and quickly learned two things. First, I realized that I did not need both formats, since I could see RAW on my computer when viewing them and second, it took too much card space. I also found that the jpegs were too contrasty and over saturated, and except for sharing on line, they were worthless.
I now shoot only RAW on both my Nikon D300 and my M8 and am very happy with the results. I find that I can exhibit my M8 RAW in club competition with minimal post processing and get superb results. So why waste time shooting both jpg and Raw?
I now shoot only RAW on both my Nikon D300 and my M8 and am very happy with the results. I find that I can exhibit my M8 RAW in club competition with minimal post processing and get superb results. So why waste time shooting both jpg and Raw?
Last edited:
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
I'd like to see an informed motorcycle owner complain that his motorcycle doesn't have the V8 engine his Cadillac Invasionade has.
CK Dexter Haven
Well-known
Maybe i'm jaded, but i would suggest that the issue isn't one of technological limitations or economics. Leica is not a company that is likely to innovate much with the M line. They need to reserve certain features and 'improvements' for the inevitable upgrades and future products. It's the only way they'll be able to survive. If the M9 - already full-frame, already with enough resolution for most users' needs - didn't have certain areas in which it could be obviously improved, Leica would sell them only for a short period of time, and that would be the end of things. If it were perfect this year, what would you buy next year? They're not going to change the body. They're not adding AF (unless they can make a shifting sensor, like the Contax AX film SLR). What's left? Incremental updates/upgrades in LCD resolution. Processor speed. Maybe a stop quicker shutter speed.
ashrafazlan
Established
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
Oh, yeah, we all know how innovative the Japanese camera makers have been, what with taking something already invented and making it smaller, cheaper and slightly re-polished.
The main innovator for the past 100+ years has been Zeiss, what with their invention of the cornerstone of all major brands' optics, and the SLR. They also haven't been on the forefront of prosumer digital camera "brains".
Zeiss and Leica cater to people who don't b!tch about how expensive their stuff is.
It's always silly to read on the intertoobes how people are flabbergasted that their expensive screwdriver isn't like that Walmart camping knife that has so many other things for a tenth of the price.
Richard Marks
Rexel
This is not about history.
It is very much about how things stand at the moment. I am not asking for the M9 to be as fast as a Japanese you know what, but it is not unreasonable to at least expect it to keep up with an M8 dont you think?
As for the Japanese "taking something already invented and making it smaller cheaper and slightly re polished" that sounds like an extreemly good idea if the inventors do not have the ability to do so! However perhaps we should remember who developed the first digital rangefinder when Leica were busy declaring that it was impossible. How long do you think it would have taken Leica without the Epsom Rd1? Im guessing never!
best wishes
Richard
Last edited:
250swb
Well-known
Errr, yes they do. The first thing people did was go out and blast away with the EP-1 (as you do with a new camera) and soon reports were coming in of an overheat warning appearing in the LCD.
But I think your point is good. I can't see which part of human instinct would not expect easily available off the shelf technology (that is hardly cutting edge, nor needs to be) to be incorporated into a new M camera. Things such as another small step on in LCD quality, and an expectation of the faster processor that we are talking about, and etc.
Yet even such simple things as a little more speed or better LCD (for example) are sneered at by some 'steady as we go' Leica users as if the proposers of such radical ideas are not true Leicaphiles. For such sceptics I'd remind you of the vast increase in photographic speed that the M3 introduced to photography. In fact all of Leica history up to the demise of film was about speed and ease of use. So why now is there a sneer at wanting 'speed'?
I think one answer to that question is the modern concept of 'investment'. People 'invest' not only money into camera systems, but their emotions and a tradition. Look at how easy it is to get slapped down in internet forums if you don't agree with 'the elite'. But conversely look how easy it is to become part of 'the family' on internet forums. Look how easy it is to buy a camera system that doesn't need to work for its money. Then conversely look how easy it is to feel betrayed if technology moves on and you feel left behind after making a huge investment of money and emotion.
The internet has wound people up in a way that somebody buying an M3 based system wouldn't recognise. They would be buying it for speed, excellent lenses (of course) but moreso for the photo's it would allow them to make that couldn't have been made before. That is the bit we have lost sight of over the years. If you could get rid of the concept of 'investment' (money, emotions, tradition) you'd be back to the question 'what great new photo's can I get from my new Leica', as opposed to 'what photo's can I make that are similar to my old M3' (by way of exaggeration). Leica have gone a massive step forward adopting digital capture, but many users have expectations that are stuck in the mud.
Steve
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
In what way are they different from Canon, Nikon et al if this were true? It is extremely naive to think that those companies do not have the next three "upgrades" on the shelf. Come to think of it, that goes for just about any technical product nowadays. I think it is rather the other way around, Leica of all being a company that is reluctant to incorporate technical thingamyjigs for gimmick's sake.
Richard Marks
Rexel
Dear Steve
Firstly interesting about the EP1. But you know if there is a problem the next batch will fix it and it will not be another 3 years!
We are very much in agreement about technological advances. Regarding the Leicaphiles that you refer to, this may be a bit of a millstone round the neck of Leica but I think the ground rules are very different for a digital product and many of these critics might have not quite broken into digital any way. Once you build a computer into a camera you are automatically putting a sell by date on it. You are of course right about the emmotional expericence of using an M product, but we can not create a digital M3 that looks feels and sounds like a film one but makes digital images. I know the M5 suffered, but the M7 certainly has survived the leicaphiles. I for one would be delighted if a digital compact using m lenses at their intended focal length appeared looking nothing like an M3 but was technologically cutting edge and reasonably priced. Id spend the money saved on glass instead.
lets keep our film M's for the emmotional component but look forward to a more contemporary copmpact for M lenses.
Richard
Benjamin
Registered Snoozer
So did you buy one Roger?
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Benjamin
Registered Snoozer
CK Dexter Haven
Well-known
I wasn't suggesting that they ARE different. It's just that Leica has a significantly greater handicap. They CAN'T bring out new models as often. They CAN'T bring out many new innovations. The latter, for two reasons: the client base is attracted to the old model, and because 'simplicity' is its USP, there's no room to tack on anything more.
I've often said/complained about Canon, though. I don't follow Nikon digitals so much. With both, though, they have the luxury of offering many different models. And, with that, they have to have differentiation. Leica's got the one M digital. Not a lot of room for play. But, i wouldn't call Canon and Nikon's 'additions' "gimmicks." HD video, for example.... The Canon 5DMkII is quite a capable device.
I've often said/complained about Canon, though. I don't follow Nikon digitals so much. With both, though, they have the luxury of offering many different models. And, with that, they have to have differentiation. Leica's got the one M digital. Not a lot of room for play. But, i wouldn't call Canon and Nikon's 'additions' "gimmicks." HD video, for example.... The Canon 5DMkII is quite a capable device.
CK Dexter Haven
Well-known
You sound upset. I think you misunderstood that statement. It wasn't 'critical.' The Leica customer base doesn't seem to WANT innovation in the M- line. You've still got a good number of Leica folks who want a digital without an LCD screen....
And, although i wasn't complaining about the price, i think it's just common sense to do so when the $8000 product comes out with a component from a $400 camera from three years ago.
And, although i wasn't complaining about the price, i think it's just common sense to do so when the $8000 product comes out with a component from a $400 camera from three years ago.
parsec1
parsec1
Couldn't agree more Roger, if I'm going to shoot football then 3 Nikon Ds 400mm 180mm and 28mm on the floor just incase I get kicked in the teeth again ( The BBC have footage of me being carried off on a stretcher from a premier league game after such an incident) or if I'm doing something pictorial I'll take the M9s and I love em.
Haven't 'hosed anything down' since I had to leap off the bus in Senegal quite a few years ago.
Regards
Peter