The Future - your thoughts?

What do the M8/M9 have that smaller cameras do not and is essential ?
- framelines, for anticipation and composition
- manual and aperture and focus rings, for effective and fast zone focusing.

Meaning you can operate them fast and without looking at LCD.
The DP2 with external finder is what IMO comes closest to it.
 
I think there is a hang up in the literal translation here.

In my opinion, and from my travels, the digital compact has clearly replaced the rangefinder for the compact, light carry always rig. Last year, during Ontario's labor unrest, I spent a great deal of time in press scrums/pits. The weapons of choice were point and shoots and field recorders by a great margin.

We as "photographers" have a totally different set of needs than the working photojournalist. Things like turn around service time, video, versatility etc. are considerations for us but MUSTS for the working Janet or Joe.

The industry is also changing dramatically. The days of staff shooters etc. are long gone. Most large dailies rely on CP's, Bloombergs, AP's image banks and wire service for images. The freelance market is more a Jack of All Trades thing now. If you want to work in thy field you should learn to write versus picking up a whack of Dslr's. Get a Panasonic GH-1.

So, with that being said I believe the future will see more and more compacts, micro 4/3's etc. There will always be a need for the big guns but more often than not a select few are providing those images.
 
I was speaking with a freelancer who told me that with film the editor wanted 200 images. Now, that digital has come into use the editor wants 2000, photoshopped, by the next day. (Maybe some exaggeration here but there is some truth.) He also said that they wanted to own the image for smaller payment. Other than weddings and advertising what is the need for Still Photography? TV/Internet has replaced newspapers and magazines as the major source of news gathering and they want video images. The magazines that do want still images are the scandal sheets & the Decorating magazines. Many writers are there own photographers in other magazines. If you shoot several hundred digital imagaes it is not hard to get 3 or 4 to go with a filler article...and even easier if you need only one. The future is probably going to be cameras for 1. weddings & advertising shots 2. point and shoot for the vast majority of people who do not want to know anything about photography except how to upload the images to Facebook and 3. small non-professional hobbyist community who will still want better cameras and are willing to pay high dollars for them (much like electric train enthusiats).
 
If we are talking raw popularity I actually think the P&S market will have some issues and be under assault more and more by the cell phone market. A number of phones have nicked the 5MP mark and quality has increased to a startling degree given the size of the camera.

For the average Joe or Trixie a cell phone is an omni-present device and one that offers the ultimate "camera when you need it" experience. When the quality of the pics gets just a hair better many will choose not to carry two devices on outings, and the phone won't be the one they leave home (my iPhone never leaves me, my camera does now and then).

As for "Real Cameras" I do think the EVIL cameras are going to bring about some fascinating innovations. Spend some time with a Pany G1, get used to seeing the histogram and playback in the eye level finder, and you can see the potential there. With newer generations of LCDs coming along the results could be stunning.

On the RF front I'd love to see a hybrid system one day, allowing for a super bright traditional viewfinder with projected framelines and hologram overlay of things like histograms and data (only as desired). Have the technology enhance the traditional experience, leveraging technology to aid the photographer in making his/her digital image.

As with anything, time will tell. In the meantime, let's all enjoy what we have!

Kent
 
Any decent P&S will deliver images with plenty of resolution for newspapers. The problem with that is that most newspaper photographers need the versatility of a DSLR because they shoot so many different assignments in a day. There are just assignments, sports for example, that need fast shooting, fast focusing, long lens photography.
 
yanidel said:
What do the M8/M9 have that smaller cameras do not and is essential ?
- framelines, for anticipation and composition
- manual and aperture and focus rings, for effective and fast zone focusing.

Meaning you can operate them fast and without looking at LCD.
The DP2 with external finder is what IMO comes closest to it.
Click to expand...

I use the auxiliary bright line finders originally meant for rangefinders on the smaller cameras. Sometimes the ratio is correct; sometimes, close. But they certainly are better than many of the built-in optical finders. This is a pretty common practice on small cameras other than the DP2.

Prefocusing, presetting exposure is certainly an advantage in a lot of situations. It's perfectly possible with many of the smaller digital cameras.

But there is this huge tendency just to keep everything an automatic, even on the bigger cameras. I rarely use my M8 on auto. I usually set the shutter speed and adjust the f/stop manually, using the ISO to get it into the range I want. But from what I see many folks doing with large frame digitals is keeping them on automatic. The big "A" on a camera dial seems to be popular in all sensor sizes, and its rarely mandatory.
 
I use a DSLR on manual when it is needed, but in most cases Aperture Priority automation sets the shutter speed where I would have set it anyway. Just speeds up the process.
 
Aperture Priority seems to be a "working standard".

Honestly is think that if a micro 4/3 type camera hits the market that is weather sealed and has a decent manual focus interface then the the digital M is going to have a tough time making inroads into the freelance community.
 
emraphoto said:
In my opinion, and from my travels, the digital compact has clearly replaced the rangefinder for the compact, light carry always rig.
Click to expand...

The last rangefinder to fill that role was the Olympus XA. Since then, it has been some AF compact - a digital one for the past seven or eight years. I don't think EVIL cameras will become significant there - as its name suggests, a compact will always be more compact...

Sevo
 
Pickett Wilson said:
I dunno. I think 4/3 is an anomaly. A transitional format at best. It's neither this nor that.
Click to expand...

From what I can tell, as with other technology-based products, every product is going to be a transitional one. There's not going to a 'final' digital camera nor even a 'final' digital camera line.
 
Scott, of course. But I think 4/3 is destined, if anything, to become a niche among what seems to be many developing niches of folks chasing after the latest thing.
 
Bill Pierce said:
I use the auxiliary bright line finders originally meant for rangefinders on the smaller cameras. Sometimes the ratio is correct; sometimes, close. But they certainly are better than many of the built-in optical finders. This is a pretty common practice on small cameras other than the DP2.

Prefocusing, presetting exposure is certainly an advantage in a lot of situations. It's perfectly possible with many of the smaller digital cameras.
Click to expand...
It is correct if you shoot mainly hyperfocal, extensive Dof. The M9 and DP2 have precise distance scales where you can set 1,2,3, ... meters mechanically without looking at the LCD. When you shoot with thin DOF, this is fundamental. To what I could test, you cannot do that with X1, GF1 or E-P1.
It might be specific to my kind of shooting needs, but so far the DP2 with external viewfinder is what resembles the most the M shooting among tge compact cameras.
 
As the technology changes, I think it is inevitable that the camera of choice for any particular type of shooting will change. The small digital pocket cameras will inevitably encroach on some of Leica's traditional turfs, but for me Leica is encroaching on the medium format film turf.

I've been a medium format B&W film user for landscapes (see http://www.rangefindermag.com/storage/articles/RF0110_Roark_Bleich.pdf) but I'm moving, in part, to a digital M mount (M9) for the simple reason that it is the lightest and easiest way to capture the amount of information I need for the prints I make (16x20 and 22x28 B&W display). Before this move, the Bronica RF645 with Tech Pan replaced my Rollei SL66 with Tmax 100 and (late great) Agfapan 25. Maybe someday the M4/3 format will replace the FF sensor, but I think at the print size I'm targeting the optics that may be produced for the smaller sensors will limit them no matter what their MP count.

While my interest in the M mount may have little to do with the traditional shooting turf for Leica, access to those competing Leica, Zeiss, and CV optics certainly has been a major appeal of the camera. That appeal will probably continue for some time. I might add, however, that I'm not sure how long Leica will remain the only or dominant M mount digital camera. From what I can see, the parts are all "on the shelf" for a FF, live view, higher MP, higher speed cmos solution that would cost much less than a Leica body. But for now, the M9 has the minimum MP count I've found I need (Canon 5d2 at its best can clear the bar) and is simply the only acceptable access to what is probably the best body of optics there is for high resolution yet highly portable, particularly wide angle shooting.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com
 
Paul Roark said:
I've been a medium format B&W film user for landscapes (see http://www.rangefindermag.com/storage/articles/RF0110_Roark_Bleich.pdf) but I'm moving, in part, to a digital M mount (M9)...
Paul
www.PaulRoark.com
Click to expand...

I think this is the new arena for the Leica. With its absence of anti-aliasing and emphasis on low ISO performance, it is the digital Panatomic X and Kodachrome camera, not the Tri-X and high-speed color negative camera that its film counterpart was for so many.

I think many from my background, photojournalism, will drift away from a brand that was an important part of their tool kit. But many medium format users are going to find how good the Leica is when they need a smaller, lighter camera. Sad for me, but good for a lot of other folks.
 
There was a time that only 4x5 was acceptable in journalism. Then roll film was allowed. Finally, "miniature" cameras (read: 35mm) were accepted.

Also, technical quality and aesthetic quality are not mutually inclusive. Technical qualities are really a tool for photographers--you can choose certain equipment and processes for the qualities they can impart in an image. Aesthetic quality is really what makes a photo effective or not.

So, I would say that compact cameras can easily be a tool for photographers. There really is no technical limitation for their use either for print or electronic output. The logjam is simply the perception of what is "professional" equipment. When the question should be what is "professional" work. How you get that is neither here nor there.
 
About 10 years ago or so (many moons, I don't remember exactly), I got the urge to buy a pocketable 35mm 'point and shoot' to compliment my Leica film camera. Something easy to use and with a zoom so that 'all my lenses' were with me on camera.

Picked up a Contax TVS on the way to Indonesia to use with color negative film. In the brochure Contax put out for the camera is this:

"The high degree of precision and optical quality presented in the Contax T series of cameras is attested to by the number of photographers that took them along on assignment as a second camera. Often this pocketable 'second camera' was responsible for the best images of the shoot."

Don't use the Contax very often any more, but the in the digital realm the Leica D-LUX 4 has kind of taken its place with the same purpose/idea; good lens (F2! 24mm!), pocketable (always with me), very versatile and easy to use feature set.

I can put an image from the D-LUX 4 up on a 24" screen and it looks great. And if I want something with more 'umph', and the lenses to go along with it, there is its big brother the Leica M-digitals.
 
Bill Pierce said:
I think this is the new arena for the Leica. With its absence of anti-aliasing and emphasis on low ISO performance, it is the digital Panatomic X and Kodachrome camera, not the Tri-X and high-speed color negative camera that its film counterpart was for so many.

I think many from my background, photojournalism, will drift away from a brand that was an important part of their tool kit. But many medium format users are going to find how good the Leica is when they need a smaller, lighter camera. Sad for me, but good for a lot of other folks.
Click to expand...

i can't help but wonder if this was a well thought out plan/agenda from Leica?
 
yanidel said:
It is correct if you shoot mainly hyperfocal, extensive Dof. The M9 and DP2 have precise distance scales where you can set 1,2,3, ... meters mechanically without looking at the LCD. When you shoot with thin DOF, this is fundamental. To what I could test, you cannot do that with X1, GF1 or E-P1.
Click to expand...

The X1 can do that, but it's pretty limited compared to the DP2 and Ricoh GRD/GRX. Right now the pre-set focus scale on the X1 goes to 2m and then the next stop is infinity. Leica has gotten an earful about this, so if we're lucky we may see that improved with a firmware update.

I was really looking for this feature in the GF-1 / EP-1 (2), but it's lacking and that's a real deal breaker for me.
 
i think aps-c compacts will replace what the 35mm leica used to be. the small sensor compacts don't have the dynamic range or noise levels to really satisfy today's digital photographers. if they had faster lenses, maybe they could squeak by.

the m9, and to a lesser extent, the m8 replace the 6x9 fujis and other medium format rangefinders. they don't fill the same niche anymore.

what camera will be leica's true heir? probably the ricoh gxr.
 
Bill Pierce said:
I think this is the new arena for the Leica. With its absence of anti-aliasing and emphasis on low ISO performance, it is the digital Panatomic X and Kodachrome camera, not the Tri-X and high-speed color negative camera that its film counterpart was for so many.

I think many from my background, photojournalism, will drift away from a brand that was an important part of their tool kit. But many medium format users are going to find how good the Leica is when they need a smaller, lighter camera. Sad for me, but good for a lot of other folks.
Click to expand...

'Emphasis on low ISO performance' sounds like a euphemism for poor high ISO performance. Good low ISO is a given with most cameras anyways.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom