Thom Hogan, a very wise man

[_goodtimez]

If one wants to (occasionally) use a longer than 90mm or 135mm on its M8 or M9 then liveview would be the easiest and most precise solution, as viewed by me, but keeping the valuable optical VF.
I would not buy an RF vith a flip-up EVF in the optical VF and further less if it is limited to only B&W.

 

[sig]

"Leica Camera AG lays the foundations for future sales and profit growth with
innovative products and restructuring programme – Restrained outlook for results of
the current fiscal year 2009/2010"

At least they want to have a sales and profit growth.

 

[biggambi]

wgerrard: I would argue that they have continued to be innovative in technological advances. Their optical designs continue to be some of the finest in the world. Now if we are going to only look at technological advances in electronics. I would agree that they alone have not achieved major advances. But, the M9 with a full frame sensor is a major achievement. It may not be everything that everyone wanted, but it certainly meets the needs of some. Now, I certainly would concede that other companies are making extensive progress with CMOS sensor technology. But, Leica is using a CCD sensor, to which I must confess a preference.

This brings us to the idea of a secondary offering in the Leica M series, for camera bodies utilizing CMOS-Foveon sensor. I think that there is strong historical evidence that supports offering two options with the high end for camera bodies. Leica has done so with the R system, Nikon & Canon certainly have done so within their respective systems. I do not believe that there would be a cannibalization of Leica's base, but rather a broadening of its base. It would meet the needs of a larger market, and allow Leica to sell many more lenses. This is where they make most of their money, not the camera body. If they wish to grow, then why spend the large amounts of money, just to re-invent lenses. They do not appear to be concerned about large sales numbers with the digital M at this point; but, if they should desire to advance their market share. They need look no further, than an electronically advanced CMOS system. That excepts an M lens. Many voices have expressed a need or desire for such a system. I am not one of them. I am very happy with the digital M line. But, I understand there is a market for it.

As for the price, if it is cutting edge and it is low production numbers. It is going to be expensive. There is no getting around it. So, as I have stated before, this could very well be a shock to those who are asking for it. I would suspect it would be substantially more than the M9.

As for a B&W version of the M9, the key part of this is that everything is there for it to exist. There is minimal changes that need to take place, and the sensor needs to altered. Obviously, this is a simplification of the task but it is correct in substance. Will it appeal to an even small market, yes. But, so do many highly specialized products. It does not make them not worthy of production. Leica has a strong history of producing small batches of specialized versions within the M system.

By the way, teaming up with apple, interesting idea.

Kindest Regards,

 

[wgerrard]

I don't agree that manufacturing high quality lenses is a technological innovation, any more than making handcrafted jewelry or furniture are technologically innovative. We know how to make high quality lenses, just as we know how to make high quality jewelry or furniture. Whether we do or not depends on business decisions.

The full-frame sensor in the M9 can be credited to Kodak. I tend to consider increases in sensor size as inevitable as, and no more innovative than, increases in hard drive capacities. Inventing the digital sensor was innovative. Making bigger sensors is not.

Neither of us has anything other than conjecture to make a case for or against a b&w-only M9. I don't see the point of making it.

 

[biggambi]

Technological advancements is the application of scientific knowledge in industrial applications. The designing of the modern optics that Leica produce require the development of highly sophisticated and progressively refined algorithms through engineering based on the application of physics and mathematics. The glass formulas and coatings require the use of advanced chemical analysis. It is the very definition of the term.

All technological advancements, even technological breakthroughs, are based on the application of science in industrial applications. The CMOS sensor was developed in 1963, and the CCD in 1969. There is no new news there. The advancement in the quality and the advancement in new uses is news. It is these technological advances that society speaks of when talking about technological advancements.

My statement was Leica continues "to be innovative in technological advancements." To innovate is to apply things in a new manner. Thus, to apply technological advancements in a new manner. The application of a full size sensor in a rangefinder camera meats the very definition of these terms. If you disagree, I would point you to the Oxford English Dictionary. Your desire to simplify the achievement does not change the facts. It was not Kodak and Leica saying, lets make a bigger sensor and stick it in the camera. It involved very significant engineering, as it required overcoming some very difficult optical problems. It required the development of more advanced algorithms by Leica. Leica just as every other manufacturer does not design and make everything in house. A more specific example, Apple does not make processors, hard drives, or advancements in circuit board technology. But, they do make technological advancements by engineering new products.

If Leica made no technological advancements, as you assert, there would be no new models. Do not confuse technological advancements or the innovative application of them, with breakthroughs. This is a layman's mistake. The discoveries of Bose and Braun in the 1900's using semiconductor material's was a breakthrough that would change the world.

Kindest Regards

 

[wgerrard]

i have no real interest in continuing this pointless exercise, but ...

Technological advancements is the application of scientific knowledge in industrial applications. The designing of the modern optics that Leica produce require the development of highly sophisticated and progressively refined algorithms through engineering based on the application of physics and mathematics. The glass formulas and coatings require the use of advanced chemical analysis. It is the very definition of the term.

Have there been any breakthroughs in optical science in, say, the last 5 years, that Leica has leveraged to produce lenses? My point is that optical science and the engineering of camera lenses appear to be stable enterprises and that the quality of the final product is determined by the resources and skill applied to its manufacture, resources and skills that can be bought by anyone willing to pay the price.

It is these technological advances that society speaks of when talking about technological advancements.

What society speaks of is largely irrelevant. Quality and size increases in existing products, e.g., sensors, are to be expected.

If Leica made no technological advancements, as you assert, there would be no new models Do not confuse technological advancements or the innovative application of them, with breakthroughs. This is a layman's mistake.

That's a mischaracterization of my statements. And, there is no need to be condescending.

As for technological advancements being a prerequisite for releasing a new model, I suspect the marketing department might have a thing or two to say. The differences in technology in the M3, M2, M4, M6 and the MP are subtle, at best. The M5 used technology that was new to Leica, but conservative Leica fans shot it down. Rolling out in-camera metering in some cameras, long after the rest of the industry did it, hardly qualifies as an advancement. Ditto the M7's use of AE. Leica deserves credit for figuring out how to put a 35mm-sized sensor in an M camera, but, again, they arrived late to the party.

Leica can be credited with advancing the use of technology in Leica cameras, but it has been a very long time since the industry adopted Leica tech.

 

[biggambi]

Leica has been making fine cameras for almost a century, and M-bodies for more than 50 years. They've certainly set a standard for reliability and quality. But, I doubt even their most ardent fans would argue that Leica has a contemporary track record for technological innovations and standards, other than the 35mm RF early in the last century. After all, the M9 is most closely related to the M3....

L

...Have there been any breakthroughs in optical science in, say, the last 5 years, that Leica has leveraged to produce lenses? My point is that optical science and the engineering of camera lenses appear to be stable enterprises and that the quality of the final product is determined by the resources and skill applied to its manufacture, resources and skills that can be bought by anyone willing to pay the price.[/QOUTE]

You have now redefined your timeline to 5 years. This is a considerable shift in your argument. With your example and acknowledgement of lens technology having been developed in recent times. We have nothing to disagree on in this area. I do not know what went into the new Noctilux. But we will set that aside, as to me 5 years vs 1 year is of little significance in this field.

I don't agree that manufacturing high quality lenses is a technological innovation, any more than making handcrafted jewelry or furniture are technologically innovative. We know how to make high quality lenses, just as we know how to make high quality jewelry or furniture. Whether we do or not depends on business decisions.

This and the prior quote are the direct comments to which my last post is applied. How is it a mischaracterization on my part. I have given supporting arguments that show otherwise. You are simply misusing the term "technological advancements" in a manner that is common among layman and not scientists. In order to have a meaningful conversation, we must agree on the definition of words, as I am sure you would agree. It is not meant to be derogatory, it simply is a statement of facts. I think nothing of it beyond a factual statement.

The full-frame sensor in the M9 can be credited to Kodak. I tend to consider increases in sensor size as inevitable as, and no more innovative than, increases in hard drive capacities. Inventing the digital sensor was innovative. Making bigger sensors is not.

Again this was a simplification of a highly technological application of science in an innovative manner. This application of a sensor was not possible when the M8 came out, but it is possible now. It constitutes a technological advancement.

The point of this whole post and the prior post is a discussion of your narrow and exclusionary application of "innovative" and "technological advancement," towards Leica. I have given support to the claim that they have made technological achievements. Just as I had asserted this in the beginning, with a simple statement. It is you who chose to assert otherwise, in the manner of debate, and apply a narrow definition that fit your argument. I do not agree on a redefinition of the words, as acknowledged by "the general society", and the "the scientific community" within it. A very simple stand really.

As for a B&W M9, it has seemed to me that we both agree that it is a more limited market. If you are familiar with my prior posts on the topic, I have asserted that this will all be decided by Leica, and what they see fit for their greater good. Hence, I have simply pointed out that everything is already established with the M9 to make it happen. It would simply need to be altered, in ways that are not significant. I agree neither of us knows what they will do in this area. But, that is not the point that I made. So, I really do not understand why you would chose to attack this in the first place.

I will let the record stand and others can decide for themselves, on this topic. There is no malice on my part.

Kindest Regards,

 

[Ranchu]

Continuing my leica bitching, they really don't seem to be innovating much these days, rather playing catch up. For instance, Why a bayer RGGB sensor? Trying to integrate that oversensitve green channel with the less sensitive red and blue and come out with accurate color is an exercise in futility. The standard reason for the bayer RGGB is to 'match the spectral sensitvity of the eye'. BFD, I already have eyes that do that for me. Compare the spectral dye response of a color film with the digital camera filter responses at dxomark.com .Why not omit one green pixel? Conversion would be a lot more sane, Leica might even get their little toe wet instead of fobbing the job off on phase and adobe.