Thoughts on a Digital M

P

PaulN

Monkey
Local time
10:12 AM
Joined
May 23, 2005
Messages
186
I posted this over a Pnet, but figured that it would be worthwhile to post it here as well, especially because we all have R-D1s and have the ability to 'disable' the screen by flipping it around.

-Paul

-----

What do people think of the idea of a Digital M without an LCD sensor? I keep wondering about the feasibility of taking the Canon 5D full frame sensor and shoving it into an MP/ M7 body, minus the LCD panel. Keep things similar to the R-D1, so the battery goes where the film would, and on the opposite end have an SD or compact flash slot. Surely the electronics for the sensor could fit within confines of the the body, and you wouldn't have to worry about the extra components required for the screen. Additionally, you'd save on cost, and battery life.
This begs another question; why do people like digital cameras? Is it for the instant gratification of being able to see the shot 2 as soon as you press the shutter? Or is it for the ability to manipulate and display the image on a computer? Current M users don't have an LCD panel right now; do they need one on a digital camera? Probably not.

New digicam users wouldn't buy a leica camera due to initial cost barrier. Only pro's & serious amateurs would. Do they need the LCD screen? Probably not.

Are we lazy?
 
Old-time film die-hards might accept a digital M without a screen, but anyone who's actually used a modern digital camera would want the LCD. It's useful for chimping and also as an ice-breaker in certain situations. A compromise might be to have some sort of EVF (Electronic View Finder) like the Leica digicam where you could review images and operate the software.
 
The main reason to have an LCD on the digital M is the difference between film and digital. While it may not be the case with all sensors, I believe, in general, that digital has a shorter contrast range than film (i.e. exposure is more critical). I recently read a forum post where a photographer was asking for suggestions on developing some overexposed film. He received that help and saved his pictures. Exceed the exposure range of digital and your images are toast! The histogram, displayed on an LCD, is an excellent tool to help photographers make certain that exposures stay within the limits of the sensor.

My Sony Mavica allows me to observe any changes that I make to exposures in real time on the LCD. I don't have to guess what the final exposure will look like. I can see if an important area of the picture will be over or underexposed just by looking at the LCD - before the exposure.

While an LCD might not be absolutely necessary on the digital M, there are enough good reasons for having one that I think you can expect to see one when the camera arrives.
 
I agree that an LCD playback is essential to a digital camera. It's more important, and more valuable, than a good light meter.

As with a light meter, once you've got the exposure right, in non-changing light, you can ignore the LCD and just shoot.

Gene
 
Exactly, a simple hinged cover that one could raise (or lower) to see the LCD would be sufficient. The hinged-swivelling LCD has none of the traditional advantage as there's no live preview.

I was initially thinking that a small LCD (perhaps on the camera top) that could present the histogram and a simple indicator that (somewhere in the image) that highlights are blown might do, but then of course you've got to have a good-sized display simply to present and navigate the menus for setup etc.
 
I agree, for all the reasons stated above, that an LCD is a necessary attribute of a digital camera.

Also, I prefer the idea by simonclivehughe, that a hinged or flip cover be utilized instead of the swivel LCD. Far less to go wrong and the cover ,if hinged on the top edge of the LCD, would also serve to make it more easily visible without glare during daytime hours.

The RD-1 will be a hard act to follow at its cost. I was not previously enamoured of digital cameras, but am crazy about this one, although to be fair, I also own a film rangefinder and had Leica glass.

CM
 
PaulN said:
This begs another question; why do people like digital cameras? Is it for the instant gratification of being able to see the shot 2 as soon as you press the shutter? Or is it for the ability to manipulate and display the image on a computer?
Click to expand...
I suppose the former, since film can be scanned to produce a digital image. I use a digital camera mainly for its speed in producing an image for online communication or for a datafile on the computer. There are times when producing a photo in electronic form immediately is very useful.
 
There is another good, non-technical reason for putting LCD's on digital cameras. LCD's have taken the place of Polaroids as ice-breakers. People enjoy seeing pictures of themselves, and if they are shown those pictures while the photographer is shooting them they often become trusting, active, and creative partners in the photo making process - all things to be wished for.
 
The LCD-cover on the Digilux 1 makes it harder to use the viewfinder (that is of no real use anyway) and adds to the thickness and the height of the camera. It is not coupled to the electronics of the camera, so even when closed, the LCD can be on (consuming precious battery life). There is no feedback anywhere else on the camera that the LCD is on, except for the (invisible) LCD itself. It's good to create a shade over the LCD, but I hope Leica will find a better solution for their Digital M. Not that I will ever be able to afford one.

Wim
 
mac_wt said:
The LCD-cover on the Digilux 1 makes it harder to use the viewfinder (that is of no real use anyway)...
Click to expand...

I hardly use the LCDs on the Digilux 1 as well as the R-D1 personally.
I just regret that the shutter speeds are invisible (D1) or often difficult to read (R-D1) in the viewfinder.
What i'd like to get in the Digital M is a viewfinder à la M5 with a 1:1 magnification but i'll be disappointed on that point i'm afraid...
Best,
LCT
 
/StartRant
I would be happy to see any digital camera (even with fixed lens and no zoom) with a viewfinder as good as the one on a Canonet. Apparently the quality of the viewfinder in modern (digital) cameras is a lot less important than the number of megapixels or the size of the LCD. The same thing can be said about battery life, strength of materials and ease of user interface. The viewfinder of my Lumix DMC-LC5 (twin brother of the Digilux 1) seems to me only marginally better than the viewfinder on my Fed-2 (and only when I do not take into account that the viewfinder in the Fed-2 gives me also information on focus. If I consider this, the viewfinder in my Olympus Trip 35 beats the one in the Lumix on size, clarity and information provided). To be honest the viewfinder of the Lumix has diopter adjustment, so if I was able to get it close to my eye, that would be handy for using it without my glasses. As it is, the viewfinder is to far from the left edge of the camera, so it hits my nose, before it hits my glasses anyway.
/EndRant

Wim
 
I do think the LCD is a feature that photographers have come to expect in a modern digital camera. Don't forget that, although the classic Leica M design is 50+ years old now, when introduced it was among the most technologically advanced cameras in production. No reason a digital M shouldn't also be modern for its era.

I have a folding, swiveling LCD on my Canon G1 point-and-shoot (I believe this camera was first to market with the feature four or five years ago) and it is a feature I highly value. Most of the time I shoot with it folded away, but it's nice to be able to swiftly pull it out. An unpublicized advantage of this arrangement is an ability to squeeze the camera into oddball corners with the LCD swiveled for viewing, allowing you to verify if the shot was properly framed. In a confined space, this effectively widens the field of view considerably.

I don't think the folding, swiveling LCD would be any more prone to wear than, say, an oddly slanted film -rewind knob.
 
mac_wt said:
/StartRant
Apparently the quality of the viewfinder in modern (digital) cameras is a lot less important than the number of megapixels or the size of the LCD./EndRant
Wim
Click to expand...

Let's hope that the digital M treats us to the bright, clear Leica M viewfinder that is such a pleasure to use (even if it doesn't give us a 20 megapixel, full frame sensor).

Let's also hope that, given the success of the RD-1, all of the camera makers take note that there is a real market for high quality rangefinder cameras (with provision for M mount lenses, of course).
 
I would certainly want an LCD with histogram display on any digital camera I bought. It's a useful feature. I do like camera that have means of protecting/hiding the LCD as needed.

Cheers,

Sean
 
I keep wondering about the feasibility of taking the Canon 5D full frame sensor and shoving it into an MP/ M7 body.
Click to expand...

I fear that would lead to heavy vignetting. The problem Leica (and Epson-with some succes )have been fighting is the limited acceptance angle of sensors. Which means the sensor simply cannot "see" the edge rays of a RF lens, especially a wideangle non-retrofocus one as that is much closer to the sensor than a SLR lens giving a far more acute angle. Kodak appears to have found a solution, which will make a 1.3 crop M-camera possible that can take up to 21 mm lenses (possibly even 15) without vignetting, but this technique certainly does not apply to a DSLR full-frame sensor.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom