Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2011/05/16
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Lawrence Zeitlin wrote: >>> I do fault Leica for abandoning the upgrading philosophy that served them well in the past. Why should any photographer have to buy an entirely new camera to get an improved sensor or microprocessor? The really expensive parts of the camera, the body, the rangefinder, the viewfinder, and most of the internal mechanisms remain unchanged. <<< I suspect that for a camera produced in the thousands (vs. many tens of thousands) a full-frame sensor and the supporting electronics are the expensive parts. >>> I would have liked Leica to design a modular digital M camera where packages of components could have been easily replaced. Failing that, I would have appreciated a digital back for the M and CL cameras. It worked for the R series. <<< Unfortunately most of the market didn't see the advantages of this approach in the R series. Along with improved sensors and processors the market wanted ever-improved AF, storage options, frame rates and other such features. A few electronic upgrades may be possible without also upgrading data bus, power supply, heat dissipation, & card writers but sooner or later (usually sooner) the camera's technology as originally built hits the wall and the upgraded camera's performance will be throttled by a non-upgradeable component. During the LTM era upgrades were feasible because labor was relativley inexpensive and the pace of equipment technology change was much slower than we see now. It makes little economic sense to use expensive labor to upgrade an existing camera that will be limited by its older technology when a replacement camera not limited by older components costs less. Doug Herr Birdman of Sacramento http://www.wildlightphoto.com -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://link.mail2web.com/mail2web