Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2011/05/17
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]The Hasselblad and other cube modular cameras can use differed backs. That should have shot them right to the front of the pack when the digital thing hit but it didn't because the backs cost 40,000 dollars. It did the opposite. The Camera back is 90 present of the cost of the digital package. I don't think that makes it all that more flexible. So when the S2 because the S2.1 or S2.b you get a new camera and a second body if you think you have to have those cutting edge specs. It does not make the results you've gotten from your S2 untenable or unusable. Nor the results you'd get from it in the future though you may find yourself a tad less "competitive". I'm behind the S system I think its brilliant and will prove itself over time and be one of the many choices Leica has made in the past decade which will make it one of the top camera companies again. Just a few years ago it was being talked about on the LUG and everywhere else in the past tense. Now its very much a prime camera company of the future and present. Everyone wants to see that they're up to next. Eyes on them! Mark -------------------- Mark William Rabiner Photography http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/lugalrabs/ mark at rabinergroup.com Cars: http://tinyurl.com/2f7ptxb > From: Doug Herr <wildlightphoto at earthlink.net> > Reply-To: Leica Users Group <lug at leica-users.org> > Date: Mon, 16 May 2011 14:38:47 -0400 > To: Leica Users Group <lug at leica-users.org> > Subject: Re: [Leica] Leica M9P or M9.2 or M10 > > 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 > > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information