Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2002/10/11
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Hi Adam, > Well it would depend, but a Digital M with the same form-factor You couldn't fit the needed electronics in the same form-factor at this point in time. In two or three years, possibly... > and using all > the M lenses could probably hit the price point of the current Kodak 14 M > cameras which is what? $4,500 or so? That would depend on how many would sell. NRE for something like this is upwards of $1M, at least. > It would also give a camera that is vastly > smaller than the > current digital equivalents. Why would it be smaller? You are making an assumption I believe...that isn't valid. > Because it's an M it wouldn't have > to worry about > all the auto-focus mumbo jumbo. That's all in the lense, not in the body. > I would assume a digital M would be slightly blockier than the > current model if > only because it will have to support an LCD display, I am not a fan of on-camera LCD displays. I would not put one on the camera, but have an external one as an option...simply because you don't need to review every picture after it's shot, and the little display is hardly usable for reviewing much anyway. If you want to do anything that's interesting, you need a larger display. I'd rather see an LCD panel used for the viewfinder...but I'm not convinced that it's as good as an optical viewfinder is, at least for a manual focus camera, though you could zoom in on the exact spot you wanted to focus on, and have it give you focus confirmation...and that could be your on-camera display...but LCDs need to be a LOT better to be able to do that and match an optical viewfinder, as far as my experience has been. > need to have > the juice to > run the electronics. Er, yeah...and THE electronics, and storage device and processing CPU/Memory/Program memory and A/D etc. > But I would hope it was as straightforward to use and would shy > away from the > rampant bells and whistles of the Japanese cameras which get in > the way more > than they help. Eh, possibly...but you still need to have the ability to set up things... > Small, simple, with me in control not a CPU. I'd > say let the cpu > be used to give me information I can use to make better pictures: The CPU is needed to process the image data and run the camera. You can't get around that. > good analysis > of an image AFTER I have taken it so I can do a snap, look at the > histogram, > check the image, and then get to my real work. That can be done externally, you want the camera small, and to have decent battery life... > >> Imagine being able to use my Leica both with film AND photoshop. > > > >You already can. Buy a good scanner. > > > > But it's not the same thing, and you know it. Yeah, you're right...I get better results with my scanner ;-) > Yes you can use > Photoshop and you > can scan - but it doesn't match the ease of digital Yes, I agree with that to a degree, yet there is no ease to digital when I can simply drop my film off at the local general store, and get back a set of double prints in a few days... That day will come with digital, but it isn't in my neighborhood, so digital is actually more difficult and not as easy as film at this point in time. Regards, Austin - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html