digilux 2

[lacey_smith4]

just dreaming, of course, but what would make the hefty price tag of

a digi 2 worth it would be a sense that the camera would not be

simply surpassed in a year or two. My M's last a long time.

 

I wish Leica would annouce an upgrade policy -- two years from now, a

new 12 meg sensor and firmware installed for $500. Obsoletism is a

curse in the digital world, though of course good images will still

come from the "obsolete" (and I htink we are at a pretty good level

in what is now offered digitally).

 

Nonetheless, in Leica, I just am used to thinking decades, not months

or years.

[grant_.]

12mp in 2 years....? 12mp is already a reality, besides which mp is a consumer gimmick. mp isnt the most important aspect of the digital sensor. do some research and you will see what i mean....

[dan_brown4]

I agree with Grant. More megapixels is not the definition of a

better digital camera. I regularly shoot my 6mp D100 in a 3mp

mode because I don't need that much data flowing through my

post exposure processes. 5 megapixels is a reasonable

plateau, IMHO. What makes it worth the price is superlative

optics, rugged construction, and excelent handling. Heck, Leica

shooters have several lenses in the M line that cost more than

the D2. And IT has a 28-90mm Summicron! That is an

awesome lens to shoot with at ISO 400. It's like having a 28mm

'cron, 35mm 'cron, 50mm 'cron, 75mm 'cron and a 90 mm

Elmarit (f2.4). Why am I the only one whoe sees this as a really,

really fine little digital cam?

 

I think the consumers are the manufacturer's suckers in the

digital marketplace. We don't need more megapixels. I can

readily see shooting with the D2 for 10 years. So what if there is

a 100mp camera in your cell phone by then? The solid

construction, classic camera controls and versatile lens of the

D2 will still make very fine 8x10 prints 10 years from now. If the

size, ergonomics and handling of the D2 suit your style (or Leica

M shooter's style) then it is enough.

[godfrey]

<center>

<img src="http://homepage.mac.com/godders/.Pictures/

Photo%20Album%20Pictures/2004-01-16%2001.43.30%20-0800/Image

-42E714E7480811D8.jpg"><br>

<i>Atrium Lights - Sony U60</i><br>

</center><br>

Current 4 to 6 Mpixel class cameras are hitting a plateau ... Their quality,

responsiveness and features are good enough such that they should last in use for

many years. No, they won't be state of the art ... The only reason a Leica M3 isn't

totally obsolete is that it does a job at a quality level that has hit a good plateau and

the refinements to later cameras are increasingly smaller in signficance to your picture

taking.

<br><br>

The better amongst this class of cameras, and surely the Leicasonic LCD'ux2 is going

to be a premium quality camera, are well made enough and produce good enough

quality to satisfy many people for many years.

<br><br>

Similarly, although I know the Canon 10D is going to be updated within the year, I

expect to be shooting with it for at least four or five years, maybe longer. It's good

enough for most of my needs, many of the refinements don't net me any real

difference.

<br><br>

Godfrey

[dan_brown4]

And another thing, my only fast lens for my D100 is the 35/2,

which is really a standard (50mm eq.) lens. To get a fast wide

lens, I'd have to buy the $1400 28/1.4 Nikkor (36mm eq.). A 28/2

on the D100, forget it, they don't make a lens like that. Neither

does Canon et al.

[cd thacker]

<i>So what if there is a 100mp camera in your cell phone by then?</i><p>

 

I'm buying one of those. :)

[jay_.]

The whole point of digital is so the camera manufacturers can enjoy the same profit windfall of the computer industry. The camera industry used to sell a new camera to someone every 15-20 years up until digital, then they saw the same people happily buying new computers every 18 months and putting the old ones out for trash pickup and said "Hey, we gotta get us some of that!"

[grant_.]

hey dan, i have a nice sigma 24mm 1.8...works fine....400$

[lacey_smith4]

I wasn't putting the megapixel count on a golden throne -- indeed, they are as close as they need be for most of us, though there are still differences between various chips and outputs. However, technology will undoubtedly advance -- which is why I added the "firmware". Something will change -- 50 gig storeage in a dime size package, light speed downloading, loss-less compression changes(I know there is a theoretical there as well), write times for RAW images faster than take times, etc. , etc.

 

And, unequivocally, the only thing about this camera that will not be outdated is the lens.

 

That does not mean I do not want one. I just want it to be a primary camera in ten years.

[godfrey]

Jay,

 

Computer manufacturers' hardware is good to get 12% gross profit margins these

days. A select few manufacturers achieve 19-21% gross margin on the high end

hardware.

 

Cameras, both film and digital, return upwards of 40% gross profit margin. Film and

processing returns upwards of 75% gross profit margin.

 

Your argument has no basis in fact.

 

Godfrey

[dan_brown4]

"Why am I the only one whoe sees this as a really, really fine little digital cam?"

 

Quoting my own post from last night (after a glass or two of Jack Daniels), this

morning I conclude that I am either a visionary or an idiot.

[jay_.]

<<Cameras, both film and digital, return upwards of 40% gross profit margin.

 

Your argument has no basis in fact.>>

 

 

Godfrey>>

 

So what you're saying is that 18-month obsolescence with a 40% gross profit margin (digital camera) is less attractive to the camera manufacturers than 40% gross profit margin on film cameras that people buy once in ten years? Your "disproof" of my argument deserves a hearty belly-laugh from one and all.

[jeff_rivera5]

Dan,

 

Just imagine your response if you'd been drinking Thunderbird!

[godfrey]

<center>

<img src="http://homepage.mac.com/godders/.Pictures/

Photo%20Album%20Pictures/2004-01-16%2020.28.47%20-0800/Image

-5FA6940248A511D8.jpg"><br>

<i>Plane - Sony DSC-U60</i><br>

</center><br>

Jay,

<br>

The consumer market doesn't upgrade their camera equipment due to obsolescence

every 18 months ... They only upgrade their cameras when they stop working. I have

friends who are still perfectly happy with the digital cameras they bought 6 years ago.

<br><br>

Photographers and photographic enthusiasts, on the other hand, upgrade their

cameras more frequently than 18 months regardless of whether they are film or

digital. They also buy far more accessories and lenses. How many of the Leica owner

on this forum have just one camera? Probably a few, but a very few.

<br><br>

What makes a

difference, and why most photographers are getting into digital cameras now that the

imaging quality has met or exceeded 35mm film, comes down to

<br>

<br>- it's less expensive than shooting and processing film

<br>- turnaround is faster

<br>- editing is easier and allows more options

<br><br>

These are benefits that both photographer and snapshooter appreciates.

<br><br>

Godfrey

[jamiew]

Lacey.

 

not sure what everyone else is talking about since i only read your first post :), but I will try to answer your question regarding why they do not make a camera where you can upgrade the sensor and firmware.

 

A digital camera is VERY different from film. In a film camera your storage and your sensor are one and the same. They do not have to interface with eachother, so when new film comes out bam you are upgraded. In a digital camera this is not true. The sensor has to write to the storage. it also does not write in real time, so it needs a buffer. When Leica makes a camera (or anyone else for that matter) they put a buffer that is of adaquate size, without blowing the price/performance ratio. So lets say they use buffer size A. Now go into the future a year or two. You now have a 12mp camera. Well buffer size A will really suck and essentially make your camera SLOOOOOW, or if too small, simply fail to work. There is also the electronics between the sensor, buffer and storage.

 

Essentially what this all means is that to upgrade the sensor they would have to upgrade ALL the electronics in the camera. They could do this, but there would need to be industry standards around it, or each camera's upgrade would be a one off for that model and super expensive. right now there is no incentive for the industry to get together and make such standards since people are still buying new cameras.

 

What leica should do is standardize on one sensor size, and build up a dedicated digital lens line for it, and make interchangeable lens cameras. Then when you purchase your new camera you are not throwing out an expensive lens. As for the camera body, unless they make an expensive high quality shell that is nothing more than a cover for the electronics (like some cell phone models) the camera will be throw away for some years.