New Leica S this year?

[jerome_m]

Accelerating the mirror gives an angular momentum and retarding it gives the inverted angular momentum.

On some cameras, there is a counterweight that moves in the opposite direction of the mirror to cancel out its angular momentum.

 

[Bernard]

Erik,

Keep in mind that this is just one specific test, done in unknown conditions, using a specific camera model, unknown tripod, and long lens (how was it supported?). I would not extrapolate from this to a general conclusion about all SLR cameras and/or mirrorless cameras.
If you use a 5DsR with a 200mm around 1/45s, with the same tripod, it can be of value (as it is for the person who ran the test). The main benefit is to highlight a problem area with that particular lens/camera/shutter/tripod combination where additional care may be required. Additional testing would reveal possible solutions such as additional lens support, a different tripod, or maybe a different camera plate.

Mirrorless cameras are not immune to this type of problem. One of the reasons why you read so much about shake is that photographers noticed that their mirrorless cameras were prone to it at certain shutter speeds.

EFC is one technical solution to a specific issue, but it is not without compromise. Sony users report that the current implementation introduces colour artifacts with some non-native lenses, and that it reduces dynamic range (by raising the noise floor, I presume). It is not a pre-requisite for sharp images in most cases.

Getting back to the main point, the choice between SLR and mirrorless should be based on user preference.
Most current SLR cameras can be used in "mirrorless mode," they can do the same things that mirrorless cameras can. Mirrorless cameras can be smaller and less expensive, but that's not always the case once you attach lenses and accessories.

I use either type, depending on what I am photographing. I don't feel the need to pick a side.

 

[glenerrolrd]

Hi,

With electronic devices, features are often free. Just as an example, if you open a modern camera you find one or two big chips, they have fancyful name like Beyonz, Expeed. Those are ASICs purpose built for that camera. Video would be a part of that ASIC and those ASICs are often used over a line of cameras. Stripping out video would make those ASICs much more expensive. That would mean two production runs, double amount of testing.

You can add a microphone costing 1$ and a red button for recording and you have video.

For professional usage, video is often a requirement. So, video is essentially as close as you get to a free lunch.

Just to say, Hasselblad H6D 100c makes beautiful 4K video.

Best regards
Erik

Erik

Thats some serious nonsense ..video is a free lunch ? :wtf:

Roger

 

[msadat]

getting back to the topic, i hope leica makes a wise decision about the future of S, i am heavily invested. the idea of a mirrorless S though sounds intriguing, i am not for it. most lenses with adaptors will be slow and a comprise of some sort.


i wish leica was on this forum so that would hear some of the ideas. i really do think a with good marketing campaign and some rebates they restart the S and all the current S owners should be happy that there is more life left in the system rather than getting upset about the "rebate" prices.

 

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

It is absolutely no nonsense. Camera firmware is probably one of the major parts of the R&D effort for any digital camera. Just to mention, Hasselblad did employ around 15 software engineers to work with the X1D. That gives some idea about the effort involved.

For video, they would probably add some component library to the ASIC design. That would come at a cost, there would probably also be some licensing fee for the compressor used. These would come at some cost. But, industry prices are low, keep in mind that both are sold in cell phones costing say 400-800$. So, let's say 100 $US for library components. Removing them means producing two versions of the ASIC. That would cost a lot. It may be possible to just disable motion features and not paying for the unused components. That could possibly save something like 100$. If such a settlement could be negotiated with owners of the intellectual property.

What electrical/mechanical components are needed for video? A microphone, and that is bound to be a low cost electret. I have found one for 1$US, you need two of them.

You need a microphone input connector and possibly a preamp and an extra record button, that is.

It has been done a long time. Equipment is often made with all features built in, but with some features disabled. At one time my dad had an electronic calculator at his office. It was made in to versions, in a "statistics" version and in an "engineering" version. In the dark of the nigh, some drilled a whole over the switch inside that switched modes. So they suddenly had both versions, at the expense of drilling a hole.

The other side of the coin is that adding say video capability to a camera,that doesn't have it, would have a significant cost. So adding a feature can be expensive but removing it will probably not cause any savings and can mean significant cost if the existing feature is removed rather than disabled.

Welcome to the real world...

Best regards
Erik

Erik

Thats some serious nonsense ..video is a free lunch ? :wtf:

Roger

 

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

The question may be if Leica needs to react to the D1X and GFX, that is hard to know.

It seems to me that Leica makes to many camera variants, not to few. It may make a lot of sense to spend engineering effort on the S-system, but that depends on how many they can sell. If they have sold a Leica-S to every potential buyer there would be very little market. Doing a significant upgrade may enable new sales.

Best regards
Erik

getting back to the topic, i hope leica makes a wise decision about the future of S, i am heavily invested. the idea of a mirrorless S though sounds intriguing, i am not for it. most lenses with adaptors will be slow and a comprise of some sort.


i wish leica was on this forum so that would hear some of the ideas. i really do think a with good marketing campaign and some rebates they restart the S and all the current S owners should be happy that there is more life left in the system rather than getting upset about the "rebate" prices.

 

[glenerrolrd]

Hi,

It is absolutely no nonsense. Camera firmware is probably one of the major parts of the R&D effort for any digital camera. Just to mention, Hasselblad did employ around 15 software engineers to work with the X1D. That gives some idea about the effort involved.

For video, they would probably add some component library to the ASIC design. That would come at a cost, there would probably also be some licensing fee for the compressor used. These would come at some cost. But, industry prices are low, keep in mind that both are sold in cell phones costing say 400-800$. So, let's say 100 $US for library components. Removing them means producing two versions of the ASIC. That would cost a lot. It may be possible to just disable motion features and not paying for the unused components. That could possibly save something like 100$. If such a settlement could be negotiated with owners of the intellectual property.

What electrical/mechanical components are needed for video? A microphone, and that is bound to be a low cost electret. I have found one for 1$US, you need two of them.

You need a microphone input connector and possibly a preamp and an extra record button, that is.

It has been done a long time. Equipment is often made with all features built in, but with some features disabled. At one time my dad had an electronic calculator at his office. It was made in to versions, in a "statistics" version and in an "engineering" version. In the dark of the nigh, some drilled a whole over the switch inside that switched modes. So they suddenly had both versions, at the expense of drilling a hole.

The other side of the coin is that adding say video capability to a camera,that doesn't have it, would have a significant cost. So adding a feature can be expensive but removing it will probably not cause any savings and can mean significant cost if the existing feature is removed rather than disabled.

Welcome to the real world...

Best regards
Erik

Feel free to ad me to your ignore list :loco:

 

[cly]

Hi,

It is absolutely no nonsense. [...]
For video, they would probably add some component library to the ASIC design. That would come at a cost, there would probably also be some licensing fee for the compressor used. These would come at some cost. But, industry prices are low, keep in mind that both are sold in cell phones costing say 400-800$. So, let's say 100 $US for library components. Removing them means producing two versions of the ASIC. That would cost a lot. It may be possible to just disable motion features and not paying for the unused components. That could possibly save something like 100$. If such a settlement could be negotiated with owners of the intellectual property.

What electrical/mechanical components are needed for video? A microphone, and that is bound to be a low cost electret. I have found one for 1$US, you need two of them.

Do you really believe that it's all just about chips and firmware? What about, e.g., heat generated by actually using a chip - remember the problem of overheating camera bodies?

I don't mind arm chair reasoning but producing a *usable camera* is much more than just combining components which have been selected on the basis of spec sheets. All those specs don't mean anything if the camera fails as tool in an 'image production environment'.

Chris

 

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

As far as I know, the Leica S (typ 007) has 4K video built in. So, what I discuss is to cost of removing a functionality and not adding it.

All the effort needed for 4K integration on the Leica (typ 007) has already been spent, including thermal design.

It is sort of natural that any new S design would be based on the 007, even if a new sensor may need force some redesign.

But, it may be the S (type 007) is good enough, so it does not need a redesign. Or it could have some improvements but still keeping the same sensor.

The point I make is that removal of existing features may make production more complex and would not involve any significant saving

Best regards
Erik

Do you really believe that it's all just about chips and firmware? What about, e.g., heat generated by actually using a chip - remember the problem of overheating camera bodies?

I don't mind arm chair reasoning but producing a *usable camera* is much more than just combining components which have been selected on the basis of spec sheets. All those specs don't mean anything if the camera fails as tool in an 'image production environment'.

Chris

 

[stephengilbert]

Gee, I thought this thread was about a new Leica S.

Like so many others, it's now about how one or another poster would have Leica design a new camera. (With charts and formulae, of course.)

Whatever Leica does in that regard, the result wouldn't be an S.