Michael Markey
Mentor
A
AndyCapp
Guest
Fluff.
chuckroast
Established
The digital camera evolution is nearly a pitch perfect rearticulation of what happened in the mid-1970s to audio equipment. There were major steps forward in amplifier, receiver, and speaker design. At some point, the stuff was so good that each year's new equipment had only very small incremental improvements to offer - which didn't stop the manufacturers from trying to shame you into buying the latest stuff.
Today's digital cameras are undergoing much the same thing. For example, the $10,000 M11 measures nearly identical dynamic range performance as the (when new) $2000 Nikon D750. In fact, the Leica is slightly worse by a few tenths of a stop. Yes, the M11 has 2.5X the pixels, but for 5x the price it should offer something. Apart from the investment in existing lenses (which I realize is a big deal) I question the real incremental utility of a $10K digital camera. Then again, a not insignificant number of units are sold to lifestyle buyers.
Real Leicas have rewind knobs .... ;P
Today's digital cameras are undergoing much the same thing. For example, the $10,000 M11 measures nearly identical dynamic range performance as the (when new) $2000 Nikon D750. In fact, the Leica is slightly worse by a few tenths of a stop. Yes, the M11 has 2.5X the pixels, but for 5x the price it should offer something. Apart from the investment in existing lenses (which I realize is a big deal) I question the real incremental utility of a $10K digital camera. Then again, a not insignificant number of units are sold to lifestyle buyers.
Real Leicas have rewind knobs .... ;P
Michael Markey
Mentor
Yes ... I remember all too well that period in the mid seventies .
Linn Sondek ,at least for a time ,followed a similar strategy as Leica.
There seems to be a lot of rebadging and tweaking of other manufacturers products at the moment.
chuckroast
Established
Continuing in that vein ... The audio industry remained fairly static with very little real innovation until the advent of CDs. DDD recorded CDs exposed every flaw in the reproduction chain, especially for rapid transients. Amplifier chains, especially, had to be completely rethought in light of Slew Induced Distortion (SID) and Transient Intermodulation Distortion (TIM).
What is missing, at the moment, I think, is a forcing function like this for photography. We're kind of going in the opposite direction away from actual photography, and into the arms of AIs that will give us the image the think we wanted, not the one we actually took. Leica's next "camera" may well be some internet attached device that takes M lenses and actually does all the post raw capture work on an AI farm in Wetzar..
tcmx3
Member
Not much substantiative but it's an interview with a product line owner. Can't have high expectations really.
That said there was one thing that got said I thought was interesting, which is pointing out that the M mount has no real competition (at least as far as Leica sees it). That's a pretty honest statement. The SL cameras are less expensive than the rangefinders, and the lenses while comparable pricewise absolutely traded small size for performance. The charts for many of the SL lenses scream that they are targeting people who buy lenses based, at least in part, on test results and charts and such, which I don't think is really the case for the M stuff (and fwiw I'm not making any value judgement on that I like me some sharp lenses). And they autofocus.
If that's what people want I guess it's fine. I don't mind using machine learning based tools for noise reduction or upresing. I doubt I will personally be convinced to go much further than that though. Hmm, maybe if someone wants to build some tools that use it to emulate film that might be cool. Letting my camera hook up to the internet though, no I don't think so:
That said there was one thing that got said I thought was interesting, which is pointing out that the M mount has no real competition (at least as far as Leica sees it). That's a pretty honest statement. The SL cameras are less expensive than the rangefinders, and the lenses while comparable pricewise absolutely traded small size for performance. The charts for many of the SL lenses scream that they are targeting people who buy lenses based, at least in part, on test results and charts and such, which I don't think is really the case for the M stuff (and fwiw I'm not making any value judgement on that I like me some sharp lenses). And they autofocus.
If that's what people want I guess it's fine. I don't mind using machine learning based tools for noise reduction or upresing. I doubt I will personally be convinced to go much further than that though. Hmm, maybe if someone wants to build some tools that use it to emulate film that might be cool. Letting my camera hook up to the internet though, no I don't think so:
Michael Markey
Mentor
Mmmm ... never thought of it that way . Actually sounds feasible ,as a future strategy I mean . Brave new world indeed .
chuckroast
Established
I am a technologist by profession. The new world of AI is absolutely terrifying to me. Not the technology itself, which is fascinating and very capable. It's the "who owns the data" the worries me to pieces. AIs work by examining huge bodies of data or "rule sets" to come to their conclusion. And there's the rub - he or she who owns the rule set can bias the outcomes to suit themselves. We've already seen some of the big social media sites doing this sort of thing during the US election cycles - bias the "news" they present to favor their own political desires.
But AIs will make this much worse, because they mostly will be sort of autonomous once set into motion. Imagine an AI that "takes your picture" and shows a person of color in the background with a gun pointed at you. Or, conversely, has a background image of a policeman beating a suspect. This might sound hyperbolic - and it is somewhat - but this sort of image steering is well within the means of existing AIs. Don't forget that AI's really took off first for computer visualization in factory assembly settings.
If anyone reading this thinks this is paranoid overreaction, allow me to point out that is exactly what Goebbels and his bunch did to soften up Germany with propaganda before- and during the Nazi years. No, they didn't use computers as we understand them today, but they made very effective use of imagery to demonize the Jews and promote the 3rd Reich. One very effective example is "Triumph Of The Will" by Riefenstahl.
It is deadly when control of information is in the hands of the few. That's why I like seeing the political factions going at it hammer and tongs - no one side controls the narrative. AIs absolutely have the power to completely squash this. Be very afraid.
Michael Markey
Mentor
Thank you for that . I had little / well no understanding of the technology but it sounds extremely worrying .Riefenstahl was an effective photographer. I have a book of her stuff somewhere. It is said that George Lucas ripped off some of her best shots and camera angles in his Star Wars scenes. Later in life (in her eighties I seem to recall) she took to underwater photography.
chuckroast
Established
What is makes this so worrisome is really three things:
1. The power that images and video have over us
2. Who controls the AI training data and rule set
3. The relative autonomy of the AI once it is set into motion
Michael Markey
Mentor
Some advantage then in being the age I am 
Retro-Grouch
Well-known
chuckroast
Established
Many of them already do. Certainly, cell phones are connected to the net and who knows what manner of post processing is going on behind the scenes.