M8?No! M7d, possibly yes

[photocrazy]

Recently, I part-exchanged my Leica M6 for a second hand MP. At the dealer's shop, I also had some hands-on experience with the M8 and M7. I'd say I am somewhat dissapointed with the M8 but quite happy with the M7, particularly its quiet shutter. I just wonder why Leica can't design a digital M based on M7.

Leica is the pioneer of 24x35mm format. For me, any digital M body without full frame sensor is out of consideration. 35mm is all Leica is about, isn't it? Now, even Nikon goes full frame with D3 and Canon ushers its full-frame DSLR into 20mp realm! So the Leica M7d must have a full frame sensor with resolution at between 14mp to 16mp, the higher the better. I'd like to see normal sensor speed setting with Leica, say iso50-3200 on the M7d rather than the weired iso160-2500 range. The shutter on the M7d is fully electronically controlled except for the B setting which is more power-efficient if being mechenical, I deem. The top-plate layout is similar to MP. And the rewind nob on MP will be replaced by a manually set sensor speed dial with a range of 50-3200. The frame counter will be replaced by a LCD showing the number of frames left and the power capacity. On the base plate of the M7d, there will be an opening from which you can remove battery and storage cards ( ideally CF, SD compatible). The base plate can be detached from the body in a traditionaly way. But doing so, you also detach the sensor from the body for cleaning, much like Leica's digital back for SLR.

Above is an ideal digital Leica M for me. What do you think of it???

 

[Ben Z]

Interesting how we each have different M.O.'s, because I sold an MP and bought 2 M6's and a lens for the same money

A couple of points:

-The M8 shutter isn't loud, it's the motorized recocking that makes the racket. Would be great if nothing else if they made a setting (maybe firmware could do it but I don't know) where it didn't recock until you took your finger off the shutter button. Or better still, if you could assgn recocking to one of the back buttons.

-IMO people make a fuss over the crop factor for the wrong reasons. I've got a Canon 20D and once I bought one dedicated lens to shore up the wide end (12-24mm) from there on I no longer notice it has a crop factor. OK, I also added a magnifier to the eyepiece, but that's a Canon thing, as Pentax's 1.5-crop bodies have really big bright finders. The M8's crop factor is even less of an issue because once you look thru the finder it's like looking thru any other Leica finder. You pick the lens that gives you the coverage you want, forget the number written on the lens. The 1.3-crop doesn't have as pronounced an effect on full-aperture DOF as the 1.6 either.

The main reason I can see for the 24x36 digitals is improved IQ from more sensor real-estate. Having seen comparisons now between the 5D and M8, I think that the law of diminishing returns is in play.

 

[photocrazy]

Ben, thanks for input.

For me, the flare in the middle patch of the viewfinder is really annoying. Otherwise, M6 is a lovely camera.

I believe full frame is important for Leica because in the digital age, we are more concerned with value vs performance. As a consumer, when I spend a Leica price on a camera, I expect it to produce the highest image quality. However, with the rapid technological evolution, the gap between Leica and Canon & Nikon is widening. When more and more pro digital cameras go full frame with ever larger resolution, I don't know how Leica can survive without moving in the same direction.

Crop factor also changes the whole Leica lens line-up. Wide-angle summilux disappeared on M8. It will be a great loss for many Leica users.

 

[J J Kapsberger]

Why can't a digital M's shutter be recocked manually? Why must the camera have a appallingly noisy motorized mechanism?

 

[jdos2]

I'm happy with my M8, coming as I did from a 5D and before that, M7.

I do mourn the loss of Good Wide Angle Lenses. I have a delightful 21mm CV which at f/4 is darker than my m42 mount f/3.5 28mm, being of nearly the same field of view. It's no longer a 90 degree wide angle lens.

Agreed, too is the larger-pixel more-light-gathering effect- the noise of the M8 at high ISO, heck at 640(!) is obviously greater than the 5D.

But... I got used to it.

I can use my M8 for anything from macro photography (thanks to the Prominent Voigtlander close up kits I have: vintage:1954 or so), all the way up to a fairly tight view provided by a 'cron 90mm. I don't want for too much more.

It's a nice camera. My MP wasn't silent, and the M8 is louder, but it's not so by too much.

I've found I like small cameras. I can carry four lenses in a camera bag that would hold the Canon with the 35mm f/1.4 and hood, with an extra battery and couple memory cards. That's an achievement!

My MP was a nice camera, and in digital would be pretty cool. The M8 is different from that, but also, a good camera for my own needs.

 

[POINT OF VIEW]

wide angle ?

wide angle ?

I agree with your comments. I am confused with the ( can’t find a good wide angle lens ). I use the 12mm Voightlander and find it better than good ( not necessarily great ). Have you tried anybody’s 12 or 15mm lens? 12mm M8 galleries

I'm happy with my M8, coming as I did from a 5D and before that, M7.

I do mourn the loss of Good Wide Angle Lenses. I have a delightful 21mm CV which at f/4 is darker than my m42 mount f/3.5 28mm, being of nearly the same field of view. It's no longer a 90 degree wide angle lens.

Agreed, too is the larger-pixel more-light-gathering effect- the noise of the M8 at high ISO, heck at 640(!) is obviously greater than the 5D.

But... I got used to it.

I can use my M8 for anything from macro photography (thanks to the Prominent Voigtlander close up kits I have: vintage:1954 or so), all the way up to a fairly tight view provided by a 'cron 90mm. I don't want for too much more.

It's a nice camera. My MP wasn't silent, and the M8 is louder, but it's not so by too much.

I've found I like small cameras. I can carry four lenses in a camera bag that would hold the Canon with the 35mm f/1.4 and hood, with an extra battery and couple memory cards. That's an achievement!

My MP was a nice camera, and in digital would be pretty cool. The M8 is different from that, but also, a good camera for my own needs.

 

[jdos2]

I've considered the 12mm- as well as the 15, but I'll wait for my 40mm f/1.4 to come back from Japan- now in the 9th week of "adjustment" for terrible focusing (as in "HOW did they let this leave the factory?"), and I'll wait too for the 75mm that focuses just before someone' face when focused on the temple. Not too thrilled with CV right now.

On the 5D I had the Tamron 14mm f/2.8. It is better at f/2.8 than the 12mm from CV. Infinitely so. And at f/4. It's completely useable at that aperture. I had a good one- there are folks that complained about it's older design, but mine made nice images, without TOO much of purple fringing.

That's my only mourn, really: to get ultra-wide, or even "really wide", I've got to go to really dark (and anything over f/4 is gettin' pretty dark for me!) or REALLY EXPENSIVE lenses- there just aren't any other options right now. My definition of "good," of course, but I'll own it. SLR's are the way to go with Digital Really Wides/fairly brights, at least for now. If one were to suggest that mine is a lament of the system, I'd be okay with that.

Still, in terms of the camera itself, the M8 isn't a work in progress, or even a stepping stone. It's a good camera.

Your M7? Sure! Why not? The M8 is what we haven, though, and a good choice. You are adding... A full framed sensor (heck, even NIKON is going to be doing THAT!) with native ISO ratings set in increments of what you are used to, and setable on the camera top, a different style of bottom plate access, and... Well, your shutter describes the M8, I think- no? It's electonically controlled...

Along with that (sorry, reading the Leica threads on Another Site) how about customizable firmware (Heeheehee!)

...

Anyway. Tongue in cheek, and discussion points.

 

[AusDLK]

I completely agree with your M7-D "design" -- except scatch the LCD. Leave the back of the camera (and its depth) alone. And even the 1.3x crop factor would be okay since a FF alternative doesn't appear to be technologically viable now.

Leica blew it with the M8 -- I've tried several time to learn to like it.

The thing is that if Leica had made the "M7-D" as you described, 99% of the people like the M8 as it is would have bought it anyway. And all the "I just wanted a digital M7" who push the M8 aside as not "M-like" enough (and there are a lot of us) would also have pulled the trigger -- that adds up to lots more of these cameras being sold.

This is a case where I wish the more traditional thinkers in Solms had won out.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

Why must the camera have a appallingly noisy motorized mechanism?

That's an appalling exaggeration. If you own an M8 yourself, and it is "appallingly noisy", I recommend having it sent for a check-up. Mine makes noise, but it is far quieter than my Canon 5D...actually, than any SLR I own, except, probably, than my Digital Rebel. It depends on the environment.

 

[Richard Marks]

Recently, I part-exchanged my Leica M6 for a second hand MP. At the dealer's shop, I also had some hand experience with the M8 and M7. I'd say I am somewhat dissapointed with the M8 but quite happy with the M7, particularly its quiet shutter. I just wonder why Leica can't design a digital M based on M7.

Leica is the pianeer of 24x35mm format. For me, any digital M body without full frame sensor is out of consideration. 35mm is all Leica is about, isn't it? Now, even Nikon goes full frame with D3 and Canon ushers its full-frame DSLR into 20mp realm! So the Leica M7d must have a full frame sensor with resolution at between 14mp to 16mp, the higher the better. I'd like to see normal sensor speed setting with Leica, say iso50-3200 on the M7d rather than the weired iso160-2500 range. The shutter on the M7d is fully electronically controlled except for the B setting which is more power-efficient if being mechenical, I deem. The top-plate layout is similar to MP. And the rewind nob on MP will be replaced by a manually set sensor speed dial with a range of 50-3200. The frame counter will be replaced by a LCD showing the number of frames left and the power capacity. On the base plate of the M7d, there will be an opening from which you can remove battery and storage cards ( ideally CF, SD compatible). The base plate can be detached from the body in a traditionaly way. But doing so, you also detach the sensor from the body for cleaning, much like Leica's digital back for SLR.

Above is an ideal digital Leica M for me. What do you think of it???

Im not sure why we still persist with the totally invalid DSLR comparisons. Even if the M8 had 10x the resolution at full frame, it is not an SLR. The images from a rangefinder |(film or digital) are very different to those from an SLR and the whole style of taking is also different. Even if the M becomes full frame, its not going to have 10 frames per second auto everything and a dozen metering modes. If it did it would be 2x the size. The only relevant comparison is with a film rangefinder. In my opinion the resolution of the M8 has gone well beyond what I was achieving with my film M so Im happy. The real leica tradgedy is that the R system is looking very shaky. I have previously owned an R8 and the R lenses were superb. I am told by one of our London dealers that they sell a very large number of r lenses for use on Canon DSLR's. I really hope leica can make a digital R series camera some time soon.

best wishes

David

 

[POINT OF VIEW]

M8 verses what?

M8 verses what?

I totally agree with David. Why do people continually compare the Canon D5 to the M8? The M8 is really one of a kind. There is no other camera with the same design , that I am aware of. Bill

Im not sure why we still persist with the totally invalid DSLR comparisons. Even if the M8 had 10x the resolution at full frame, it is not an SLR. The images from a rangefinder |(film or digital) are very different to those from an SLR and the whole style of taking is also different. Even if the M becomes full frame, its not going to have 10 frames per second auto everything and a dozen metering modes. If it did it would be 2x the size. The only relevant comparison is with a film rangefinder. In my opinion the resolution of the M8 has gone well beyond what I was achieving with my film M so Im happy. The real leica tradgedy is that the R system is looking very shaky. I have previously owned an R8 and the R lenses were superb. I am told by one of our London dealers that they sell a very large number of r lenses for use on Canon DSLR's. I really hope leica can make a digital R series camera some time soon.

best wishes

David

 

[Ororaro]

I completely agree with your M7-D "design" -- except scatch the LCD. Leave the back of the camera (and its depth) alone. And even the 1.3x crop factor would be okay since a FF alternative doesn't appear to be technologically viable now.

Leica blew it with the M8 -- I've tried several time to learn to like it.

The thing is that if Leica had made the "M7-D" as you described, 99% of the people like the M8 as it is would have bought it anyway. And all the "I just wanted a digital M7" who push the M8 aside as not "M-like" enough (and there are a lot of us) would also have pulled the trigger -- that adds up to lots more of these cameras being sold.

This is a case where I wish the more traditional thinkers in Solms had won out.

Leica blew it on the M8? That's just your own opinion, right?

I think Leica did their best and came up with the best they could. I personally think they did a great job.

 

[anselwannab]

I always find in it interesting when people say that since it is a Leica they have to have a 36x24 sensor. Wasn't it Leica that really shok things up by taking everyone from 120 film to 35mm film. In no way shape or form does 35mm stand up to medium format except in utility.

As DSLRs get bigger and shoot video and sound and have owner manuals like phonebooks, I think there is a real opportunity for Leica in the area of maxing out the envelope corner of small size and image quality.

To me the real problem with crop sensors is that they have not been followed by the smaller bosies and appropriate lenses. My 20D is a monster next to my F1N. It would be like using med format lenses on a Nikon. The new lenses should be shorter FL (obviously) and need to be smaller and have larger max apertures. Potentially cheaper is also a benefit.

You loose sensativity and add noise when you use smaller photosites when you go from a larger sensor to a smaller sensor. But for apples to apples you need to use a shorter FL lens, with a larger aperture. I've never seen it done, but take a D200 with a 30/1.4 versus a 5D at 50/2.

Is the noise you gain from a smaller sensor made up by the fact that for the same DOF you would have a faster lens?

Olympus has a 180/2.0 lens right? How would this compare to a D3 with a 300/2.8 or 400/2.8.

That's why I think the real issue is that for crop cameras you need faster lenses, and since the image circle is smaller, this should be possible.

That is unless there is something magical in the world of physics and optics that makes that the sweet-spot of image technology.

Mark

 

[HAnkg]

I completely agree with your M7-D "design" -- except scatch the LCD.

Leica blew it with the M8 -- I've tried several time to learn to like it.

Leica would have lost ten times as many customers as they would have picked up if they left off the LCD. Leica accomplished what they set out to do -make a digital M that would succeed in the marketplace. They may not have satisfied everyone -that's no surprise. Everyone has their own ideas about what they would have done if it was up to them. I certainly would have done some things differently.

As far as blowing it. I'm sure Leica management could not be more pleased with the results of the M8 despite it's rocky launch. Thanks to the success of the M8 and it's halo effect on the sales of other Leica products there will be more (and better) digital M's in the future. Perhaps a future model will meet with your approval. In the mean time Leica is looking for the first time in a decade like it might have a future.

 

[Ororaro]

Leica would have lost ten times as many customers as they would have picked up if they left off the LCD. Leica accomplished what they set out to do -make a digital M that would succeed in the marketplace. They may not have satisfied everyone -that's no surprise. Everyone has their own ideas about what they would have done if it was up to them. I certainly would have done some things differently.

As far as blowing it. I'm sure Leica management could not be more pleased with the results of the M8 despite it's rocky launch. Thanks to the success of the M8 and it's halo effect on the sales of other Leica products there will be more (and better) digital M's in the future. Perhaps a future model will meet with your approval. In the mean time Leica is looking for the first time in a decade like it might have a future.

Exact.

If they listened to AusDLK or to such recommendations, they would be bankrupt today.

People, let's not mix our own personal views with the market reality out there.

 

[photocrazy]

Though there are lots of defence for M8. I believe the trend is full-frame sensor. Nikon joined the league with the launch of D3. Sony is sure to join up as Nikon's CMOS sensor is provided by Sony. The alliance between Sony and Carl Zeiss makes it more likely that a Zeiss Ikon uses a full sensor if it goes digital. Full frame sensor doesn't just mean better image quality but also giving Leica lenses their full potentials. I am not that rich. I'd like to keep my current Summicron line-up as they are. With M8, I will lose 35mm and 90mm becomes an uncomfortable 117mm. I am very interested in a Summilux 35mm. But on M8, it turns to be a standard lens.

Further more, other manufecturers are improving their compact DC vigorously. Canon G9 also aims at photojournalists. Now Leica even increases M8's price!!! Even though I can squeeze out some money for a M8 body, I am still unable to afford a shake-up of the lens build-up.

 

[Ben Z]

From what I'm led to understand, the proximity of the exit pupil of non-retrofocus rangefinder wide-angle lenses w.r.t. the image plane creates a major problem with digital because the pixels are inside little wells and the well walls block light rays coming in at a steep angle. That's why there have to be microlenses over the sensor to channel the light rays into those wells. That technology was pioneered on the Epson, but there is still some serious vignetting. The M8 although it has significantly less of a crop factor, has less vignetting (try a C/V 15 on both cameras and this will become immediately apparent). So microlens technology improved, but apparently not enough yet for decent performance on a 24x36mm sensor. If that hurdle is jumped then I expect Leica will implement a FF sensor. I'm sure if/when they can get the results people expect without needing IR filters on lenses they'll do that too (although that will pose quite a logistical headache for people using an M8 as a second body, unless M9 has anti-cyan-drift correction also). However I believe Leica will do these things because they will be exciting and beneficial to their loyalist customers, not because they feel compelled to keep up with the state of the art. They managed to keep the R line going well past the time autofocus was accepted and even embraced by the mainstream of professional photographers. Despite much vocal dissidence on the 'net, most guys in Leica's bread-and-butter market imbue every Leica-branded product with qualities that put it out front of any others.

 

[victoriapio]

Why can't a digital M's shutter be recocked manually? Why must the camera have a appallingly noisy motorized mechanism?

The RD-1s uses the manual recock and I really like it. Some reviewers (Luminous Landscape among them) didn't care for it. I know that manually cocking it reminds me of my old Leica film days - it slows me down, opens my eyes so to speak - and the kind of pictures I took back then. But I really appreciate the quietness of the manual cocking and what that small amount of time it takes to "crank it" does to help me "see" better.

O.C.

 

[Joop van Heijgen]

Leica blew it on the M8? That's just your own opinion, right?

I think Leica did their best and came up with the best they could. I personally think they did a great job.

"I think Leica did their best and came up with the best they could. I personally think they did a great job."

The Leica customers did their best and came up with the best they could: they bought the M8!

Unfortunately this camera is too much in repair and Solms has not the opportunity to 'communicate' with its customers!

 

[jaapv]

Speak for yourself; mine are doing fine since November! The detractors may scream what they like - a vocal minority-, the customers are putting their money in the camera in droves.