Digital M rot: Something is wrong with Leica and why no other rangefinders?

[Roger Hicks]

The M8, for all its technological advantages at the time of release, is a dinosaur of a camera now.

The A7, IQ wise, is the equivalent of the M type 240 in most regards. I won't go into debates about low pass filter and resolution, but my experience is that the A7 at least is cleaner above iso 1600 and offers greater dynamic range at base iso. The AWB on the A7 goes to the yellow side, the M240 trends blue after the firmware update and yellow before. In either way the difference is marginal, both have updated, modern FF sensors capable of handling complex light and produce both versatile raw files and decent Jpegs.

The M8 does not. The CCD on the M8 simply cannot deliver the same level of quality as larger modern sensors, and the camera is incredibly slow and unresponsive by 2014 standards. My takeaway is that it is even slower than a film body, since with film there is no file write time and no startup lag. I don't doubt that in the right hands it can produce amazing images, but personally (as I believe many if not most users on this forum) I see a camera that can only reliably go up to iso 640, require UV/IR filters for every lens when shooting in strong light and can only buffer around 7-8 raw files as being too limited for day-to-day work.

This and the fact that used M8s are still considerably more expensive than new A7s as of now...a good conditioned used M8 is upwards of $1800 these days, you can find plenty of used A7s around the $1200-1300 mark. Throw in the set of IR filters and the price of M8 accessories and the difference may be much greater.

Put a rangefinder on an A7 and I'll look at it again. Oh: and add software corrections for 80+ years of lenses.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Steve M.]

Obamacare? On a photography forum? This is nuts.

 

[YYV_146]

Highlight 1: Most of them hopelessly ill-informed.

Highlight 2: See above.

Highlight 3: Which, if you want a rangefinder camera, is the only place for them.

Not mentioned in your list of fantasies: compatibility with 80+ years of earlier lenses; patents.

Why do you THINK no-one else has made a fully Leica-compatible 24x36 digital body? Spite? Or might it be more likely that they cannot do it at a price the fantasists want?

Cheers,

R.

No need to start an argument over this, but this is such a small market, the big players probably don't care enough to invest in ensuring compatibility with Leica lenses. And "full" compatibility isn't what the majority of adapter users need. Most people need compatibility with their own set of lenses, which would likely be 35mm and 50mm primes, and not the symmetric wide angles that cause problems with digital sensors.

Not to mention that Leica itself cannot handle many RF wides well, such as the 15mm Hologon and some versions of the Super-Angulon. Collapsable lenses may also damage digital sensors, which Leica does not have a fix for. Leica's coding also does not cover third-party lenses, many of which have significant color cast issues on pretty any digital sensor (CV 15mm, Zeiss 25mm Biogon). There can be no "perfect" compatibility with Leica's 80 years of history, as it is as much limited by the laws of physics as it is limited by R&D. So we have some cameras that are not of Leica make, but can handle around 70% of all M lenses very well (everything >= 50mm, most 35mm's and some below 35), while the Leica bodies can maybe handle up to 90%.

IMO the A7 is as close to a M lens digital back as I could possibly want. I have to shuffle my kit for compatibility, but I also realize that I will still need to give up certain lenses even if I were to use an M9 or M240. Ignoring the handling and the RF/EVF debate and only speaking about IQ for now, the M240 only makes sense if you significantly invested in the 20% of M lenses that truly make a difference on the two bodies.

My current kit is the CV 12mm Heliar, the 21mm Summilux, 28mm Elmarit ASPH, 35mm and 50mm Summilux ASPH, 75mm Summilux and the 90mm Summicron pre-a. None of these lenses have any color cast on the A7, yet the 12mm Heliar shows significant red corner on the M type 240. Corner sharpness on most of them is a bit better on the M, but at a wide open DOF I hardly ever notice the difference. When I shoot stopped down and with a tripod, there is essentially no difference in corner resolution.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Obamacare? On a photography forum? This is nuts.

Not really. People who don't understand one thing often resort to comparisons with something else they don't understand either. This is probably equally true of both left and right. If they do understand it, they generally feel less need to introduce half-digested and often bilious politics.

Then again, once the half-digested and bilious politics have been introduced, it can be hard not to point out that someone is an idiot. I'm getting better at resisting the temptation, but I know at least one person who has left the forum because of the gibbering idiots.

Also -- personally -- I care more about health care than about cameras.

Cheers,

R.

 

[YYV_146]

Put a rangefinder on an A7 and I'll look at it again. Oh: and add software corrections for 80+ years of lenses.

Cheers,

R.

In-camera software correction is always a poor choice compared to on-computer processing. There are several order of magnitudes of processing power difference between a camera processor and even the bare minimum system requirement for Photoshop. As many have pointed out, Leica's correction profiles are not perfect, but simply removes color cast while reducing vignetting to an acceptable level. For critical landscape work it is still better to close in camera correction and rely on mask overlay tools such as Cornerfix, which removes all luminance vignetting from a photo.

Of course only Leica will have an RF patch, and will expect people to pay for a premium for the full RF experience. And I totally understand - there is something special to using an RF. On the other hand, I also see something special in being able to preview exposure and white balance with an EVF. I just don't think either should be inherently superior, simply based on the virtue of being harder to manufacture or design.

 

[Roger Hicks]

In-camera software correction is always a poor choice compared to on-computer processing. There are several order of magnitudes of processing power difference between a camera processor and even the bare minimum system requirement for Photoshop. As many have pointed out, Leica's correction profiles are not perfect, but simply removes color cast while reducing vignetting to an acceptable level. For critical landscape work it is still better to close in camera correction and rely on mask overlay tools such as Cornerfix, which removes all luminance vignetting from a photo.

Of course only Leica will have an RF patch, and will expect people to pay for a premium for the full RF experience. And I totally understand - there is something special to using an RF. On the other hand, I also see something special in being able to preview exposure and white balance with an EVF. I just don't think either should be inherently superior, simply based on the virtue of being harder to manufacture or design.

Neither is. But either may be inherently preferable for any given photographer or application.

Cheers,

R.

 

[MCTuomey]

For now, I am considering an A7r for all the reasons above, especially now with the $300 off promotion. Not to take advantage of that would be pure stupidity for me.

Why only "considering" an A7r if not buying one would be "pure stupidity" on your part? What's holding you back?

 

[dct]

[...]Not to mention that Leica itself cannot handle many RF wides well, such as the 15mm Hologon and some versions of the Super-Angulon. Collapsable lenses may also damage digital sensors, which Leica does not have a fix for. Leica's coding also does not cover third-party lenses, many of which have significant color cast issues on pretty any digital sensor (CV 15mm, Zeiss 25mm Biogon). There can be no "perfect" compatibility with Leica's 80 years of history, as it is as much limited by the laws of physics as it is limited by R&D. So we have some cameras that are not of Leica make, but can handle around 70% of all M lenses very well (everything >= 50mm, most 35mm's and some below 35), while the Leica bodies can maybe handle up to 90%. [...]

I completely concur with your analysis. Looking at my M lenses I'm somewhere in the 75 % ballpark and this is why I'm planning to buy an affordable modern FF digital back (Sony A7 or competitors). The M-240 is not worth wile for my remaining 5 % of M lenses and the overall RF experience. And I don't complain: I accept the facts and my main RF bodies remain film cameras.

 

[burancap]

When I learned to stop worrying about Leica and love the art...

 

[Dez]

Not to mention that Leica itself cannot handle many RF wides well, such as the 15mm Hologon and some versions of the Super-Angulon. Collapsable lenses may also damage digital sensors, which Leica does not have a fix for. Leica's coding also does not cover third-party lenses, many of which have significant color cast issues on pretty any digital sensor (CV 15mm, Zeiss 25mm Biogon).

Why should Leica make any effort to ensure compatibility with their competitors' lenses? I believe that digital Leica bodies are put on the market as means of supporting, and encouraging the sale of, Leica's premium line of lenses. I suspect the sale of the bodies is a secondary market for them.

It is straightforward for third party manufacturers to come up with adapters for non-AF lenses for the Sony A7's, but I suspect compatibility with Leitz lenses is not a major marketing goal for Sony either, as they would much rather sell their own line of lenses. They more or less have to offer compatibility with subsidiary Minolta's AF lenses, but they only do that with a rather large and kludgy-looking adapter, which appears not to use the in-camera autofocusing mechanism (please let me know if I have that wrong).

Cheers,
Dez

 

[Roger Hicks]

Why should Leica make any effort to ensure compatibility with their competitors' lenses? I believe that digital Leica bodies are put on the market as means of supporting, and encouraging the sale of, Leica's premium line of lenses. I suspect the sale of the bodies is a secondary market for them. . .

Dear Dez,

Out of the kindness of their hearts; pure altruism; and generosity to fantasists. Why else?

Cheers,

R.