Digital M Update

The "made in germany" thing may be a misdirection, considering that the sensor size is quoted as being the same size as the existing DMR. The shutter is the same as the R9 SLR. For Leica, which is a relatively small underfunded company to come out with a Digital M in such a short timeframe they would have to consider ways to adapt components already in production, and available. The R9 shutter being one example. No need to reinvent the wheel when a perfectly good shutter that has shown itself to work with a digital sensor is available, tooling already being amortized, etc. My guess is that the same Kodak sensor used in the DMR will be utilized with a different set of front filter elements (micro-lenses) to compensate for the shorter distance from imager to lens issues. Perhaps there is a vendor in Germany that will take the basic Kodak sensor and modify it with the "offset" microlense assemblies, therefore making the sensor "assembly", "made in Germany". AFAIK there are no "unknown" sensor manufacturers in the worldwide market.
 
zeos 386sx said:
(snip)Someone help me with the math. What does a full-frame 11 megapixel CCD become if you don't use all of it and give it a 1.33 lens factor?
Click to expand...

6.2 MP.

For RF, I really feel we need FF sensors, in order to use existing lenses. It's the wide end where RFs are strongest.
 
Trius said:
Dalsa was a customer of mine WAY back when CCDs were just becoming commercially viable. They've continued to evolve and grow, providing OEM products for pretty high-end applications. This could be interesting.

Trius
Click to expand...

If leica was able to use a completely original sensor, pictures shot with it might have a disticnt look. Hmm, cant wait till somebody gets their hands on one.
 
JohnL said:
6.2 MP.

For RF, I really feel we need FF sensors, in order to use existing lenses. It's the wide end where RFs are strongest.
Click to expand...


Exactly. However, it's precisely this situation in which current sensor technology struggles with legacy lenses. Leica's best approach will be to redesign its superwides.

At some point, it's prudent and necessary to let go of the past. This insistence on pleasing all of the users all of the time simply cannot be applied to digital. I might add that this approach can have some benefits because it forces people to think of new ways to improve existing technology. It may well happen that Leica engineers find a way to allow super wide angle lenses to be used with a digital sensor that don't cause light falloff.
 
You FF guys are going the wrong way, the advantages of a smaller format are overwhelming,

It's the cost of new fast wide angle lenses that needs the work.
 
Nah, I had one of those in Leitz R fit, cost me 3500GBP, it was HUGE, and a bug crawled inside and stuck on the back of the front element. The CLA fee was ridiculous ! I sold the lens to a more optimistic enthusiatic dealer. The Bug was in focus in every shot.

That thing was just a big waste of money, I put 2000GBP in my pocket AFTER I'd bought the VC 12.
 
JohnL,
Thank you for doing the math - I would have been guessing.

It sounds like Phototone is right. Leica will probably use the DMR's Kodak sensor and just have it adapted for the Digital M in Germany. It makes sense to do it that way.

By this time Leica should have the DMR sensor figured out. Digital M purchasers will be getting the benefit of that experience and probably not face as many bugs. At least I hope thats true since I plan to be a Digital M purchaser.
 
On the German Leica site there is a post that says the sensor is made in Germany.

Hopefully they'll call the cam the M8, and leave digital out of it. I think we all know that its a digital cam.

 
Not that I will be able to afford one probably until the M15 is on the market, but the points specified (not FF but 1.33 factor, R9 shutter) sound a lot more realistic than some of the options that were floating around...

So maybe it's a clue that they are on the right way.
 
Hektor said:
Whats wrong with a VC 12 ?............=18mm on FF
Click to expand...
Nothing "wrong" with VC 12, except that on a crop sensor its FOV is no longer the same as on FF. Also, IIRC, this lens does not have a very convenient arrangement for using filters.
Most of us have a set of lenses with focal lengths that have been chosen for use on 35mm. To get the same utility, we'd need different lenses on a smaller format.
 
JohnL said:
Nothing "wrong" with VC 12, except that on a crop sensor its FOV is no longer the same as on FF. Also, IIRC, this lens does not have a very convenient arrangement for using filters.
Most of us have a set of lenses with focal lengths that have been chosen for use on 35mm. To get the same utility, we'd need different lenses on a smaller format.
Click to expand...

You just use the correct viewfinder for the revised focal length after applying the 'crop factor' = no problem.

VC sell a filter adapter for this lens that takes standard filters, it works great, = no problem.
 
JohnL said:
Most of us have a set of lenses with focal lengths that have been chosen for use on 35mm. To get the same utility, we'd need different lenses on a smaller format.
Click to expand...

One of the nice things about the Nikon-format 1.5x crop factor (as used on the R-D 1) is that it corresponds pretty well with the rough 1.5x steps between common 35mm lens focal lengths.

This means that for parity between your 35mm camera and your digital RF, you don't need to buy a full set of new lenses -- you probably just need to add one more lens at the wide end. And the spacing between focal lengths is still roughly what you're used to, so you don't have to learn new habits when making judgments about what lens to put on the camera.

For example, if your normal 35mm kit is 28, 35, 50 and 75mm lenses, you just add one more lens at the wide end -- a 19mm would be ideal, but a 21 isn't too far off. This way:

The 21 on your digital roughly equates to the 28 on your film camera (actually 30ish)
The 28 on your digital roughly equates to the 35 on your film camera (actually 42)
The 35 on your digital roughly equates to the 50 on your film camera (actually 52)
The 50 on your digital equates to the 75 on your film camera.

This is actually an advantage if you ever want to shoot film and digital at the same time: You don't need to switch the same lens from one body to another, you can just put the two adjacent lenses on your digital and film bodies and cover roughly the same angle of view.
 
I'm happy :) It will turn my 135 into a 180, something I've long wished for. I'm not very good at Wide-angle. And if the sensor is indeed similar to the DMR, I'm happier still. There is none better at the moment, if we are to believe the raves on, for instance, the FM forum.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom