FF upgrade possible?

[mark-b]

I don't know if it's already been discussed, but I wonder if it would be possible in the near future to upgrade the M8 to a FF sensor?

If so, that is one upgrade I would be saving up for. It would certainly save a lot of R&D work on an M9; just offer upgrade service to an M8.ff

 

[greggebhardt]

I really think if it was possible to have FF in a M8, it would have been installed at the factory. Leica went to great lengths to get the quality out of the sensor they are using now.

I think when (and if) Leica does have a full frame M digital, it will be a whole new camera.

But anything is possible

 

[Bill Blackwell]

Emphatically - NO.

Assuming the technology were currently in place for a full-frame digital sensor for use in an M camera (which it is not), an "upgrade" would involve a new shutter, new frame-line masking, and a new light shield (just for starters). Such an extensive upgrade would not be practical, which is why this discussion revolves around a future M9 (not some M8.* incarnation).

This has been discussed in substantial detail on this and other forums.

 

[Ben Z]

In this day and age, I'm sure would be possible to convert the M8 to FF (once the Leica has the technology to make a FF M9) just like it's possible to convert a Mercedes C300 into a C63. Along with the new engine, it would require a new starter, alternator, fuel injection, exhaust, transmission, differential, suspension...you get the idea. In the end it would cost well more than a new one, and probably have a lower resale value.

 

[jaapv]

I don't know if it's already been discussed, but I wonder if it would be possible in the near future to upgrade the M8 to a FF sensor?

If so, that is one upgrade I would be saving up for. It would certainly save a lot of R&D work on an M9; just offer upgrade service to an M8.ff

What is it with the Holy Status of 24x36 sensors😕😕

The Japanese marketing Griffon seems to get its claws into the rangefinder customer base from time to time🙄

Full frame is a nonsense term anyway - it means that the sensor/negative is the same size as the print- so a 135 "full frame"camera is useful only for passport mug shots...

Yes- it would be nice to have a DRF that will use the full image coverage of the traditional Leica lenses, but in terms of photographic results the gain is marginal at the very best.
It certainly would not be an upgrade to a new body I would pay a significant amount of money for. Now if we were talking larger pixels, with a significantly higher dynamic range, THAT would be the thing to have. But I doubt Leica could sell a 10 Mp 24x36 sensor camera to a Megapixel-crazed general public.....

 

[kbg32]

Not to be rude, but when will these discussions and threads ever end.....

 

[jaapv]

In a several years time they will be replaced by " The corners on my M8 look far better than the corners on my Mxx - threads.....🙄

 

[kbg32]

In a several years time they will be replaced by " The corners on my M8 look far better than the corners on my Mxx - threads.....🙄

Yup.... 🙂

 

[johannielscom]

to the OP:

If you use this link to search for terms "M8" and "Full frame", you get this result.

Read to your hearts content, we've all been over it substantially in the recent past.

 

[greggebhardt]

Would everyone be willing to have the M9 about 20% larger than their M8 for full frame?

 

[Bill Blackwell]

Would everyone be willing to have the M9 about 20% larger than their M8 for full frame?

The full-frame (or lack thereof) issue in an M camera body revolves around the distance between the digital sensor and the rear element. AFAIK, the size of the Body is not a factor at all.

In any case, I can only speak for myself, but the answer to your question is most likely not.

 

[bmattock]

What is it with the Holy Status of 24x36 sensors😕😕

The Japanese marketing Griffon seems to get its claws into the rangefinder customer base from time to time🙄

Full frame is a nonsense term anyway - it means that the sensor/negative is the same size as the print- so a 135 "full frame"camera is useful only for passport mug shots...

Besides the inherent advantages of larger sensors over smaller ones in terms of signal noise, there is also the 'DoF' advantage of the larger sensor, and not to be overlooked, the advantage of using one's lenses in their stated range - a 50mm lens being indeed a 50mm lens, etc.

When one has no legacy 35mm autofocus product to protect, such as Olympus, one is at liberty to create a new format, and indeed, the 35mm 'full frame' means little. They never had anything beyond the manual focus OM series.

Companies like Nikon and Canon, and to some extent Sony and Pentax, which have an actual professional user base with expensive glass designed for AF 35mm film cameras, have an impetus to create FF sensors to keep that advantage for the people who need or want it.

There is something to be said for both. Neither FF nor 'smaller than FF, but bigger than a digicam' are inherently bad or good. It's down to use and need.

 

[jaapv]

?? The focal length does not change. I can assure you your 50 mm lens is still a 50 mm lens... The only thing that changes is the angle of view.

 

[ashrafazlan]

Iso performance of the m8 sucks, plain and simple. A fullframe sensor with the same mpx count would greatly improve it. There's only so much you can do with a smaller sensor before physics come into place.

 

[__hh]

Let those who have ***never*** asked a question that has already been asked before cast the first stone!

Mark... I do hope that there is an option to upgrade the M8.x into a FF camera one day. Unless there is a physical limitation of the FF sensor size in the back of that camera, we can only hope. Now, the other question... how much would that cost and is it worth it for a potential upgrader? That's the trickier question.

 

[jaapv]

Iso performance of the m8 sucks, plain and simple. A fullframe sensor with the same mpx count would greatly improve it. There's only so much you can do with a smaller sensor before physics come into place.

Does it? I must remember that when I get highly satisfactory available darkness shots at 1250...... Two misconceptions:

1.The M8 must be exposed differently from DSLRs, the shadows must be properly exposed. Any underexposure will indeed produce shadow noise.
2.All other cameras have in-camera noise reduction. The M8 does not That means that for 2500 and sometimes 1250 iso one must do what other cameras do for you, i.e. run Noise Ninja or similar.

It is quite possible to get clean shots up to 640, shots that do not need noisereduction at 1250 and decent shots after noisereduction at 2500 using proper technique.
Tests show that objective noise-performance of the M8 is behind the current Nikons but of a similar level as the 5DII.

Nb.2500 ISO=3200, 1250=1600 etc...

 

[daveywaugh]

Tests show that objective noise-performance of the M8 is behind the current Nikons but of a similar level as the 5DII.

Jaapv - is that really so? Big call. Tests I have seen have been rather negative of it's high ISO capabilities both in 'real world' shooting and in the lab. Certainly compared too the 5DmkII anyway. But hey, it's still very good overall and I have certainly enjoyed looking at samples of high ISO pics from the M8 here on RFF - noise maybe, but certainly a 'nice' noise.

This is none of my business anyway (seeing I don't own an M8) but I love reading these threads... mainly because I love the idea of the M8 and it's the only digital camera in existence today that I desire to own 🙂 FF or not.

I think though that the OP deserves a bit of slack - I can understand where he's coming from. For years Nikon owners said exactly the same thing... we don't need full frame... blah blah. DX is perfect... Now would any of those people be willing to trade a D700 or D3 to go back... I don't think so!

It's not that there is anything 'wrong' with a crop factor - just that there is so much RIGHT about FF. Anyone considering an investment in something like an M8 wants to have a clear upgrade path. If it were $2000 I don't think anyone would care frankly.

 

[greggebhardt]

The full-frame (or lack thereof) issue in an M camera body revolves around the distance between the digital sensor and the rear element. AFAIK, the size of the Body is not a factor at all.

In any case, I can only speak for myself, but the answer to your question is most likely not.

My point is that a full frame M would have to be a little bigger. 🙁 I still think it would be better to start a whole new camera.😱 Leica did everything they could to keep the M8 like previous M cameras.

Now is the time to leave the M body behind and do what ever it takes to get the job done!😱

 

[jaapv]

Well, making the rash assumption that there will even be a 24x36 sensor that is suitable for RF lenses available at some point in the future, the body will certainly have to be redesigned, as the current shutter and camera throat are too small. That should be possible in a body of the same size or smaller as the camera will use the Maestro chip instead of ready-made electronic parts, which saves quite a lot of internal space and it seems probable that power consumption will be less for that reason, so a smaller battery will be an option as well.

Having said that, it may well turn out that a 1.33 sensor is the optimum size for a DRF for the forseeable future, and that the Leica product line will be as follows: S2 with MF sensor (more or less) R10 with 24x36 sensor and M9 with 1.33 sensor, all based on the new S2 chip and electronics.

That the M lenses are still being designed for 24x36 does not impact this scenario at all, for two reasons. Firstly Leica has no intention of giving up the film M line and secondly they would look rather foolish should some breakthrough in the future enable a 24x36 DRF sensor after all.

 

[bmattock]

?? The focal length does not change. I can assure you your 50 mm lens is still a 50 mm lens... The only thing that changes is the angle of view.

That's playing games with words. A 50mm lens behaves as if it were a longer lens, depending on the crop factor, as you well know. Let's not play silly buggers here.