Trius
Waiting on Maitani
Ex-squeeze me, but some of the best vinyl is NOW being pressed, and even high end digital (far better than the ca. 1982 "Perfect Sound Forever" [ha!]) still only matches or barely exceeds a superb analog recording.
That said ... digital in the form of the M8 is seductive to me. Why? I have seen wonderful stuff from the R-D1(s).
That said ... digital in the form of the M8 is seductive to me. Why? I have seen wonderful stuff from the R-D1(s).
Bike Tourist
Well-known
shutterflower said:
I have to differ a little, George. I will admit to selling off some Nikon gear to pay for my re-aquired Leica habit, but my D200 is an absolute, drop dead keeper with sterling performance for my needs. For me personally, it is not awful, it is awesome!
paultreacy
PHOTOHUMOURIST
What Leica needs to do, I think, is design a digital M into which you can install updated chips as the technology progresses over the years. That way they'll be able to continue building cameras that people will hang onto for years to come. That might give them an edge. http://www.yellowbellybooks.com
nrb
Nuno Borges
I'm wondering ...
I'm wondering ...
how much of a difference there will be between that M8 and any dSLR
I'm wondering ...
how much of a difference there will be between that M8 and any dSLR
Nachkebia
Well-known
nrb : there will be one and big difference! size! size of the body and lenses...
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Toby said:
The resolution has nothing to do with camera quality. That legend has long been exploded. The rangefider on a Leica M camera alone costs more to build than the whole Sony camera. Comparing these two cameras is not apples and pears, but apples and cheese.....Actually the Leica is not priced extremely high compared to other camera's like the top of the line Canons, Nikons etc.
Last edited:
Eddyboy
Newbie
Trius said:
To be sure! I still have all my vinyl as well. ...Look at the available selection of players and titles. Great stuff is out there as part of a very tiny niche, supported by a few folks with bat-like hearing who can appreciate the differences. Continued existence of the LP record medium in vestigial form is exactly the model towards which film is heading. Again, it doesn't matter if I like it or not. It is what it is.
amateriat
We're all light!
'Taint the "what", but the "how": I learned this when switiching from a pair of high-zoot AF SLRs (Minolta 9xi) to my current pair of Konica Hexar RFs. Whole different way of shooting, and, to my sensibilites at least, better. One buys a Leica M-mount rangefinder not for some mythical powers it might bestow on one's photographic prowess (well, I hope not, anyway), but for the unique experience and potential advantages such a camera can offer. The digital M will establish its own not-so-tiny niche (I prefdict the degree of its adoption by the PJ cognoscenti will surprise a lot of us), not by way of a toe-to-toe comparison with cheaper dSLRs du jour, but by offer a shooting exeperience those cameras can't offer. I, being quite shallow-of-pocket, won't be one of them, which is just as well. I'm having a ball with what I have.nrb said:
- Barrett
Last edited:
Bob Ross
Well-known
nrb,Aside from the hardware and shooting style addressed by others, the M8 does have a good chance of producing a better digital file, than the present crop of DSLRs (other than the DMR). The image files are supposed to be like the DMR, using the same sensor, no AA filter and using 16 bit depth. The Kodak KAF-FFT family of sensors is used in the Oly E-1, DMR and the Phase One P30 and P45 medium format backs. The E-1 that I have uses a fairly strong AA filter and 12 bit depth. It has very good tonal and color gradients, that I prefer over the competition, as it seem more film like to me. There is good potential here with the small size, good lenses and digital image quality. Then it always goes to what is good enough for your purposes...
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
This thread is so long I've forgotten when rumoured release date is ... Photokina in Sept? Anyway, if you go to the Leica USA site, you can find Leica Days at various Leica dealers. The Toronto event is Oct. 27-28, so maybe I'll make the trip up and we can have a RFF meetup. Other RFF regions might be able to do that as well.
Larry Kellogg
Established
Eddyboy said:
Well, I don't think it takes bat-like hearing to appreciate the qualities of an analog recording as preserved on vinyl. The difference in the sound is clearly audible. LPs have a more organic feel to them and sound more like music to me, even though there is more noise on records and the frequency response is not as wide. A lot is made of what is missing from CDs, namely noise, but a lot can't be said for what is on CDs.
Sometimes the CD is better than the corresponding LP, but in many cases the original LP sounds better than the CD, mainly because of how the CD was messed up during production. Of course, I have both CDs and LPs. There is a huge supply of vinyl out there, in finished form, ready to be played on any turntable. We have over fifty years worth of LPs. As for new stuff, it is hard to say if vinyl production will be around in the years to come. Probably not, as better digital formats become available. But, there will always be music in those grooves!
Digital capture is taking the world by storm, mainly because it is so easy and because everyone has a computer for post-processing. I think it is great to not have to produce a physical artifact of every single shot. It frees me up to experiment, without having to pay for that experimentation. I never have to think I have wasted a frame of film when shooting digitally.
Regards,
Larry
JohnL
Very confused
I haven't voted on this because there's no option that exactly fits my thinking. If I could get a digital full-frame M-mount RF body for a reasonable price (say $3K or thereabouts), I probably would, and sooner rather than later. Why full-frame? Because my RF lenses were chosen for full-frame - i.e. for film. Even after having an APS DSLR (Canon 10D), all the lenses I got for it had a FF image circle, and were chosen with future FF in mind, so they also worked fine on my EOS 3 and on the 5D I have now. So when I think about taking a picture, I know what focal length I need for it, without calculations. I did the math when I was using the 10D, but it's one less thing to worry about now. How long will I have to wait for this camera? Don't know, but I'd be surprised if it was more than another three years or so.
egpj
50 Summilux is da DEVIL!
Not interested because I want a camera that I do not have to send my lenses off and have them modified in order to be able to use them. The big thing though is that I want a Black and White only sensor that uses 100% of the sensor for black and white capture. Is that so hard? Seems like it would be cheaper to produce one of these rather then dealing with color.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
@ Larry{about vinyl records}
I always understood CD's cut off at 20 and 20.000 Hz. My cartrige responds from 10 to 30.000 Hz within 3Db. I always understood the ability to respond to "inaudible" overtones was one of the reasons that vinyl sounds more natural
I always understood CD's cut off at 20 and 20.000 Hz. My cartrige responds from 10 to 30.000 Hz within 3Db. I always understood the ability to respond to "inaudible" overtones was one of the reasons that vinyl sounds more natural
Dougg
Seasoned Member
As I understand it from other posts here, Glenn, is that the coding is not necessary to continue to use the lenses, just a way to convey lens info for the EXIF data, and possibly a nicety or two in pre-processing the image file that could nearly as easily be done later. Not a deal-breaker, I would think.egpj said:
nrb
Nuno Borges
Since a full frame sensor is technically possible, it will be a matter of time, hopefully short, until it will be mounted on a rangefinder body...
The full frame sensor is vital for the survival of the whole rangefinder concept, since it is based, quite unlike the SLRs, around 3 prime focals, 35, 50 and 90 mm.
The full frame sensor is vital for the survival of the whole rangefinder concept, since it is based, quite unlike the SLRs, around 3 prime focals, 35, 50 and 90 mm.
Last edited:
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
nrb said:
??? At the present time a 35 mm sensor is technically impossible for a range-finder, until somebody finds a way to increase the acceptance angle of the edges.The lens is closer to the sensor than a DSLR, making the angle of incidence a lot more acute. Full-frame is an irritating misnomer, as it means maybe a 18x28 cm size sensor , as it implies that the sensor is the size of the final print.....
Focal length- the ones you mention are just hallowed by tradition, but by no means the only possibilities. For 645 format your focal lengths would be pretty wide-angle, for 110 it would be tele. For your information, the only "zoom"lens for rangefinder on the market, the Tri-Elmar, has the focal lengths of 28-35-50, which means the field of view is better fitted to a 27 mm sensor (like the M8) than to a 35 mm sensor.
Last edited:
R
Rich Silfver
Guest
I must admit that the thought of a digital Leica M is growing on me and I am increasingly curious to see how it will turn out.
I can't believe that Photokina is just 8 weeks or so away and that no photos of the camera has leaked.
I can't believe that Photokina is just 8 weeks or so away and that no photos of the camera has leaked.
fgianni
Trainee Amateur
egpj said:
In theory a traditional Bayer sensor without the CFA becomes a B&W sensor, and it probably gains quite a bit in terms of sensitivity. The problem is: has anyone got the guts to release a camera that is unable to take colour pictures?
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
Hi Francesco,
Kodak sold a black and white DSLR once. I don't think they were particularly successful.
Philipp
Kodak sold a black and white DSLR once. I don't think they were particularly successful.
Philipp