Imaging Resource posts Digital M update

[jlw]

I just noticed a new posting on the Imaging Resource website with what they claim is exclusive new info on the Leica Digital M, based on a conversation with Leica US Marketing Manager Christian Ehrhardt at CES.

Here is a link.

There's not a lot of hard info here that we haven't heard elsewhere, but the source and timeliness seem to up the confirmation level a notch. One slight downer for expectant fans is that a PMA announcement strikes the IR reporter as unlikely -- he thinks they'll hold off for Photokina.

The writeup also includes some interesting perspective, in that it constitutes an evaluation of the Digital M concept from the viewpoint of someone who's not a Leica idolator. I was particularly struck by his assessment of why a $5,000 list price would be ridiculous --- he astutely observes that film Leicas can justify high prices because older models do just as well as current ones in technology and image quality, whereas any digital Leica will be out of date in five years or so.

Not sure I agree with the full analysis (especially his doubts about focusing accuracy) but it's a thought-provoking read, and a good view of the perspective of the non-rangefinder-obsessed.

 

[Ray Kilby]

Very interesting, but where s the link? It does not appear in my browser.

Any suggestion?

 

[jlw]

You have to click on the word "Here" in "Here is the link."

It's supposed to show up in bold, but on some browsers (e.g. mine) it isn't very prominent.

I wonder how many of us include links in our posts that readers never recognize as links...? Jorge, maybe the CSS needs an edit...?

 

[waterlenz]

Great news! Time to start saving $$.
Tom

 

[RML]

Click on "Here" in JLW's post.

 

[Avotius]

hm....if it was in the 5000 dollar range I would not be very intereted, I already think the RD1 is way over priced and would never consider it. Naw, for film leica is nice, but for digital they cant treat it like a luxury item, not when the likes of Canon and Nikon are much better buys, especially if the camera doesnt have a full frame sensor...

 

[dcsang]

Some very interesting points in the article and here as well.

As it's been stated Mr Etchells makes a very good arguement regarding the price point surrounding the Leica M Digital

More to the point, a 50 year old Leica rangefinder camera married with the superb Leica optics is as technically relevant to fine-art photography today as it was the day it was manufactured. Even five years from now though, a Mdigital will almost certainly be severely out of date in terms of its technology, and will become increasingly so with each passing year -- and twenty years from now will
there even be such things as USB connectors or SD memory cards and card readers?

While some folks seem to bemoan the loss of film and film cameras - or that film will become redundant etc. I would concur that technology changes so often and so frequently that the price point is a bit extravagant for a body that, in terms of the digital realm, would be completely out of date within a couple years. It is exactly these types of technologies and advances that have kept Canon and Nikon (to a lesser extent) awash in cash since the "revolution" of "affordable" digital photography.

How many times have we seen Canon DSLR bodies become defunct or extinct after a year or two tops. In the P&S realm bodies last barely 6 months before it's been "upgraded" and superceded by the next body in the same class/series of cameras.

It's because of this "upgrade cycle", and like Avoitus stated, Leica shouldn't try to treat this as a luxury item - if they do, it'll be the final nail in their coffin imho - and the reason for that is listed in the quote above.

As for the other information, I believe having the LCD only available in playback mode is a good thing - I would hate to see some rich doctor or businessman with a Leica holding it at arms length, staring at the back of the camera, and framing the shot - it would just remind me too much of the ubiquity of the cell phone or P&S digital camera that exists now and all the annoyances that go along with it.

Like I've said before; there's more to the whole experience of photography, as an amateur/hobbyist, than having the image immediately available to you; and I think that is something a lot of folks who've jumped feet first into digital seem to forget.

Cheers
Dave

 

[Avotius]

hm....the more I think about it the more sad it is to me that leica has gone down the digital path, the idea of lasting quality is not something that I would think of with digital. I have a Canon 20D, the image quality is more then I would ever need, I can easily print 1.25x1.25 meter photos with very good quality, the high iso performance is fine with me, autofocus is fine, the only thing I dont like about it is the 1.6 sensor, and because of that one reason alone I would think about upgrading because I like to shoot wide angle.

So...its good enough for me then it would probably be good enough for most people, a 10 megapixle leica digital M would be nice to have, but with the mentality of digital, within a few years owners would be tempted to change over when the full frame version comes out (full frame is better then aps, deal with it) so where is that everlasting Lecia specialness? And at what would most definatly be a freekish price I think we have to be a little realistic about this. Leica is not doing very well, not because they cant make a good camera, but because they insist in shooting themselfs in the foot. How about that recent D-lux2? The panasonic LX1 is the exact same camera, why pay a couple hundred extra for the name and red dot? It just doesnt make sence to me.


On the other hand im sure that people will buy the M digital just because it is an M digital and will not worry about the couple year recycle time, but I dont think ill be one of them, not because the specs dont work out, but its not cost effective to me. I mean you wouldnt buy an M7 as a disposible would you?

 

[Trius]

Avotius: If I were to get a digital M7 I would not worry about the "obsolesence", the technology turnover. (Not that I'm going to get one, mind you.) If a camera can produce files (or negs/slides) today that give me wonderful photos, stuff that I like and others like, then WHY would the image quality be any different two years from now? I mostly use cameras that are 30 years old, and they please me, they are wonderful tools. I use modern films, that is true, but I would use older films if I had them, especially Kodachrome 25. Panatomic X was great stuff but hasn't been around for many years... someone should bring it back, along with Verichrome Pan. But I digress.

If a digital M body costs, say $3000US and I keep it for 3 years before "upgrading", then I've spent about $3/day. Some people spend more on coffee than that. Not me, I'm a Tim Hortons guy, not a Starbucks guy; and even at that I buy Tim's coffee in the can and brew my own at work.... but my point is the same.

If it's a hobby and I feel like I must constantly upgrade as each new body is released, then I have to question myself. Is my hobby really photography or collecting gear ... or am I the hobby of the camera maker?

Dave: I agree about not having live preview on the screen. It's a rangefinder goodness sakes!f

BTW, Dave, you need to get a wife to keep you from buying a digital M! 😉

Earl

 

[jaapv]

Don't forget- The Leica DMR-R9 combo is in the same price range as the Canon D1s series, the direct competitor. Leica digital is not more expensive than comparable camera's, so compared to for instance the RD1 or future RD2 5000$ does not seem unreasonable. And please, stop falling for the Canon " full frame sensor" hype. There is nothing sacred about the 35 mm format. Full frame is a view camera, not 35 mm. The only reason that Canon marketing keeps hammering away at this is that for some strange reason they seem to be unable to keep up with Nikon and Leica and even Sigma in the extreme wide-angle range, so they have to keep beating this drum.

full frame is better then aps, deal with it

In terms of noise and dynamic range, yes, but decreasingly so. Even now the difference between 1.3 crop and 35 mm sensors is marginal, as proved by the DMR vs. the 1DSII, in the end it will just be a matter of lens design. The same goes for Megapixels. It is hard to imagine any sensor over 10 Mp to have more relevance to photography than medium format has over 35 mm film now, even less so, as digital quality is far less related to Megapixels than film-quality is to film-size.

 

[waileong]

A lot of people railed at Leica for not introducing digital soon enough. The more I think about it, the more I realise that what they did is right. There was no point introducing a 4 MP or even 8 MP digital M, not when the technology was moving so fast. But now, the technology has stabilised, 10-14 MP appears to be it, and further ability to increase CCD resolution is constrained by the lens resolution and by physics and optics, ie the wavelength of light relative to the size of each pixel.

Sure, someone may come up with a 16 MP camera next year, but 16 MP is not as huge an improvement over 10/12 MP as 8MP is over 4 MP, even if the absolute pixel increase is the same.

Hence, given that Leica does not make disposable cameras, it's right that the digital M should wait till sensor technology is mature.

A lot of people also worry about whether CF cards will be readable five years from now, etc. The point to VHS, DAT, 8-track tapes, etc. Well, while there are no certainties, I think the industry has become a lot smarter about backward compatibility, and that the current set of standards we have will survive. Eg the VGA port is essentially unchanged since the IBM PC days, so that a 20-year old monitor supporting 640x480 still can be used today. Ditto the CD, even a 1st generation 1980s CD can still be played on DVD players today.

In other words, if the M is introduced, yes it may be outclassed 5 years from now in terms of speed (maybe we'll have 1000x CF cards by then?), but compatibility wise, we should be all right.

So it's purely a question of whether you want to throw away your digital M just because something faster has arrived, not because the software can't support it any more.

 

[Avotius]

My comment doesnt have anything to do with image quality or any of that other jazz, my simple meaning, which now that I look over my post, isnt very clear, is that we buy 35mm cameras and 35mm lenses because we want to use that particuar size. I have a canon film camera and a 17-40mm lens, on my 20D it is a 27-64mm lens, not really what I wanted it for but I use it on the 20D none the less but in the end when I really want to do wide stuff i have to use the film camera quite simply because that is what my lens was made to shoot on.

Don't forget- The Leica DMR-R9 combo is in the same price range as the Canon D1s series, the direct competitor. Leica digital is not more expensive than comparable camera's, so compared to for instance the RD1 or future RD2 5000$ does not seem unreasonable. And please, stop falling for the Canon " full frame sensor" hype. There is nothing sacred about the 35 mm format. Full frame is a view camera, not 35 mm. The only reason that Canon marketing keeps hammering away at this is that for some strange reason they seem to be unable to keep up with Nikon and Leica and even Sigma in the extreme wide-angle range, so they have to keep beating this drum.



In terms of noise and dynamic range, yes, but decreasingly so. Even now the difference between 1.3 crop and 35 mm sensors is marginal, as proved by the DMR vs. the 1DSII, in the end it will just be a matter of lens design. The same goes for Megapixels. It is hard to imagine any sensor over 10 Mp to have more relevance to photography than medium format has over 35 mm film now, even less so, as digital quality is far less related to Megapixels than film-quality is to film-size.

 

[Avotius]

Trius: I am not worried about the camera becoming obsolete, my 20D's 8mp resoution is all I need and more so, frankly people complaining about their cameras resoutions bothers me, what I dont care for is the 1.3x crops and other crops. Most people use 35mm (summicrons 😉 ) lenses because they like to use the 35mm focal length not a 45.5mm length. That is the only "obsolete" part I would worry about. Maybe it doesnt bother people as much as it bothers me, but it just seems like a waste of good glass.

 

[waterlenz]

The fact that Leica will be using a crop factor as little as 1.33 is a marked technological achievement given the short BF of the system. They will be using a new sensor, the specification of which I hope to be reading about before too long. Of course it is this short BF that enables Leica to design the best WA's in the 35mm format. It is unknown at this time whether a 24x36mm sensor can ever be developed to accommodate the short BF. The crop factor will be an almost perfect match for the Noctilux 50/1.0 since it does not quite fill the 24x36 frame with light wide open.
Tom

 

[Sonnar Brian]

I think the rationale for $5,000 being too high, as stated in the article, is silly.

I guess that no one ever bought a Nikon D1, D1h, D1x, D2h, or D2x because of the $5,000 price tag and fixed point on the Technology scale.

 

[jlw]

Naw, for film leica is nice, but for digital they cant treat it like a luxury item, not when the likes of Canon and Nikon are much better buys...

Canon and Nikon are making digital rangefinder cameras?!? Wow, how did the rumor mill miss that scoop?

Oh, wait, you probably mean Canon and Nikon DSLRs are "better buys" (by which I assume you mean cheaper buys) than the proposed Digital M or the existing Epson R-D 1.

Well, I agree they're better buys in terms of having more megawhatsits and custom thingies per dollar. And as the salesman told you, more is always better because it's, like, more, dude, dontcha get it? Well, duh.

So where we're getting with this is back to the consideration we've had to deal with in the 35mm-film world ever since the SLR takeover: If you prefer to shoot with a rangefinder camera (for whatever reason,) how much of a premium are you willing to pay over a cheaper SLR camera that you don't like to use (for whatever reason)?

This is a question that repeats itself throughout the economy. Getting ready for a long flight and need something to read? Hey, grab the telephone directory -- it's got millions of words in it, and it's absolutely free, so it's got to be a much better buy than some tome by John Grisham or J.K. Rowling or Jane Austen or P.G. Wodehouse or Mark Twain or another of those overpaid rip-off authors. And yet a lot of people ARE willing to pay a premium to get something they want to read, rather than plodding through something they don't want to read.

I agree that if the premium to use an RF camera were lower, we might be able to entice more people into rangefinder-camera photography, and that might conceivably improve the world's output of direct, honest, responsively-seen photographs.

But there's no point in abusing the people who are willing to pay even an overly-stiff premium to use the kind of camera they like. I'll bet that every one of us has some taste or other that leads us to pay more than an "outsider" would think is reasonable to gratify our preference, whether it's in the field of cars or clothing or food and drink or entertainment or whatever.

 

[sgy1962]

Given the current state of digital technology, do you think many people, as a practical matter, will see much of a difference between the optical results of the digital M with current technology, compared to the technology 5 or even 10 years down the road. Probably not, as a purely practical matter. I'm sure Putts could find a difference, but not likely me.

The optical quality of the current digital technology is surperb for most purposes (except BW in my opinion). If you buy the digital M, why would you feel to upgrade, even if more megapixels or whatever become the norm, if you can't, as a practical matter, see the difference.

There is an analogy with Leica lenses. Many folks are perfectly happy using their older, pre-ASPH leica lenses, because they feel the upcharge for the current models just aren't worth it -- they do not see that much of a difference to justify the cost or they just like their older lens.

I think the same will be true for the digital M. I believe that there is a strong segment of Leica RF users who are just chomping at the bits to get a Leica digital RF so that they can used their beloved Leica lenses. And once that need is satisfied, there will be less incentive to upgrade even if technology increases. And these folks will pay $5k for such a camera.

I guess time will tell.

 

[sgy1962]

A future full frame sensor on a digital RF would be one exception to my position.

 

[sgy1962]

Many folks will be able to justify $5k for a digital rangefiner body, because they already have a healthy investment in Leica glass.

 

[Trius]

Avotius: I am with you on the crop issue. I just don't think we're going to get a full frame digital RF and we'll have to live with 1.3 or so. Yes, it's a pain and means some of the lenses we already have will perhaps be less useful to us. For me, I'll stick with film for the wides for now and not invest more until I see how the dust settles.

Earl, watching Hockey Day in Canada.