Imaging Resource posts Digital M update

[peterc]

I'm guessing most of the initial sales will be to people who've never used a rangefinder before but have enough money to hang an Mdigital around their neck as a status symbol.

Peter

 

[Avotius]

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.

Yay, now I dont feel like the only peep under the mortor fire! 😎

 

[mtnmasher]

One feature that would help justify the $5K price, but that is missing from the current discussion, is a replaceable sensor/electronics package.

It would be easier to palate spending big $$ on a body that had a built in upgrade path to future sensor technology than on a ‘what you see is what you get’ body.

If Leica did this, they would have a real gem on their hands.

 

[jlw]

One feature that would help justify the $5K price, but that is missing from the current discussion, is a replaceable sensor/electronics package.

It would be easier to palate spending big $$ on a body that had a built in upgrade path to future sensor technology than on a ‘what you see is what you get’ body.

That would be a cool feature, but even the big DSLR players don't seem to be able to offer it at realistic price levels, so it's not exactly an "off-the-shelf" technology.

I suppose a digital back such as the one offered for Leica SLRs could be considered an upgradable sensor package -- but making the M body adaptable to such a back would require a completely redesigned body, meaning digital M photographers would have to pop for a new body PLUS a new back, all of which likely would cost even more.

 

[mtnmasher]

That would be a cool feature, but even the big DSLR players don't seem to be able to offer it at realistic price levels, so it's not exactly an "off-the-shelf" technology.

One of the things that makes this difficult to do this on a DSLR is the complicated and constantly changing interface between the electronics and the many knobs and controls permanently mounted in the case.

This will not be the case in the Mdigital. If done right there will be a simple, well defined, and hopefully stable interface between the very limited number of controls in the body and the electronics package.

As far as the case goes, I think it would be a mistake to separate the body and the back. An integrated sensor/electronics/lcd package that is modular, and replaceable, would be the way to go.

 

[zanydave]

I make pictures with rangefinders coz i prefer using them.... It's a tool.
Use whatever suits your style & if the quality, whether it be digital or film, is good enough for you then fine.
Did we all run off to the camera store to buy medium format?.... Make the best of what you have.... It's the only way to improve.

 

[Ben Z]

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.

Canon's last 2 generations of top-end digital bodies have been $8000. The first, the original 1DS is now selling for <$3000, due primarily if not entirely to the 5D which likewise sells for <$3000. There are 2 kinds of people who buy those 1DS bodies: professionals who, due to their shooting volume, save more in film and processing cost than the camera depreciates. And, amateurs who have the cash and want the top model and pay the price knowing going in how severe it will depreciate. Those are exactly the same two groups who will pay $5000 or $6000 for the Digital M. In fact, Leica-using members of that wealthy-amateur group are likely to willingly part with $8,000 or $10,000, because the higher the price the more prestige in wearing one. It is true and I wouldn't argue for an instant, that guys like me (and probably most of us writing here) would never pay $5000 for the digital M for the reasons you stated. Speaking for myself, I won't buy a 1DS-II or even a 5D for that matter. Something in the 20D, or better the Rebel XT is about as much as I'd be willing to see drop to half its value in a couple years. But I/we aren't the ones Leica is marketing their newly-jacked-up $3500-$4000 M7/MP bodies to and I don't think we're on their radar for the digital M either.

 

[Nikon Bob]

Ben Z

Well said. I would not be a Digital M kind of guy for those reasons but maybe a Nikon D200 in the future.

Bob

 

[jlw]

One of the things that makes this difficult to do this on a DSLR is the complicated and constantly changing interface between the electronics and the many knobs and controls permanently mounted in the case.

This will not be the case in the Mdigital. If done right there will be a simple, well defined, and hopefully stable interface between the very limited number of controls in the body and the electronics package.

As far as the case goes, I think it would be a mistake to separate the body and the back. An integrated sensor/electronics/lcd package that is modular, and replaceable, would be the way to go.

The interface would be the easy part, because all the information is passed digitally; what kinds of knobs and controls are used to input the information don't matter that much. Just as you can plug all kinds of devices into an Ethernet port, because the signals are standardized, it would be easy for a manufacturer to define a connector and a communications protocol for data exchange between the body controls and sensor package. Many DSLRs already let you control settings and operate the camera remotely from a laptop via a communications port, so the capability is already there.

I think the hard issues about an interchangeable sensor package would be assuring accurate optical alignment of the module and providing protection for it during interchange. Just as interchangeable film backs add cost to a medium-format camera, engineering this capability into a "sensor package" would add so much cost (and probably size) that it probably would be less cost-effective than simply replacing a fixed-sensor camera every few years.

You can make up your own scenarios involving a fixed-sensor camera that costs X dollars, vs. an upgradable-sensor camera that costs Y dollars plus an additional Z dollars every time you buy a new sensor package, plugging in assumptions about how often sensor technology will improve enough that you'll want to replace your equipment. I suspect that if you used genuinely realistic assumptions, you'd find that the concept just isn't viable -- which is why no camera companies are actually doing it this way, no matter how great the idea sounds to all us "armchair engineers."

(Note: I realize that medium-format digital studio cameras do offer upgradable electronics packages thanks to their interchangeable-back capability. But the economics are much different with that type of product, because a high-end digital back often costs much more than the camera body in the first place.)

 

[ywenz]

One of the things that makes this difficult to do this on a DSLR is the complicated and constantly changing interface between the electronics and the many knobs and controls permanently mounted in the case.

That is not the reason. The data bus design for the controls are of little relevance to the sensor itself. I'm imagining an elegant solution where a block the size of 1/2 deck of cards that can be poped out from the bottom of the camera. That block would contain the sensor + memory + interface to the camera controls... This is indeed doable, if it was cost effective, or profitable direction.

There are 2 kinds of people who buy those 1DS bodies: professionals who, due to their shooting volume, save more in film and processing cost than the camera depreciates. And, amateurs who have the cash and want the top model and pay the price knowing going in how severe it will depreciate. Those are exactly the same two groups who will pay $5000 or $6000 for the Digital M.

No quite, I think the few professionals who are still using Leica Ms to make money are doing so because of the asthetics that comes with the film territory. Leica+film gives you a truly unique quality that is very desirable for certain applications. Digital M will indeed not have this quality. Which is also why you don't see Epson moving healthy quantities of the RD-1

 

[mtnmasher]

The interface would be the easy part, because all the information is passed digitally; what kinds of knobs and controls are used to input the information don't matter that much. Just as you can plug all kinds of devices into an Ethernet port, because the signals are standardized, it would be easy for a manufacturer to define a connector and a communications protocol for data exchange between the body controls and sensor package.

The goal would be to minimize the number of active components that are permanently mounted in the camera. Put only the low failure rate/minimum obsolescence mechanical components (on/off switch, speed dial, shutter release, what else?) in the body, and all of the evolving, active stuff in the electronics package. Absolute worst case, maybe use an I2C interface for the controls to minimize the number of connections.

The best way to think of it would be to visualize the guts of a digital back, re-packaged as a module inside the M body, that could be replaced as a single unit in a repair depot. The sensor part (the front of the module) would mount to a precision registration surface. The battery, flash, and switches would connect via miniature connectors, and the LCD and control pad would stick through a hole in the back of the body, surrounded by a weather seal to keep the nasty things out.

There is no doubt that this approach would add to the initial cost of the body. The payback comes when it is time to upgrade. You only need to replace the mass produce-able electronics, not the hand crafted precision mechanics. They could last indefinitely, just as the Leica film backs do.

This is not currently done on a DSLR because the mechanical part of a DSLR is fundamentally a mass produced, throw away piece of polycarbonate. For an idea of the cost of the mechanics, look at the price of a Canon EOS3 versus a Leica MP. Get the idea?

The interesting thing is, this exact discussion has undoubtedly taken place in the conference rooms at Solms. We will find the outcome of those discussions when the Mdigital is finally released.

 

[Ben Z]

I think the few professionals who are still using Leica Ms to make money are doing so because of the asthetics that comes with the film territory. Leica+film gives you a truly unique quality that is very desirable for certain applications. Digital M will indeed not have this quality. Which is also why you don't see Epson moving healthy quantities of the RD-1

There's some truth in what you say, but many pros who still use Leicas do so for the ergonomics of the camera (in particular not missing the actual moment of exposure while a mirror is up) and its less intimidating effect on subjects. The RD-1 has had some image-quality and reliability issues which pros have balked at, aside from the $3000 price for a 6MP camera with a 1.5x crop factor.

 

[Ben Z]

BTW, here's something I was wondering. Everyone remember "Silicon Film" and their stillborn idea to make a digital insert for film cameras? Basically it's impractical because of finding space for all the electronics, batteries and a memory card. But that was before Bluetooth. Now everyone's got a weenie little transmitter/receiver they wear on their ear, which links wirelessly to the cellphone on their belt. So couldn't it be possible now to have just a sensor that fits inside the camera with a Bluetooth connector and small battery that could go where the film casette would, and the main electronics, battery for it, and the CF card slot and an LCD for review could go in an iPod-sized unit carried on the belt or in a pocket?

 

[Phil_Hawkes]

That is not the reason. The data bus design for the controls are of little relevance to the sensor itself. I'm imagining an elegant solution where a block the size of 1/2 deck of cards that can be poped out from the bottom of the camera. That block would contain the sensor + memory + interface to the camera controls... This is indeed doable, if it was cost effective, or profitable direction.

This sounds to me like the best option for upgrade-ability that I've noticed thus far. Great thinking ywenz!

I was going to comment that my main desire in upgrading would be for increasing the speed at which images are saved onto the media, and increasing buffer size. Mainly to make sure I can take RAW photos as close togther as possible.

Cheers,

Phil

 

[Doug]

So couldn't it be possible now to have just a sensor that fits inside the camera with a Bluetooth connector and small battery that could go where the film casette would, and the main electronics, battery for it, and the CF card slot and an LCD for review could go in an iPod-sized unit carried on the belt or in a pocket?

Wow, what a nifty thought... And interchangeability is a given, perhaps even mismatched brands.

 

[Alec]

As much as I hate to go against the consensus, I don't think 'upgradeability' is really the way to go.

I do upgrade my M2 to the latest sensor technology every time I load it with a roll of Reala. In addition, I get a clean sensor at each frame, which also doubles as archival media.

On the other hand, I bought my first 486-based PC in 1988 - I was young and unexperienced and my company was not very rich, so I took the least expensive branded PC I could find. A Tandon (this makerhas probably have vanished since).
The CPU was on a daughtercard. The hard disk (40MB IIRC) was on an extractible drawer. Wow, that was forward looking. On the spec sheet at least.
I soon found out that the main memory dwelled on the motherboard, and was limited to 5MB (not much, even then). And that several bottlenecks were inherited from a 286-era conception, which gave a performance not much better than the (nice, optimised) 386 PC I had before.

So if you really want to take advantage of newer technology you'll have to 'modularize' all electronics, including visible things like LCD, controls, card/battery interfaces, and keep at the core of the camera basically a traditional M (body, rangefinder and shutter). And even the shutter... I certainly could use 1/300s X-sync in a rangefinder as in my Minolta SLRs!

All that long-winded rant means to say:
- beware of 'upgradeability' promises (especially from the IT industry)
- we have a working option right now, and I expect to scan negatives and slides for a few more years, although I clearly resent all the time and effort, and marginal cost involved

Splitting the functions across several devices looks better to me, provided connectivity and power issues are ironed out (eek! another battery to check, load and carry in duplicate!). But I don't see Leica offering to retrofit the many Ms already sold - it would probably spell corporate death to them.

 

[jaapv]

There are two arguments here that seem to apply exclusively to digital camera's in the mind of some contributors. One is the idea of technical obsolescense. If that were a consideration there would be very few computers, telephones, hifi components, microwaves etc. sold. Technical equipment does get obsolete, we have to live with that. At least with a camera the photo's we make have increasing value as time goes by. And technical obsolesence does not mean loss of quality. Most "improvements" are gimmicky anyway. There are still plenty of great shots being made with Canon D30'ies and D60'ies, virtually indistinguishable from 20D photographs. As a number of posts here pointed out, there is no reason to upgrade if the current camera is performing to our wishes.
The other one is depreciation. Why is that an issue as soon as we are talking about Leica digital? When I drove my car out of the showroom, the first 500 meters cost me about 5000 Euro, and what will your new flat-screen TV be worth as soon as you take it out of the box? Yet everybody accepts that as normal.
I would not be surprised if the Leica would show less depreciation than for instance a Canon. A used RD1 will set me back about 2000 Euro, a 35% writeoff against a new one - about the same as a Leica or Bessa film body.

 

[Alec]

One is the idea of technical obsolescense. If that were a consideration there would be very few computers, telephones, hifi components, microwaves etc. sold. Technical equipment does get obsolete, we have to live with that. At least with a camera the photo's we make have increasing value as time goes by. And technical obsolesence does not mean loss of quality. Most "improvements" are gimmicky anyway.

Jaap, I am not in the business of pushing new cars or cameras, but
- on a snowy road I'd rather drive a new BMW than my wife's 1991 model (which by the way is horrendously expensive to maintain)
- I ran only one film through my beloved Minolta 9xi after I bought a second-hand 9 (the viewfinders just can't be compared)
And this is just in mature industries using mature technologies.
I certainly don't mind the doubling of RAM, HD space and CPU speed every time my company gives me a new laptop PC. Enhanced battery life and wifi are nice to have, too. All that actually enhances my productivity.

In areas less critical (to me) with respect to comfort and/or security, I will change our washing machine / microwave oven / TV set / hifi system only when something breaks. (Actually we have the same approach to cars, in practice.) And the kids love their original Bondi blue iMac (9 years old). The CRT is much less vulnerable than LCDs, eg to ballpoint pen attacks - and looks great at lower resolutions (most kids software is still designed for a 800x600 or even 640x480 screen).

The other one is depreciation. Why is that an issue as soon as we are talking about Leica digital? When I drove my car out of the showroom, the first 500 meters cost me about 5000 Euro, and what will your new flat-screen TV be worth as soon as you take it out of the box? Yet everybody accepts that as normal.
I would not be surprised if the Leica would show less depreciation than for instance a Canon. A used RD1 will set me back about 2000 Euro, a 30% writeoff against a new one - about the same as a Leica or Bessa film body.

You have a nice car 🙂 We purchased the aforementioned BMW for less than this amount from my mother-in-law!

Probably amateur photographers have come to expect a longer lifecycle from their investment, and "free" ownership of second-hand Leicas (ie resale at cost). This will probably, though not certainly, change with digital models.
With luck, it will also give Leica Camera a new lease on life.

 

[jaapv]

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.

I, for one, am happily chomping away, and I do know of a few others in the same mood.

 

[jaapv]

@Alec:

just my point: what did that BMW cost when it was new? However, for snowy roads I would prefer an old Subaru, as in my experience snow, a heavy car and rearwheel drive make for a mix that is slightly too exciting.