Leica Digital M Pictures. NO JOKE

[Pherdinand]

Nice. Way out of my budget range, but the idea is nice🙂

I have my thoughts as well.
1. Can't be a "leaf shutter". Thay kind of shutter sits inside the lenses.
2. If it won't be full frame, the rise of "Di" etc marked Leica mount lenses is inevitable. Meaning, tamron, etc will jump to produce wide angle lenses that work only on the smaller-sized sensors but be true 21mm etc. OK, maybe not tamron but somebody higher-class, like voigtlander.
3. I wonder why don't they put in a little hand-driven battery recharger in place of the film (re)wind mechanism. Like a dynamo on the bycicles, you know. Leica users love to wind/rewind anyway!

 

[Sean Reid]

1. Sensor mag about 1.37X, there are concrete optical reasons for this that I discussed here: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/rd-1-lens.shtml

Accomplishing 1.37X w/o vignetting is already a technological coup. A FF frame digital M would, in all likelihood, work properly only with lenses designed for sensors.

2. Take the 10MP rumor with a grain of salt.

3. Don't expect to see this camera before 2006, March would be a best case scenario.

Cheers,

Sean

 

[MP Guy]

my understanding is it will be 10mp with a 1.3 sensor

 

[jorisbens]

Maybe i should wait for a new communistic country that can produce cheap digital rangefinders ( a digital Fed 😛 😀 😉 ) . Bet the worst part is that, that will more likely happen, then me being able to afford a digital leica :bang:

Well luckily i can still satisfy my GAS with five to 50 dollar cams 😛

 

[Matthew]

- It produces raw files of high quality, 10MP or more, preferably 15-25MP

- Price (OK, under $6000 would be nice, but what I'd be willing to pay depends on image quality. $5000-$9000 seems reasonable for the professional market.)

I'd love to see this combination as well, but it doesn't seem particularly likely. 16MP costs 8,000 in the EOS 1Ds and the Mamiya ZD and its 22 megapixels is expected to cost somewhere in the $12,000 range when it gets released. Given the price increase you get the second that little red dot goes on the camera a $5000-9000 camera body in the 15-25MP range doesn't seem plausible. 10-12 MP perhaps...

 

[aizan]

why doesn't leica make a medium format rangefinder? 🙂

 

[Flow]

why doesn't leica make a medium format rangefinder? 🙂

Then they will need to introduce a whole new line of cameras and lenses. And they need a lot of research and funding. Don't think they have the spare money to do that kind of thing...



Flowen

 

[aizan]

my thoughts were that it goes against leica's values, but that also makes sense.

 

[Doug]

A medium format Leica could be magnificent... I think the most recent maker to produce a MF RF was Bronica. They did a very nice job of it too, interchangeable lenses even, but then the bottom fell out of the market, and I suppose it hasn't done Bronica's finances much good.

 

[Jan Brittenson]

they already said it will have a 1.37x crop factor..

Who said that?

 

[Bertram2]

a picture and some details on the digital M.

.

At the LHS of this computer graphic is written: "This is what It may look like".
Later in the text they ask "..but what will it look like ?"
So far nothing new but a phantasy pic, we knew that Cohen intended to offer a Digital M in 2006.
But Cohen is fired meanwhile AFAIK and god knows where and what Leica Camera AG is in 2006 ? Smells a bit like a story for the stockholders, we'll see.
Best,
Bertram

 

[mattg]

It will be interesting to see how well accepted this camera is in the next 2 years or so. The reasons for the 1.3x FOV crop make good sense but nevertheless it seems that most M system users are most interested in wide angle lenses.

One question for those who might know, If Leica kept the same baselength RF but inntroduced a FOV crop would the resulting need for greater enlargement to acheive the same size prints mean that the 90mm lenses become more difficult to focus/unuseable?

Personally I still don't beleive that any current digital system, including the Mamiya ZD, really approaches film quality once you start enlarging the pictures beyond a magazine size print. Sheer physics suggests that it's not possible, a smaller capture area, no matter how many MP, should result in a less detailed image in enlargement.

Please correct my misapprehension but it seems that digital is very useful for pros who want to be able to deliver their product quickly and in a format that is good enough for most advertising or publication needs but still very much an immature technology as far as ultimate image quality is concerned.

 

[Doug]

Personally I still don't beleive that any current digital system, including the Mamiya ZD, really approaches film quality once you start enlarging the pictures beyond a magazine size print. Sheer physics suggests that it's not possible, a smaller capture area, no matter how many MP, should result in a less detailed image in enlargement.

Hi-- The other day I dropped by the main lab whose branch lab I use here locally, with some concerns about controlling cropping of enlargements. About half the building is devoted to their studio operations. I ended up chatting with company CEO/owner and the subject of resolution in digital printing came up.

I'd heard others suggest 240-300 ppi is needed for best quality, maybe dipping to 150 ppi if quality wasn't too critical. But he pointed out that the large prints they produce of portrait sessions and weddings are generally done at 100 ppi. Frankly, looking at the samples on the wall leading to the studio, they looked great! I think one reason is that we tend not to view large prints from the same distances as smaller prints. At a comfortable viewing distance for the size of print, it's possible that a certain fixed number of pixels in the image may be adequate almost regardless of size.

I'm not a digital devotee, really, but it looks like I'll be concentrating on digital production of my film images, so this is somewhat encouraging!

 

[mattg]

Maybe that's true Doug, I'm just not sure. I'll also be scanning film for at least the next 5 or 6 years.

One of the things I like about medium and especiallly large format prints is that as you move in you can reveal layer after layer of detail, so they can be viewed from 5, 2 or 1m and reveal more or less detail, a bit like a fractal.

I hope the Leica M is a success, I'm sure the image quality will be very good and that large prints will look great. I'm just a little bit sceptical when I see claims like Canon's about "medium format quality" from 35mm sensor size.

The other challenge has already been mentioned here, Leica Ms are small and discreet and built for life; batteries, sensors and processors mean bulk, weight and reliability issues so it will be interesting to see what sort of support Leica offers to people over the life of their camera. Will dead pixels be able to be adequately controlled by software or will Leica replace the sensor?

Not trying to rain on the parade, just not convinced that digital technology is up to the Leica standard just yet.

 

[MCTuomey]

Doug, this is OT, but you make the right point, I think. I have two photog acquantances, one a commercial product guy, the other an art repro guy. Both produce very large prints in their business. Dpi varies with the product, they say. Art repros are typically done at 300 dpi, because even large reprints are perused up close at times. Product posters vary, but most are 240-300 dpi unless it's certain they won't be viewed close. Both guys depend on film and pro drum scanning.

Btw, neither of them shoot film for casual pictures. When I have my RF gear around them, they smile at me like tolerant parents. And walk by whispering things like "fifteen and wide open" when I'm trying to take a few pictures at a candle-lighted dinner party.