Leica M Edition 60

sanmich said:
not really
Andre had a GREAT printer, that could rescue catastrophic negs.
Click to expand...

The fact remains that Andre does not need a meter, does not need a screen or histogram, and definately does not need a good printer. He is a real amazing shooter.

Cal
 
Calzone said:
As far as sensor goes 36X36 has two possibilities: one is make a 16 mega pixel 36X36 sensor; and the other is make a 24 MP sensor. One offers a bigger pixel which has its performance advantages; the other with higher pxel count has its own merits. I for one would favor the 16 mega pixel for tonality and high ISO capabilities. I see the only real expensive cost here to develope is making a new 36x36 sensor. If a 16 MP sensor is developed then even the old firmware that is used in my MM can be mostly used.
Click to expand...

I've always thought that we may see a 24x24mm sensor in a compact camera first someday due to price... but I think we will most likely see the first square sensor in a medium format camera.

I think Leica's history is too closely tied to 2:3 for them to consider a square. It would be cool though.
 
sanmich said:
please stop, it's humiliating :D:eek:
Click to expand...

Andre's skill is very humbling. I'm very jealous of his ability to meter without one. Perhaps I should not have smoked so much weed decades ago. LOL.

A photographic memory is a great-great asset. My own style is more like jazz because my short-term memory is very bad.

Cal
 
jsrockit said:
I've always thought that we may see a 24x24mm sensor in a compact camera first someday due to price... but I think we will most likely see the first square sensor in a medium format camera.

I think Leica's history is too closely tied to 2:3 for them to consider a square. It would be cool though.
Click to expand...

I agree that in small format Leica is locked in at 2:3, but really Leica already has so much already developed with their M-Digitals. The Monochrom really is a great groundbreaker, is novel, and only can be subly improved upon. One third larger pixel (still 16 MP) would add a dramatic upgrade to high ISO performance and tonalty. At that point who needs a medium format camera?

To me this makes more sense than building a Monochrom version of a "S." It also promotes the purchase of the new 28 Lux ASPH. I personally would want a 50 Cron APO.

With my MM I already can shoot 24x24 with my 28 Cron and 50 Lux ASPH. Shooting vertically with a 28 offers a degree of perspective control, but the top horizontal frameline is a great reference to indicate the cropping of the rectangle into a square. With a 50 Lux mounted I use the verticals for the 75mm frames to frame my square within the 50mm frames. Adapting a MP 0.85 VF'er would make for enhanced focusing.

High ISO on the Monochrom I say is really good till 2500. I can imagine High ISO on a 16 MP 36x36 sensor being good till 5000. That's a game changer.

To me if Leica does not build a 36X36 rangefinder it would be foolish. It would be like in a football game if a player caught the ball and didn't run upfield; or if in a fight you had a powerful weapon and choose not to use it. Why would Leica choose not to run with the ball, especially since the Monochrom established a Monochrom Monopoly?

Leica really only has to make a new sensor and a new shutter. The rest of the R&D and parts really only rest on a shelf.

LEICA PLEASE BUILD ME MY DREAM CAMERA.

Cal
 
sanmich said:
Pure sadism, I tell you :D

all right, all right... WHO'S Andre??
Click to expand...

Andre is known here on this forum as AndreDosSantos. This is a guy who brough a Rollie to one of the first NYC Meet-Ups. He is known for his abstact work where he finds great beauty in urban decay. He tends to shoot at odd angles and very low. He goes into these gritty parts of NYC to shoot.

His gear: Rollie 3.5D with Planar; Tele Rollieflex; and chrome M4 with 35/2.8 Summaron.

To me Leica is building some of these new model/editions with a guy like Andre in mind.

Cal
 
I don't think you will ever see a 36 x 36 from Leica. Enlarging the format may compromise the performance of some of their magnificent but hyper-expensive lenses, and I don't see that happening.

Cheers,
Dez
 
Dez said:
I don't think you will ever see a 36 x 36 from Leica. Enlarging the format may compromise the performance of some of their magnificent but hyper-expensive lenses, and I don't see that happening.

Cheers,
Dez
Click to expand...

Dez,

I'm not so sure if modern Leica ASPH glass has a large enough image circle to cover the 36X36 square, but if the German reputation of overkill and over design prevails then it would be foolish for Leica not to pursue making the jump. I suspect that old vintage glass will display dark corners and sharpness similarly will fall off, but with the modern ASPH glass there remains a possibility that the longer diagonal might be covered adiquitly.

Anyways this is my hope. BTW I own a 21/3.4 SEM ASPH; 28 Cron ASPH; black paint 35 Cron ASPH; 35 Lux ASPH; 50 Lux ASPH. The only modern non ASPH Leica lens that I own is a 90/4.0 Macro Elmar. For a MM-SS my retro old single coated glass insn't going to cut it.

Cal
 
Calzone said:
Dez,

I'm not so sure if modern Leica ASPH glass has a large enough image circle to cover the 36X36 square, but if the German reputation of overkill and over design prevails then it would be foolish for Leica not to pursue making the jump.
Click to expand...

If you look at the MTFs of modern Leica lenses, they are really obviously designed for a 43mm image circle (diagonal of 24 x 36mm rectangle) — no more, no less.

With the same image circle you can cover a square 30.6 x 30.6 mm. That is not really a major gain over a 24 x 24mm crop. Only about 25%.

Hence, there is no way you will ever see a 36 x 36 sensor from Leica.

Worth noting, though, is that Leica made a masked, wide-format, black-and-white S2 for Josef Koudelka:

For example, shooting this panorama film camera complicates my life enormously because you have four frames on 120 film and in one day you shoot 20 rolls and that’s already $200. So you must have somebody who gives money and then they expect that you finish something.

I was using this Fuji panoramic — but the problem was everyone stopped developing the film. You can’t get 220 film anymore and you needed to carry about 35 kilograms extra. I went to Leica and they did one camera for me that was digital panoramic, which is this S2 camera, and they make two lines and set it on black and white. I made four trips with it together with the film camera. In the last two trips I realized I was taking more pictures with this Leica and I am enjoying it more. The result is very comparable. The lens was exactly the same.
Click to expand...

Now, that is a desirable special-edition Leica. It is a Leica for a photographer. And they didn't leave off the LCD, either:

I enjoy digital more. I don’t carry a computer. I come inside in the evening, and until 12 o’clock I look at the screen on the back of the camera, and I eliminate.
Click to expand...
 
I'm not in the market for this (I already have a Type240 that I seldom use - I just prefer my film camera and my Monochrom), but if I didn't already have a Type240, and if they were the same price, I'd give this M60 some very serious consideration.

Today with digital, there is so much leeway for a slightly mis-exposed shot that I doubt lack of review would be a big deal in a majority of shots. I've also recently returned exclusively to film because I just can't abide the instantaneous nature of the digital workflow. Perhaps this would change that...

But...

Not at ~3x the price. Even I'm not that open to such a price increase for something that is, for all intents and purposes, the same...
 
semilog said:
If you look at the MTFs of modern Leica lenses, they are really obviously designed for a 43mm image circle (diagonal of 24 x 36mm rectangle) — no more, no less.

With the same image circle you can cover a square 30.6 x 30.6 mm. That is not really a major gain over a 24 x 24mm crop. Only about 25%.

Hence, there is no way you will ever see a 36 x 36 sensor from Leica.

Worth noting, though, is that Leica made a masked, wide-format, black-and-white S2 for Josef Koudelka:



Now, that is a desirable special-edition Leica. It is a Leica for a photographer. And they didn't leave off the LCD, either:
Click to expand...

So what you're saying is they cropped the f.o.v. to give him the desired aspect and then jammed it on B+W? That's a very smart, very practical, very cost-effective way of tailoring the tool to a single vision. Genius...
 
This thread has been an interesting read. One of the reasons I like my M(240) is that I can (and do):
- turn off auto review (disable the little TV screen on the back of the camera)
- set my ISO to 400 (which is my favorite film speed)
- set the camera to make DNG files only
and I have the same shooting experience that I get with my M6. I have thought about getting a lot of 1GB SD cards and taking out a full card to save just like I do with film. I would get about 42 frames per card. Probably would cost about the same as a roll of film and developing.

I like the idea that I set my own limits and don't rely on the camera manufacturer to dictate how I take pictures.
 
urban_alchemist said:
Not at ~3x the price. Even I'm not that open to such a price increase for something that is, for all intents and purposes, the same...
Click to expand...

Seems to be a misconception on the price. The M Edition 60 is listed for $18,000 at B&H ... That includes body, Summilux 35, and half case/strap assembly. A standard M plus same lens plus quality half case and strap runs $13,500. So the premium for the special edition, special finish, etc, is about 33%. Which is well in line with other special edition offerings.

I'd prefer an M-S(imple) body only for $8000 without the special edition trimmings. In black paint, please. It should be a standard model.

G
 
angelog said:
This thread has been an interesting read. One of the reasons I like my M(240) is that I can (and do):
- turn off auto review (disable the little TV screen on the back of the camera)
- set my ISO to 400 (which is my favorite film speed)
- set the camera to make DNG files only
and I have the same shooting experience that I get with my M6. I have thought about getting a lot of 1GB SD cards and taking out a full card to save just like I do with film. I would get about 42 frames per card. Probably would cost about the same as a roll of film and developing.

I like the idea that I set my own limits and don't rely on the camera manufacturer to dictate how I take pictures.
Click to expand...

I do pretty much the same, not "chimping" until at home later making notes about what I shot. But I do use the screen for this and for menu settings, battery level etc, so I would not choose the M60.

The SD card size isn't important if it's large enough for ~100 images, as I rarely shoot more in one day. I treat each "batch" of files like a roll of film, numbered accordingly and recorded in a FileMaker database file just as I've done starting with 4x5 file cards since the 60's.

Without a rear screen on the M60 I do have questions about usability.
 
angelog said:
This thread has been an interesting read. One of the reasons I like my M(240) is that I can (and do):
- turn off auto review (disable the little TV screen on the back of the camera)
- set my ISO to 400 (which is my favorite film speed)
- set the camera to make DNG files only
and I have the same shooting experience that I get with my M6. I have thought about getting a lot of 1GB SD cards and taking out a full card to save just like I do with film. I would get about 42 frames per card. Probably would cost about the same as a roll of film and developing.

I like the idea that I set my own limits and don't rely on the camera manufacturer to dictate how I take pictures.
Click to expand...

If you were really feeling cool about it, you could stick a 3" diag piece of leatherette over the screen. :)

D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom