M8?No! M7d, possibly yes

Ben Z said:
From what I'm led to understand, the proximity of the exit pupil of non-retrofocus rangefinder wide-angle lenses w.r.t. the image plane creates a major problem with digital because the pixels are inside little wells and the well walls block light rays coming in at a steep angle. That's why there have to be microlenses over the sensor to channel the light rays into those wells. That technology was pioneered on the Epson, but there is still some serious vignetting. The M8 although it has significantly less of a crop factor, has less vignetting (try a C/V 15 on both cameras and this will become immediately apparent). So microlens technology improved, but apparently not enough yet for decent performance on a 24x36mm sensor. If that hurdle is jumped then I expect Leica will implement a FF sensor. I'm sure if/when they can get the results people expect without needing IR filters on lenses they'll do that too (although that will pose quite a logistical headache for people using an M8 as a second body, unless M9 has anti-cyan-drift correction also). However I believe Leica will do these things because they will be exciting and beneficial to their loyalist customers, not because they feel compelled to keep up with the state of the art. They managed to keep the R line going well past the time autofocus was accepted and even embraced by the mainstream of professional photographers. Despite much vocal dissidence on the 'net, most guys in Leica's bread-and-butter market imbue every Leica-branded product with qualities that put it out front of any others.
Click to expand...

I agree and I think it will be a while before we see a FF digital M. In the meanwhile I'll be taking pictures with my (very very) lovely M8.
 
Joe Mondello said:
I agree and I think it will be a while before we see a FF digital M. In the meanwhile I'll be taking pictures with my (very very) lovely M8.
Click to expand...

Me too. The only way to take pictures today is to use a camera that's available today. I did wait a while to jump in, and then insisted on one with as high a serial# as possible, but beyond that it comes down to a case of nothing ventured=nothing gained.
 
I agree that the Zeiss Sony line will be interesting if they can put the FF Sensor in the Ikon. I have to say, I think the sensor is more fitting for a dRF than a dSLR aimed at sports pros.

I has too few MP to compete with the 1DsIII and too slow to comptete with a 1DIII. That and I don't think sports guys mind the crop too much.

A FF sensor with really high ISO numbers, to me, screams dRF.

If I were Sony, I'd put it in the old Minolta/Konica Hexar RF and come out with that. Sony needs to cement themselves as serious player in the photogrpahy field. A dHexar would allow them to say "Look, we're better than a Leica!" and everyone knows what a Leica is. Kind of like Chevy's Corvette giving aura to their other models.

Hand it off to Zeiss after a few months.

If I were Sony I'd change the mount a bit too. Make it so your lenses will work on a M, but not the other way. Then come out with 'digital' versions of 35mm,50mm, and 90mm (f=2), then fill in with a 15,24,28,74 lenses.

M lenses are a legacy cost for us, not Sony. If the price we have to pay for a FF dRF and real competition is Sony reaping the rewards for the risk, that is the way it will be.

Sony gets into it, Leica will have to respond with a FF, and maybe even a cheaper 1.3x camera, or a CL-type with a 1.6 sensor.

Mark
 
The full-frame issue -- for me at any rate -- relates to (1) DOF and (2) availability of fast lenses. There are fast 35s that can more or less replace a fast 50 so far as speed is concerned, but they have considerably more DOF, which is not always desirable. There are no fast 25s or even 28s (say f/1.2 or f/1.4), so far as I know, that can be used to obtain the FOV of a 35mm lens on full frame, and the DOF of a slower 25 or 28 is pretty huge. For wider angles (for which I don't expect a fast lens) I would be quite happy to get a 21mm to replace the 28. That would be wide enough for me on a 1.3x crop.
 
anselwannab said:
Sony gets into it, Leica will have to respond with a FF, and maybe even a cheaper 1.3x camera, or a CL-type with a 1.6 sensor.

Mark
Click to expand...
Why would a company the size of Sony invest research and capital in a market segment the size of the RF market. Developing an M compatible digital RF is a much more difficult technical problem then developing a DSLR yet the market is much smaller. Bigger entry costs, smaller reward. Leica had no choice as it depends on the RF market for survival, but Leica is a tiny company that considers selling 12,000 cameras a success.

I can't see any of the major players jumping in and Zeiss will wait until the technology provides an easy entry point through a third party supplier (like CV with the Ikon or Yashica with Contax) -which for full frame RF would be quite a few years from now. The head of CV says he has no interest whatsoever in digital so that leaves Leica alone in the field.
 
>it's halo effect on the sales of other Leica products there will be more (and
>better) digital M's in the future. Perhaps a future model will meet with your
>approval. In the mean time Leica is looking for the first time in a decade like it
>might have a future.

I sincerely hope that you are right.

As for dropping the LCD as I advocate, the suggestion has been made that this would have bankrupted Leica if the M8 had been made without an LCD...

How many current M8 owners who read this thread would NOT have bought their M8 if it had no LCD? Be honest.
 
jaapv said:
Speak for yourself; mine are doing fine since November! The detractors may scream what they like - a vocal minority-, the customers are putting their money in the camera in droves.
Click to expand...

Are you member of the Leica 'police"?

Any critic on Leica and their 'customer policy' are constantly ignored by you!
 
No - just annoyed by ignorant trolling, especially by posters that show no evidence of being more than disgruntled cell-phone users.
 
AusDLK said:
>it's halo effect on the sales of other Leica products there will be more (and
>better) digital M's in the future. Perhaps a future model will meet with your
>approval. In the mean time Leica is looking for the first time in a decade like it
>might have a future.

I sincerely hope that you are right.

As for dropping the LCD as I advocate, the suggestion has been made that this would have bankrupted Leica if the M8 had been made without an LCD...

How many current M8 owners who read this thread would NOT have bought their M8 if it had no LCD? Be honest.
Click to expand...

that is correct, Dave. The LCD is not a selling point for me.
 
HAnkg said:
Why would a company the size of Sony invest research and capital in a market segment the size of the RF market. Developing an M compatible digital RF is a much more difficult technical problem then developing a DSLR yet the market is much smaller. Bigger entry costs, smaller reward. Leica had no choice as it depends on the RF market for survival, but Leica is a tiny company that considers selling 12,000 cameras a success.

I can't see any of the major players jumping in and Zeiss will wait until the technology provides an easy entry point through a third party supplier (like CV with the Ikon or Yashica with Contax) -which for full frame RF would be quite a few years from now. The head of CV says he has no interest whatsoever in digital so that leaves Leica alone in the field.
Click to expand...


You are absolutely wrong and right. There is no rationale reason for Sony to get into the market. And if they didn't have any inate experience from the Hexar, I'd say the chances are none.

BUT...If Sony decides to be taken seriously, they could use a loss leader like a dHexar to help cement their bona fides. Add in that the Japanese seem a bit gadget crazy. How much money did Nikon make a few years back on the S3 cameras they made?

I think the best hope is that when the Sony guys talk to the Epson guys about the RD-1 experience, the Sony guys look at their Epson guys and think to themselves, "But we can do it because we are Sony."

Whatever the strategy, Sony will have to sell new lenses. My guess is that they will move the flange to film distance out a bit, which makes it so that you can't use M lenes, but an adaptor would allow you to use Sony lenses on M cameras. Add in some ability for AE shooting, maybe AF? The AF would be interesting and probably a fight inside Sony by neo-traditionalists and marketing guys. The Nikon cameras have the ability for the sensor to focus the lens, right? Maybe not optimal but would widen the commercial appeal.

It could be slick.

Mark
 
AusDLK said:
>How many current M8 owners who read this thread would NOT have bought their M8 if it had no LCD? Be honest.
Click to expand...

Dave: The problem of blown highlights (that would only need to be burned in with equivalent exposure on film) is a major issue for all digital cameras. The M8 included. The LCD is indispensable for checking histograms and making sure that the highlights are within recoverable range. So even if one doesn't "chimp" all the time, it's a very good thing to have. One doesn't have time for zone-system machinations when doing quick people-shooting. Better to take a test shot, check the histogram, adjust and shoot again.

Shooting B&W or (especially) color neg or BW-CN film is different. As long as you've got printable shadows and midtones, you're probably going to be OK.

Now if they came up with a rangefinder with a high dynamic range sensor that had the same or better image quality than the M8's, you'd be correct, an LCD would be less necessary. But for today, the LCD isn't just your chimping screen, it's your light meter for the next shot.

I think marketing reality is that many people like to chimp, so the LCD screen is here to stay. Epson had a great idea by making it reversable on the RD-1. Those people who (think they) always expose perfectly can turn it toward the camera back. The rest of the Great Unwashed have their screen. :angel:

--Peter
 
JohnL said:
The full-frame issue -- for me at any rate -- relates to (1) DOF and (2) availability of fast lenses.
Click to expand...

Just wanted to make a comment on those points, from hands-on experience with the M8. (1) The 1.3 crop has noticeably less effect on DOF than the 1.5 (my RD-1) or 1.6 (my 20D). I'm not saying it isn't a valid point, but remember that Canon continues to offer a 1.3-crop to professionals and it sells as well or better than the FF version. (2) I'm finding that ISO 640 (by handheld meter, more like 800) on the M8 looks as good or better (noise/grain) than ISO 400 film, so I effectively gain a stop on each lens. My 28/1.9 handily does the duty of a 35/1.4. But again, these are valid points and the good news is, if the M8 doesn't suit you, there are plenty of other cameras out there. I'm definitely not among those who think the M8's image quality is unsurpassable. But from the standpoint of size I'm not comfortable carrying a DSLR larger/heavier than a Rebel or D40X, and even then, only with the smallest prime lenses. A Canon EOS 1V or EOS 3 and 3 "L" zooms would have offered me much greater photographic opportunities than an M6 and 3-4 lenses, but not if I felt like returning home an hour after I left because my back was killing me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom