M8 -- the likely best M digital choice for the next few years

Sailor Ted said:
Sounds like the 4/3's format to me and to me it stinks- M mount or other wise.



If built to the same high build standards and configuration (optical range finder/ milled from solid brass, etc) as the current M8 I doubt they'll eye it with hunger for juicy "high end" margins unless they can significantly expand the market segment.
Click to expand...
Hi Ted,
The point I was trying to make is that the expensive part of the RF configuration could be done another way....a cheaper way...maybe not as durable or elegant. Leave your brass at home, make a window with a transparent TFT for the framelines & paralallax correction, invert an AF system keyed to the focus cams of the lenses and put it all in a spiffy or retro housing. The user would mount an M-mount lens, look through the finder, see one frameline, focus the lens until a light lit and shoot.....assuming aperture priority, of course.
The 4/3rds standard wouldn't work, but a smaller dRF with a 4/3rds sensor and a different RF lens configuration would for a more compact version of what I was talking about.
BTW, I own and use an E-1 and haven't noticed any odors.....😱
Bob
 
It would be great if the money of Nikon and Canon would get into this, but I would agree with Kiu that unless the cameras can sell lenses, it would be hard to make it worth the R&D. However, full-frame digital S2 with Millenium Nikkor 50mm.....Yum.
 
Bob Ross said:
Hi Ted,
The point I was trying to make is that the expensive part of the RF configuration could be done another way....a cheaper way...maybe not as durable or elegant. Leave your brass at home, make a window with a transparent TFT for the framelines & paralallax correction, invert an AF system keyed to the focus cams of the lenses and put it all in a spiffy or retro housing. The user would mount an M-mount lens, look through the finder, see one frameline, focus the lens until a light lit and shoot.....assuming aperture priority, of course.
The 4/3rds standard wouldn't work, but a smaller dRF with a 4/3rds sensor and a different RF lens configuration would for a more compact version of what I was talking about.
BTW, I own and use an E-1 and haven't noticed any odors.....😱
Bob
Click to expand...

: ) Glad to know you're able to breath with that one. However the camera you describe would not make me happy one bit- it sounds very much like my Digilux 2 a camera I abore. This is just my opinion however it's not what attracts me to either the R-D1 or the M8. For me I need an optical viewfinder (nothing is faster or brighter then a decoupled optical viewfinder pared to a mechanical or electro-mechanical shutter). Next I need on the lens focusing and on the lens aperture control with an on the body shutter speed control knob and preferably (but not a deal breaker) a mechanical shutter cocking lever- like my R-D1 or my M6. It also would need (for me) aperture priority like my R-D1 or the M7.

At this point I don't care if it comes from Leica, Canon or Nikon I just want the camera to be as mechanical as an M7 and just as reliable. It's the interface I feel comfortable with and the one that allows me to work my best. I also want it to be not too fussy- this is where the Epson falls short in my judgment (I never worried about knocking my M6’s RF out – not once in 50,000 shots). I expect sharp images like the current M8, sharper then my R-D1 and film like- not plastic. My R-D1 images are not plastic the way so many digi cams are so this is a must. It must also have good dynamic contrast in colors and low noise or at least film like noise at high ISO- it does not need to be like the Canon but not like my Digilux 2 either. Lastly it should have the M mount, as this is where I have a small fortune invested in lenses. Short of an M mount it would need to accept an adaptor that allows me to use my M mount lenses without compromise. And after an epic session with my new R-D1s I no longer care if it is full frame, 1.3 or 1.5 so long as the above criteria are adhered to. I also no longer care if it vignettes with ultra wide-angle lenses as I find this a creative tool that draws attention to the subject- very fun.

I still hold out hope despite the naysayers here that Zeiss has a camera up their sleeve and that we may see it at the big camera show coming up next year (the one that launched the M8). I also hold out hope that the M8 will be my DRF for the next two to three years and when they become available I will give one a try and share my images and impressions here on RFf.
 
Last edited:
>my Digilux 2 a camera I abore

>I still hold out hope despite the naysayers here that Zeiss has a camera up their sleeve

What Ted said... and said...
 
I'm not smart enough to do the math, but if you take a 4/3 system and reduce the focal lengths to match common 35mm lens FOV, and at the same time reduce the f-stop of the lens to match the DOF, would that allow enough light in to overcome the inherently smaller, noisier photosite?

I'm thinking:
11/2.8
14/2
20/1.4
28/1.2
40/1.0

Since the lenses would cover a smaller image circle, how doable would these lenses be?

I don't care if the new mount is not the same as an M mount. Maybe you pull the flange back just a bit and make an adaptor so you could use M glass; just like with screw to M mount adaptors.

We all want M glass compatibility, but I think any camera maker would rather see us buy new lenses. Maybe make it backwards compatible, but not optimal. Plus you could make the lenses full functional with Tv and Ap modes, report focus distance; really do the things to bring the camera into the 2nd half of the 20th century.

Mark
 
CameraQuest said:
As a side note, I actually do prefer the ergonomics and handling of the RD1 to the M8. But to me the RD parts and repair situation knock it out of contention when combined with the M8's better image quality.

Stephen
Click to expand...

The way I look at it, at $1400 for a refurb if the darned thing works for a year and I have to toss it in the dumptster I'll have saved enough on film and developing that it was a wash. I can deal with the rangefinder alignment either on my own or through DAG, and I haven't heard of many failures of the electronics. I'm just praying the shutter holds up for a year, then I'm home free. By then I hope there will be a MarkII M8 that doesn't need filters. The M8 doesn't cost $5000, it's closer to $7000, when you factor in x-2 filters @ $120 a pop, plus x lens codings @ $125 a pop where x=your total # of lenses. Not to mention having to work around the cyan fringing with the 12 and 15mm Voitlander lenses.

The one thing I don't care for about the RD1 is the viewfinder magnification. I'm used to shooting a 35 as my main lens, which would be a 24 on the RD1, so OK I'll use a 21 because that's what I've got, but either way there's no frame in the viewfinder. It's the same reason I sold my M3 shortly after getting it.
 
Sailor Ted said:
: ) Glad to know you're able to breath with that one. However the camera you describe would not make me happy one bit- it sounds very much like my Digilux 2 a camera I abore. This is just my opinion however it's not what attracts me to either the R-D1 or the M8. For me I need an optical viewfinder (nothing is faster or brighter then a decoupled optical viewfinder pared to a mechanical or electro-mechanical shutter). Next I need on the lens focusing and on the lens aperture control with an on the body shutter speed control knob and preferably (but not a deal breaker) a mechanical shutter cocking lever- like my R-D1 or my M6. It also would need (for me) aperture priority like my R-D1 or the M7.
Click to expand...
Hi Ted,
I thought the camera that I described had an optical "window" viewfinder. In that window there would be a transparent TFT/LCD that would give us the framelines that we have with the M-Leicas. The focus would electronic confirmation of manual focused lenses, hopefully M-mount, probably with a central frame lighting up where the RF patch is now. The RF prisms would be replaced by the cam controled electronic focus confirmation. The D-Lux 2 is an EVF camera and that is a long way from what I was trying to describe.
This wouldn't be a camera for machined brass lovers, but one that could take M-mount lenses and cost a bunch less for the good folks here that use the word "expensive" in their posts😉 The idea of making an alternative M has been tried with the Hexar line and the Contax G1 & 2 and they had their market, as does the Bessa. Asia can do it, but they have to get the scent of money to actually get going.
Bob
 
Last edited:
anselwannab said:
Since the lenses would cover a smaller image circle, how doable would these lenses be?

I don't care if the new mount is not the same as an M mount. Maybe you pull the flange back just a bit and make an adaptor so you could use M glass; just like with screw to M mount adaptors.



Mark
Click to expand...
Hi Mark,
One thing that might help this idea along is the off-set microlenses on the M8's sensor. This would ease up the telecentric designs of the lenses and allow for a shorter lens registration distance than the 4/3rds' 39mm(est). The vignetting with wide angles may still haunt, but now we know there are ways to deal with it. Your idea is good and Sigma's DP-1 is going part way and that may act as an incentive for something with a real optical viewfinder and interchangeable lenses. Something the size of the Leica CL.
Bob
 
35mmdelux said:
I'd prefer to let the dust settle before moving in the digi direction someday. Nevermind that the MP and M7 are at fire sale prices because of the digi revolution.
Click to expand...

Someone please tell me where this fire sale is happening! I haven't seen any outrageous price drops yet.


jeff
 
Nick R. said:
Include me in.

E-330 user. (which is why I believe it would make the basis for a great little drf).
Click to expand...

It will be interesting to see if Leica comes out with primes that are a lot smaller than the zoom. Something like the Pentax(?) pancake lenses for digital cameras. Then we might be talking. An 12,14,20,28, and 40 would be nice places to start.

I've seen in Pop photo that the zoom is excellent, but it is way to big.

Mark
 
Compact digital RF, why not...

Compact digital RF, why not...

I've seen several replies here about a cheaper and simpler RF to get the idea of RF's out to the general public. Do it simple, don't have interchangable lense make it very compact and a true pocket camera. Why not look at my favorite simple basic rangefinder the Kodak Retina IIIC? I would buy something like this in second.
 
johnastovall said:
I've seen several replies here about a cheaper and simpler RF to get the idea of RF's out to the general public. Do it simple, don't have interchangable lense make it very compact and a true pocket camera. Why not look at my favorite simple basic rangefinder the Kodak Retina IIIC? I would buy something like this in second.
Click to expand...
Hi John,
That is a real good point. In a way, if the mfrs would make an optical viewfinder with a floating frame and decent manual focusing or focus varification, we'd be one step ahead.
Bob
 
mfunnell said:
Hmm. Sony makes its own sensors. Sony is trying to make their mark in high-end cameras. I wonder what happened to the Hexar RF stuff in the K-M photographic acquisition? One can hope...

...Mike
Click to expand...

Since my R-D1 broke I've been using the ol' Hexar RF and thinking "this is a mighty nice camera" and how it'd be nice to have a digital version. Sony's got all the bits and pieces in hand... hmm...
 
Nikon SP digital rangefinder

Nikon SP digital rangefinder

Didier said:
I still believe Zeiss has digital plans for their rangefinder. But if they come out within 2 yrs. is another question. Photokina 09? Or before?

What about Nikon? They must have some RF-crazy members amongst their top executives, otherwise the recent S3 and SP re-releases wouldn't have happened. And if the tinkerers at Epson can put a Nikon D100 sensor in a Voigtlander Bessa, why shouldn't Nikon be able for such a project, too?

Didier
Click to expand...
yo Nikon, slap a sensor on the back of that 2005 SP

http://www.cameraquest.com/nrfblsp2005.htm & throw it out on the street 😉

Robert
 
Re: people enquiring "What camera is that!?" I have a Bessa R3M and I am constantly, and annoyingly, asked if it is digital, and when I say, "What's digital?" or "Yeah, digital, I mean, I use my fingers to operate it," I get stares of uncomprehending and, later, threats of ramming the non-digital black rangefinder down my throat. I'd love to have a digital Voigtlander, but I sure as hell aren't going to fork out for the Leica.

blakley said:
Short of camera geeks like us no one knows what a Leica is.

Totally wrong. Here's a list of the people who have asked me "Is that a digital Leica?" in the last week:

9th grader at my daughter's school.
Waitresses:4 (at 4 different establishments.)
Random strangers on the sidewalk: 3
Concierge (from Monterrey, Mex.) at a hotel in town
Piano player at same hotel
Gas station attendant
Elderly couple at next table over at dinner
Hairdresser (seated next to me at bar)
Realtor (ditto)

That's one week. Not atypical.
Click to expand...
 
mc_vancouver said:
Re: people enquiring "What camera is that!?" I have a Bessa R3M and I am constantly, and annoyingly, asked if it is digital, and when I say, "What's digital?" or "Yeah, digital, I mean, I use my fingers to operate it," I get stares of uncomprehending and, later, threats of ramming the non-digital black rangefinder down my throat. I'd love to have a digital Voigtlander, but I sure as hell aren't going to fork out for the Leica.
Click to expand...


Oddly enough, when people see my R-D1 (which is basically a digital Bessa) they assume it's film....

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