I so much want to dump my DSLR because of its weight. I only wish I had a digital M to use my existing lenses on. Where are you? Will it be an RD-2 or a Digital Zeiss Ikon? Or will you show your self and let me buy you?
I like the RD-1 But the 6 MP just does not cut it for me when I currently have nearly 17 on my DSLR. I will settle for 10 if Leica would just produce the camera. I have come to the realization that the M lenses cannot be beat! I use Zeiss on myCanon because the Canon lens is so poor when compared to the Zeiss. I want to use my Leica 21 and 35 on a rangefinder and get 16 x 20 prints.
Again I ask, where are you? Are you on paper or a prototype in testing? Are you an idea or part of a production line plan? Are you for real or just a myth?
I like the RD-1 But the 6 MP just does not cut it for me when I currently have nearly 17 on my DSLR. I will settle for 10 if Leica would just produce the camera. I have come to the realization that the M lenses cannot be beat! I use Zeiss on myCanon because the Canon lens is so poor when compared to the Zeiss. I want to use my Leica 21 and 35 on a rangefinder and get 16 x 20 prints.
Again I ask, where are you? Are you on paper or a prototype in testing? Are you an idea or part of a production line plan? Are you for real or just a myth?
jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
Just ask yourself: How many megapixels did Capa have?
Yeah, okay, it doesn't help -- it's the curse of our consumer era. (To paraphrase Gandhi, "There's more to life than increasing its pixel count.") Oh, well, if Leica doesn't free you from DSLR bondage, maybe Zeiss-Ikon will...
Yeah, okay, it doesn't help -- it's the curse of our consumer era. (To paraphrase Gandhi, "There's more to life than increasing its pixel count.") Oh, well, if Leica doesn't free you from DSLR bondage, maybe Zeiss-Ikon will...
Tom Diaz
Well-known
For me, the missing link is the digital rangefinder that (although it may cost $3000 like an RD-1) will protect my investment. For example--never mind if this is supposed to be impossible at the moment--how about a rangefinder with a digital sensor that is user-replaceable, or even factory upgradeable? A sane person can justify spending $1000 on a 50-year-old M3 because, if maintained, it is compatible with the best modern films and the best modern lenses.
At the moment, even $3000 digital cameras are disposable plastic appliances compared with products like the M3.
I would pay more for a digital Leica than they're thinking about right now in Solms if I could own the body for a decade or two and use it as a platform for more of their great optics.
At the moment, even $3000 digital cameras are disposable plastic appliances compared with products like the M3.
I would pay more for a digital Leica than they're thinking about right now in Solms if I could own the body for a decade or two and use it as a platform for more of their great optics.
Well, of course you can easily do that today with equipment you already have, and film that you can easily obtain. Why insist on digital when you've also got a great film scanner?Jorge Torralba said:
Reminds me of Elvis singing "Mona Lisa".Jorge Torralba said:
taffer
void
Doug said:Well, of course you can easily do that today with equipment you already have, and film that you can easily obtain. Why insist on digital when you've also got a great film scanner?
Reminds me of Elvis singing "Mona Lisa".
And in fact Jorge, film will provide you with a fantastic intermediate image backup, independent of any electronic device yet with direct vision support (and solar powered if you like!) and retaining all the possible image information in a tiny bit of plastic-like physical media.
I seriously think that even if film dies someday, they will have to reinvent it just to provide an energy independent backup media for important imagery.
Embrace the digital M when it arrives, meanwhile enjoy the fantastic analogic one
Or you could just let it go and go get a Canon P
Bertram2
Gone elsewhere
No M8-D
No M8-D
Jorge,
I am afraid there is still not much work done for this project , mostly because there was no money left for research and concept.
I suppose them still to fiddle with a solution for that special RF problem with wides and super-wides tho I have no idea what the (optical) solution could be.
I could imagine they try FIRST OF ALL to get rid of this lens messing factor of 1,5, which means they try a full frame chip which multiplies the RF problem for digital cameras.This factor is simply not acceptable for most of the M clients, who all spent a fortune on their fine lenses and don't want them beeing devaluated on a digital body.
If Leica clients were willing to accept a factor 1,5X they could buy a RD-1 now or wait for a RD-2 coming soon with 10MP.
It would not make any sense for Leica to concur with this offer on a even higher price level. The RD-1 way can't be the Leica way. Epson did not solve the problem, it is just a poor compromise in the eyes of the Leica board, believe me.
And I am not sure if there is any reasonable way out of this technical dilemma for Leica or in general.
It is absolutely clear that this camera ( if it ever will come) must be very expensive, I expect it to be 2 or three times more at least than a RD-1, but it must be better too to justify the price. Their whole business depends on this camera in future, the current portfolio can't feed them but must get feeded itself..
Personally I'd be surprised to see Leica offering a digital RF. As long as no investor is involved bringing money and digital know how. Maybe there is no investor up 'til todaybecause there is simply no market big enuff to justify the development of a $ 9000 M8-D ?
Best,
Bertram
P.S.:
My recommendation would be to spend the $9000 better on a filmscanner.
Because even if Leica solves the problem, the pics will still have that ugly digital look,
No M8-D
Jorge Torralba said:
Jorge,
I am afraid there is still not much work done for this project , mostly because there was no money left for research and concept.
I suppose them still to fiddle with a solution for that special RF problem with wides and super-wides tho I have no idea what the (optical) solution could be.
I could imagine they try FIRST OF ALL to get rid of this lens messing factor of 1,5, which means they try a full frame chip which multiplies the RF problem for digital cameras.This factor is simply not acceptable for most of the M clients, who all spent a fortune on their fine lenses and don't want them beeing devaluated on a digital body.
If Leica clients were willing to accept a factor 1,5X they could buy a RD-1 now or wait for a RD-2 coming soon with 10MP.
It would not make any sense for Leica to concur with this offer on a even higher price level. The RD-1 way can't be the Leica way. Epson did not solve the problem, it is just a poor compromise in the eyes of the Leica board, believe me.
And I am not sure if there is any reasonable way out of this technical dilemma for Leica or in general.
It is absolutely clear that this camera ( if it ever will come) must be very expensive, I expect it to be 2 or three times more at least than a RD-1, but it must be better too to justify the price. Their whole business depends on this camera in future, the current portfolio can't feed them but must get feeded itself..
Personally I'd be surprised to see Leica offering a digital RF. As long as no investor is involved bringing money and digital know how. Maybe there is no investor up 'til todaybecause there is simply no market big enuff to justify the development of a $ 9000 M8-D ?
Best,
Bertram
P.S.:
My recommendation would be to spend the $9000 better on a filmscanner.
Because even if Leica solves the problem, the pics will still have that ugly digital look,
jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
Brian Sweeney said:
A lot less, after the lab guy turned up the drying heat too much on his D-Day negatives and melted them...