Ok help me out here ...

S

stric

Member
Local time
2:35 PM
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
43
So here I am, reading all this stuff about M8 and the specs, and how great it is, and how expensive it is, and how cool it is and ... so on and so on... whatever. One thing confuses me, and perhaps that's due to my lack of "digital" knowledge. Why does M8 utilize a smaller sensos than full frame?
Wouldn't a full frame sensor enable users to use their old Leica lenses as they are without loosing wide-angle and other features/capabilities. Or did I get the whole thing wrong?
If the main culprit is really the smaller sensor, why did Leica go that way?
Thanks
 
A full-frame sensor would allow M users to use their lenses with the 'original' framing.

Howver, the corners would go very dark with anything wider than 50mm, Because digital sensors do not play nicely with rangefinder-type, close-to-the-film wideangles.

See: http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00GyPX


You have four choices with current sensor technology: No digital Leica rangefinder at all; A digital Leica with a cropped sensor; or a digital Leica with a full-frame sensor and dark corners.

Leica decided B was the best option. I agree.

Oh, and before the subject of the 2 Canon FF cameras comes up - Canon's lenses sit a minimum of 42 mm away from the sensor, to allow room for the SLR mirror to flop around. Leica's lense sit from 12-28mm from the image plane, and are therfore much more troublesome for the sensor to work with.

I guess that means there was a fourth option - redesign the whole Leica lens line to be about the same optical design and size as Canon or Nikon SLR lenses (including the extra 20mm of back focus). The lenses would be bigger than the camera body - but they would work well on a full-frame sensor.
 
Last edited:
Also, full-frame sensor from Kodak probably could easily have added $2000 to the retail price of the camera, which would have been the kiss of death.

For instance, a camera for telescopes using the KAF-10010 is $10,750. The same vendor's model with the KAF-16801 (16 megapixels) is $19,495. As I've noted before, die (chip) size has a very non-linear affect on price.

Sure, Moore's Law will change all this in 5 years. But that's not a conspiracy on Leica's part to make us buy an M9 to replace the M8. But Leica should already be planning the M9, else they will find they can't get parts to make the M8 after 4 years...
 
See many other full frame discussion threads.

It is not a cropped sensor, it is what it is.

digital sensors can just take so much off axis, then even micro-lenses can't help.

It is laws ofphysics, (a phrase I have to repeat about 200 time in response to FF speculations at leas(t the author here has just posed a genuine question, didn't rant at Leica the way some other threads did.)

Anyway, think of it as a format that uses the better part of 35m lenses, is 3/2 aspect ratio and guess what, with the image circle larger than the sensor, you can do shifts! (more for the SLR crowd though)
:)

Hope it helps
and yes, I am a physicist

the M8 has many neat features, not the least of which , it is the ONLY real RF available (ok RD-1 was ok :))

regards
Victor
 
Hi Viktor! Slumming from FM?:p One might add that there is no conceivable reason for a photographic image to be 24x36. Rather the opposite, it is a rather unfortunate size from the compositional point of view for instance and has put great stress on the resolving power of film. But, St.Barnack happened to pick It through historical coincidence, and now It is hallowed....
 
I have a sentimental attachment to the idea of a digital M8. Mainly because of the illustrious history of the M and the place of Leica in the world of photography.

But I cannot escape some serious reservations about the M8.

Already Leica are calling the M8 "a timeless digital camera". (See the Leica official website).

Ironically this statement by Leica may yet have identified the M8's greatest weakness. In no short time its sensor will be old technology, housed in a very expensive camera. Already the sensor has it shortcommings in terms of cropping etc. Unless owners will be able to have their M8 upgraded with a new sensor in time, the owners must face the prospect that they have paid a very considerable sum for a camera which will inevitably be bettered in an alarming short space of time.

Who will be using the current M8 sensor in 10 or even 5 years time?

I can only say that Leica must be very careful about the pricing of the M8 body.

This could be Leica's last chance to get it right. To fail commercially with the M8 may consign the story of Leica and its legindary rangefinder cameras to documentaries, museums and quaint clutered secondhand shops.
 
jaapv said:
Hi Viktor! Slumming from FM?:p One might add that there is no conceivable reason for a photographic image to be 24x36. Rather the opposite, it is a rather unfortunate size from the compositional point of view for instance and has put great stress on the resolving power of film. But, St.Barnack happened to pick It through historical coincidence, and now It is hallowed....
Click to expand...

Hallo Jaap!

No, certainly not slumming. This is a top notch crowd. I have many "F" letters in my keyboard and need to use them up so I am seeking out Full Frame discussions!:D

Very good point on history. We are also remembering that cost was the driver for 35mm, that is much movie film was made and cheaper so it was good to take the roll and just use it horizontal (film is 24x18mm so is 1/2 size of the 35mm stills.

Also, many years since I am using RF so I want to learn about lenses new technique etc. So far, the best thing I remember was "Keep elbows in" :)

regards
Viktor
 
As long as the M8 can give me the same quality I now get from my M6 and film, it's not going to ever be obsolete in my book. The availability of spare parts in 5 years, most of which are made by outsource suppliers, could be a big problem. The camera still won't be obsolete, but it could be unrepairable.
 
Sim LL said:
I have a sentimental attachment to the idea of a digital M8. Mainly because of the illustrious history of the M and the place of Leica in the world of photography.

But I cannot escape some serious reservations about the M8.

Already Leica are calling the M8 "a timeless digital camera". (See the Leica official website).

Ironically this statement by Leica may yet have identified the M8's greatest weakness. In no short time its sensor will be old technology, housed in a very expensive camera. Already the sensor has it shortcommings in terms of cropping etc. Unless owners will be able to have their M8 upgraded with a new sensor in time, the owners must face the prospect that they have paid a very considerable sum for a camera which will inevitably be bettered in an alarming short space of time.

Who will be using the current M8 sensor in 10 or even 5 years time?

I can only say that Leica must be very careful about the pricing of the M8 body.

This could be Leica's last chance to get it right. To fail commercially with the M8 may consign the story of Leica and its legindary rangefinder cameras to documentaries, museums and quaint clutered secondhand shops.
Click to expand...


Welcome to the forum. I fear you are rehasing some old stuff,that has already been discussed to death in other threads.I will recapitulate the plus arguments for you:
1. The possibility of new sensor technology will not make this sensor, which seems to be excellent, suddenly bad bad. It is already (sorry, film-fans, not meant inflammatory!) as good or better than film, which is good enough for most of us. Many users will be shooting their (possibly obsolete) M8 happily in ten years time, with excellent results.
2. The pricing of the M8, although it is a big heap of money which would buy an amazing heap of donuts, is in fact pretty competetive and not an issue for Leica's prospective clientele.
3. The interest this camera has generated is indicative of a pretty bright future for Leica.
 
Thanks for the Plus side Jaap.

History teaches us that the "M5"was a runnaway sucess because it was so far ahead of any other offerings in the market place at the time.

Fastforward to 2006 -

Can the same now be said of a 10 megapixel digital camera with the M8's proposed crop factor? Can the same be said of this rangefiner given what is proposed with the M8 view finder. Let's remember that the M viewfinder is its comparable strength.

Or is this just an expensive "also ran" camera to which a bunch of guys and girls can retrofit a collection of old lenses. Because if it is, the competition will be posed to make a killing. (Ready - start - go - Epson et all).

It really is imperative that the commercial issues be examined and driven home to the management at Leica. We can obsess all we like about the technical specifications, advantages and shortcommings of the M8, but the big commercial picture can't be ignored. How did Leica not see what digital would do to photography"? It is not as though digital slipped in via the servants entrace 2 years ago.

Interest in an internet forum does not necessarily mean hard cash will be handed over at the counter. Most users of the M system have long since moved on. Even the asking price for second hand equipment reflects this fact.

At the end of the day selling cameras is a business, not a hobby for lense enthusiests. Leica can't depend on cashed up enthusiasts alone if it is to make the sort of revenues that can allow the RD necessary for its lofty lenses.

I am sure that the shareholds and creditors of Leica agree with me and, as we speak, are very nervous.

I really am on Leicas side. I really want them to get it right.
 
Which headline would set the photography world on fire?

"Leica annouces the world's first digital ff rangefiner - equalivalent to 35mm film"

or

"Leica announces a digital rangfinder - and here are 101 technical reasons (some rather obscure) as to why it offers not much that isn't already available".

Is the M8 worthy of Leica's pedigree or is it a compromise transitionary camera or just plain nostalgia for a pssing era.

It is little wonder that here in Asia every kid who scrapes together enough money for a quality camera, to step up from the point and shoot crowd, reaches for the cannon or nikon dslr counter.
 
Sim LL said:
Which headline would set the photography world on fire?

"Leica annouces the world's first digital ff rangefiner - equalivalent to 35mm film"

or

"Leica announces a digital rangfinder - and here are 101 technical reasons (some rather obscure) as to why it offers not much that isn't already available".

Is the M8 worthy of Leica's pedigree or is it a compromise transitionary camera or just plain nostalgia for a pssing era.

It is little wonder that here in Asia every kid who scrapes together enough money for a quality camera, to step up from the point and shoot crowd, reaches for the cannon or nikon dslr counter.
Click to expand...

Or:" Leica announces digital rangefinder - grotty corners due to technical impossibilities. "

Or:"Leica announces no digital RF possible because of unreasonable demands by customers"

I somehow doubt that a kid that scrapes together enough money and goes for a DSLR is Leica's marketing target. Most kids I know that go for quality photography scrape together enough money to buy a beat-up Leica M2 and scratched Summicron. Or, with some less scraping, a FED and Jupiter. I think a comparison of the photographic results will favor the latter category.

btw, which vowel did you have in mind for ""pssing"? :D:D

Sim LL said:
It really is imperative that the commercial issues be examined and driven home to the management at Leica. We can obsess all we like about the technical specifications, advantages and shortcommings of the M8, but the big commercial picture can't be ignored. How did Leica not see what digital would do to photography"? It is not as though digital slipped in via the servants entrace 2 years ago.
Click to expand...

I think you missed out on the differences in designing a RF as opposed to a DSLR. A top quality RF was simply impossible, despite Epsons valiant and commendable attempt, up until now and even then it needs a horrendously expensive sensor and cannot be anything beyond 27x18 mm for a (not 101) basic technical, not commercial reason.

Actually I just now came across a statement from Zeiss on another forum that comes very close to the style of headlines you proposed.

Will this keep Asian kids from buying DSLR's? I for one am very happy that Leica managed to bring out a digital RF that looks really good.

The 20. march 2006 I wrote to Zeiss and asked them if we would possibly see a digital Zeiss Rangefinder camera within a year or two ?
The 24. april 2006 I received this answer:

"Here our answer on that digital rangefinder camera:

We believe that customers for such a camera are familiar with rangefinder photography and do already own such equipment.
We further are convinced that a digi RF, which should fully satisfy such customer wishes, needs to come with a full frame sensor.
Only then all lenses which such a customer already owns can be used with that same image angles on the new digital body.

We have been searching the market for such a full frame sensor of sufficiently high quality. We found none.
Since Carl Zeiss is one of the leading manufacturers of aerial reconnaissance cameras we are aware of upcoming developments of the most capable digital imaging sensor makers.
From there we see that a really good full frame sensor is not even in the planning.

Therefore, we cannot advise a date at which we might come out with a DRF camera.
Sorry that I cannot give a more optimistic answer."
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
It hasn't evem been released yet and it allready is a success. As long as Leica stops jacking the price 20% every quarter I think it will sell and continue to sell. And I do think that cashed amateurs are going to make it or break it. Pros are the core but amateurs are the profits. Just my .02.
Steve
 
John Shriver said:
Also, full-frame sensor from Kodak probably could easily have added $2000 to the retail price of the camera, which would have been the kiss of death.

For instance, a camera for telescopes using the KAF-10010 is $10,750. The same vendor's model with the KAF-16801 (16 megapixels) is $19,495. As I've noted before, die (chip) size has a very non-linear affect on price.
Click to expand...

Yes it does - the smaller the sensor is, the cheaper it will be. Industry trends would allow for packimg more circuitry on a smaller chip - but it is unclear how this would allow a chip to grow bigger for cheaper.:eek:

Sure, Moore's Law will change all this in 5 years. But that's not a conspiracy on Leica's part to make us buy an M9 to replace the M8. But Leica should already be planning the M9, else they will find they can't get parts to make the M8 after 4 years...
Click to expand...

Given that Moore's law deals with miniatarization of circuitry - not getting larger silicon for less money - it is not clear to me how much cheaper sensors will get using Moore's Law. I think more capability in a given sensor, more bit depth, better noise and so on - but larger area? I am not so sure.:confused:

I'd love it to be the case since it would do really well for the semiconductor processing industry - since whole new generations of equipment would need to be made to make large sensor cheaper - and it would be an easy investment! :)
 
boilerdoc2 said:
It hasn't evem been released yet and it allready is a success. As long as Leica stops jacking the price 20% every quarter I think it will sell and continue to sell. And I do think that cashed amateurs are going to make it or break it. Pros are the core but amateurs are the profits. Just my .02.
Steve
Click to expand...

I hope they do their math well - though at $4500-5000 per M8, a Hasselblad kit is cheaper! :(:(:(
 
Four years ago I jokingly offered my left arm for a digital M, and was told in light-hearted conversation by one smug asshole after another in our sad local 'pro' shop that its 'impossible' and would 'never' happen.

Leica thoughtfully spend the last four years figuring out how to bend their near-perfect light-rays into the magically little wells of the photo-sites and packaging all the gizmodery of digital into the body of the classic M.

Having spent a staggering amount (millions, upon millions of Euros) on R&D to do the "impossible", re-engineered the entire guts of the camera, and written firmware customized to their camera/sensor/lens combination, Leica is now willing to sell me my dream camera for a mere $2000 more than the price of an M7.....

....depending on how you look at it, it's either a bad deal or a complete bargain :)
 
I've said this before, but 24x36mm is just a number. God didn't hand it to Oskar Barnack on stone tablets and say, "Thou shalt have no other imager dimensions than these."

Nobody cares about 24x36mm except 35mm-film purists (a comparatively small and shrinking segment, many of whom wouldn't buy any digital camera no matter how good it is) and of course the marketing department at Canon :) To everyone else it's just a historical curiosity. Nobody is carping about the fact that the Hasselblad H3 has "only" a 48mm sensor instead of the traditional 56.7mm x 56.7mm.

Even most photographers who started out in 35mm stop worrying about "crop factor" within days of getting their first interchangeable-lens digital camera. They just shove on whatever lens produces the desired angle of view, and take pictures. Granted, there are legitimate and necessary exceptions to this, but fewer than the 24x36 purists like to think.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom