jwhitley
Established
This makes no sense. Having shipped embedded consumer electronics devices, I'll say that one does not increase profits for an embedded electronic device solely by increasing the BOM (bill of materials) costs. :bang: Consider that the FF sensors are young and expensive technology. Just being larger means that production yields will be lower due to increased defect rates, the same as for computer chip production. The high cost of an FF sensor merits introduction at the high end while production and integration costs are still high for FF sensors.
There are also marketing and customer relations concerns: On one hand, it's something to show off at the high end. On the other, introducing an FF sensor anywhere other than at the top-end models would produce massive customer confusion.
jackal2513
richbroadbent
if a full fraem sensor is not possible and they aren't developing one for the M8 then why did Steven Lee say they were ? Sounds more like he leaked something they didn't want to broadcast and then they backtracked. Or maybe thats just wishful thinking.
whatever the price, I would be first in the queue for a FF M. The Noctilux would be truly useable and all those wide angles would look normal again. I hate the fact that the picture is heavily underscanned for any given focal length.... it just doesn't look right !
whatever the price, I would be first in the queue for a FF M. The Noctilux would be truly useable and all those wide angles would look normal again. I hate the fact that the picture is heavily underscanned for any given focal length.... it just doesn't look right !
Ben Z
Veteran
It's possible Dr. Kaufmann might have asked him the same question during the exit interview
But not getting a FF upgrade for the M8 doesn't mean a FF ins't being researched/developed for a new camera model, eg M9.I have to confess I have no idea what you mean by that. My shots on the M8 look exactly like the same shots would look from an M6 after cropping. If I were to step back enough to compensate for the crop, they would be identical.
kuzano
Veteran
My sincere apologies to jwhitley (and others)
My sincere apologies to jwhitley (and others)
I feel I must learn to brand my perverted sense of humor and sarcasm by placing one of those emoticons with the wry smile at each end of my sarcastic comments.
No, I do not truly believe that any of the manufactures are charging by the pound on each camera sold.
My comment should be taken to reinforce that NOT ONE manufacturer has offered a FF sensor camera that was not markedly bigger than the crop factor cameras sized for 2X (4/3rds) to 1.7X (many Canon/Nikon/Other Mfrs).
I think this alone reinforces the argument that, based on current technology of FF sensors (which may remain true for an undetermined time), it appears that there is not a way to make a FF camera in the size that both Leica and Leica enthusiast would be satisfied with. That being the case, I doubt that Leica would risk coming to market with a FF camera at the sizes dictated by currently possible standards.
As I said before, the people advancing the cause of digital sensors will more likely pursue better image quality from smaller sensors than to try to pursue a smaller package of support technology so that FF sensors will fit in a smaller body. It makes more sense to engineer in that direction for the mass market than to spend huge amounts of money to satisfy a tiny (Leica) market which will not sell enough cameras at $7000 to recover a fraction of the development.
Furthermore, it appears from all I have read here and in other venues, the sensor size in the M8 is NOT a problem. It captures very good images in it's own right. The problems mentioned seem to be in how the crop sensor interacts with standard 35mm lenses, and in software complications of the camera. On the software side, it seems to me that a FF sensor would not automatically resolve the issue of the M8 being poor on JPEG writing and White Balance issues. Those can be taken care of without a larger sensor.
As for the need to buy lenses specific to the crop factor. That issue is true for the masses moving from any film SLR to crop factor DSLR cameras. If the average professional or advanced amateur must pony up the money for dedicated digital crop factor lenses, then truly serious Leica enthusiasts happy with the M8 can surely more afford to come up with the additional money for dedicated digital lenses.
However, for that to happen, Leica and makers of lenses for the Leica need to show a serious commitment to digital image capture by providing crop factor lenses that work with the M8 and successors on the current crop factor. Otherwise, Leica needs to show commitment by coming to market with a much bigger M9 containing the FF sensor, using existing lenses (If they can overcome the angle of incidence problem in doing so), and see if they can pencil out a profit on a smaller number of buyers at a higher price.
Otherwise, Leica may be faced with the possibility of dropping RF digital in the M series, expand on their partnership with Panasonic, come to market with a FF DSLR, and continue to derive M money out of a film only market.
My sincere apologies to jwhitley (and others)
I feel I must learn to brand my perverted sense of humor and sarcasm by placing one of those emoticons with the wry smile at each end of my sarcastic comments.
No, I do not truly believe that any of the manufactures are charging by the pound on each camera sold.My comment should be taken to reinforce that NOT ONE manufacturer has offered a FF sensor camera that was not markedly bigger than the crop factor cameras sized for 2X (4/3rds) to 1.7X (many Canon/Nikon/Other Mfrs).
I think this alone reinforces the argument that, based on current technology of FF sensors (which may remain true for an undetermined time), it appears that there is not a way to make a FF camera in the size that both Leica and Leica enthusiast would be satisfied with. That being the case, I doubt that Leica would risk coming to market with a FF camera at the sizes dictated by currently possible standards.
As I said before, the people advancing the cause of digital sensors will more likely pursue better image quality from smaller sensors than to try to pursue a smaller package of support technology so that FF sensors will fit in a smaller body. It makes more sense to engineer in that direction for the mass market than to spend huge amounts of money to satisfy a tiny (Leica) market which will not sell enough cameras at $7000 to recover a fraction of the development.
Furthermore, it appears from all I have read here and in other venues, the sensor size in the M8 is NOT a problem. It captures very good images in it's own right. The problems mentioned seem to be in how the crop sensor interacts with standard 35mm lenses, and in software complications of the camera. On the software side, it seems to me that a FF sensor would not automatically resolve the issue of the M8 being poor on JPEG writing and White Balance issues. Those can be taken care of without a larger sensor.
As for the need to buy lenses specific to the crop factor. That issue is true for the masses moving from any film SLR to crop factor DSLR cameras. If the average professional or advanced amateur must pony up the money for dedicated digital crop factor lenses, then truly serious Leica enthusiasts happy with the M8 can surely more afford to come up with the additional money for dedicated digital lenses.
However, for that to happen, Leica and makers of lenses for the Leica need to show a serious commitment to digital image capture by providing crop factor lenses that work with the M8 and successors on the current crop factor. Otherwise, Leica needs to show commitment by coming to market with a much bigger M9 containing the FF sensor, using existing lenses (If they can overcome the angle of incidence problem in doing so), and see if they can pencil out a profit on a smaller number of buyers at a higher price.
Otherwise, Leica may be faced with the possibility of dropping RF digital in the M series, expand on their partnership with Panasonic, come to market with a FF DSLR, and continue to derive M money out of a film only market.
jplomley
Established
Why not scale back their promise a bit to the same crop factor but a sensor with improved noise performance. I would certainly upgrade my M8 for better ISO 1250 and 2500 performance long before I add a saphire screen. Give me a break already on these nonsensical upgrades. Why should the customer have to pay for Leica's oversight concerning shutter noise. It should have been done right in the first place.
jackal2513
richbroadbent
but then they would be cropped for the position at which you are standing !
i don't like cropped wides personally, the space feels cramped for the given optical characteristics... they don't feel right
jwhitley
Established
Likewise, my sarcasm meter was apparently acting up. :bang: Time for a CLA, methinks...
This is true, but based on my experience in embedded electronics, I believe this to be an artifact of the non-sensor features and designed form-factors of the targeted dSLRs. The bodies at these ranges have been pretty big for several generations. Compare the very similar dimensions of the Nikon D2X to the Nikon D3. The D3 is ~200g heavier, but its physical size is so close that it would be difficult for an outside observer (and possibly even for the engineering team) to ascribe to any one component change between the models.
The chip size of a full frame sensor is substantial, but not so large as to be a prohibitive factor in compact body design. Quick searches provide this example: press release on new Sony 24 MP FF sensor. The chip dimensions are about 40mm by 32mm -- big, but not nearly so much as to induce a form-factor change on the entire camera. Of course, if you want bulk, check out these images of the Sony FF sensor bare vs. mounted in Sony's in-camera image stabilization harness. Maybe we'll just have to agree to forego in-body IS in our FF dRF dreams.
I'm more concerned about the big known technical limitation: angle of incidence issues with modern sensors, a particular plague of current digital RF designs that causes vignetting. Folks here and there talk about this problem as "impossible", which IMO is balderdash. It's an engineering problem like any other, and requires resources to resolve. If some large player (Nikon, Canon, Sony) had a desire to solve this, they've got the staff, facilities, and resources to make it happen. Leica may be able to work with a partner (as they already have with Kodak) to see this through as well. Time will tell.
Meanwhile, there's film.
Ben Z
Veteran
I guess I still don't get it. I used to have a Hasselblad. On it a 50mm lens was a wide angle. On my Pentax 50mm was a 'standard' lens. I don't recall me (or for that matter anybody else who shot both formats) ever grousing about the fact their small-format camera cropped 50mm from wide to standard. They just bought whatever lens for wide angle gave them the same coverage as the 50mm did on medium format. I think of my M8 (which crops much less than between medium and small-format BTW ) as a smaller-format camera and I use a shorter lens (12 instead of 15, 15 instead of 21, etcetera). There was a huge advantage to medium-format in terms of image quality, but that's by and large not the case between FF and 1.3-crop digitals where the pixel count is in the same range (i.e. not comparing a 10-12mp cropped sensor to a 22mp FF).
Last edited:
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
I'm with you here, Ben. In essence, the whole full-format complaint (a total misuse of the term, btw, a full-format sensor -or film - is the sensor the same size as the print. The last time we saw that in daily photography was contacts from a 6x9...) boils down to one thing: I want to stand here, see this perspective and this field of view and I want the same number on my lens. The only real difference being a slight change in DOF which is moot anyway, since wideangles are certainly no first choice for narrow-dof photography.
Bill Blackwell
Leica M Shooter
I am flabbergasted this thread is still going.
First, five minutes of web research would reveal that Steven Lee (or, for that matter, anyone at Leica) never made such a promise. What Lee indicated was that Leica was looking into a full-frame sensor as a "possibility" within the upgrade program. Quite frankly, such an upgrade would require almost entirely new innards (new RF mag, new shutter, new sensor, etc.). Any larger sensor would indeed make more sense if installed in an entirely new camera - M9.
Second, initially I felt inhibited by the 1.33x crop factor. But now I am almost completely adjusted to it. I would agree with some other posters that an improved sensor (higher mega pixels, better high ISO quality, etc.) would be more productive in the short run as an upgrade (should the upgrade concept even survive).
Any talk of a full-frame sensor (M8 upgrade) is shear nonsense and pure speculation.
First, five minutes of web research would reveal that Steven Lee (or, for that matter, anyone at Leica) never made such a promise. What Lee indicated was that Leica was looking into a full-frame sensor as a "possibility" within the upgrade program. Quite frankly, such an upgrade would require almost entirely new innards (new RF mag, new shutter, new sensor, etc.). Any larger sensor would indeed make more sense if installed in an entirely new camera - M9.
Second, initially I felt inhibited by the 1.33x crop factor. But now I am almost completely adjusted to it. I would agree with some other posters that an improved sensor (higher mega pixels, better high ISO quality, etc.) would be more productive in the short run as an upgrade (should the upgrade concept even survive).
Any talk of a full-frame sensor (M8 upgrade) is shear nonsense and pure speculation.
Bill Blackwell
Leica M Shooter
You hit the proverbial nail on the head.
It is in fact in the super-wide category in which the Leica M thrives. So M users like to see the 28mm as an un-cropped 28mm, a 21mm (and so forth). This thinking bleeds into the standard lens category in which photographers are used to their 50mm lens characteristics (DOF, bukeh, etc.) and prefer not to use a cropped 35mm lens for the same job.
It simply comes down to the fact that Leica M users want their lenses where they are - un-cropped. Taking three steps backwards for similar results just will not do.
kbg32
neo-romanticist
I'm surprised this thread is still going as well. It is not the camera that is hindered, it's the people who don't own a M8, who think they want/need something other then what is currently available. There is nothing wrong with the crop factor. If and when Lieca produces a full frame rf, great, if not great too. While you are waiting, I'll be happily making images.
jackal2513
richbroadbent
the noctilux is not the same lens with a crop
the noctilux is one of teh big big reasons for FF
you lose a lot of its character and a lot of its useability (50mm is a useless focal length on the M8)
LONG LIVE THE FF M9
the noctilux is one of teh big big reasons for FF
you lose a lot of its character and a lot of its useability (50mm is a useless focal length on the M8)
LONG LIVE THE FF M9
Bill Blackwell
Leica M Shooter
Agreed. I am 100% with you on this one.
I was simply attempting to address your question (how exactly is the m8 hindered by it's current manifestation... ?) by illustrating the prevailing wisdom of proponents of the FF digital sensor "upgrade" in the M8 (or M9, if you will). But it was never my intension to endorse its line of thinking, either by implication or otherwise.
Since I acquired my M8 about a year ago, my M cameras have become elaborate paperweights. In fact, I am currently down to one film M camera (LHSA MP) and finding it increasingly difficult to justify holding on to.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Och- they should bring out "digital" lenses then by that way of thinking. Thankfully they don't.
giellaleafapmu
Well-known
I put YES... You know, if the company does not die...well, let's say in 40 or 50 years...well, if photography will still exists as we know it I mean, then they might well put a full frame sensor in their cameras...no wait, at least a better sensor, maybe not full frame as that might imply a little change of look which Leica conoisseurs could not really tollerate... Not sure I will be interested in the camera (if I myself live that long)...
GLF
GLF
bottley1
only to feel
when Oskar Barnack first formulated the 35mm still camera "standard" , I wonder if the luddites then bemoned the fact that they could not use their 1/2 plate lenses on the new format? Forget the 1.33x concept, just accept it as a new format....The optical concepts pertaining against a full frame M digital camera have been thrashed to death on this subject.
Jim Evidon
Jim
Full frame M8?
Full frame M8?
What total and utter blathering nonsense!
Consider the geometry of the Leica body; full frame or M8. Consider the optics of Leica and 3rd party M mount lenses. Then read the following excellent article, although there are many others that set forth the same set of facts
.http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/Leica-M8-Perspective.shtml
Conclusion: There may be a FF digital Leica RF camera in the future, but it won't be an updated M8. You cannot put 7 gallons in a five gallon container.
Having just returned from several weeks in Alaska with my Nikon D300 and my M8, I have concluded that the D300 is a formidable and superb piece of digital photographic equipment and the M8 is a photographer's camera that is easy to use, versatile and doesn't get in between the mind's eye and the subject. The color is unsurpassed and the image overall is equal to the D300 in every way as long as the ISO is kept at 650 or less. But that is what photography is all about; finding creative solutions to a satisfying image..
Jim Evidon
Happy M8 owner (in training)
Nikon D300
Contax G2
Full frame M8?
What total and utter blathering nonsense!
Consider the geometry of the Leica body; full frame or M8. Consider the optics of Leica and 3rd party M mount lenses. Then read the following excellent article, although there are many others that set forth the same set of facts
.http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/Leica-M8-Perspective.shtml
Conclusion: There may be a FF digital Leica RF camera in the future, but it won't be an updated M8. You cannot put 7 gallons in a five gallon container.
Having just returned from several weeks in Alaska with my Nikon D300 and my M8, I have concluded that the D300 is a formidable and superb piece of digital photographic equipment and the M8 is a photographer's camera that is easy to use, versatile and doesn't get in between the mind's eye and the subject. The color is unsurpassed and the image overall is equal to the D300 in every way as long as the ISO is kept at 650 or less. But that is what photography is all about; finding creative solutions to a satisfying image..
Jim Evidon
Happy M8 owner (in training)
Nikon D300
Contax G2
Jim Evidon
Jim
John,
Amen and may that be the last word in this thread.
Happy shooting,
Jim
Amen and may that be the last word in this thread.
Happy shooting,
Jim
Uwe_Nds
Chief Assistant Driver
The "I couldn't care less."-option is missing.
I am happy with it as it is.
Best regards,
Uwe
I am happy with it as it is.
Best regards,
Uwe