Putts thoughts on upcoming M8

[ian_watts]

I wont agree. Image quality most likely be comparable to the DMR, which compares favorably or better to the EOS 1DsMkII and some brave reviewers say that it approaches medium format.... The main draw is that the Leica M lenses can outshine most SLR lenses and this glass has been idle

I have my name down for an M8, and will most likely buy one if it's not an absolute dog, but I'm not so sure that you can ssume that the DMR quality will automatically translate over to the rangefinder line. Obviously, Leica will be doing their utmost to maximise image quality (the zebra stripes being an evident part of this) but the inherent shortcomings of M lenses for digital capture (by this I mean the 'oblique ray problem') may mean that DMR quality is simply not attainable - at least not with the shorter focal lengths (especially those with rear elements that are very close to the film plane). My worry is that the M8 may turn out to simply be a rather better built RD-1 - a kind of okayish digital option for a great set of lenses. I know that the RD-1 has its admirers but I gave it a serious go (used one almost exclusively for around 7 months) and had to conclude that the image quality just wasn't ultimately that good. Frankly, I felt that it was bettered by some fairly cheap digicams with optimised 'digital' lenses and made me question the wisdom of using £1500 lenses to get what were pretty mediocre results. It may be that the ageing RD-1/D100 sensor was the biggest factor in this mediocrity (as I saw it) but my worry is that short focal length rangefinder lenses simply aren't that well suited (yet) to digital capture. I hope I am proved wrong.

 

[Nachkebia]

Is this fake?

 

[jaapv]

Well, seeing that it has a film rewind lever, it does not look very convincing.......

 

[Mark Norton]

That's not the film rewind knob, that's the integrated emergency battery recharging handle. Hadn't you heard??

Actually, it looks like a photoshopped image of a Digilux 2 grafted onto the back of an M7 with the wind on lever painted out.

 

[Mark Norton]

I have my name down for an M8, and will most likely buy one if it's not an absolute dog, but I'm not so sure that you can ssume that the DMR quality will automatically translate over to the rangefinder line. Obviously, Leica will be doing their utmost to maximise image quality (the zebra stripes being an evident part of this) but the inherent shortcomings of M lenses for digital capture (by this I mean the 'oblique ray problem') may mean that DMR quality is simply not attainable - at least not with the shorter focal lengths (especially those with rear elements that are very close to the film plane). My worry is that the M8 may turn out to simply be a rather better built RD-1 - a kind of okayish digital option for a great set of lenses. I know that the RD-1 has its admirers but I gave it a serious go (used one almost exclusively for around 7 months) and had to conclude that the image quality just wasn't ultimately that good. Frankly, I felt that it was bettered by some fairly cheap digicams with optimised 'digital' lenses and made me question the wisdom of using £1500 lenses to get what were pretty mediocre results. It may be that the ageing RD-1/D100 sensor was the biggest factor in this mediocrity (as I saw it) but my worry is that short focal length rangefinder lenses simply aren't that well suited (yet) to digital capture. I hope I am proved wrong.

Have to say I am not seeing "mediocre results" at all from my R-D1 and they stand comparison with those from my D2x and Nikon's best lenses, less resolution of course but good noise performance. IMHO, the R-D1 is a fine performer at its price point.

5 years on in sensor terms, plus the lens coding, minus the moire filter and I think we are assured of top class results, with the DMR being the benchmark to meet or exceed. It does sound like they could only take the quality so far without the lens coding though and it will be interesting to compare with and without coding. It's hard to see the M8 being a dog. Leica will have seriously lost their way if it is. Given products like the DMR and the APO 75mm Summicron-M ASPH, is this likely? Err, no.

In time, even though it will be an admission of defeat, there's nothing to stop Leica introducing new wide-angle lenses to improve the performance if that is what is required. Hope that doesn't happen!

 

[Bob Ross]

Hi Mark & Ian,
I have two DSLRs, the E-1 and the KM5d, so I have versions of the two sensors, Sony & Kodak. I think there is a noticeable difference between them and they certainly post process differently. The Kodak KAF FFT (6.8µm) sensor is much maligned for its noise ove ISO400, but what goes without comment is the tonal quality. The tonal gradient and color gradient of the Kodak sensor is, IMO, is better than the Sony 6MP sensor, while the high ISO and lower noise of the Sony is better. I have noticed the same with the DMR & D200 images that I have looked at. We all see different things in our images and process them uniquely and print them on different printers, so this is only my opinion based on my color darkroom experience. The 10MP Kodak sensor with no AA filter and 16bit files (if they follow the DMR) certainly has potential, not to mention the "tuned by Leica" and the M class lenses. I think the DMR images are the best approximation to what we will see at the moment.
Bob

 

[jaapv]

In time, even though it will be an admission of defeat, there's nothing to stop Leica introducing new wide-angle lenses to improve the performance if that is what is required. Hope that doesn't happen!

They already announced some, Mark, however not as defeat but to compensate for the smaller sensor.

 

[Mark Norton]

They already announced some, Mark, however not as defeat but to compensate for the smaller sensor.

Yes, I realise there's likely to be something around 15mm and maybe a second 28mm. I was thinking they might eventually revise the 21 and 24, maybe others to tackle the problem. Who knows? My hope is the existing lenses - which is what I have - will work properly.

 

[Ted Witcher]

I'm sure the camera will be excellent, but I sometimes question the wisdom of building a new camera around such an archaic (though elite) platform. In other words, Leica users: if you could have 10MP at full frame and live view, would you have accepted a new line of digital lenses? It seems an extraordinary amount of effort is going towards making the M lenses compatible and I'm not sure the interoperability is worth it in the long run... like running around your backhand, so to speak. I believe Putts or somebody has expressed this already. I probably would've been happy with a slightly more advanced Digilux2-style camera that had the fixed lens -- a "fixed Tri-Elmar" type of thing likely would've made an excellent digital rangefinder. I'm curious to learn what Leica-watchers think went into this design decision, what the pros and cons were.

 

[Zack]

If it had a fixed tri-elmar it would not be very compact and would be rather heavy, thus losing alot of its selling points.

Realistically, i doubt leica had enough money to devote to developing an entire line of new lenses, and there is such a large variety of lenses to choose from already i think that it makes perfect sense to design the camera around the lenses.

 

[jaapv]

I'm curious to learn what Leica-watchers think went into this design decision, what the pros and cons were.

It is really very simple: Leica has spent about eighty years building up a design philosophy for the M system which has, for the last sixty tears, centered on the the rangefinder. Leica-watchers would not expect them to build anything else but a digital M, as not the recording medium, be it sensor or film, but the synthesis between (relative) compactness, uncompromising quality and usabilty through the rangefinder concept have determined the position of the M series camera's. The first thing Leica said, when announcing the digital M in December 2004 was: "The camera will be instantly recognisable as a Leica M camera". To do otherwise would remove the whole raison d'être for the camera. The whole point of the camera is to transpose the classical values of the Leica M into the digital age with as little loss of character and quality as possible. The camera you describe, though it would be a fine camera and I would be tempted to buy one, would not secure Leica's niche.

 

[Ted Witcher]

With the M7, Leica has arguably achieved the furthest possible expression of the essential film rangefinder design. There's nowhere else to go with the concept, which is why nobody's really screaming about new features in a film M8 -- there's quibbles, certainly, but no real mass outcry about what the M7 lacks that should be addressed in a new model. The outcry is, as you say, about the desire to have the concept along with the benefits of shooting digital. So would the values you speak of not be possible with a digital rangefinder that has its own set of lenses purpose-built to maximize the strengths and ameliorate the weaknesses of digital-age photography as it currently stands? My point is -- and I'm just playing devil's advocate for the sake of discussion, as I am capture-technology agnostic -- if you want film and want to use your M lenses, you have a series of cameras available to do that. But if you want digital, a new system, not a hybrid system but a new system, purpose-built from scratch to achieve these goals and not limited by what has come before, might have been a better approach. I don't see how such a camera would necessarily conflict with the dictum it be "instantly recognizable as a Leica M camera." Now if the argument is just about money, the fact that the company simply can't afford the R&D and the new tooling, etc. then fine. But if that isn't it...

 

[x-ray]

I've used digital SLRs and digicams since they came out, and have owned a D1x, a D2x and two Kodak full-frames, along with several pocket digitals; and my son owned a Canon 1Ds. I no longer pay much attention to megapixel claims, because so much depends on the chip itself and the firmware and software behind it. One problem that is constantly encountered in Internet examinations of these issues is simple lying -- the people who claim to have knowledge of various cameras have never used them, and after a while, you can tell that. Many Canon freaks have never really used a Nikon, and vice-versa. You simply CANNOT tell how a system will work until you have it and have tried it. There are also practical aspects: Canon keeps going for more megapixels, when, in truth, you really can't tell the difference now between a 16mp Canon 1DsII and a 12mp Nikon D2x when printed as a double-truck in the best-quality magazines, because the printing on high-speed presses -- even the best presses -- is so much less good than what either camera can do, that the differences are obliterated. There are also distinct benefits to a Nikon-sized sensor; and there are distinct benefits to a Canon-sized sensor. (I refuse to use the term Full Fame here because it no longer makes any sense, and never did make much.) My feeling is, and I certainly could be wrong, is that the M8 will match both Nikon and Canon for almost any practical purpose, although it might not match a 1DsII in resolution when the 1DsII is mounted with Leica R lenses longer than 35mm. With any lenses shorter than 35mm, the 1DsIII is going to have corner problems, but that's another issue.

.

JC

You're so right about this. I've been primarily digital in my commercial business since the D1 Nikon and used a scanning back before the D1. Four and a half years ago I sold my D1X system and went to Canon 1D and 1Ds and now use 20D and 1DsII bodies. Having dhot with a D2x I feel the difference in the Nikon and Canon systems are very close with each having an advantage in one area and the other in another. I find I use my 20D about half the time and my MkII the other. I select the particular camera based on the final repro size in a publication or ad. There's no gain in shooting a 47.5 meg file when it will be reduced to 20 megs. The larger files only slow the raw conversion process down.

Alot of folks have been whining about the 1.33x and 10 MP. I always felt my 1D at 1.3X was near an ideal size to take advantage of bith wide and tele lenses. Personally I loved the 1.3X factor. The 1X of the 1DsII is fine but you suffer on the long end where I find myself working quite often.

Don't forget one of the most popular pro cameras today is the 1DmkII with 8MP and 1.3X. The crop and MP count has not hurt the sales by any means.


http://web.mac.com/markgowen/iWeb/photographerscircle/mbr_DonDudenbostel_profile.html

 

[John Camp]

But if you want digital, a new system, not a hybrid system but a new system, purpose-built from scratch to achieve these goals and not limited by what has come before, might have been a better approach. I don't see how such a camera would necessarily conflict with the dictum it be "instantly recognizable as a Leica M camera." Now if the argument is just about money, the fact that the company simply can't afford the R&D and the new tooling, etc. then fine. But if that isn't it...

The argument isn't just about Leica's money. I have seven Leica lenses that, at the moment, would cost $16,000 - $18,000, more or less. Say a "new design" M8 cost $5,000, the expected price for the announced M8. You'd be asking me to spend $21,000-$23,000 to get an equivalent "new" Leica rangefinder system that is untested and incompatible with anything else on earth. For half that price, you could buy two D200s, a three or four excellent Nikon primes and a couple of exceptional zooms, a flash system, a racing bike, a week in New York and a partridge in a pear tree; and still have $10,000-$12,000 to put in your pocket. Leica isn't just selling a digital -- it is carrying the Leica rangefinder system into the future, and doing it in a way that keeps the system somewhat competitive.
JC

 

[Trius]

Olympus developed the "digital from the ground up" E System and was forced to admit the existence of the MA-1 adapter (and make it available) for OM System lenses. That marketing mistake hurt them with OM photographers, still smarting from Olympus abandoning the OM system and making them orphans, at least that is the feeling with many.

While many of the OM lenses seem to perform at least acceptably on the OM (albeit without full automation), the professional line of ZD lenses are arguably better performers, sometimes by a significant margin, proving Olympus' point about digital requiring new lens designs.

The jury is out on the long-term success of the 4/3s effort.

Bob's comments about the quality of the "low res" E-1 files are echoed by many who have actually used the E-1, but unknown or discounted by the megapixel whores. (Ducking and running.)

In the DSLR world I am awaiting the next E-x body to see what Olympus introduces, as I have some OM glass and it would be nice to preserve that investment. So the argument for Leica doing the same for owners of M glass, normally more costly an investment than Zuiko, is clearly valid.

I think the really interesting thing will be how Zeiss M lenses perform on the M8. Zeiss has stated from the beginning that their lenses are designed with digital in mind.

 

[jaapv]

With the M7, Leica has arguably achieved the furthest possible expression of the essential film rangefinder design. There's nowhere else to go with the concept, which is why nobody's really screaming about new features in a film M8 -- there's quibbles, certainly, but no real mass outcry about what the M7 lacks that should be addressed in a new model. The outcry is, as you say, about the desire to have the concept along with the benefits of shooting digital. So would the values you speak of not be possible with a digital rangefinder that has its own set of lenses purpose-built to maximize the strengths and ameliorate the weaknesses of digital-age photography as it currently stands? My point is -- and I'm just playing devil's advocate for the sake of discussion, as I am capture-technology agnostic -- if you want film and want to use your M lenses, you have a series of cameras available to do that. But if you want digital, a new system, not a hybrid system but a new system, purpose-built from scratch to achieve these goals and not limited by what has come before, might have been a better approach. I don't see how such a camera would necessarily conflict with the dictum it be "instantly recognizable as a Leica M camera." Now if the argument is just about money, the fact that the company simply can't afford the R&D and the new tooling, etc. then fine. But if that isn't it...

It would be pretty senseless to develop a completely new RF design, when they already have achieved the "furthest possible expression" as you put it. That, and they can't risk chasing away existing customers, who, up to now, have shown an amazing brand loyalty, even sticking with film in a digital age. It makes more sense to develop a dedicated, semi-SLR system alongside -which is exactly what is happening. In cooperation with Panasonic and Olympus Leica is working on the S-system, the first lens for the Olympus and Panasonic bodies is already on the market. My guess is that coming February will see a Leica S body for the 4/3 system.

 

[Trius]

My guess is that coming February will see a Leica S body for the 4/3 system.

I'm gonna have to see my cardiologist to see about meds to reduce my heart rate. With Four Thirds adapters, I can use OM glass, etc., as well as other 4/3s glass and new Leica glass. SCHWEEET! Yeah, I know you are saying this is "your guess", but it makes a lot of sense.

 

[jaapv]

I agree- I can see my wildlife-photography relationship with Canon heading for the rocks😱 . There is a third party waiting in the wings already, I managed to get hold of a VisoIII and 200 and 280 in preparation for the M8:angel:, but a Leica S with either the Olympus long zoom or maybe a Leica apo-zoom?? Yummy!

 

[Ben Z]

I agree- I can see my wildlife-photography relationship with Canon heading for the rocks😱 . There is a third party waiting in the wings already, I managed to get hold of a VisoIII and 200 and 280 in preparation for the M8:angel:, but a Leica S with either the Olympus long zoom or maybe a Leica apo-zoom?? Yummy!

My Viso-III will come out of retirement if/when I get an M8 too, but I doubt I'll be going with a 4/3 anything instead of Canon. My 400mm Telyt in Viso (M) mount has been doing yeoman duty on my 20D through a 14167 M-to-R adaptor plus an R-to-EOS adaptor. Your 200 and 280 would work likewise. I recently purchased a short focus mount for the lens head of my 135 Tele-Elmar for Viso use on an M8 potentially, but meantime I've been using it on my 20D. All that said though, for the little wildlife photography I do (wintertime spent in the south of USA) I definitely like both the ergonomics and the optical results of my Canon EF 400/5.6 over the old double-tube Telyt, though not by much. The old bazooka with its 2 element lens is one heckuva performer.

 

[jaapv]

I'm looking for a Noflexar 400 in Viso mount. Not found it yet.