Sean Reid and digital M

With all this argueing going on I still have one question... where's Leica's announcement?

Until I see that all talk about the digi-M, comparisons between it and (Canon/Nikon/etc) full frame cameras, and depreciation of the digi-M is just bar talk: useless banter.
 
vincentbenoit said:
I would be tempted to believe that people who are happy with the Canon 10D in the dSLR world should be more than happy with the Epson R-D1 in the RF world.
Click to expand...

No idea about the 10D but yes, I'm more than happy with my R-D1.
 
ywenz said:
I'm speaking of resale value from the perspective of the prospective buyer.
Click to expand...

Having been a prospective buyer on a few occassions, the resale value has not ever crossed my mind once. IMO that's something for people who don't shoot but buy gear. I buy something when I really need it or when it will give me benefits that my old gear will never bring. That's why I went over from a very trusty Bessa R to a just as trusty but for me more useful R-D1.


If I can get the digital M 2-3 years after it comes out for 1/4 of the original price, then why the hell not? If yal have waited 5-7 years for the digital M, whats a few more will hurt?
Click to expand...

Do you own a pc? 'Nuf said.


You can say now, that the first gen will be good enough for you and you won't be tempted by newer generations, but once you get suckered into the digital evolution, you wont be able to sit so still while newer digital Ms are put out to market... just take a look at the canon forums and check out the equipment frenzy there!
Click to expand...

I'm into digital with both a Canon Eos 300D and an Epson R-D1. I feel no need to upgrade either, the lenses that I have or any other parafernalia that come with the territory. Like I said, talk of upgrades and resale value is for non-shooters.
 
RML said:
With all this argueing going on I still have one question... where's Leica's announcement?

Until I see that all talk about the digi-M, comparisons between it and (Canon/Nikon/etc) full frame cameras, and depreciation of the digi-M is just bar talk: useless banter.
Click to expand...
Welcome to the bar...
 
"the digital revolution" explains everything. that's why the digital m will depreciate a lot in a few years and will be a waste of money when it first comes out.
 
RML said:
With all this argueing going on I still have one question... where's Leica's announcement?

Until I see that all talk about the digi-M, comparisons between it and (Canon/Nikon/etc) full frame cameras, and depreciation of the digi-M is just bar talk: useless banter.
Click to expand...

True, but it gives us something to talk about while we drink!
 
RML said:
Do you own a pc? 'Nuf said.
Click to expand...

A $700 PC today can process all the RAW images you can throw at it.. Okay say you blow the wad and spend $1500 on a more powerful PC.. We're not talking strictly percentage of depreciation, but also net depreciation <- that's where it hits your wallet :)

All this talk of course, doesn't apply to a pro who is making money with his/her gear... but judging by the clientele here, this wouldn't apply to most of us. :)
 
Last edited:
My worries with the first version of the MD is the bugs/flaws. If you look at Canon's history, just about every one of their DSLRs had serious firmware flaws that resulted in the camera freezing or images being lost. My D30 had problems, and so did my D60.

Worse, the D60 was immediately replaced by the 10D within an extremely short time period. It had roughly the same specs, except that it fixed all of the fundamental flaws of the previous D60, including poor auto focusing in low light, and poor metering.

Given Leica's current financial problems, and you release a camera that has flaws, are you going to fix it for free, or are you going to announce the MD-P (perfected) which has refined features? I'm guessing that they will go after more sales and release a new model. Of course, they'll make the sensor 20% larger, fix the inevitable UI issues and other minor quirks that people complain about. Hell, this is what _every other_ camera manufacturer has done. Why should Leica be any different?

Leica is behind the times with their digital cameras. The dlux2 has noise problems at ISO 200. My R-D1 produces acceptable, grainy/noisy, B+W images at ISO 1600. Is the first MD going to meet or beat this? If not, they have failed.

Don't get me wrong, I love my MP. It is a joy to use. It will be interesting to see if they can carry over the intuitive "interface" to the the MD. The MP was essentially designed in the 50s. The last time Leica tried to change the mold, they ended up with the M5 which was rejected. The M6 went back to the previous formula.

The basics are easy; shutter speed, ISO, shutter release, etc. Leica has this nailed. I wonder about the LCD interface, adjusting the camera settings, formatting the card, virtual filters, etc. What data is going to be in the range finder? ISO setting, shutter speed? How is the camera going to meter? What is the battery life going to be like?

Leica needs help with this. If they had this stuff nailed, then the Dlux2 would be selling like hotcakes.

In the end though, it all comes down to the glass and the film/sensor. They've already won when it came to the glass; now it is down to the sensor. The R-D1 uses the same sensor as the Nikon D70, lets hope that Leica does better. I'd love to see an Imacon sensor.
 
PaulN said:
Given Leica's current financial problems, and you release a camera that has flaws, are you going to fix it for free, or are you going to announce the MD-P (perfected) which has refined features? I'm guessing that they will go after more sales and release a new model. Of course, they'll make the sensor 20% larger, fix the inevitable UI issues and other minor quirks that people complain about. Hell, this is what _every other_ camera manufacturer has done. Why should Leica be any different?
Click to expand...
I think that is valid concern. Perhaps the only way we can guess at what Leica will do with the digital M is to see how Leica dealt with the problems that arose with the DMR.

Maybe we can get Jorge or someone else who owns the DMR to tell us how Leica has been handling their problems.
 
the Digital M will undoubtly be much better than the D2.. the D2 uses a tiny sensor, much like the other p & s digital cams. This is why the noise level is so high on that camera. By comparison, the RD-1 uses the sensor from the Nikon D70.
 
ywenz said:
the Digital M will undoubtly be much better than the D2.. the D2 uses a tiny sensor, much like the other p & s digital cams. This is why the noise level is so high on that camera. By comparison, the RD-1 uses the sensor from the Nikon D70.
Click to expand...

Undoubtedly? I'm not sure if I would go that far. The D2 is relatively recent, and from what I remember, is about as old as the Canon 20d. That's Canon's 6th generation DSLR. Surely Leica had to be aware of the problems of a small sensor when they dropped the $$ to develop it. Or, just blame Panasonic.

The MD will be Leica's 4th digital camera. They are behind the game, but there is still a chance they can catch up. I think the DMR is the key; if it succeeds, there is hope for the MD.

Who actually services the DMR? Imacon? With the case of Epson, they just sent out a replacement camera, as they had no internal repair facilities. Will Solms repair the MD, or just act as a proxy to the electronic/sensor manufacturer?
 
The D2 came out a year before the 20D, but it is still Leica's current model. Performance wise, D2 is not in the same league as any of the DSLRs out there today. It sure is priced in the same league but I personally think the D2 is about $900 over priced. I assume Leica will not design the digital M to be in the same league as the lowly D2.
 
Damn bar talk! :) Now I can't get the thought of a digi-M out of my head!

My question still stands, though. No official announcement yet from Leica, I assume?
 
As a long time M shooter, and one who uses film loaded Ms for wedding work on a consistent basis, plus currently uses a Leica DMR along side a Canon 1DsMKII, here's a thought or two ...

If Leica launches a M Digital with the current Kodak/Imacon technology it will be a 1.37X lens crop. This will not set well with many died-in-the-wool M shooters. While a crop factor in the DMR was acceptable to me because of the tendency to use longer lenses on SLR type cameras, the M camera is more of a wide lens type tool for a vast majority of rangefinder users ... including me. With a 1.37X lens factor, my 35/1.4 ASPH becomes a 48/1.4. Even my 28/2 ASPH becomes a 38.36mm.

A 24mm = 33mm, a 21mm = 29mm ... but those 2 lenses may require "corrected" aux. finders like those produced in limited runs by V/C for the RD-1... which is not my cup of tea.

The lens crop factor is why I eventually sold the RD-1.

That all said, if you like the results from an RD-1 @ 6 meg, 1.6X crop factor, you will be ecstatic
with 12 meg in an even bigger sensor. The DMR images are excellent. Imacon are not upstarts at this digital game. They know what they are doing and it shows in the DMR. The Kodak chip being used is new CCD technology and produces stunning images which rival those from my 1DsMKII, and surpass them in certain circumstances ... namely color fidelity, latitude, and native sharpness.

The real coup for Leica would be to launch the Digital M with as big a chip that proportioned up to 8X10 ... which would deal with the reality of making prints in the real world, and could be easier to sell to skeptics. The reality of most full frame digital sensors (as well as 35mm film), is that some of it often gets cropped off anyway. Full frame digital cameras produce files @ 7 X10.5 ... a proportion no album maker produces mats for, and no pre-cut mats or portfolio opens accommodate. 7X10.5 doesn't scale down to a 5X7 without cropping either.
 
Oh no! No 8x10 proportions!

I see why this is important for the wedding business in the USA, but here in europe you'll find 20x30cm frames easier and I loose much less croping from a 1x1.5 proportion "negative" than from a 1x1.25 to the 1x1.4142 proportion of german Din A paper :)
 
fotografz said:
A 24mm = 33mm, a 21mm = 29mm ... but those 2 lenses may require "corrected" aux. finders like those produced in limited runs by V/C for the RD-1... which is not my cup of tea.
Click to expand...

nah. the viewfinder magnification will probably be .72x, as usual.
 
Not the same thing Aizan. The crop factor of the sensor is what alters the effective focal length.
It has nothing to do with the viewfinder magnification.

I agree Socke, I'd prefer about a 7"X10" ratio which clips off about 1/2" total from the sides of a full frame. A full frame would be best, but I do not think that is going to happen ... which worries me a lot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom