jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Crop factor is obviously an issue in the digital world. On the other hand I fail to see why the fact that Oscar Barnard had to use one inch cine film for his first camera should be a consideration for present-day technology.There is a tendency to prefer 1.3 to 1.5 crop sensors fortechnical reasons, not price. Given the fact that the dimensions of the future digital M should be limited, and that the use of full crop sensors with film lenses leads to vignetting, ( the first comments on that fact of life are already emerging regarding the D5) and given the fact that Leica is the leading lensdesigner of the world, I would be highly surprised if a sub-20 mm dedicated digital M lens were far off.
Last edited:
zeos 386sx
Well-known
where's Sean?
where's Sean?
Does anyone know where Sean Reid is at? I really wanted to see if he could give us some info on the digital M. This thread is now at 80 replies and over 1600 views and there is no sign of him. His last post was on Sept. 23. I hope he isn't sick.
where's Sean?
Does anyone know where Sean Reid is at? I really wanted to see if he could give us some info on the digital M. This thread is now at 80 replies and over 1600 views and there is no sign of him. His last post was on Sept. 23. I hope he isn't sick.
S
Socke
Guest
Scrolling through my Contax G pictures I find that I use the 90mm least and the 28 or 45 most of the time. Since I have the 35, I use for more than half of my pictures.
From my notes at the last photomarathon I have one shot with the 90mm, one with 45mm, two with 28mm and 20 shots with the 35mm lens.
So the viewfinder and the framelines on the Epson R-D1 definitly don't cover what I use most on a rangefinder.
A viewfinder with framelines for at least 21mm would be necessary for me on an APS sensor RF :-(
From my notes at the last photomarathon I have one shot with the 90mm, one with 45mm, two with 28mm and 20 shots with the 35mm lens.
So the viewfinder and the framelines on the Epson R-D1 definitly don't cover what I use most on a rangefinder.
A viewfinder with framelines for at least 21mm would be necessary for me on an APS sensor RF :-(
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Of course the traditional Leica RF combo is 35-90 with occasional excursions to 28 or 135. That should be possible with the current lenses on a 1.3 crop sensor. In fact, the Tri-elmar turns into a logical lens in that case ( from 28-35-50 to roughly 35-50-70)
zeos 386sx
Well-known
Leica has range/viewfinders now that frame to 28mm on the low end and 135mm on the high end. Why not offer two optional viewfinders - One for the 20 to 40 range and another for the 50 to 135 range? Most pros carry more than one camera. That kind of viewfinder variety would make sense.
Is there a technical reason it couldn't be done?
Is there a technical reason it couldn't be done?
R
RML
Guest
zeos 386sx said:
I doubt there's a technical reason but my wallet will definitely NOT like it.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
zeos 386sx said:
Aaah- 50 years back in time- M3 and M2!
jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
zeos 386sx said:
The Contax IV prototype had something like this -- the rangefinder beamsplitter was in front, and viewfinders with magnifications matching different lenses slid in behind it.
It was kind of clunky, though, and wouldn't have worked with modern features such as projected finder frames and sharp-edged rangefinder patch. There'd be no way to cram in the optics needed for those features unless the whole RF/VF unit were interchangeable. Imagine the level of precision required in engineering the mounting hardware for that, while retaining focusing accuracy!
Tom Diaz
Well-known
Phil_Hawkes said:...
I seem to remember someone somewhere on the 'net discussing the idea of having a permanent body + rangefinder mechanism, but with upgrade-able digital innards... so in a few years we can upgrade the sensor or the processor (or both) without paying for new rangefinder and new body. I think it is a cool idea. We might have to send the camera to Leica for the innard replacement, but I would be happy to do that. I have no idea if this is actually what Leica has come up with... if it is, then that's fantastic!!! but if the digital M has a permanent sensor and processor then I'd be happy enough with that for $4000-$5000.
My thought was that the replaceable innards idea would almost certainly result in a non-depreciating product. That would be the ultimate in solutions (IMHO). I guess I'll want a few more pixels and better crop factor when/if I upgrade, but I'll be more interested in higher ISO, bigger buffers, faster transfer to smart cards and maybe better onboard processing. IMHO it would be great if a few companies got together to develop a standard for interworking sensors and processors for rangefinder cameras (like the 35mm film cartridge became a standard). But... I don't like our chances on that one
Just thought I'd share whosever idea it was....
Cheers,
Phil
I might have been the one who posted that--at least, I was an early suggester of it here.
I have zero inside information about what Leica is going to do. I met a Leica rep this summer, but he wouldn't tell me anything. So I am relying on what others have said about the price.
I am pleased, very pleased, to hear the price might be as low as $4000 to $5000. I agree with others that at that price it will sell well. I will buy one because (as someone else said) it will have high enough res that I will not really want an upgrade for many years, and meanwhile I will continue shooting my film rangefinders as well.
I have an 8 Mpixel Canon 20D and do not think I will want a new digital SLR for a very long time. I will want a Leica digital M to use my fine lenses in a more convenient way and in available light especially, but I will go on using my M6 and Voigtlander with film for many things.
There are two ideas I think Leica should consider:
1. Make an all-out effort to get the prices at least a little below $4000 with rebates, manufacturing efficiencies or what have you. Don't move out of Germany, though. (They found that collectors and aficionados value their German products more than their Canadian ones--not a completely rational world, but it's the one they sell in.) In other words, get the price down toward the RD-1. If we are right that they will sell 1,000 units a month in their estimated price range, it might be a famous best-seller at under $4000.
2. Or, in a rather different direction, justify the high price or even a higher one by some kind of program of planned nonobsolescence. My favorite and I think perfeclty plausible idea is that you can return the camera for an upgrade to new sensor technology. The upgrade does not have to be free forever, any more than are the upgrades they offer for rangefinder optics and frames and so on. In other words--understand that I am just making numbers up--what if you could buy the digital M for $5095 and knew that for the next 30 years you could upgrade the sensor technology for $995 a pop in 2006 dollars? That's a big service bill but still cheaper than a lot of high-end cameras. I picked "30 years" because that's how long they say they will stock parts to service their models, and so that part of their service philosophy fit my idea.
aizan
Veteran
no, if the viewfinder magnification is .72x, you won't need accessory viewfinders to use your 21mm (29mm) lens.
Phil_Hawkes
Established
(I ended up venting a few ideas in this email.. I apologize for making it so long!!!)
I guess this suggests two possibilities: (1) interchangeable viewfinders on a single camera, or (2) two distinct camera models that differ only in the viewfinders.
A small extension of the 2nd idea gives a third possibility: Wide angle lenses face problems with vignetting, but I have not heard that normal to tele lenses with face the same problem. So maybe we could have two models:
1. A digital M that caters for normal to tele length lenses (50mm+) that uses a full frame.
2. A wide-angle digital M with a sensor that is specifically designed for wide-angle lenses (50mm-). It might have a 1.3x crop, or it may use other technology to correct the vignetting problem. It may be easier/better to provide a solution that corrects wide angel lenses without being concerned about the tele lenses.
Suppose that the 1.3x factor is the only solution to the wide angle problem. The the DM-NT (digiM Normal to Tele) and the DM-W (digiM wide) would have effective folocal lengths of:
DM-NT 50-135
DM-W 28-65 (using 21-50mm lenses...wider if you go for CV/Zeiss lenses)
As RML and Jaap hint, two cameras may be bit expensive for most of us. But for some, this might be a realistic option.
--------
Yet another possibility is to do what Nikon does with one of their latest cameras: they have a faster shooting mode where only the central 6MP (or something like that) are used. The digiM could have a "crop mode" where only the central 1.3x crop area is stored (with present technology, outside that crop area is virtually unuseable anyway IMHO).
--------
(I think this next bit has been said already.. but I'm in a chatty mood so I'll say it anyway )
If a smaller sensor is used, then Leica (and others) can begin developing new wide angle lenses that are designed to be optimal for this sensor size. I am guessing that the newer normal to tele lenses are probably sharp enough to get the most out of digital sensors in the near future (next 15 years?). With a smaller sensor, Leica can probably start offering higher-aperture wide-angle lenses in the current focal length range, and then bring out new wide angle lenses in the ultra-wide range (12-18mm). The smaller sensor should allow such lenses to be sharper without the lens itself getting significantly larger.
It would make sense for Leica to decide on a format for a sensor size, and stick to that format so they can develop a range of lenses suitable to that format.
(I don't enough to argue why this is the case... I am mainly reflecting what I have read recently, in particular: www.imx.nl discusses a few aspects of this).
--------
Personally, I am finding that I enjoy the 1.5 crop factor on the R-D1. Even with the crop fator, I still find that I am mostly shooting using the 50 and 90. That has a lot to do with my current photograhic interest (dance performances).
zeos 386sx said:
I guess this suggests two possibilities: (1) interchangeable viewfinders on a single camera, or (2) two distinct camera models that differ only in the viewfinders.
A small extension of the 2nd idea gives a third possibility: Wide angle lenses face problems with vignetting, but I have not heard that normal to tele lenses with face the same problem. So maybe we could have two models:
1. A digital M that caters for normal to tele length lenses (50mm+) that uses a full frame.
2. A wide-angle digital M with a sensor that is specifically designed for wide-angle lenses (50mm-). It might have a 1.3x crop, or it may use other technology to correct the vignetting problem. It may be easier/better to provide a solution that corrects wide angel lenses without being concerned about the tele lenses.
Suppose that the 1.3x factor is the only solution to the wide angle problem. The the DM-NT (digiM Normal to Tele) and the DM-W (digiM wide) would have effective folocal lengths of:
DM-NT 50-135
DM-W 28-65 (using 21-50mm lenses...wider if you go for CV/Zeiss lenses)
As RML and Jaap hint, two cameras may be bit expensive for most of us. But for some, this might be a realistic option.
--------
Yet another possibility is to do what Nikon does with one of their latest cameras: they have a faster shooting mode where only the central 6MP (or something like that) are used. The digiM could have a "crop mode" where only the central 1.3x crop area is stored (with present technology, outside that crop area is virtually unuseable anyway IMHO).
--------
(I think this next bit has been said already.. but I'm in a chatty mood so I'll say it anyway
)If a smaller sensor is used, then Leica (and others) can begin developing new wide angle lenses that are designed to be optimal for this sensor size. I am guessing that the newer normal to tele lenses are probably sharp enough to get the most out of digital sensors in the near future (next 15 years?). With a smaller sensor, Leica can probably start offering higher-aperture wide-angle lenses in the current focal length range, and then bring out new wide angle lenses in the ultra-wide range (12-18mm). The smaller sensor should allow such lenses to be sharper without the lens itself getting significantly larger.
It would make sense for Leica to decide on a format for a sensor size, and stick to that format so they can develop a range of lenses suitable to that format.
(I don't enough to argue why this is the case... I am mainly reflecting what I have read recently, in particular: www.imx.nl discusses a few aspects of this).
--------
Personally, I am finding that I enjoy the 1.5 crop factor on the R-D1. Even with the crop fator, I still find that I am mostly shooting using the 50 and 90. That has a lot to do with my current photograhic interest (dance performances).
jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
Phil_Hawkes said:
Hey, me, too -- both in lens choice and subject matter. (How about posting some of your pix in your gallery?)
Just out of curiosity, what are you using as a viewfinder for your 90mm?
zeos 386sx
Well-known
Hey Phil,
If you keep presenting such interesting ideas I urge you to be as chatty as you wish.
What I was suggesting was (1) optional magnification viewfinders like those offered now (i.e. 0.58, 0.72, and 0.85) for a single-sized sensor camera, but for specific lens ranges. I really hadn't taken the next step to consider cameras with different sized sensors.
Having cameras with different sensors to match a lens range is an interesting idea. However, the R&D costs to develop digital M’s with alternate sensors might be prohibitive for less than a sizable market. As Leica’s experience with sensors develops (and its finances improve) it might be possible for Leica to develop and market such cameras through its limited “a la carte” program. That could give photographers a variable sensor option while limiting Leica’s financial exposure.
If you keep presenting such interesting ideas I urge you to be as chatty as you wish.
What I was suggesting was (1) optional magnification viewfinders like those offered now (i.e. 0.58, 0.72, and 0.85) for a single-sized sensor camera, but for specific lens ranges. I really hadn't taken the next step to consider cameras with different sized sensors.
Having cameras with different sensors to match a lens range is an interesting idea. However, the R&D costs to develop digital M’s with alternate sensors might be prohibitive for less than a sizable market. As Leica’s experience with sensors develops (and its finances improve) it might be possible for Leica to develop and market such cameras through its limited “a la carte” program. That could give photographers a variable sensor option while limiting Leica’s financial exposure.
aizan
Veteran
i've thought about interchangeable viewfinders before, and the main problem is simply one of ergonomics. how do you make it so you don't always get the glass oily?
R
RML
Guest
Jaap's objections to sticking with the 35mm format on historical grounds for me seem entirely valid. Combining those objections with the idea posed by Phil, I'd say that Leica could and perhaps should leave the traditional and historical 35mm format and not only develop a digiM with wgatever sensor size they feel comfortable with using, but also rapidly start developing specific lenses for that frame size. If they would aim for other crop factors as well (what do we have nowadays: 1.53x? 1.6x? 1.3x? Others?), develop lenses for that frame size AND also start developing for other mounts (the Canon and Nikon mounts sound to me like a lucrative market), I think Leica may have a winner on their hands. To survive Leica should probably aim for a more diversified market than letting themselves get stuck in an incrasingly smaller niche market, which is increasingly being taken up by players such as Epson + Cosina and Zeiss.
zeos 386sx
Well-known
RML,
I would guess Leica has a digital R camera on their designers boards that will debut shortly after the digital M. What's my evidence - None! However, it makes sense for them to do it. The DMR is a stop-gap measure meant only to transition current R8-9 users to digital. I cannot believe that the DMR and digital M will be Leica's only answer to digital.
Given time, which is what Leica's restructuring has given Leica, I think they will present digital products comparable to the best developed by Nikon, Kodak, Canon or anyone else. I honestly doubt, given the resources, that Leica will allow itself to be stuck in a niche for any longer than it has to be there.
I would guess Leica has a digital R camera on their designers boards that will debut shortly after the digital M. What's my evidence - None! However, it makes sense for them to do it. The DMR is a stop-gap measure meant only to transition current R8-9 users to digital. I cannot believe that the DMR and digital M will be Leica's only answer to digital.
Given time, which is what Leica's restructuring has given Leica, I think they will present digital products comparable to the best developed by Nikon, Kodak, Canon or anyone else. I honestly doubt, given the resources, that Leica will allow itself to be stuck in a niche for any longer than it has to be there.
Phil_Hawkes
Established
jlw said:
Luck
Since lots of my photos are in relatively low light, I have to shoot at 2.0 or 2.8 (if I feel lucky). So there is no way I can take my eyes from the focussing vewifinder to an auxilliary viewfinder when they are dancing!!! (I have enough out of focus shots as it is).
I do try to guess about halfway in from the 50mm lines, but I find that I'm not very successful. I often shoot too high, which results in lots of nothing above heads and then the legs and/or feet are cut off. I tried countering that effect once or twice, and lost heads instead :bang: I would love to find a way to get 90mm lines in the viewfinder. For now, I am hoping that I learn how to guess where the field of view is.
Thus far I haven't had any complaints about the lack of legs in the photos... I suppose people think I've just cropped the picture artistically or something
I keep saying that I will put up some pics, and one of these days I will. I have attached a couple of photos. Just some background... The dancers do middle eastern/ belly dancing ... they focus on traditional dances rather than racy or suggestive dances (I don't want to get a reputation for being a lecher :angel: ). They seem like a fun bunch to hang with; they want photos; I want to take photos... everybody is happy
You can see three of my pics at http://www.bellydancer-rachel.id.au/gallery.html#performance.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Yes RML, it is a historical hangup, this "full frame"sensor. Strictly speaking a full frame sensor should be the size of the final print. However, we live in a transitional age. Already manufacturers have found that 35 sensors are not the optimal solution, but they will, on the other hand, for continuity reasons, have to provide backward compatability with the previously most popular system. Thus the "full frame sensor" is a marketing-driven thing. As time goes on, the trend to new lenses designed for about 1.4 sensors has already been taking form with the current players on the digital market and I have no doubt that Leica will be following shortly. Some time in the future this whole discussion will be laughable, as the old type of lenses will be used by us, (at least mentally) old film fogies and the digilenses by the rest of the world.....
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
zeos 386sx said:
I think Leica may surprise us with a fine full-range viewfinder. After all, the rangefinder is the main reason for the existence of M-camera's in general. The main wide-angle problem is the sensor-crop, as there are no real wide-angle lenses in the M-system yet to cater for the APS-size format. Having said that, I hope the future M will be suitable for the 1.25 Okular. I find that a superb solution for my old eyes and 50 to 135 lenses.
S
StuartR
Guest
They may not have to tweak it that much -- a 21 times 1.3 is a 27.3 (almost a 28mm), the 24mm becomes a 31.2mm (the black sheep), the 28mm becomes a 36.4 (almost a 35mm), the 35 becomes a 45.5 (close to the ideal size), your 50 is a 65 (very short tele), the 75 gets to be a longer portrait lens at 97.5, the 90 becomes a medium telephoto at 117mm, and the 135 gets some reach at 175.5mm. I think the way they will do it is to drop the framelines for the 135 (180mm is just too small to see) and maybe offer a strong accessory viewfinder for it. Then they will probably have framelines for the 24mm to 90mm. The 21 will probably also get a corrected accessory viewfinder. Anyway, that's how it looks like it will turn out to me, based on a 1.3 crop.