Olsen
Well-known
Sorry, but no. No mechanics can beat 'solid state' in reliability. And accuracy. Look at watches. - To name one example.
My all-electronic watches, LED and LCD, have failed. My electro-mechanical Seiko's are over 25 years old and keep on running. Electronics will fail, and are more difficult to repair as they get older. On a professional basis, I have been forced to procure "lifetime buys" of certain semi-conductors to keep a product line going for 5 years. Nothing gets older, harder to repair, than electronics. Especially solid-state.
DougFord
on the good foot
Dumb luck?
Timing is everything, sometimes, and Leica has managed to release a product to the market that seemingly solves the major problem with compact cameras today.
IMO, retaining a useful OVF on a compact FF digital camera is the main reason for the M9’s success. Leica should be commended for getting this product to market in a timely fashion.
But what’s next? The basic short register issues have been solved (nex5) so compactness is doable, but what about the viewfinder? EVF have refresh issues, OVF are real-time and immediate, EVF eliminate mechanical bits and drive costs down, OVF increase parts and labor costs, EVF are the domain of the videographer, OVF bucks the latest EVF/video trend.
Leica needs to design a ‘new’ compact OVF system. Just as important to the M9’s current success in solving the FF technical issues, a ‘new’ OVF system will allow them to differentiate themselves from the broader camera market in the near future.
Again, I see the traditional RF as an anachronism that’s currently enjoying its last hurrah as the perfect viewfinder solution to the current digital FF compact camera design conundrum.
IMO leica is riding the crest of fortuitous market timing with the M9, this current blip in Leica sales will be short lived if they fail to progress the OVF design. They will return to the days of manufacturing gear for Leica fanboys only and the resultant red ink.
Optics are Leica’s bailiwick, are they not? So Rudy and the good Doc, let’s see how inventive Leica can be.
jamesdfloyd
Film is cheap therapy!
Very interesting thread. By chance, I was looking on eBay and came across an M8 going for $2,000 and it got me thinking about reviewing this site. I guess everyone else made the same discovery.
My thoughts; I am going to hold out for about 1 1/2-years and get my "new" Leica M9 for $2,500. And now that reminds me...I will also get my "new" Phase One P65+ for $10,000 in only about 24-months. Depreciation...Depreciation...Depreciation...topped-off my the latest and greatest brake through in CCD / CMOS technology.
Maybe I should just buy an M7 now, let it appreciate as an antique and sell it in 2 years to buy that P65+.
My thoughts; I am going to hold out for about 1 1/2-years and get my "new" Leica M9 for $2,500. And now that reminds me...I will also get my "new" Phase One P65+ for $10,000 in only about 24-months. Depreciation...Depreciation...Depreciation...topped-off my the latest and greatest brake through in CCD / CMOS technology.
Maybe I should just buy an M7 now, let it appreciate as an antique and sell it in 2 years to buy that P65+.
sper
Well-known
Under 2 grand and I would totally buy an M8. I think that camera is dope if you get don't get a lemon. Perfect excuse to pick up a CV 35mm 1.4 or a Zeiss C-Biogon 35mm.
swoop
Well-known
My M7 is worth about as much as the price I paid for it new oddly enough.
My M8.u is having a hard time finding a buyer. I'm guessing everyone is waiting for the mythical $2k price point. But I doubt very many M8 owners are going to give it up at that price unless they're 2nd or 3rd hand owners.
-doomed-
film is exciting
If i had the cash to drop on it , I'd be using it already.
jamesdfloyd
Film is cheap therapy!
Once again, it is ironic that tonight I noticed that the M8 was done to $2,000+ and this thread was happening.
Long-story short, I have too many cameras of all types and I need to downsize to only 2 – Medium Format digital for my landscape work and then my “everything else” camera.
The MF digital solutions is great, because every 2-years I can trade in my Phase One back and get the “latest & greatest”. That is much better than buying a $5,000 DSLR only to have it become a paper weight in 2-years (exaggeration I know, but you get the point).
What was attracting me to having a Leica M9 as my “everything else” camera was the realization that the M series was going strong and built to last forever. The M8 taking a nose dive in price has me a bite concerned, but I can see why; its not the “answer” that the M9 is. Will the yet un-released M10 or God forbid M11 really supplant the M9 in value like the M9 has done to the M8? My thought is no – or is that my wish.
Either way, to me owning a Leica has the panache that certain other luxury items have. But unlike most people who display their luxury items, a Leica has a real use.
So…”One more dear friends…into the breach!”
Long-story short, I have too many cameras of all types and I need to downsize to only 2 – Medium Format digital for my landscape work and then my “everything else” camera.
The MF digital solutions is great, because every 2-years I can trade in my Phase One back and get the “latest & greatest”. That is much better than buying a $5,000 DSLR only to have it become a paper weight in 2-years (exaggeration I know, but you get the point).
What was attracting me to having a Leica M9 as my “everything else” camera was the realization that the M series was going strong and built to last forever. The M8 taking a nose dive in price has me a bite concerned, but I can see why; its not the “answer” that the M9 is. Will the yet un-released M10 or God forbid M11 really supplant the M9 in value like the M9 has done to the M8? My thought is no – or is that my wish.
Either way, to me owning a Leica has the panache that certain other luxury items have. But unlike most people who display their luxury items, a Leica has a real use.
So…”One more dear friends…into the breach!”
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
Actually it would be surprising if it were so. Nothing makes hardcore capitalism thrive at the low level more than a heavily regulated socialist economy.
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
Arguably the question was neither of those, but longevity.
Electronics are at a distinct disadvantage: all sorts of chemical processes affecting the circuitry, spare parts difficult to stock because they're subject to the same processes, and things progressing fast enough that often there won't be an 1:1 replacement for a discontinued part.
PKR
Veteran
A digital sensor is a linear device. Film is a logarithmic device. There is a huge difference in the nature of these values. Fuji tried to get a sensor to deliver bandwidth close to film with the split R/S sensor in the S5 pro. It was a good attempt. Foveon is building sensors to emulate the structure of film.Resolution is not the only value needing to be addressed. The ability of a sensor to deal with high bandwidth lighting needs to be solved. Also, pixels accept light at 90 degrees. Silver halide will accept light at almost any angle it can see via the lens. This accounts for the DoF difference between film and digital for a given format. Digital has a long way to go. If the problem was solved, the motion picture industry would have made the change by now. There is still a lot of film stock being sold, and Arri and Panavision are still in the film camera business. PKR
Last edited:
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Or a steam locomotive (130+ years for the Darjeeling Toy Train) or church clocks (several centuries in some cases) or indeed watches (my 1960s Omega has outlasted most of the world'd digital watches). You are confusing longevity -- the ability to last a long time, with mantenance if necessary -- with other things, and 'reliablity' has at least two different meanings, including 'mean time between failure' and 'reparability once it has failed'.
Most well-made mechanical devices simply won't fail, or at least, will fail very seldom, if they are maintained well enough. You can't lubricate a solid-state device, or replace a bearing...
Cheers,
R.
Mephiloco
Well-known
film stock will be dead in the film industry once all the old DP's are dead with the exception of those who shoot on 35mm or 16mm for nostalgia or effect. More and more movies are going digital due to cost savings and because digital (as far as filming) is close to replacing film (for a DP), and past the point where the average theater goer/tv watcher can't tell the difference between a movie shot digitally or one shot on actual film stock.
DOF isn't why film stock is still used, You get VERY shallow DOF when you're shooting as fast as f 0.95 or even at T1.3. DOF is not an issue.
The main reason to use film over digital is that it's more forgiving.
DOF isn't why film stock is still used, You get VERY shallow DOF when you're shooting as fast as f 0.95 or even at T1.3. DOF is not an issue.
The main reason to use film over digital is that it's more forgiving.
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
Well, that goes quite far in showing some of the circles of confusion that surround the whole DoF phenomenon! :angel:
Does this also explain the DoF differences between wideangles and teles? For example, I've always wondered why teles, in particular fast teles where the light hits the film plane almost perpendicularly, have such a large depth of field where everything is in focus. And wideangle lenses with their acute angles of incidence have such shallow depth of field; does this get even shallower on digital?
PKR
Veteran
I spend a fair amount of time around DPs that are in their 30s. The latest Arri is quite expensive. The budgets for film shoots far exceed the cost of using a Sony or RedCam. The money is spent to achieve a quality that can't be delivered digitally. If it could many 100s of thousands of dollars would be saved. Most recently Domino's spent 6 days shooting film with a crew of 30 people. I don't know what the cost was, but I would guess $50-100K/day. I think they could have saved a lot of money if they shot a Sony F-23, they used an Arri and ran through a lot of film stock.
DoF or circle of confusion in the film world is an illusion as is a 2 dimensional print giving the illusion of depth. A pixel, unless it is pointed away from 90 degrees will prevent the simulation of depth given with film. If you start pointing a lot of pixels away from 90 to achieve the depth, then you start to give up real estate devoted to resolution. You might have noticed that Nikon (just an example) removed the DoF markings from many of their lenses that would mount to both film and digital (FX) cameras, as the markings wouldn't be accurate in both.
Last edited:
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
_mark__
Well-known
The principal reason the M9 is so popular and demand is so high is that it is the first full frame digital rangefinder so many are buying it that held out on the M8, when the M# is released this will not be the case, it will be the second and you can be assured leica will append another thousand to the price, so supply will exceed demand, as sales fall. The full frame is hugely significant, whereas the iso, buffer and dynamic range increase of the M-whatever are not. In the M9 you have all the camera you should ever need, like their film counterparts I can see them holding their value well.
PKR
Veteran
Well, that goes quite far in showing some of the circles of confusion that surround the whole DoF phenomenon! :angel:
Does this also explain the DoF differences between wideangles and teles? For example, I've always wondered why teles, in particular fast teles where the light hits the film plane almost perpendicularly, have such a large depth of field where everything is in focus. And wideangle lenses with their acute angles of incidence have such shallow depth of field; does this get even shallower on digital?
I'm a camera user. I know a couple of people who design sensors and have learned of the problems from my use and asking a lot of questions. So, I'm no expert. i suggest you do some reading if you are seriously interested. Here's what I can tell you. In my experience with a P-25 mounted to a Sinar, a Rodenstock "digital" lens solved some problems. The "digital" lens is designed to deliver more light to the pixels that are pointed at 90. This is critical at the edges of the image circle. One of the big problems with sensors is the size. When the camera makers talk about Full-Frame sensors, they are not one sensor but a number of smaller sensors that are digitally stitched with the camera's firmware. The Fabs that make the sensors can't make a full 24x36mm sensor. And the semiconductor industry isn't going to change it's standard for a small market. There is a "rumor" that there is a large, old fab around (built before the standard was set) that is able to make a 24x36 in one piece. one of the big camera Co. was searching for this unit on the surplus market. If they got it and get it up, it will change a lot of sensor technology.
As for DoF, You can read about how it works with FL and film. For digital, every sensor is designed by an individual, meaning not everyone's pixel is the same. So, what you see with one brand of camera may be different with another. If you have ever noticed that round, smooth surfaces, like the top of someone's balled head against a plain background will look TOO smooth. If two shots are compared, film and digital, the film will show detail. What is happening is that the pixels not receiving a photon, with a neighboring pixel that did, don't know what to do. This doesn't happen with film. The neighboring pixel asks the firmware what to do. in most cases the firmware tells the pixel to turn on, making a smooth edge. The level of extrapolation varies with the guy who wrote the firmware. It's a decision made by a robot, not by little chunks of silver halide.
Last edited:
stupid leica
i don't shoot rf
the reason M8's are getting cheaper than RD1S's is simple, the Epson is a better camera lol.
The M9 is so much better, but will still be worthless one day.
The M9 is so much better, but will still be worthless one day.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
If they are stitched seamlessly -- and if what you say is true, they must be, or there'd be gaps between the different parts of the image -- then this is a philosophical difference rather than a real one. My own suspicion is that you have misunderstood sensor design, but I don't know enough to assert this with absolute confidence.
As for telecentric lenses, yes, they're better for digital but they suffer accordingly from other problems: as far as I recall, poorer chromatic correction and (therefore) lower sharpness (I didn't take notes when I was talking to Zeiss lens designers about it).
Cheers,
R.