specular
Member
I can't help but be excited. I was considering selling my Nikon D1X and getting a D200 and a VR lens or switching to Canon for a D30 and an IS lens. But for about twice as much I could eventually get an M8 to go with my M6 and 3 Leica lenses, a kit I prefer over my Nikon gear. 
It's all about the rangefinder mystique, the Leica quality and the legendary engineering, isn't it?. It isn't about autofocus, vibration stabilization or the latest electronics. A camera body engineered to last 50+ years with current day electronics. Does the Leica quailty trump the pressures for improved speed, resolution, Dmax, VR/IS, WB, NR and such or does Leica's business model assume a growing market for the next M? Is it feasible for the M8 body to be refitted later with new electronics or does it even matter? Will the M8 be the first digital camera to maintain decent resell value? Or is it if you have to wonder, you can't afford it anyway. :bang:
It's all about the rangefinder mystique, the Leica quality and the legendary engineering, isn't it?. It isn't about autofocus, vibration stabilization or the latest electronics. A camera body engineered to last 50+ years with current day electronics. Does the Leica quailty trump the pressures for improved speed, resolution, Dmax, VR/IS, WB, NR and such or does Leica's business model assume a growing market for the next M? Is it feasible for the M8 body to be refitted later with new electronics or does it even matter? Will the M8 be the first digital camera to maintain decent resell value? Or is it if you have to wonder, you can't afford it anyway. :bang:
FrankS
Registered User
Read this over a t PNet: Leica M8 upgrade - remove baseplate, throw the rest away, replace baseplate on upgraded unit.
Then there's my take: upgradeable image capture media has been available for decades. It's called film.
Sorry for not being too helpful.
Then there's my take: upgradeable image capture media has been available for decades. It's called film.
Sorry for not being too helpful.
jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
My first impulse was to answer the subject-line question by saying, "No, it's not feasible."
As applied to DSLR-chassis cameras, I think it's pretty clear that this would not be practical. With any small-format camera, lens-flange-to-imager spacing is very critical, and designing a system that would maintain that integrity adds considerably to the size and complexity of the camera. That's one reason that medium-format SLRs with interchangeable digital backs are somewhat pricey, and why the backs themselves are fairly large.
(At my office we have a MegaVision digital back with a 24x36mm imager... exactly what you "full-frame" loyalists would want on the back of your 35mm-format camera, right? Yeah, except that the attachment and support hardware needed to position this sensor take up so much room that the back is the size of a Hasselblad magazine, and that's without a battery or LCD!)
So, I think a user-changeable imager is out, if you want to retain a similar-to-35mm body size.
But then I got to thinking: what about a factory-upgradable sensor?
At first I thought that would be impractical, too -- after all, it's a feature almost every photographer would want, so if it were reasonable, wouldn't Canon and Nikon offer it already?
But then I thought further. A big reason why it wouldn't make much sense to make a DSLR with an upgradable sensor is that usually, by the time a new sensor is available, the camera chassis itself also is ready for replacement. Photographers want new features, faster burst rates, different memory card formats, larger LCDs... it really makes more sense to issue an entire new model with the latest physical upgrades whenever you also upgrade the imager.
A Leica RF, though, isn't in the same category. A lot of people are still quite happy with the physical properties of the M3 just as it came out in 1954, and since then not really a lot has changed: crank rewind, more finder frames, etc. Even the built-in meter and TTL autoflash of the current models arguably are simply add-ons that didn't change the basic characteristics of the package.
In other words, I'd say most DSLR users wouldn't see much value in an upgradable imager because they want and expect the rest of the camera to evolve continuously to keep up to date.
Leica users, on the other hand, like the camera package the way it is, and don't really want it to change other than updating the capabilities inside the package.
So if Canon, for example, were to announce two years from now that they've engineered a 20-megapixel sensor that's a drop-in replacement for the one in the EOS 5D and that any photographer willing to send in his camera and $2,000 can have the new sensor installed, most Canon users wouldn't get too excited. By then they'd want all the other features of the new EOS 55DEFG Xi Turbo, or whatever Canon was calling its current model by then.
On the other hand, if Leica were able to make a similar offer to M8 users, I'll bet most of them would lunge for the checkbook.
Whether it's possible to design a camera this way, or whether Leica would have made any effort to design the M8 this way, I have no idea. I doubt it, since it would drive up the cost of an already expensive product.
But it does occur to me that Leica is about the only 35mm-sized digital camera for which there might even be consumer interest in this kind of thing. Again, it's all because Leica users are basically a conservative lot, who would appreciate expanding the camera's capabilities but not at the expense of changing the packaging.
As applied to DSLR-chassis cameras, I think it's pretty clear that this would not be practical. With any small-format camera, lens-flange-to-imager spacing is very critical, and designing a system that would maintain that integrity adds considerably to the size and complexity of the camera. That's one reason that medium-format SLRs with interchangeable digital backs are somewhat pricey, and why the backs themselves are fairly large.
(At my office we have a MegaVision digital back with a 24x36mm imager... exactly what you "full-frame" loyalists would want on the back of your 35mm-format camera, right? Yeah, except that the attachment and support hardware needed to position this sensor take up so much room that the back is the size of a Hasselblad magazine, and that's without a battery or LCD!)
So, I think a user-changeable imager is out, if you want to retain a similar-to-35mm body size.
But then I got to thinking: what about a factory-upgradable sensor?
At first I thought that would be impractical, too -- after all, it's a feature almost every photographer would want, so if it were reasonable, wouldn't Canon and Nikon offer it already?
But then I thought further. A big reason why it wouldn't make much sense to make a DSLR with an upgradable sensor is that usually, by the time a new sensor is available, the camera chassis itself also is ready for replacement. Photographers want new features, faster burst rates, different memory card formats, larger LCDs... it really makes more sense to issue an entire new model with the latest physical upgrades whenever you also upgrade the imager.
A Leica RF, though, isn't in the same category. A lot of people are still quite happy with the physical properties of the M3 just as it came out in 1954, and since then not really a lot has changed: crank rewind, more finder frames, etc. Even the built-in meter and TTL autoflash of the current models arguably are simply add-ons that didn't change the basic characteristics of the package.
In other words, I'd say most DSLR users wouldn't see much value in an upgradable imager because they want and expect the rest of the camera to evolve continuously to keep up to date.
Leica users, on the other hand, like the camera package the way it is, and don't really want it to change other than updating the capabilities inside the package.
So if Canon, for example, were to announce two years from now that they've engineered a 20-megapixel sensor that's a drop-in replacement for the one in the EOS 5D and that any photographer willing to send in his camera and $2,000 can have the new sensor installed, most Canon users wouldn't get too excited. By then they'd want all the other features of the new EOS 55DEFG Xi Turbo, or whatever Canon was calling its current model by then.
On the other hand, if Leica were able to make a similar offer to M8 users, I'll bet most of them would lunge for the checkbook.
Whether it's possible to design a camera this way, or whether Leica would have made any effort to design the M8 this way, I have no idea. I doubt it, since it would drive up the cost of an already expensive product.
But it does occur to me that Leica is about the only 35mm-sized digital camera for which there might even be consumer interest in this kind of thing. Again, it's all because Leica users are basically a conservative lot, who would appreciate expanding the camera's capabilities but not at the expense of changing the packaging.
Teme
Newbie
I think this is an area where Leica could have made a real breakthrough (and a lot more in terms of new sales). If this was possible, I would imagine they would have made this clear upon announcement, but they are a small company with limited resources (considering this it's quite impressive with the new launches). The knowledge of being able to take the body in for an "upgrade" in the distant future would have sealed the deal for me. As it is, I'll wait and see. I just cannot justify the price as it is...
Br,
Teme
Br,
Teme
ywenz
Veteran
If the M8 was designed to be upgradable, I think Leica would have advertised that already... to make the $5000 asking price a bit more inviting.
Teme
Newbie
Exactly my point. Hence I'll stick to my dslr for now despite the temptation. The numbers just don't add up in favor of the M8 imho. That's just me. I'm sure others disagree and will enjoy the M8.ywenz said:
Br,
Teme
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Shouldn't we wait and see what the current sensor is like before we start to fantasize about upgrades?
ywenz
Veteran
Just look at the M8 as a Premium digi-cam. The same way we look at the film M bodies. we're all paying a premium for the privilege of using a Leica M. The same will go for a Leica digital M.
Compare the cost of a Bessa R3a to Leica M and then compare the cost of RD-1/ 5D to M8... It's about the same relative difference I'd say..
Compare the cost of a Bessa R3a to Leica M and then compare the cost of RD-1/ 5D to M8... It's about the same relative difference I'd say..
specular
Member
FrankS, that cracked me up.
jlw, great reply, well said!
jlw, great reply, well said!
Mark Norton
Well-known
Leica make a big point in their new literature about longevity that EVERY Leica M which has ever been made can be maintained/repaired by Solms with (the implication) that the same will be true of the M8 in the future. Sure, electronic parts will go out of production but they can be stock-piled in advance. I know of one CD player manufacturer, for example, which has stock-piled two CD drives for each of the (high-end) players it makes.
Leica also promote their use of DNG as the most suitable long term archiving vehicle, far better than having their own propietary format.
I don't worry at all about the longevity of the camera.
Leica also promote their use of DNG as the most suitable long term archiving vehicle, far better than having their own propietary format.
I don't worry at all about the longevity of the camera.
halabar
Member
It's feasible, but getting the CCD aligned properly would be the nightmare. But with the structure of the M8, it would be the first where it would make any sense at all...
But it would be more that the CCD. Likely the guts of the electronics would have to change as well, at least anything involving the image processing.
But it would be more that the CCD. Likely the guts of the electronics would have to change as well, at least anything involving the image processing.
hth
Well-known
I think that even if Leica has made some attempts on making it factory upgradable, they would not dare to announce it as such. Simply for the reason that it is impossible to tell today what kind of changes there would be and what it would cost. The CCD would need to be changed pretty obviously, but it may require a quite different one that is not very compatible with the existing, and it may be new crop factor, which means new framelines, and it may or may not require (parts of) the electronics to be replaced.
Depending on the nature of the upgrade, it may be entirely feasible, or it might be cost inefficient. Promising such things at this stage would be stupid, since if it is not feasible in the end, it will cause severe badwill. I also doubt that making such promises would mean any big impact on current sales in reality. You always have the cost of trading up to a newer model to compare to the cost of a factory upgrade.
I think they have made it servicable, which means that in theory it might be upgradable in the future, but it is not unlikely that it will not make economic sense when it comes to that point.
Hmm, I have been thinking of how much I need to sell to get an M8, and it will be quite a lot! Then there is the problem of when the M8 gets old, some 5-10 years in the future, it might need to be replaced again with something else that is very expensive, and at that point I have nothing more to sell that is worth anything!
Currently, I need to put more of my money savings into my digital darkroom (Photoshop CS2 coming up and then some more software). I have been unable to save for the M8 for quite some time now...
/Håkan
Depending on the nature of the upgrade, it may be entirely feasible, or it might be cost inefficient. Promising such things at this stage would be stupid, since if it is not feasible in the end, it will cause severe badwill. I also doubt that making such promises would mean any big impact on current sales in reality. You always have the cost of trading up to a newer model to compare to the cost of a factory upgrade.
I think they have made it servicable, which means that in theory it might be upgradable in the future, but it is not unlikely that it will not make economic sense when it comes to that point.
Hmm, I have been thinking of how much I need to sell to get an M8, and it will be quite a lot! Then there is the problem of when the M8 gets old, some 5-10 years in the future, it might need to be replaced again with something else that is very expensive, and at that point I have nothing more to sell that is worth anything!
Currently, I need to put more of my money savings into my digital darkroom (Photoshop CS2 coming up and then some more software). I have been unable to save for the M8 for quite some time now...
/Håkan
ghost
Well-known
how about whether it's practical?
VinceC
Veteran
Some of the pictures make it look as through the shutter/CCD assembly is fairly modular.
On the other hand, I don't know if there will be that great a need to upgrade. The 10 Meg sesnor seems to approximate the resolution of film and is bumping up against the resolution of lenses. As has been noted, RF photographers don't want constant innovation in their cameras. They want a classic, time-proven design that is compatible with modern digital photography.
I am reminded of the odd "best looking RF" contest half a year ago or so. The final run-off involved several Leica M models that, to a non-Leica collector, were indistinguishable and which had nearly identical features. The Leica design is classic and mature. And the 10 Megapixel design seems relevant for RF applications.
Leica does have a good history of upgrading existing cameras where feasible.
Some folks have talked about how, with a film camera, the film is upgradeable. But honestly, the improvements in film have been quite incremental in recent decades. Ilford C-41 black-and-white was introduced in the late 80s or early 90s. The absolutely sharpest, most fine-grain films -- equivalent to 20 megapixels in the digital world -- have mainly been discontinued due to lack of interest. There are several that fit this category, but I'm thinking of Kodak Ektar, a fabulous 25 ISO film in which grain simply ceased to exist. After decades of refinement, grain and contrast above ISO 400 remain very problematic. So that technology has also peaked.
I know rapid market forces pushed Leica into the digital world perhaps sooner than they would have liked, yet perhaps not soon enough to save the company. Regardless, they appear to have made a capable product which they claim will receive the same long-lasting tech support as any other Leica.
Having used laptop computers for close to 20 years, it strikes me that the real weak link in any system is the power cords and daily charger. These often get mistreated, lost or develop a short. I have an 11-year-old Compaq color laptop (a 486!) which works just as it did when I bought it. But it has required battery changes and a new cord to replace one that wore out. These kinds of replacement peripherals are essential to the operation of the product and so people resent having to spend too much money to replace them. If Leica over-prices them, that could lead to some disenchantment. If someone buys a $5,000 camera, they don't want to spent $500 every couple of years to keep it running.
On the other hand, I don't know if there will be that great a need to upgrade. The 10 Meg sesnor seems to approximate the resolution of film and is bumping up against the resolution of lenses. As has been noted, RF photographers don't want constant innovation in their cameras. They want a classic, time-proven design that is compatible with modern digital photography.
I am reminded of the odd "best looking RF" contest half a year ago or so. The final run-off involved several Leica M models that, to a non-Leica collector, were indistinguishable and which had nearly identical features. The Leica design is classic and mature. And the 10 Megapixel design seems relevant for RF applications.
Leica does have a good history of upgrading existing cameras where feasible.
Some folks have talked about how, with a film camera, the film is upgradeable. But honestly, the improvements in film have been quite incremental in recent decades. Ilford C-41 black-and-white was introduced in the late 80s or early 90s. The absolutely sharpest, most fine-grain films -- equivalent to 20 megapixels in the digital world -- have mainly been discontinued due to lack of interest. There are several that fit this category, but I'm thinking of Kodak Ektar, a fabulous 25 ISO film in which grain simply ceased to exist. After decades of refinement, grain and contrast above ISO 400 remain very problematic. So that technology has also peaked.
I know rapid market forces pushed Leica into the digital world perhaps sooner than they would have liked, yet perhaps not soon enough to save the company. Regardless, they appear to have made a capable product which they claim will receive the same long-lasting tech support as any other Leica.
Having used laptop computers for close to 20 years, it strikes me that the real weak link in any system is the power cords and daily charger. These often get mistreated, lost or develop a short. I have an 11-year-old Compaq color laptop (a 486!) which works just as it did when I bought it. But it has required battery changes and a new cord to replace one that wore out. These kinds of replacement peripherals are essential to the operation of the product and so people resent having to spend too much money to replace them. If Leica over-prices them, that could lead to some disenchantment. If someone buys a $5,000 camera, they don't want to spent $500 every couple of years to keep it running.
Nachkebia
Well-known
Sensor design is not only about megapixel count, there is big difference between fuji sensor to sony sensor, so is canon sensor different...
VinceC
Veteran
>>Sensor design is not only about megapixel count, there is big difference between fuji sensor to sony sensor, so is canon sensor different...<<
I'm confident that Leica users will grow to believe that their sensor is, quite simply, better than the rest.
I'm confident that Leica users will grow to believe that their sensor is, quite simply, better than the rest.
Nachkebia
Well-known
Better than the rest now (yet to be seen) does not mean better than the rest in one or two years....
Bike Tourist
Well-known
specular said:
Digital SLRs are like cell phones. The M8 can be likened to the cell phone they won't build for me — I just want HELLO, GOODBYE and the best possible signal processing that modern technology can provide.
VinceC
Veteran
People have been confusing their DESIRE for more features with the REQUIREMENT for more features. My laptop is 11 years old and works great for internet and writing and can handle photos if need be. My cell phone is six years old. My home computer is four years old (a Pentium 4, so its technology remains relevant) with many older peripherals attached. For example, my laser printer is 8 years old. Some of my cameras are 50 years old. Others are a year old.
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
I'm not a surgeon. Since I have no depth in knowledge in surgeon's tools, to me pretty much everything they use is a knife. I'm sure that's how many people feel about cameras.
Arguing the difference between knife one and knife two will not make a difference. Ginsu is still the sharpest.
Arguing the difference between knife one and knife two will not make a difference. Ginsu is still the sharpest.