What if I digress?

[TJV]

With my M8 misfortune lately, I've been thinking about how I would reinvest my money if the worst case scenario does indeed present itself. (Worst case = No prompt fix for new horizontal bands.)

For reference, my old kit was this:

M3, M6, M7, collapsable 50 cron, 70's 50 cron, new version cron, version 2 35 cron, 90 elmarit. (50mm is quite obviously my favourite focal length...)

Current setup:

M8, M7, new 35 lux, new 50 cron, new 28 elmarit.

My reasons for going digi were clear. I needed to combat the insane cost of film and be able to change ISO at the drop of a hat. This last reason is a big one for me, so much so that I can't make do with just one body. Sometimes three bodies were a necessity in the past, each with a different film stock. If I do get rid of the M8 (I have right of return so I stand to lose nothing,) I have been considering two options. 1: get an MP, or 2: get a Noctilux and buy my old M3 back. The second option appeals to me because I'm not sure I want to drop 4K on a film body I'll have to replace sometime soon. I could put the Noctilux on a new M9 or something in due course and flick the M3 on again, which wouldn't be such a costly procedure. Option one goes without saying. An MP is lovely!

It's a strange feeling. The advantages of digital, often glimpsed when seriously using the M8 in the time it worked, were liberating. I'm loathed to think the M8 will nose dive for me because I really want it to work for the purposes I bought it for. So far it's generally proved not upto the tasks I've put it to but I know it's so close to being all i want/need. To me, film is consistant while not convenient. The M8 is the opposite.

So my question, for all you fellow Leica users out there, is how do you see this M8 (read: Leica's digital flagship range) progressing. I'm not talking here about doom and gloom predictions, I'm thinking more along the line of product development and innovative solutions to their current product mismanagement. This ties in with my above options as I'm trying to cover myself from being hurt if they decide to throw a curveball and design a digital M system from the ground up. It goes without saying that I could keep the M8 warts and all and hope like heck Leica have the heart to fix the banding eventually, even if it means sending back to Germany. I'm just not sure if it's worth my time or money to wait for this to happen.

My feeling is that they do have to redesign the M system. This could be in the form of redesigning the bodies shape and ergonomics, leaving the lenses alone (eg introducing a more standard 1.5 crop factor,) or reworking each individual link in the chain.

I don't know, really. I'm just curious to hear what other honest thoughts are out there. We all like Leica, otherwise why read this forum? The last thing I want is this fiasco to sink them. At this point thought, all I know 100% for sure is that I've owned the camera for four months and had it inmy sights for less than half that time.

Tim

 

[Ossifan]

I have to say that the Leica M8 is very, very appealing to me, even with all the problems users have encountered. I would love to own one. Neverthless, it's just so darn expensive and I'd have to buy a new lens as I like the 35mm focal length. Also, and I have my own reasons for this, I really enjoy the wet darkroom. I already spend too much time in front of the computer.

My own feeling is that Leica can/will solve the problems but that the cost of the camera will forever be out of my price range. I don't really see a need for a redesign of the M system, but then again I'm not a camera manufacturer.

Cheers,
Alex

 

[HAnkg]

They will continue banging away at improving the 1.33 digital M. It will probably look like the current M8 with all the good and bad that that might imply for quite awhile.

Meanwhile they have the D line which might develop eventually into a M/R quality level designed for digital system, but that's dependent on the success of the 4/3 platform.

If Leica's new management and the M8 is successful the glacial pace of change at Leica might change significantly -bringing the possibility of new developments sooner then one every decade or so.

 

[StuartR]

Frankly, I don't think everything is doom and gloom at all. Other than the underlying IR problem, which we are told is a fundamental design barrier, the other problems have been fixed quickly. The green blobs and light source banding are gone...solved with firmware 1.09 and the camera service at the factory. I have not seen the other problem you are describing, but in all liklihood it will be solved with the next firmware update. Meanwhile, if this highly unlikely situation manifests itself, you can move a bit to the right or left and it should go away. As a pro, I am surprised you do not bring a backup with you. Why not just bring a film M along? It takes all the same lenses and uses a totally different format, so it should function very well in that capacity.
I just don't know...perhaps you got a lemon or bought too early. I just received my M8 in early February, and it has been perfect. I have not had a single problem other than the IR issue.

But anyway, what gap are an MP and a Noctilux going to fill? Personally, unless you plan to shoot it only at f/1, I think the Noctilux is a colossal waste of money. It has its "look" which if you want to use, that's great, but if you want it for the speed, you are a better off with a summilux. At some point, you are very likely to resent carrying around the very heavy f/1 lens in situations where it is of no practical use. The MP is a great camera, but how is it going to help you? If you need digital and don't want an M8, you are probably better served with something like a 5D.

Well, just a few thoughts from another kiwi (well...I was born in Auckland, but to American parents...)

 

[StuartR]

If it is that much more expensive, then it probably would not make economic sense for them to sell the camera with such a chip...

 

[willie_901]

"how do you see this M8 (read: Leica's digital flagship range) progressing"

1. Over the short term I expect the M8 will be upgraded with a pre-sensor IR filter that is as thin as the current filter, but has significantly improved IR energy attenuation. There is no optical disadvantage to using IR filters in front of a lens, but there is a marketing disadvantage.

2. The 1.3 crop factor is here to stay.

3. Long-term, there will be other and small incremental improvements in the M system. These will will be useful enhancements, but they will not be revolutionary. Eventually, improvements in Bayer sensors will trickle down to the rangefinder market.

4. Very long-term, the M system may benefit from yet to be discovered, entirely revolutionary sensor technology .

It is interesting to speculate about what's next for a Leica digital body with the M aesthetic (but not the M mount). The 4/3 system is an obvious candidate. However, the 2X crop factor has two handicaps: the pixel crowding is inherently noisy, and a 24mm FOV requires fish-eye lens designs (12mm). So, my guess is the 4/3 system will remain on Leica's lower cost cameras, but it will not replace the M.

I think is Leica will not abandon the M mount for at least a decade (or more). I think it is a better bet for them to wait for radically new sensor technology than to start over again. It's a better bet because the RF market is too small to warrant the investment required to launch a new mount system.

willie

 

[sirvine]

What I would like to see is a digital body that has upgradeable internals. Maybe I'm just being ignorant, but it would be nice to think that new sensors could be swapped in and out the way film is.

 

[Ben Z]

The M8 may be selling, but clearly the issues (IR and QC) have put some kind of dent in sales. Some but not all of that dent will be reduced once the QC issues are under control, but the IR won't until a new model. In addition, the recall, the free filters, numerous warranty repairs aside from the recall, and [probably] having to hire a new outsource to develop new firmware upgrades in place of Jenoptik, all will take a toll on profits. It remains to be seen what kind of shape Leica ends up in with respect not only of remaining solvent but of having resources to make further developments. Time will tell.

I would like a digital M camera, the RD1 nonwithstanding is fine for some things but isn't able to replace my film M system entirely. I am still shooting film. Why shouldn't I? It's still available and there are still decent labs to get it processed, the prices haven't become outrageous, and the time-factor for processing and scanning is a non-issue for me since I'm retired and after all photography is supposed to be a hobby to occupy my time 😀 I really don't care if people on the street (or on the internet) think I'm a dinosaur. Film was good enough for all the greats of the 20th century, it'll suffice an amateur like me 😀

For film cameras I prefer to buy from a company with a great deal of expertise in film cameras and I can think of none that can touch Leica. For digital, likewise I prefer to buy from a company with a great deal of experience in digital cameras, and I can think of none that can touch Canon.

If Leica gets their act together, I've got my Leica lenses and I'll be happy to take a serious look at their product. They've got a way to go with the M8 before they get my $4800 though.

 

[jaapv]

"how do you see this M8 (read: Leica's digital flagship range) progressing"

1. Over the short term I expect the M8 will be upgraded with a pre-sensor IR filter that is as thin as the current filter, but has significantly improved IR energy attenuation. There is no optical disadvantage to using IR filters in front of a lens, but there is a marketing disadvantage.

The thickness of the filter is not the issue, the unpredictable and uncontrollable cyan vignetting of a filter in that place, given the short register of RF camera's, is the problem, not likely to be solved soon. I still advocate incorporating the IR filtering in the lens design.

2. The 1.3 crop factor is here to stay

I agree.

3. Long-term, there will be other and small incremental improvements in the M system. These will will be useful enhancements, but they will not be revolutionary. Eventually, improvements in Bayer sensors will trickle down to the rangefinder market.

But that will not be a strong incentive to upgrade to newer models. The M8 as it is now is good- very good- and likely to satisfy its users for a long time.

4. Very long-term, the M system may benefit from yet to be discovered, entirely revolutionary sensor technology .

Yes- but when? Hand me my crystal ball 😉

It is interesting to speculate about what's next for a Leica digital body with the M aesthetic (but not the M mount). The 4/3 system is an obvious candidate. However, the 2X crop factor has two handicaps: the pixel crowding is inherently noisy, and a 24mm FOV requires fish-eye lens designs (12mm). So, my guess is the 4/3 system will remain on Leica's lower cost cameras, but it will not replace the M.

The 4/3 system is at the beginning of a quality curve, I think, we will see some real improvement there, it has the potential, provided, imo, that the technology switches to CCD sensors.

I think is Leica will not abandon the M mount for at least a decade (or more). I think it is a better bet for them to wait for radically new sensor technology than to start over again. It's a better bet because the RF market is too small to warrant the investment required to launch a new mount system.

The traditional Leica M customer base would not accept it, and it would be contrary to (current?, past?) Leica philosophy. In other words, that would be suicide.

 

[TJV]

"Meanwhile, if this highly unlikely situation manifests itself, you can move a bit to the right or left and it should go away.

This is a totally unrealistic expectation, especially considering the nature of doco photography.

As a pro, I am surprised you do not bring a backup with you. Why not just bring a film M along? It takes all the same lenses and uses a totally different format, so it should function very well in that capacity.

I do take backups with me. I've only listed my Leica kit above, reason being is that I much prefer shooting with a rangefinder.

I just don't know...perhaps you got a lemon or bought too early. I just received my M8 in early February, and it has been perfect. I have not had a single problem other than the IR issue.

I wish I just had a lemon. Fact is that I've had my original lemon replaced with two other lemons, one with faulty rear dial and another that produced banding in the first sequence of shots I took indoors.

But anyway, what gap are an MP and a Noctilux going to fill? Personally, unless you plan to shoot it only at f/1, I think the Noctilux is a colossal waste of money. It has its "look" which if you want to use, that's great, but if you want it for the speed, you are a better off with a summilux. At some point, you are very likely to resent carrying around the very heavy f/1 lens in situations where it is of no practical use. The MP is a great camera, but how is it going to help you?

I totally agree with you here. In my heart of hearts I want to go digi, if not for the look, for the ease and convenience. If I have to digress I'll stick with Leica. I'm pretty brand loyal and I have a good relationship with the local Leica guys that I want to honour.

For me, I want the M8 as is but without the banding I'm getting. The IR issues, as I said before, don't concern me enough to give up hope. The only real downside I see to using external filters is ghost images. I always used a UV filter when shooting with the M8 and never noticed anything reflecting so I assume I wouldn't notice anything with the IR filter either.

I'm thinking that the advancements we'll see soon will be in the area of the CCD sensor. I think the 1.33 crop is okay and the best option at the moment. I'm wondering if the next generation M8 will have a modified chip, perhaps made by someone other than Kodak.

 

[Pherdinand]

[...]
However, the 2X crop factor has two handicaps: the pixel crowding is inherently noisy, and a 24mm FOV requires fish-eye lens designs (12mm).
[...]
willie

?? What are you talking about? Fisheye lens designs???

 

[SteveRD1]

M8 problems?

M8 problems?

I have had no issues with my M8 and I do not even use filters. Zero, zip, nada. The 3 times the magenta cast appeared out of nearly 1800 images they were fixed in a few seconds in PS using color replace.

I have had no shutdowns, no freezes, no banding, no blobs, no rainbows. Nothing at all. I have had it a few weeks and bought a fixed version. I did not have to send it in. I ordered my free filters from Leica, but honestly, I may not use them if they degrade the quality of the image or B&W at all.

What exactly were the problems you had with the M8? Maybe you just got a bad one. Return it and try another if you liked it.

To me, the M8 is the best digital I have ever owned. Better than the 5D, E1, D2hs, RD1, etc.

I see it as a 1st version of the M system and I expect a few glitches here and there but I am so happy that I have had no problems!

 

[spersky]

Hello,

I am not so sure about the design limitations of placing the IR filter on the sensor. I am sure it can be done. Leica is notorious for stateing that a digital RF was impossible shortly before the RD-1 was released. Then they announced that it was possible.

I expect if Leica has the finacial ability (sssuming the disasterous problems with the M8 does not sink them) they will quickly make a revised M8 that does not need IR filters.

Regards

 

[Sailor Ted]

It's easy to second guess Leica's design constraints as they pertain to the IR filter in front of it's sensor or whether or not they could have gone with a thicker more effective IR filter in front of the sensor and thereby forgo the use of IR filters in front of it's lens. The fact is this cameras image quality is exceptional and obvious to those who are fortunate enough to use one. I doubt seriously Leica could have built a DRF with the M8's current level of image quality that would not require the use of an IR cut filter in front of the lens. That they will one day figure out how to build a DRF that does not require IR cut filters is certain. I just hope they do not rush this type of DRF to market with a compromise in image quality only to deliver a camera that does not require IR cut filters.

Regarding ergonomics well this is a subjective matter. I too own an M8 and I love it's ergonomics and can find precious little that I would change in this regard. At first I wished for a camera more like my RD-1s as far as ergonomics go. But after three months of shooting with my M8 I would not trade it's ergos for that of my RD-1s even If I could. About the only thing I would prefer if possible would be a slightly thinner camera more like my M6 but given the M8's digital nature I doubt this will be possible for quite some time, if ever.

 

[Ben Z]

Indeed, welcome to the digital world...where those cameras you listed are far behind state of the art. The latest Nikons (and all of the Canons back to the D30 and 1D) do not require hot mirror filters.

What I have trouble understanding is this: Leica says they couldn't put a thicker filter over the sensor because of the limited lens-to-focal plane distance. Yet the IR-cut coatings on the 486 filter are infinitessimally thin, I'm guessing a few microns (1 micron= 1 millionth of an inch) at most. How would there not have been room for that much more thickness--surely the shutter blades don't ride less than a millionth of an inch away from the existing filter??

 

[Ben Z]

I think there were a lot of problems with the D2H. That is still a current camera.

Current camera is the D2HS with many improvements, but still quite old (by digital standards) technolgy. It's a 4.1MP camera.

The problem that Leica refers to has more to do with limited back-focus distance. The angle that the light rays from wide-angle lenses make with the CCD is a problem. Put thick filters in front of it, like the anti-aliasing and IR cutoff filters used in DSLR's and you make the problem much worse.

Which still doesn't answer my question: the IR-cut coating on the front 486 filters is only a few microns thick yet clears up whatever residual contamination the sensor's filter can't. What was the problem not adding that microns-thin coating onto the sensor filter. Hardly what could be called a "thicker" filter.

 

[jaapv]

Which still doesn't answer my question: the IR-cut coating on the front 486 filters is only a few microns thick yet clears up whatever residual contamination the sensor's filter can't. What was the problem not adding that microns-thin coating onto the sensor filter. Hardly what could be called a "thicker" filter.

Ben, thickness has nothing to do with it. It is a matter of incidence angles creating cyan vignetting. If one puts an interference type filter in front of the sensor (with a RF camera with short register) the cyan vignetting gets so complicated (lens focal length, aperture etc.) that firmware could never handle it. An absorption filter might handle the the problem, but would degrade image quality significantly.

 

[Ben Z]

Well at least that sounds plausible.