erikhaugsby said:
I saw the auction for said camera, based on an M3 if I remember correctly, but there is a reason it didn't go beyond the prototype phase: it is too bloody expensive to make on a large scale. That and adding all the little bits and pieces necessary to make it work leaves lots of room for failure.
i'm pretty sure that Fujifilm did it in their 6x7 and 6x9 cameras. CNC machining really cuts costs these days. They could even do it electronically with the M8.
But regardless they have to do something. The framing accuracy on the M8 is atrocious, even for a rangefinder camera.
erikhaugsby said:
The only issue here is if they go like Canon and make their digital-only lenses useable only on the current sub-frame sensor so that they are unable to be used on full-frame or film cameras. This would force them to keep a sub-frame sensor, or make users buy new lenses with each new sensor size "upgrade."
I would settle for integrated IR coatings and full frame coverage. That would make the lenses future proof. My big question is if the IR filter can be integrated as a coating and how this would affect shooting on film.
erikhaugsby said:
Is this even possible? I quite honestly don't know.
Some day. Fuji is getting 10 stops of useable range out of the S5 PRO. That's two stops more than pretty much any other DSLR out there. If they could make a sensor that captured 12-14 stops even I would think about going digital. Until then I'm sticking with Tri-X and color negative. ;-)
>The M8 has a 1.3x sensor, not APS and certainly not 4/3rds.
Yes, I know.
I was talking about Leicas D-LUX cameras that are based on Panasonic
units. 4/3rds is a technological dead end. Due to the small footprint of the sensor the individual receptor size is very small. This makes it very difficult or impossible to produce a sensor that had good high iso performance and large dynamic range. Leica needs to go at least APS on their low end, otherwise every entry level Canon or Nikons will kick their can.
>And lower costs inherently leads to fewer innovations, fewer features, and very >possibly lower quality and quality control. I buy Leica because I know that it is >reliable; poor quality would give me no reason to stay with the brand.
Actually it doesn't. High sales fuel greater demand for next generation products and increased revenue can be pumped into the R&D of new products. In the past Leica has always been short on cash to develop new products, because their sales are so low. Larger sales would also allow them to lower their prices. Leica will never be a huge volume seller, at least not the rangefinder cameras, but it would be nice if they could get back to sales figures they had back in the 1950 and 60's.
HL