View Full Version : Putts thoughts on upcoming M8
Hardcore Leica man Erwin Putts has posted a interesting, and somewhat cryptic article about the new M8, or D-CRF as he calls it on his site.
He talks a lot about the heart that might be missing from the M8 (something about it having the shutter from the R9, 1/8000 sec speeds) and makes some observations about the current state of the digital market.
http://www.imx.nl/photosite/comments/c027.html
Overall an interesting read for people interested in the M8 or the future of Leica.
It must be nice to know everything. Putts does know his stuff, but I have a hard time getting through his articles. All this "will the Leica M compete with Canon or Nikon?" concern really doesn't get us anywhere. The camera is going to be here whether or not it can compete with the other big names. Also, rangefinders are probably never going to sell competitively agianst SLR's. They are great tools, as all of us here already know, but they are not for everyone. I don't think anyone should worry whether 10 megapixels is enough. For the style of shooting that most people do with their Leica M's it will probably be more than enough. I don't see many 20X30 street photographs hanging off the walls in art galleries. Most of us will probably just display our work electronically or on the wall with 11X14's. We have alot of happy R-D1 owners around here that will tell you that 6 megapixels is fine for them. You don't always have to be at the forefront with the latest/greatest to make great photographs. Most of us are happy with the results from our M4-P's, M3's, and IIIf's and 50's and 60's era lenses. Why should we need to have the latest and greatest sensor to make us feel like our work is adequate? Personally, the R-D1 looks like a great camera to me, I am contempating ordering one if one can be found anywhere these days.
I've got a bad feeling about this......the whole situation brings Mamiya's experience to mind. They've taken too long to come out with a 10MP.....
I'm sticking with film, but I fear for Leica's survival. Digital truly is the devil.....
Mike
I've got a bad feeling about this......the whole situation brings Mamiya's experience to mind. They've taken too long to come out with a 10MP.....
I'm sticking with film, but I fear for Leica's survival. Digital truly is the devil.....
Mike
you and me both
boarini2003
06-26-2006, 08:08
you and me both
Count me in too.
Mark Norton
06-26-2006, 08:16
The R-D1 is a great camera and has brought me back to rangefinder photography and my Leica glass. It hints at what is possible from a Leica M8. For me, 10Mp is enough for the end result I am looking for. Keep in mind that a 40Mp camera will only double the linear resolution.
The world is too pre-occupied with mega-pixels because they are an easy number to latch on to. In the finish, it will be a combination of Leica glass, the sensor and the image processing which will yield the images were are looking for.
Erwin likes to stir things, it's how he gets noticed.
erikhaugsby
06-26-2006, 08:19
Count me in too.
that makes four of us.
I don't think anyone should worry whether 10 megapixels is enough. For the style of shooting that most people do with their Leica M's it will probably be more than enough. I don't see many 20X30 street photographs hanging off the walls in art galleries. Most of us will probably just display our work electronically or on the wall with 11X14's. .. You don't always have to be at the forefront with the latest/greatest to make great photographs. Most of us are happy with the results from our M4-P's, M3's, and IIIf's and 50's and 60's era lenses. Why should we need to have the latest and greatest sensor to make us feel like our work is adequate?
I agree wholeheartedly. I want a digital version of my M6 which can deliver the same quality as I get from film. That's it. Why we should have to live without it while Leica would try to develop one that can rival 6x9 or 4x5 is beyond my ability to fathom. Let those folks buy Canons. Their 12-16MP full-frame digitals are so good that they're dissatisfied with the lenses made for them, and yet they're salivating for a 22MP version.
boilerdoc2
06-26-2006, 09:22
I've stopped worrying re the megapixels. As previously stated here it's the glass, the sensor, the software, and don't forget the nut behind the camera that will determine the success or failure. i think that Leica has judiciously waited until the technology matured to intro this new camera. Almost killed the company but probably smart in the long run. I'm #17 on Tony Rose's list for the M8 - or whatever it's to be called.
Steve
Larry H-L
06-26-2006, 09:36
Without the cloth shutter, won't the new digital M sound like a Bessa?
I'm not sure that many folks will plunk down a huge chunk of money for a louder digital rangefinder.
phototone
06-26-2006, 10:49
Without the cloth shutter, won't the new digital M sound like a Bessa?
I'm not sure that many folks will plunk down a huge chunk of money for a louder digital rangefinder.
Well, what does the R-9 sound like, when you pre-trip the mirror? Same shutter as the forthcoming Digital M.
Yeah, I guess Leica's bigges problem have always been Leica users for the last thirty years or so, at least since the M5. The camera is idolised so much that whatever innovation Leica is trying to make, a significant percentage of the conservative userbase is going to be disappointed.
Philipp
I will love to have the R9 shutter on my M8. Never mind the sound, finally a decent sync time for fill-in flash without resorting to the M7's stroboscopic tricks.
phototone
06-26-2006, 11:18
There are obviously going to be some changes from classic Leica "M" shape to accomodate the completely different insides. Hopefully these will be minor, but tha fact is that the shutter will be the same, or similar to the vertical blade shutter in the R9. Which will make it similar to the shutters in the Zeiss Ikon, and the Voigtlander rangefinders. The sound a shutter makes is not just the shutter, but the package it is put into. The Leica bodies have always been robust and the lenses are heavy and dense in construction, all qualities that can muffle and subdue the sound of any shutter. I would think the upcoming Digial M will be the quietest digital rangefinder possible, but perhaps not quite as whisper quiet as a film-based "M" camera from Leica. While I don't own one, I would be curious to know what the sound of the Leica R-8 and R-9 SLR cameras sound like, if you pre-trip the mirror, so you are only hearing the sound of the shutter. Do the Leica "R" cameras have a mirror pre-trip?
How many of you will be disappointed if the Digial "M" is bigger? or Longer? What if it is more M-5 in size? How about if it resembles a M-6 with an extension on the base like it had a winder? All possibilities to accomodate the electronics.
Is the Epson RD-1 any larger than the Voigtlander chassis it is built on? Is it thicker? Don't have one to compare.
As stated by Leica, the M8 will be the same size as the M7.
If the R8-9 are as silent as the R7 I used to own, there is little to worry about. I would say that camera, apart from the mirror slap, which is well dampedon an R body, was about as loud as my M6, just a bit more click than cluck if you get my drift.
ten bucks says a 10mp file from the m8 will be sharper than a 10mp file from a d200 or whatever because of the optics. assuming the software is as good, of course.
"Both approaches (Kobayashi's wait-and-see and Leica/Spichting's jump-into-the-action) have merits and can be defended on several counts."
what? cosina and epson make the r-d1, and a couple years later leica comes out with the m8. who's jumping in and who's waiting?
John Camp
06-26-2006, 13:17
I think some of these specs are known...the camera will be very close to the vertical and horizontal dimensions of the M7, and 1mm thicker. Most reviewers who have actually done side-by-side reviews say that the older, 6mp chip of the R-D1 is as good as film when printed. The M8 should be better; should be better, I'd think (given the extra time to work on it) than the R8. Therer are going to be some sticky issues, because many of the users will be switching over from film, and won't know how to go about maximizing the quality they get from the chip.
Maybe we should have pre-M8 release discussions of
-Expose to the Right
-White Balance
-RAW vs. jpeg
-flash memory card speeds
-RAW processing programs
-Noise management programs
-Data base programs (like Adobe Lightroom)
JC
What is ... is. I'm the first to admit that I'm a bit of a retro-luddite-mechano addict. But I vote we let Leitz actually SHIP the M-freakin-8. Pixesl ain't just pixels ... file quality depends on more than pixel count. Has anyone looked at certo6's oBoy listings? Great shots taken with a 1.6MP Agfa digi-antique.
And this "full frame" debate... Gee, I wish Pentax would make a full frame (i.e., 35mm) Pentax 110.
Flyfisher Tom
06-26-2006, 15:39
6 MP is plenty for most of us.
Get the camera to:
1) full-frame
2) get the price point down to $2000
and I will happily add a M(8+x) to my kit.
One mm thicker and 2mm taller? O, the INFAMY!! Too big, can't use it....
Gabriel M.A.
06-26-2006, 17:50
If the R8-9 are as silent as the R7 I used to own, there is little to worry about. I would say that camera, apart from the mirror slap, which is well dampedon an R body, was about as loud as my M6, just a bit more click than cluck if you get my drift.
The mirror slap is the noisiest part, and even for that, it's a very well-dampened one; it's one of the smoothest-sounding SLRs I own (the R8).
I like Leica stuff, but I'm not religious about it. I certainly cringe whenever I read most things from Mr. Puts, on many levels. His analogies and aliterisms now are rather tired.
Anyway, I'm with those calls to wait for the frig M8 to come out.
I'd also love to see a full-frame Pentax dSLR. Those Takumar lenses... mmmm-mmm! Me like.
Gabriel M.A.
06-26-2006, 17:53
One mm thicker and 2mm taller? O, the INFAMY!! Too big, can't use it....
:eek: They dared do that?!? What else are they going to change? Are they going to be adding a digital sensor in it? Oh the INFAMY!!
Oh, wait...
Peter Klein
06-26-2006, 18:12
Don't judge Erwin too harshly. He is Dutch, and English is a second or third language for him. I can't vouch for his assessment of the optical stratosphere of lens performance, as I don't shoot that way. But I can tell you that after several careful readings of his descriptions of lenses I've tried, I find they match my experience. I based several of my lens choices on his reviews, and I've never been sorry.
--Peter
Surprising it's actually getting bigger though....you mean a bunch of chips and electronics takes up more space than metal gears and springs designed 55 years ago?
And this "full frame" debate... Gee, I wish Pentax would make a full frame (i.e., 35mm) Pentax 110.
That would be a fun camera system, no doubt.
Mark Norton
06-26-2006, 23:15
Let me ask you this. Which do your prefer, Erwin's verbose turgid ramblings or Sean Reid's incisive opinions of comparative products with pictures to back up what he says? Concise is not a word in Erwin's dictionary.
Dear old Erwin likes to take the contrary view to get noticed. It's amusing at first to witness his changing opinions but after a while it gets tedious.
I find it interesting that even an embedded journalist like Erwin Puts has clearly not handled the M8 yet.
Let me ask you this. Which do your prefer, Erwin's verbose turgid ramblings or Sean Reid's incisive opinions...Why must we choose one or the other? I think they're both interesting and educational.
phototone
06-27-2006, 10:17
The M8 is probably thicker to accomodate the LCD screen all digital cameras have to review images and view histograms on. Also, possibly to accomodate a battery large enough to give decent amount of shots.
Bob Ross
06-27-2006, 18:10
I find it interesting that even an embedded journalist like Erwin Puts has clearly not handled the M8 yet.
As I recall Erwin was one of the field testers for the M7 and I had been taking due note of an absence of any M8 articles from him. So, when this bit came out, I was looking for some hints that he has had the camera in some form. So, is the article a weasel worded smoke screen? Is he biting his journalistic tongue? I don't know, but he does seem to have a good mental image of what it will be.
Bob Ross
06-27-2006, 18:17
ten bucks says a 10mp file from the m8 will be sharper than a 10mp file from a d200 or whatever because of the optics. assuming the software is as good, of course.
There is a good chance that you will keep your ten bucks, since rumors have it that there will be no AA filter, as done with the DMR.
J. Borger
06-27-2006, 20:30
I find it interesting that even an embedded journalist like Erwin Puts has clearly not handled the M8 yet.
He sold a lot of his Leica lenses a couple of months ago at Marktplaats.nl (All the ASPH and APOS he raved about in his reviews) ......... he is on Canons pay list now :)
Mark Norton
06-27-2006, 21:13
Surprising it's actually getting bigger though....you mean a bunch of chips and electronics takes up more space than metal gears and springs designed 55 years ago?
May be so, but then a film M camera with its own integrated development tank and developer, rinse and fix tanks wouldn't exactly be small, either.
anselwannab
06-27-2006, 21:44
I think the niche for d-RFs is size and compactness and the potential for sensor specialization.
DSLRs have gotten so big, I find them cumbersome to carry unless I'm out "to take pictures". RF definately win in the transport category.
I agree that the MP race is over. My 20D makes great 13x19 prints. Where I see a niche for dRFs is in dynamic range. Make it FF and with greater dynamic range in about 12MP and I think you're onto something.
>we let Leitz actually SHIP the M-freakin-
Um, it hasn't been Leitz for a long, long time...
Are we just having fun or did someone miss the memo?
Dave.
The two main points of interest (or in modern speak Unique Selling Points: USP) of the Leica D-CRF that set it apart from the rest of the bunch are the amount of megapixels and the rangefinder.
The amount of megapixels? That is the stupidest thing I've heard all day (okay, it's still early).
Nikon D200 = 10 MP
Sony Alpha = 10 MP
Nikon D2X(s) = 12 MP
Canon 5D = 12 MP
Canon 1Ds MII = 16 MP
etc etc, and except the last one, all of these are noticeably cheaper (most notably the Alpha under $1000 and the D200 around $1600). How on earth does the amount of megapixels set this camera apart?
I'm sure the M8 isn't meant as an amateur camera, so the conclusion is pretty simple: compared to other professional cameras (D2x, 1Ds MII), it has LESS megapixels, not more. I think megapixels are the least important thing about the camera, but making statements like Puts does is ridiculous. So much understanding about technology, so little about photography...
I'm no expert, but in my opinion the leica is now an amateur camera, making a digital version won't change that. How many professionals shoot with a rangefinder, or will shoot with a rangefinder? Not many, they like their ultra large zooms more I guess ;) I strongly doubt 35mm is still used at all by professionals.
So for an amateur camera it seems like the ammount of megapixels is pretty much what could be expected from a new quality product.
The amount of megapixels?
Nikon D200 = 10 MP
Sony Alpha = 10 MP
Nikon D2X(s) = 12 MP
Canon 5D = 12 MP
Canon 1Ds MII = 16 MP
I'm sure the M8 isn't meant as an amateur camera, so the conclusion is pretty simple: compared to other professional cameras (D2x, 1Ds MII), it has LESS megapixels, not more. I think megapixels are the least important thing about the camera ..
10 MP is enough for to equal the 12 MP of the Canon 5D as far as resolution goes. The absence of an AA filter, less aggressive noise reduction, and Leica(and others) prime glass, can compensate for a fewer pixels. In my tests of the Epson RD-1 @6.1MP vs the Canon 20D @ 8.3MP, I found them to be pretty equalvilant, with respects to resolution. I'd have to give the nod to the Canon regarding noise, but I preferred working with the Epson's RAW files as they are relatively unsullied with a lot of in camera processing.
Basically what I'm saying is that the advantages that the M8 will have, can overcome most, if not all of the of the supposed advantages had by a slightlly higher MP camera. This is not to mention a, hopefully greater dynamic range and bit depth.
I woudn't be suprised if the 12 and 16MP cameras produce a better image straight from the camera. For professional use this is important. Still, the Leica should also produce great pictures with little post processing.
And remember, this is all from a camera/lens setup about 1/2 the size of the DSLR
Rex
wasn't he comparing it to the r-d1?
He sold a lot of his Leica lenses a couple of months ago at Marktplaats.nl (All the ASPH and APOS he raved about in his reviews) ......... he is on Canons pay list now :)
Is that a fact? I hope you got your hooks on a number of them! :)
wasn't he comparing it to the r-d1?
Unlikely, he wouldn't refer to the RD-1 as "the rest of the bunch", would he?
Rex, I completely agree with you, the amount of megapixels is not the end all and I too have heard the DMR performs at least as good as other DSLR with more megapixels. But Puts' isn't referring to performance, resolution or image-quality, he literally states "the amount of megapixels". And that's just wrong.
Oh and Wim, you'd be surprised how many PJ's still shoot 35mm sometimes or often, my three favorite belgian PJ's for example: Stephan Vanfleteren, Tim Dirven and Bruno Stevens. Bruno Stevens latest series can be seen here: http://digitalrailroad.net/bruno/Frameset.aspx?bwid=114&cdsid=2aa1cf8d-cebc-42c6-b550-a12feb6f3d40&rcp=11 shot on color negative with a Leica M2 (I do like his B&W work better though).
John Camp
06-28-2006, 06:01
I've used digital SLRs and digicams since they came out, and have owned a D1x, a D2x and two Kodak full-frames, along with several pocket digitals; and my son owned a Canon 1Ds. I no longer pay much attention to megapixel claims, because so much depends on the chip itself and the firmware and software behind it. One problem that is constantly encountered in Internet examinations of these issues is simple lying -- the people who claim to have knowledge of various cameras have never used them, and after a while, you can tell that. Many Canon freaks have never really used a Nikon, and vice-versa. You simply CANNOT tell how a system will work until you have it and have tried it. There are also practical aspects: Canon keeps going for more megapixels, when, in truth, you really can't tell the difference now between a 16mp Canon 1DsII and a 12mp Nikon D2x when printed as a double-truck in the best-quality magazines, because the printing on high-speed presses -- even the best presses -- is so much less good than what either camera can do, that the differences are obliterated. There are also distinct benefits to a Nikon-sized sensor; and there are distinct benefits to a Canon-sized sensor. (I refuse to use the term Full Fame here because it no longer makes any sense, and never did make much.) My feeling is, and I certainly could be wrong, is that the M8 will match both Nikon and Canon for almost any practical purpose, although it might not match a 1DsII in resolution when the 1DsII is mounted with Leica R lenses longer than 35mm. With any lenses shorter than 35mm, the 1DsIII is going to have corner problems, but that's another issue.
The critical aspect of the M8 is its size and handiness. As I write this, I have a D2x on my desk along with an M7. The D2x (which is a great camera) is about twice as tall as the M7; iun fact, it is TALLER than the M7 is WIDE by, I would say (just eye-balling) about an inch. It's also wider by at least an inch, and, on the hand-grip portion of the D2x, thicker by an inch and a half -- it is more than twice as thick as the M7, and it weighs a ton. I keep an RRS backet on the D2x, and that makes it even wider and taller and heavier. The lens on the D2x, an 18-200 zoom, is, at its shortest length, almost as long as the M7 body, and when I heft it, the lens alone feels almost as heavy as an M7 with a 35 Summilux ASPH attached.
The 1DSII is significantly bigger than the D2x.
The point here is, Ms and SLRs are radically different cameras, and are used differently. I doubt that many workaday photojournalists will get M8s, because SLRs are more flexible, and flexibility is what workaday PJs need more than anything. The M8s will go mostly to the art crowd; and the art crowd is actually quite large.
If I actually knew how to post photographs on this forum, I'd take pictures of the two systems and post them...but just sitting here looking at them, comparisons between a top end SLR and an M7 are like comparing a roadster to a hardcore SUV. Which is best depends on what you're planning to do.
JC
If I actually knew how to post photographs on this forum, I'd take pictures of the two systems and post them...but just sitting here looking at them, comparisons between a top end SLR and an M7 are like comparing a roadster to a hardcore SUV. Which is best depends on what you're planning to do.
JC
One of the most sensible posts I've seen in some time. Posting images: either use the "manage attachments"button in the advanced reply box, or link to your pic somewhere else on the net, a blog, a hosting site, your site,and paste the URL of the image in the image button over your advanced reply box.
The total number of pixels is an important thing.
Increasing the Nyquist limit of the sensor the total resolution of the system will increase too, and this means more detail in prints. Leica lenses have very high resolution power, and the best way of exploiting this is by means of higher resolutions in the sensor.
See this:
http://www.stockphotoonline.com/C01_NotesOnPhotography/Resolution.htm
The total number of pixels is an important thing.
Increasing the Nyquist limit of the sensor the total resolution of the system will increase too, and this means more detail in prints. Leica lenses have very high resolution power, and the best way of exploiting this is by means of higher resolutions in the sensor.
See this:
http://www.stockphotoonline.com/C01_NotesOnPhotography/Resolution.htm
Well yes and no because Leica is going to use an APS size sensor so the final image will enlarged more than a canon with a 36x24 sensor so some of that advantage will be lost. Also an APS size sensor of 10mp or whatever will tend to be more noisy than a 35mm sensor ( I don't know why but clever people tell me it is so). Plus the smaller pitch of the pixels will place more demands upon the glass so 'worse' canon lenses will look better than 'superior' leica lenses when mounted on their respective camers.
JC: Best post I've seen in quite a while; bravo. FWIW, I am not a wealthy man, and if I were to buy an M8, I'd be divorced and poorer if my missus discovered the price. Yet ...
The total number of pixels is an important thing.
Increasing the Nyquist limit of the sensor the total resolution of the system will increase too, and this means more detail in prints. Leica lenses have very high resolution power, and the best way of exploiting this is by means of higher resolutions in the sensor.
See this:
http://www.stockphotoonline.com/C01_NotesOnPhotography/Resolution.htm
This is a rather too simplistic approach: Pixel size, Max COC and Airy disk diameter are virtually identical on a 1.3x 10 Mp and 35mm 16 Mp sensor. That means lens performance will be rendered identically. With the advantage for Leica of not having a AAdiffuser in front of the sensor so edge contrast will not be impaired. The total pixel number only gets into play at quite large enlargements, say larger than billboard at less than 5 m, when the printing resolution starts to exceed the native resolution of the sensor or at extremely close viewing distances, like a 100% crop on your monitor. For all other viewing situations the 10MP sensor will far exceed the resolving power of the human eye.In all those normal shooting situations we can expect the M8 to render results that will be better than the current Canon 1DsII, as the DMR, with similar specifications as the M8, does.
Mark Norton
06-29-2006, 14:10
...which is a compelling argument in favour of the M8, even before you factor in the size, weight, quiet and convenience of the thing compared to a DSLR. There are lots of detrators here but for me, this is the most important Leica camera since the M3. Cannot wait.
anselwannab
06-29-2006, 14:49
My dream set-up will be:
A Canon 5D (or follow-on FF) with my 17-40/4L (I must have a good copy).
A dRF with 35, 50 and 75mm lenses.
My 20D with my 70-200/2.8L IS with a 1.4x when I need it.
Right now my EOS630 fills the 5D gap and my CL fills the dRF gap.
I love walking around with my CL or Zorki6 with I-50 in my pocket, and will enjoy it more when I can do it with out spending time dunking my tmax100 and scanning and dust removing!
All this technical talk about the quality doesn't really add up till much until we have some RAW files available for download or we have the camera in our hands. I don't give a flying [insert expletive of choice here] what the camera does compared to a full frame Canon DSLR. I would like one of those too, but for much different reasons. I am a novice when it comes to my Leica, so maybe I just don't get something here but SLR's and rangefinders are two different beasts. Like the analogy made earleir between a roadster and a SUV, they are both photographic tools but differ in many ways. I don't think we should stress over the files the M8 produces when we haven't even seen them. Lets calm down and wait a few months until we start comparing it to other cameras we can actually hold.
I fully agree that talk of comparisons in image quality are pointless without a working example of the camera in hand. I also fully agree that a Leica and an EOS 5D are 2 different things with individual strengths and weaknesses, but whereas I accepted a lower image quality from 35mm than from larger formats because of ergonomics, the ergos between an EOS 5D and a Leica aren't compelling enough that I would sacrifice appreciable image quality, especially considering how much more the Leica will cost. But I've got faith in Leica on that score, though not quite enough of it to buy the M8 sight-unseen :D
...whereas I accepted a lower image quality from 35mm than from larger formats because of ergonomics, the ergos between an EOS 5D and a Leica aren't compelling enough that I would sacrifice appreciable image quality, especially considering how much more the Leica will cost. But I've got faith in Leica on that score, though not quite enough of it to buy the M8 sight-unseen :DThis goes to show how very different our priorities can be. I've been surprised before by comparisons of the Epson with some dSLR with more features for less money... when in my humble opinion there flat out is no possible comparision because the ergonomics/interface issue is overwhelmingly important.
Same with buyers choosing 128k RAM Apple Macintoshes over IBM PCs in 1984; IMO it was ALL about the interface, baby! When I saw MacPaint and MacWrite run on that sharp little screen, and learned there was no BASIC language included, I KNEW that was my kinda computer! Somehow I see a parallel here and now with the Epson R-D1 and the Leica M8, marginal products perhaps, but for those valuing the analog interface over modal menus, there just is no other choice in an interchangeable lens digital cam... But I'm unlikely to buy sight-unseen either, so there we agree. :)
Get the camera to:
1) full-frame
2) get the price point down to $2000
#2 Will *never* happen; period.
the ergos between an EOS 5D and a Leica aren't compelling enough
Ben, you do own the Leica M and the Canon 5D; right? How can you say that the ergo differences between the two bodies are not compelling enough?
Even Ray would argue with you!
But I've got faith in Leica on that score, though not quite enough of it to buy the M8 sight-unseen :D
No one should make the final buying decision before seeing the result. I am pretty sure that the M8 will be a lot better than R-D1!!!
Mark Norton
06-30-2006, 18:55
The M8 will only be a success - and Leica will only survive as an independent camera manufacturer - if it provides the very best image quality, taking on the best from Nikon and Canon. It has an unfair advantage - the inherent quality of the M lenses - but doing this requires a single mindedness to do their own thing rather than follow the herd.
So when Erwin quotes the New York Times articles written by some staffer and talks about it being a "a rather conservative camera that relies on manual focus, manually operated aperture ring, a classic-style rangefinder and a close resemblance to the classical M-look", I say of course, were you really expecting anything else?
Leica is a tiny company - 1/50 the size of Nikon - probably the world's smallest digital camera maker - and they cannot hope to compete by matching feature to feature. There will be those who pass them by because the camera which comes free with tokens from Cheerios has more pixels, but these people are not the target market. For me, the real success of the M8 will come from the image quality and the simplicity of the camera, not the complexity.
Ben, you do own the Leica M and the Canon 5D; right? How can you say that the ergo differences between the two bodies are not compelling enough?
You (mis-)quoted me out of context. What I said was that the ergonomics aren't compelling enough that I would accept a significant loss in image quality especially given that the M8 will be about double the cost of the 5D. The ergos are indeed important to me, that's why when I travel I continue to shoot my Leicas and go through the expense and inconvenience of film. BTW I have a 20D, which I bought used for under $900, not a 5D. The ergos are nearly the same though.
For me, the real success of the M8 will come from the image quality and the simplicity of the camera, not the complexity.
Well said!
Surprising it's actually getting bigger though....you mean a bunch of chips and electronics takes up more space than metal gears and springs designed 55 years ago?
Battery? Memory card? Interface? LCD screen(s)? etc....
6 MP is plenty for most of us.
Agree
Get the camera to:
1) full-frame
Won't happen due to the angle of incidence.
2) get the price point down to $2000
and I will happily add a M(8+x) to my kit.
So would I. Actually, I probably will even at $5K. But considering the M7 retails for $3500, that's a tad unrealistic
fotografz
07-04-2006, 08:29
If the M8 were here tomorrow it wouldn't be too soon. All the years of developing rangefinder technique won't go to waste.
I'm currently at the top of the food chain in terms of digital gear ... H2D-39, CFV Digital back on a 503CW & 203FE, 1DsMII, DMR/9, Canon 5D ... applied to commercial photography, weddings, on-set stills, travel and personal work.
10+ meg with a 1.37X sensor will be fine for doing what rangefinder work is normally used for. I will use the M8 along side the M7 with B&W film to shoot weddings. I cannot wait to NOT carry a 1DsMKII around all day in 90 degree weather.
Everyone assumes the M8 will be snapped up by a limited number of Leica users.
I personally know a boat load of Contax users just waiting for this camera.
ezio gallino
07-07-2006, 08:31
Originally Posted by Flyfisher Tom
-6 MP is plenty for most of us.
Yes it might be true...
-Get the camera to:
-1) full-frame
----Won't happen due to the angle of incidence.
Maybe someone will find a way to orient pixels according to light incidence...
When? tomorrow or not next 200 years:confused:
-2) get the price point down to $2000
not quite realistic considering manufacturing costs and trying to maintain actual excellent quality Leica's standards.
True Leicas are like Patek-Philippe or Ferrari's: a status symbol first and excellent tools AFTER; management knows this very well.
I had a nice talk with the product manager for the M8 and the shutter will be very quiet. To hear the exact sound pop up the mirror in an R8 or 9 and snap away. It will be even quieter as there is now big mirror box to resonate.
I can hardly wait to give one a try later this year, lets hope it's all we expect.
Kent
Bob Ross
07-08-2006, 19:12
Thanks Kent, that is reassuring. My point of curiosity about the M8 is whether it will have hybrid white balance like the high end DSLR models from C, N & O. I have it on the E-1 and love it.
Bob,
It will be interesting to see how advanced things like the white balance management will be. It should be interesting. I am also hoping that there will be a decent buffer for raw shooting.
Kent
I'm more concerned with the ISO 400 and up noise. For the money I'd like to be able to shoot at 1600 and 3200 with less noise than there is grain on films of the same speed. My Canon 20D can do that, so I hope the M8 can as well but from what I've read, high-ISO noise isn't a strong point of the DMR.
Bob Ross
07-09-2006, 16:57
I'm more concerned with the ISO 400 and up noise. For the money I'd like to be able to shoot at 1600 and 3200 with less noise than there is grain on films of the same speed. My Canon 20D can do that, so I hope the M8 can as well but from what I've read, high-ISO noise isn't a strong point of the DMR.
I don't think that we'll see noise profiles like Canon or the newer consumer DSLRs that use noise reduction that does steal detail. I suspect that we'll see something along the lines of the E-1, D-200 or DMR. Digital does seem to be ahead of film for noise/grain, but it is different, because it shows up in the shadows instead of highlights like film. For me it isn't that there is noise, it is what does it look like. The chromatic noise is just ugly and usually detracts from the image. Printing can usually reduce noise, so whatever we see on the monitor screen will be different on the print. What the lack of an AA filter does to this will be interesting to see.
If the M8 were here tomorrow it wouldn't be too soon. All the years of developing rangefinder technique won't go to waste.
I'm currently at the top of the food chain in terms of digital gear ... H2D-39, CFV Digital back on a 503CW & 203FE, 1DsMII, DMR/9, Canon 5D ... applied to commercial photography, weddings, on-set stills, travel and personal work.
10+ meg with a 1.37X sensor will be fine for doing what rangefinder work is normally used for. I will use the M8 along side the M7 with B&W film to shoot weddings. I cannot wait to NOT carry a 1DsMKII around all day in 90 degree weather.
Everyone assumes the M8 will be snapped up by a limited number of Leica users.
I personally know a boat load of Contax users just waiting for this camera.
That is a reassuring post. It would be nice to see Leica move back into the professional world. The qualities it stands for are, in a way, wasted on us amateurs (not meant as a belligerent remark, I couldn't think to phrase this better) Obviously we will not see it amongst the battery of white barrels at the Olympics, but I can imagine general journalists, war correpondents and wedding photograpers loving it, as some corporate, fashion and technical photography professionals snapped up the DMR.
Mark Norton
07-10-2006, 01:20
All those white lens barrels ay Wimbledon and the World Cup - Are they all Canon lenses, seem to dominate.
There is some black returning nowadays. Nikon seems to be crawling out of their dip.
All those white lens barrels ay Wimbledon and the World Cup - Are they all Canon lenses, seem to dominate.
For anything that requires over 200mm, Canon is definitely used the most, but don't forget that Nikon offers all their long lenses (300mm+) in white as well, and many pros opt for this because of heat issues outdoors in the sun. In other areas, like general photojournalism or concert photography, for every Canon you see, you see at least five or six Nikons. At least here in Belgium. So it really depends where you look - what country, what type of photography, ...
The largest Pentax lenses are white also.
Its seems silly to me that everyone keeps saying "the images will be as good as *insert dslr here*", But the dslr is almost 1/4 of the price, can you really justify spending 4 times more money just because it says leica on it. For 5k you could buy and m7 and a dslr that would probably make just as good of images.
On a separate note, it always seems like the papparatzi use nikons
Its seems silly to me that everyone keeps saying "the images will be as good as *insert dslr here*", But the dslr is almost 1/4 of the price, can you really justify spending 4 times more money just because it says leica on it.Zack, it IS kind of a strange situation, but I think it's fair to compare image quality among digital cameras. OTOH I believe it is NOT sensible to suggest a dSLR as an alternative to a digital RF. They are two different kinds of camera, very different in usage. It's like looking at your buddy's new Red Corvette and saying Gee, too bad; he could have gotten a really nice tricked-out SUV for a lot less...
I agree it is like comparing apples to oranges, but if we agree image quality is comparable what is that extra $4000 you're paying go towards? Just because the m8 is smaller, has rangefinder focusing, and a red dot on it its worth $4000 more, i find that very hard to believe.
Bob Ross
07-10-2006, 13:59
I agree it is like comparing apples to oranges, but if we agree image quality is comparable what is that extra $4000 you're paying go towards? Just because the m8 is smaller, has rangefinder focusing, and a red dot on it its worth $4000 more, i find that very hard to believe.
The premise of your statements is that image quality is comparable to $1000 entry level DSLRs? If so, I wont agree. Image quality most likely be comparable to the DMR, which compares favorably or better to the EOS 1DsMkII and some brave reviewers say that it approaches medium format (they probably mean 645). The main draw is that the Leica M lenses can outshine most SLR lenses and this glass has been idle and many collections exceed the $4000 extra that you talk about. The hope, of course, is that the lenses plus the already proven image quality will do something special. What price value each of us will put on that will vary.
Gabriel M.A.
07-10-2006, 16:41
I agree it is like comparing apples to oranges, but if we agree image quality is comparable what is that extra $4000 you're paying go towards? Just because the m8 is smaller, has rangefinder focusing, and a red dot on it its worth $4000 more, i find that very hard to believe.
Leica is not churned out of some sweat shop in China where they just slap on dots or squares or triangles or any other logos. Having "the red dot" from Leica means that Leica has given its blessing at least, and there is a lot of engineering investment behind that.
That said, if most of their components are not made or supervised by them, that is adding insult to injury.
And comparing a Honda Goldwing to a Cadillac Imperialistalade by means of saying that they're the same because they both consume gasoline, ride on roads, are driven by humans (perhaps), can be stopped by the same cops, and follow the laws of physics and thermodynamics still loses sight that one is a motorcycle and the other is a hideous truck wannabe. If you want to haul your whole family in a Goldwing, don't go around complaining that it's not comparable to a school bus.
And I say "you" in general (one), not you, Zack. ;)
Ted Witcher
07-10-2006, 17:19
Slightly OT, I guess, but have any reports indicated that one of the viewfinder choices might be 1:1? I doubt it, of course, but I think there is a usefulness to the R3a's open-eyes viewfinder that Leica is not exploiting.
Mark Norton
07-10-2006, 21:26
The viewfinder/rangefinder is the USP of the M8 and, if anything like the M7, is one of the major costs, as Leica themselves say in the book "50 years of the Leica M", it is much more expensive to make than the viewfinder of an SLR.
It's also one aspect of the camera we know very little about.
The combination of rangefinder base length and viewfinder magnification place limits on the lenses which can be used - they can be mounted, for sure, but can you focus accurately with them? As the depth of field of a lens decreases, so you need to be able to focus more accurately to get the results ytou want.
Reading between the lines, it looks like the 135 will not use usable with the camera, so that the 90/2 and 75/1.4 will be at the limit. LCT thinks this means a viewfinder magnification of 0.78 to support these lenses.
At the other end of the scale, 28mm is now only moderately wide - 37mm equivalent field of view - and one of the many unanswered questions is whether the 21 and 24 will be supported directly or will an aux finder still be required?
The ideal solution would be a dual-range viewfinder, optimised for shooting wide with one setting and long with the other.
With the M7, you could consider buying two bodies with different viewfinders. With the M8, that's tougher to justify because of the higher cost and lower likely value retention.
I think right now its hard to speculate on how good or bad it will be because of the (some what) limited information available, i just hope that everyone doesnt instantly put the m8 up on a pedistal because it is a leica. It would be a shame for everyone to get their hopes up and pay $5000 for a good but not great camera.
Will the frame lines be adjusted to the crop factor?
ian_watts
07-11-2006, 03:36
I wont agree. Image quality most likely be comparable to the DMR, which compares favorably or better to the EOS 1DsMkII and some brave reviewers say that it approaches medium format.... The main draw is that the Leica M lenses can outshine most SLR lenses and this glass has been idle
I have my name down for an M8, and will most likely buy one if it's not an absolute dog, but I'm not so sure that you can ssume that the DMR quality will automatically translate over to the rangefinder line. Obviously, Leica will be doing their utmost to maximise image quality (the zebra stripes being an evident part of this) but the inherent shortcomings of M lenses for digital capture (by this I mean the 'oblique ray problem') may mean that DMR quality is simply not attainable - at least not with the shorter focal lengths (especially those with rear elements that are very close to the film plane). My worry is that the M8 may turn out to simply be a rather better built RD-1 - a kind of okayish digital option for a great set of lenses. I know that the RD-1 has its admirers but I gave it a serious go (used one almost exclusively for around 7 months) and had to conclude that the image quality just wasn't ultimately that good. Frankly, I felt that it was bettered by some fairly cheap digicams with optimised 'digital' lenses and made me question the wisdom of using £1500 lenses to get what were pretty mediocre results. It may be that the ageing RD-1/D100 sensor was the biggest factor in this mediocrity (as I saw it) but my worry is that short focal length rangefinder lenses simply aren't that well suited (yet) to digital capture. I hope I am proved wrong.
Nachkebia
07-11-2006, 03:58
Is this fake?
http://www.digicamezine.com/mt-static/archives/img/20040211_3.jpg
Well, seeing that it has a film rewind lever, it does not look very convincing.......
Mark Norton
07-11-2006, 05:03
That's not the film rewind knob, that's the integrated emergency battery recharging handle. Hadn't you heard??
Actually, it looks like a photoshopped image of a Digilux 2 grafted onto the back of an M7 with the wind on lever painted out.
Mark Norton
07-11-2006, 05:58
I have my name down for an M8, and will most likely buy one if it's not an absolute dog, but I'm not so sure that you can ssume that the DMR quality will automatically translate over to the rangefinder line. Obviously, Leica will be doing their utmost to maximise image quality (the zebra stripes being an evident part of this) but the inherent shortcomings of M lenses for digital capture (by this I mean the 'oblique ray problem') may mean that DMR quality is simply not attainable - at least not with the shorter focal lengths (especially those with rear elements that are very close to the film plane). My worry is that the M8 may turn out to simply be a rather better built RD-1 - a kind of okayish digital option for a great set of lenses. I know that the RD-1 has its admirers but I gave it a serious go (used one almost exclusively for around 7 months) and had to conclude that the image quality just wasn't ultimately that good. Frankly, I felt that it was bettered by some fairly cheap digicams with optimised 'digital' lenses and made me question the wisdom of using £1500 lenses to get what were pretty mediocre results. It may be that the ageing RD-1/D100 sensor was the biggest factor in this mediocrity (as I saw it) but my worry is that short focal length rangefinder lenses simply aren't that well suited (yet) to digital capture. I hope I am proved wrong.
Have to say I am not seeing "mediocre results" at all from my R-D1 and they stand comparison with those from my D2x and Nikon's best lenses, less resolution of course but good noise performance. IMHO, the R-D1 is a fine performer at its price point.
5 years on in sensor terms, plus the lens coding, minus the moire filter and I think we are assured of top class results, with the DMR being the benchmark to meet or exceed. It does sound like they could only take the quality so far without the lens coding though and it will be interesting to compare with and without coding. It's hard to see the M8 being a dog. Leica will have seriously lost their way if it is. Given products like the DMR and the APO 75mm Summicron-M ASPH, is this likely? Err, no.
In time, even though it will be an admission of defeat, there's nothing to stop Leica introducing new wide-angle lenses to improve the performance if that is what is required. Hope that doesn't happen!
Bob Ross
07-11-2006, 07:28
Hi Mark & Ian,
I have two DSLRs, the E-1 and the KM5d, so I have versions of the two sensors, Sony & Kodak. I think there is a noticeable difference between them and they certainly post process differently. The Kodak KAF FFT (6.8µm) sensor is much maligned for its noise ove ISO400, but what goes without comment is the tonal quality. The tonal gradient and color gradient of the Kodak sensor is, IMO, is better than the Sony 6MP sensor, while the high ISO and lower noise of the Sony is better. I have noticed the same with the DMR & D200 images that I have looked at. We all see different things in our images and process them uniquely and print them on different printers, so this is only my opinion based on my color darkroom experience. The 10MP Kodak sensor with no AA filter and 16bit files (if they follow the DMR) certainly has potential, not to mention the "tuned by Leica" and the M class lenses. I think the DMR images are the best approximation to what we will see at the moment.
Bob
In time, even though it will be an admission of defeat, there's nothing to stop Leica introducing new wide-angle lenses to improve the performance if that is what is required. Hope that doesn't happen!
They already announced some, Mark, however not as defeat but to compensate for the smaller sensor.
Mark Norton
07-11-2006, 07:43
They already announced some, Mark, however not as defeat but to compensate for the smaller sensor.
Yes, I realise there's likely to be something around 15mm and maybe a second 28mm. I was thinking they might eventually revise the 21 and 24, maybe others to tackle the problem. Who knows? My hope is the existing lenses - which is what I have - will work properly.
Ted Witcher
07-11-2006, 08:09
I'm sure the camera will be excellent, but I sometimes question the wisdom of building a new camera around such an archaic (though elite) platform. In other words, Leica users: if you could have 10MP at full frame and live view, would you have accepted a new line of digital lenses? It seems an extraordinary amount of effort is going towards making the M lenses compatible and I'm not sure the interoperability is worth it in the long run... like running around your backhand, so to speak. I believe Putts or somebody has expressed this already. I probably would've been happy with a slightly more advanced Digilux2-style camera that had the fixed lens -- a "fixed Tri-Elmar" type of thing likely would've made an excellent digital rangefinder. I'm curious to learn what Leica-watchers think went into this design decision, what the pros and cons were.
If it had a fixed tri-elmar it would not be very compact and would be rather heavy, thus losing alot of its selling points.
Realistically, i doubt leica had enough money to devote to developing an entire line of new lenses, and there is such a large variety of lenses to choose from already i think that it makes perfect sense to design the camera around the lenses.
I'm curious to learn what Leica-watchers think went into this design decision, what the pros and cons were.It is really very simple: Leica has spent about eighty years building up a design philosophy for the M system which has, for the last sixty tears, centered on the the rangefinder. Leica-watchers would not expect them to build anything else but a digital M, as not the recording medium, be it sensor or film, but the synthesis between (relative) compactness, uncompromising quality and usabilty through the rangefinder concept have determined the position of the M series camera's. The first thing Leica said, when announcing the digital M in December 2004 was: "The camera will be instantly recognisable as a Leica M camera". To do otherwise would remove the whole raison d'être for the camera. The whole point of the camera is to transpose the classical values of the Leica M into the digital age with as little loss of character and quality as possible. The camera you describe, though it would be a fine camera and I would be tempted to buy one, would not secure Leica's niche.
Ted Witcher
07-11-2006, 11:57
With the M7, Leica has arguably achieved the furthest possible expression of the essential film rangefinder design. There's nowhere else to go with the concept, which is why nobody's really screaming about new features in a film M8 -- there's quibbles, certainly, but no real mass outcry about what the M7 lacks that should be addressed in a new model. The outcry is, as you say, about the desire to have the concept along with the benefits of shooting digital. So would the values you speak of not be possible with a digital rangefinder that has its own set of lenses purpose-built to maximize the strengths and ameliorate the weaknesses of digital-age photography as it currently stands? My point is -- and I'm just playing devil's advocate for the sake of discussion, as I am capture-technology agnostic -- if you want film and want to use your M lenses, you have a series of cameras available to do that. But if you want digital, a new system, not a hybrid system but a new system, purpose-built from scratch to achieve these goals and not limited by what has come before, might have been a better approach. I don't see how such a camera would necessarily conflict with the dictum it be "instantly recognizable as a Leica M camera." Now if the argument is just about money, the fact that the company simply can't afford the R&D and the new tooling, etc. then fine. But if that isn't it...
I've used digital SLRs and digicams since they came out, and have owned a D1x, a D2x and two Kodak full-frames, along with several pocket digitals; and my son owned a Canon 1Ds. I no longer pay much attention to megapixel claims, because so much depends on the chip itself and the firmware and software behind it. One problem that is constantly encountered in Internet examinations of these issues is simple lying -- the people who claim to have knowledge of various cameras have never used them, and after a while, you can tell that. Many Canon freaks have never really used a Nikon, and vice-versa. You simply CANNOT tell how a system will work until you have it and have tried it. There are also practical aspects: Canon keeps going for more megapixels, when, in truth, you really can't tell the difference now between a 16mp Canon 1DsII and a 12mp Nikon D2x when printed as a double-truck in the best-quality magazines, because the printing on high-speed presses -- even the best presses -- is so much less good than what either camera can do, that the differences are obliterated. There are also distinct benefits to a Nikon-sized sensor; and there are distinct benefits to a Canon-sized sensor. (I refuse to use the term Full Fame here because it no longer makes any sense, and never did make much.) My feeling is, and I certainly could be wrong, is that the M8 will match both Nikon and Canon for almost any practical purpose, although it might not match a 1DsII in resolution when the 1DsII is mounted with Leica R lenses longer than 35mm. With any lenses shorter than 35mm, the 1DsIII is going to have corner problems, but that's another issue.
.
JC
You're so right about this. I've been primarily digital in my commercial business since the D1 Nikon and used a scanning back before the D1. Four and a half years ago I sold my D1X system and went to Canon 1D and 1Ds and now use 20D and 1DsII bodies. Having dhot with a D2x I feel the difference in the Nikon and Canon systems are very close with each having an advantage in one area and the other in another. I find I use my 20D about half the time and my MkII the other. I select the particular camera based on the final repro size in a publication or ad. There's no gain in shooting a 47.5 meg file when it will be reduced to 20 megs. The larger files only slow the raw conversion process down.
Alot of folks have been whining about the 1.33x and 10 MP. I always felt my 1D at 1.3X was near an ideal size to take advantage of bith wide and tele lenses. Personally I loved the 1.3X factor. The 1X of the 1DsII is fine but you suffer on the long end where I find myself working quite often.
Don't forget one of the most popular pro cameras today is the 1DmkII with 8MP and 1.3X. The crop and MP count has not hurt the sales by any means.
http://web.mac.com/markgowen/iWeb/photographerscircle/mbr_DonDudenbostel_profile.html
John Camp
07-11-2006, 18:02
But if you want digital, a new system, not a hybrid system but a new system, purpose-built from scratch to achieve these goals and not limited by what has come before, might have been a better approach. I don't see how such a camera would necessarily conflict with the dictum it be "instantly recognizable as a Leica M camera." Now if the argument is just about money, the fact that the company simply can't afford the R&D and the new tooling, etc. then fine. But if that isn't it...
The argument isn't just about Leica's money. I have seven Leica lenses that, at the moment, would cost $16,000 - $18,000, more or less. Say a "new design" M8 cost $5,000, the expected price for the announced M8. You'd be asking me to spend $21,000-$23,000 to get an equivalent "new" Leica rangefinder system that is untested and incompatible with anything else on earth. For half that price, you could buy two D200s, a three or four excellent Nikon primes and a couple of exceptional zooms, a flash system, a racing bike, a week in New York and a partridge in a pear tree; and still have $10,000-$12,000 to put in your pocket. Leica isn't just selling a digital -- it is carrying the Leica rangefinder system into the future, and doing it in a way that keeps the system somewhat competitive.
JC
Olympus developed the "digital from the ground up" E System and was forced to admit the existence of the MA-1 adapter (and make it available) for OM System lenses. That marketing mistake hurt them with OM photographers, still smarting from Olympus abandoning the OM system and making them orphans, at least that is the feeling with many.
While many of the OM lenses seem to perform at least acceptably on the OM (albeit without full automation), the professional line of ZD lenses are arguably better performers, sometimes by a significant margin, proving Olympus' point about digital requiring new lens designs.
The jury is out on the long-term success of the 4/3s effort.
Bob's comments about the quality of the "low res" E-1 files are echoed by many who have actually used the E-1, but unknown or discounted by the megapixel whores. (Ducking and running.)
In the DSLR world I am awaiting the next E-x body to see what Olympus introduces, as I have some OM glass and it would be nice to preserve that investment. So the argument for Leica doing the same for owners of M glass, normally more costly an investment than Zuiko, is clearly valid.
I think the really interesting thing will be how Zeiss M lenses perform on the M8. Zeiss has stated from the beginning that their lenses are designed with digital in mind.
With the M7, Leica has arguably achieved the furthest possible expression of the essential film rangefinder design. There's nowhere else to go with the concept, which is why nobody's really screaming about new features in a film M8 -- there's quibbles, certainly, but no real mass outcry about what the M7 lacks that should be addressed in a new model. The outcry is, as you say, about the desire to have the concept along with the benefits of shooting digital. So would the values you speak of not be possible with a digital rangefinder that has its own set of lenses purpose-built to maximize the strengths and ameliorate the weaknesses of digital-age photography as it currently stands? My point is -- and I'm just playing devil's advocate for the sake of discussion, as I am capture-technology agnostic -- if you want film and want to use your M lenses, you have a series of cameras available to do that. But if you want digital, a new system, not a hybrid system but a new system, purpose-built from scratch to achieve these goals and not limited by what has come before, might have been a better approach. I don't see how such a camera would necessarily conflict with the dictum it be "instantly recognizable as a Leica M camera." Now if the argument is just about money, the fact that the company simply can't afford the R&D and the new tooling, etc. then fine. But if that isn't it...
It would be pretty senseless to develop a completely new RF design, when they already have achieved the "furthest possible expression" as you put it. That, and they can't risk chasing away existing customers, who, up to now, have shown an amazing brand loyalty, even sticking with film in a digital age. It makes more sense to develop a dedicated, semi-SLR system alongside -which is exactly what is happening. In cooperation with Panasonic and Olympus Leica is working on the S-system, the first lens for the Olympus and Panasonic bodies is already on the market. My guess is that coming February will see a Leica S body for the 4/3 system.
My guess is that coming February will see a Leica S body for the 4/3 system.
I'm gonna have to see my cardiologist to see about meds to reduce my heart rate. With Four Thirds adapters, I can use OM glass, etc., as well as other 4/3s glass and new Leica glass. SCHWEEET! Yeah, I know you are saying this is "your guess", but it makes a lot of sense.
I agree- I can see my wildlife-photography relationship with Canon heading for the rocks:eek: . There is a third party waiting in the wings already, I managed to get hold of a VisoIII and 200 and 280 in preparation for the M8:angel:, but a Leica S with either the Olympus long zoom or maybe a Leica apo-zoom?? Yummy!
I agree- I can see my wildlife-photography relationship with Canon heading for the rocks:eek: . There is a third party waiting in the wings already, I managed to get hold of a VisoIII and 200 and 280 in preparation for the M8:angel:, but a Leica S with either the Olympus long zoom or maybe a Leica apo-zoom?? Yummy!
My Viso-III will come out of retirement if/when I get an M8 too, but I doubt I'll be going with a 4/3 anything instead of Canon. My 400mm Telyt in Viso (M) mount has been doing yeoman duty on my 20D through a 14167 M-to-R adaptor plus an R-to-EOS adaptor. Your 200 and 280 would work likewise. I recently purchased a short focus mount for the lens head of my 135 Tele-Elmar for Viso use on an M8 potentially, but meantime I've been using it on my 20D. All that said though, for the little wildlife photography I do (wintertime spent in the south of USA) I definitely like both the ergonomics and the optical results of my Canon EF 400/5.6 over the old double-tube Telyt, though not by much. The old bazooka with its 2 element lens is one heckuva performer.
I'm looking for a Noflexar 400 in Viso mount. Not found it yet.
Bob Ross
07-12-2006, 08:12
I'm gonna have to see my cardiologist to see about meds to reduce my heart rate. With Four Thirds adapters, I can use OM glass, etc., as well as other 4/3s glass and new Leica glass. SCHWEEET! Yeah, I know you are saying this is "your guess", but it makes a lot of sense.
I have had a lot of fun using older lenses on the E-1. Digital is a good way to see if the old lenses are as good as you thought they were...:)
I am curious about the name S-class and semi-SLR term. I have read some speculation of a 4/3rds body that uses an EVF is supposedly in the works. This concept sounds fascinating, because it could give a bigger and brighter viewfinder, providing they use a state of the art EVF (OLED?).
They'll use the horizontal prism, like Oly and Pana, mark my words...
Bob Ross
07-12-2006, 14:09
They'll use the horizontal prism, like Oly and Pana, mark my words...
The porro prism route is the most likely, a Pany L-1 with new sheet metal and grill. I think we'll see a few 4/3rds things at Photokina and maybe some strategic leaks to keep our interest peaked.....:D
The L-1 looks a lot more rangefinder-y than the E-3xx models. If the Live View technology is developed further to give a really good and faster EVF, then things could get interesting.
Bob: I have a few Zuiko 50s, 28s, 21/2 and 100/2.8. I'd love to exercise the 21 and 100 on an E-x. I've seen samples of the latter, and they looked quite nice.
Bob Ross
07-12-2006, 18:10
Yes, the Zuiko 100mm f/2.8 is quite a surprise and it can be used at full aperture. I find focusing tele lenses easier than the wide angles on the 4/3rds focusing screen (E-1 at least).
What I haven't seen is any comment from owners of the E-330 on using manual lenses with Live View.
The critical aspect of the M8 is its size and handiness. As I write this, I have a D2x on my desk along with an M7. The D2x (which is a great camera) is about twice as tall as the M7; iun fact, it is TALLER than the M7 is WIDE by, I would say (just eye-balling) about an inch. It's also wider by at least an inch, and, on the hand-grip portion of the D2x, thicker by an inch and a half -- it is more than twice as thick as the M7, and it weighs a ton. I keep an RRS backet on the D2x, and that makes it even wider and taller and heavier. The lens on the D2x, an 18-200 zoom, is, at its shortest length, almost as long as the M7 body, and when I heft it, the lens alone feels almost as heavy as an M7 with a 35 Summilux ASPH attached.
Good point.
Ergonomics. Size. Handling. Weight. Responsiveness. (And good imaging abilities.) All things that make the classic M-line Leicas interesting.
Speak about loudness and feeling of shutters sounds, I cannot understand why a digital RF camera needs a shutter at all while a viewfinder digicam don't need it. The sensor works electronically. You turn it on, you turn it off. What's the problem about it?
Speak about loudness and feeling of shutters sounds, I cannot understand why a digital RF camera needs a shutter at all while a viewfinder digicam don't need it
Sonnar2
The large sensors used in DSLRs are fundamentally different than the small ones used in point n' shoots. It has something to do with the way the pixel readout is sequencially read out. Maybe someone with a little more technical knowledge can fill us in. I think it also prevents live view even without a mirror in the way.
Rex
Bob Ross
07-21-2006, 14:31
Sonnar2
The large sensors used in DSLRs are fundamentally different than the small ones used in point n' shoots. It has something to do with the way the pixel readout is sequencially read out. Maybe someone with a little more technical knowledge can fill us in. I think it also prevents live view even without a mirror in the way.
Rex
The Kodak KAF-FFT sensors are not set up for that, but the Sony sensor in Nikon's D70 does it and that is why it has a high flash sync. I suspect the electronic shutter would slow things down, as the sensor image has to be cleared before the actual image is recorded.
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.