View Full Version : M8 gossip
Hello! i'm new in this forum.
well...just a small anectote...i was two weeks ago in Morocco with a famous Magnum photographer and we spoke about the new M8..(he was a Leica user for years and with the ending of the Kodachrome in Europe he changes for a digital camera).
Leica lends him an M8 for testing...he told me that the quality is fantastic, but also that for the moment he don't wants to buy one (too expensive , and he dislikes the cropping factor, 1,33...) Don't forget that if you use a 35 mm for having more or less the field of a 50 , the lens remains a 35 mm for the depht of field and for the ratio between the subject and the background...
This photographer is a pro and as a Leicaist normally one of the most interested by this product..and he don't wants to buy the camera... 1,33 is the BIG problem...and a LOT of other pros are agree with this....
Well... I like very much Leica, and my MP is my very favourite tool for my work,
i wish chance to Leica with the M8...
greggebhardt
08-30-2006, 11:06
The 1.33x crop factor is not a deal breaker for me. I have been doing 1.5x with my Nikon DSLRs for years now and there will always be room enough in the bag for my M7 for the needed wide angle. I love wide but 28mm will cover it for me most the time so the 21mm on the M8 will be good, if not the 21mm fitted to the M7 will do the trick.
Welcome to the forum aton.
Intersting first post. For me I'll have to wait for an M8 simply because I cannot afford one for a long while yet. Having said that the crop factor for me only worries me that I'll need to get some more glass that I also cannot afford yet to cover the wider angles.
For now I'll keep using and more importantly enjoying my M7. I'd really like to try an M8 though, just that my bank balance may not afterwards.
saxshooter
08-30-2006, 11:16
Whether or not Leica toting Magnum photographers buy the M8 will not ensure the success/failure of this camera. Leica is not targeting the professional market, that is not where the money is. Some professionals will buy, some won't. But there are far more serious amateur and hobbyist users out there who love Leica and rangefinders, and it is THOSE people they are going after.
It is possible that Leica may use Magnum photographers for promotional purposes for their camera. Canon has done that with the agency VII.
The 1.33x factor has been debated here for a while. Some can live with it, some cannot. What remains to be seen is if Leica can afford to drop the price of this camera a few months after it comes out... that may move more units and add users to the pool of potential customers for their current and future lenses.
Charlie
Tom Diaz
08-30-2006, 11:32
Hello! i'm new in this forum.
well...just a small anectote...i was two weeks ago in Morocco with a famous Magnum photographer and we spoke about the new M8..(he was a Leica user for years and with the ending of the Kodachrome in Europe he changes for a digital camera).
Leica lends him an M8 for testing...he told me that the quality is fantastic, but also that for the moment he don't wants to buy one (too expensive , and he dislikes the cropping factor, 1,33...) Don't forget that if you use a 35 mm for having more or less the field of a 50 , the lens remains a 35 mm for the depht of field and for the ratio between the subject and the background...
This photographer is a pro and as a Leicaist normally one of the most interested by this product..and he don't wants to buy the camera... 1,33 is the BIG problem...and a LOT of other pros are agree with this....
Well... I like very much Leica, and my MP is my very favourite tool for my work,
i wish chance to Leica with the M8...
Welcome, Aton!
The crop factor is already pretty well known. It is not ideal, but it will not stop me from buying an M8. My favorite focal length is normally 35mm. I have a very nice 28mm, which will end up being about 37mm, so I am going to be fine.
From what we all have heard in advance, I think Leica has wisely tried to get the quality as high as possible rather than going to a full-frame sensor, at least for this first generation digital camera.
Flyfisher Tom
08-30-2006, 11:34
Welcome Aton :)
I too will probably wait a while until the M8 goes through its 'beta' testing. May I ask which Magnum photog your source is? Only divulge if you feel comfortable, of course :)
Gabriel M.A.
08-30-2006, 11:40
Well, frankly speaking, I find it odd that a Magnum photographer would be discussing this with just anybody. Any details?
saxshooter
08-30-2006, 11:54
Hey, Magnum photogs are human too. :D Not untouchable gods! You can actually approach them and talk to them. I believe a few of them were given the camera to try out. I've the pleasure of calling a couple of Magnum photographers (past and present members of the agency) friends.
Charlie :)
Gabriel M.A.
08-30-2006, 12:01
I'm not saying they're gods. Just think of the context of the secrecy of an M8 and the conditions under which preproduction cameras are lent. I'd think somebody from that agency would be slightly professional...
Mark Norton
08-30-2006, 13:05
The sooner Leica reveal this thing to the world, the better. Rejecting the camera simply because it has a crop factor of 1.33 is hardly a valid reason.
Intersting first post.
I felt compelled to check my calendar to make sure today isn't April 1st, but I definitely feel like one of my legs is a little longer :D
Mackinaw
08-30-2006, 14:03
Considering the amount of Nikon 1.5X DSLRs' that are being used by many pros, as well as some Canon DSLR models (which are at 1.6X), the 1.33X factor on the Leica probably isn't a big deal.
Jim Bielecki
Don't forget that every medium format digital back made has a crop factor, even the so-called 645 versions (which are usually 1.1x). Yes, crop factors are not ideal, but people would be screaming much louder if they released a larger, more expensive full-frame version that had poor corner sharpness and strong vignetting. At the moment, I believe there are only TWO cameras made that are full-frame -- the 5D and the 1DsMkII. The 14n used to be, but is no longer made.
I'm still baffled by this whole notion that somehow the magic dimensions of 24 x 36mm constitute "full-frame." Full relative to what?
For example, at work I've been using a digital camera with a 24 x 36 image capture area -- an old 6-megapixel Megavision back on a Fuji GX680 body. Somehow, when you're looking at the little finder mask floating in the middle of that 60mm x 80mm focusing screen, 24x36 doesn't seem all that "full"!
So what do I do? Well, I just forget about "crop factors" and sensor sizes and look through the viewfinder, line up the shot the way I want, and everything works out fine... pretty much the same as I do with my R-D 1 or my Nikon D100 or whatever. In fact, I've shot some pretty good pictures with an Olympus C-4040 compact, and I don't even know what size its sensor is!
My point in all this is that sensor size seems to matter most to people who either aren't using a digital camera, or are just starting to use one and are still struggling with their 35mm preconceptions. Once you stop worrying about what you'd be seeing through your old camera and start concentrating on what you ARE seeing, it's just not that big a deal. At least that's been my experience.
I'm having difficulty understanding how the bright lines for the standard lenses is going to be exicuted by Leica. For example 35, 50, 90 & 135 lenses for my M5 all have bright lines which come up with the appropriate lens. So in the M8 how does this work. True I don't know for sure that there will even be brightlines for the lens that I named. But, with a 1.33 sensor crop will a 50mm lens have brightlines for 50 or 1.33 x 50? I don't know if I'm making myself clear. Can someone help me to understand this issue?
Peter, it sounds like you have it. From what most people have written, it will have framelines that approximate the same field of view that are in the camera now. Since there is a 1.33 crop, that means that instead of being framelines for 28, 35, 50, 75, 90 and 135mm lenses, the framelines are going to be for 24,28,35,50,75 and 90mm lenses. A 24mm lens will bring up framelines that are for 24x1.33, so 32mm, the 28mm will bring up one that is about a 37mm frame etc etc. The 135mm lens will no longer bring up framelines because they would be so small in the viewfinder as to make it impractical. That said, no one is stopping you from putting the lens on and using it anyway...
Gabriel M.A.
08-30-2006, 17:12
I'm still baffled by this whole notion that somehow the magic dimensions of 24 x 36mm constitute "full-frame." Full relative to what?
You're kidding, right? You have no idea about 35mm lenses and their circle of coverage, in which the 24x36 area fits? The whole perspective thing? You are kidding, right?
JoeFriday
08-30-2006, 17:54
here's what I don't get.. if you shoot images in portrait mode, doesn't the frame actually become 36x24??
Considering the amount of Nikon 1.5X DSLRs' that are being used by many pros, as well as some Canon DSLR models (which are at 1.6X), the 1.33X factor on the Leica probably isn't a big deal.
Jim Bielecki
Jim,
Wouldn't it depends on the kind of photography the pros do?
You're kidding, right? You have no idea about 35mm lenses and their circle of coverage, in which the 24x36 area fits? The whole perspective thing? You are kidding, right?
Yes, having worked with film formats ranging from 16mm motion picture through 40x60 process camera, actually I believe I do have a pretty good idea about coverage circles and angles of view.
Based on that, the point I'm trying to get across is that a lens of a given focal length has always and will always produce different angles of view on imagers of different sizes. This is hardly a new idea, and in the past nobody ever got freaked out about it: there was no problem with the idea that a 40mm lens is a mild tele on a 16mm movie camera, a slight wide angle on a 35mm camera, a very wide lens on a 6x6cm camera and an ultra-wide on a 4x5 camera.
If you've got a 40mm lens for your 35mm camera, you don't think, "This is no good, it's a 2.33x crop factor compared to using a 40mm lens on my Hasselblad"... do you? No, you just look at it in terms of what angle of view it produces on the camera you're using, and compose your pictures accordingly.
"Crop factors" may be a bother to people who want to shoot digital and film at the same time to produce identical images at the same shooting distance and focal length... but seriously, who does that?
What I can tell you based on personal experience is that when I first started working with a digital camera having an "APS-size" sensor, I worried a lot about the 1.53x crop factor, constantly thinking, "Well, if I were shooting this shot on 35mm, I'd stand here and use this lens, but now I've got to stand there and use that lens..." That lasted about a month, until I got acclimated to how the camera would "see" with various lenses, and then I just didn't think about it any more. It's no harder than switching back and forth between a medium-format camera and a 35mm camera, for example.
I have a hard time believing that the 1.33 crop factor alone would prevent anyone from buying the M8. The difference in depth of field between that and 24x36 is slight. The difference between full frame and 1.5 or 1.6 makes more of a difference.
Just for some perspective, the sensor size on a 1.5 crop digital camera is approximately the same size as a piece of 35mm motion picture film and no one in cinema complains about not having enough ability to achieve selective focus with it. In fact you fight to shoot with it over a smaller format if it is at all in the budget.
Re: Magnum, although they haven't been many in number, the members of Magnum that I've spent any time with have been very nice approchable people--not everyone there is as testy as Henri Cartier-Bresson was...
Hello! i'm new in this forum.
(he was a Leica user for years and with the ending of the Kodachrome in Europe he changes for a digital camera).
That is an ironic thing for him to do. He could always do a stint for a year or two here since Dwayne's is going strong and will be for at least a couple of years.
Funny thing is, Kodachrome is the very reason I purchased my first M6 last week. I have some 200 rolls of 25 and the other 600 are 64 and 200 speeds for a long term tribute to the incredible film. As good as digital is, everything that is not Kodachrome simply falls short.
Send me a personal message of who he is, I would love to look him up on Magnum and see what he has done with Leitz and Kodachrome. I know David Alan Harvey, he practically made Kodachrome famous.
As much as I would love the M8, the crop factor for me is a no-go. I have zero tolerance for brilliant glass being cropped. That is why I had to switch to Canon for digital. I know some don't understand this no crop camera thing, but for some of us, it is simply not what we want and there are some good options now.
I hope the M8 does well for Leica. We all need them to remain profitable and one day, they will make a great digital RF that will not crop their legendary glass.
AndyPiper
08-30-2006, 21:19
jlw:
While on the whole I can deal with the M's cropped sensor, I can see a whole range of reasons why some other people can't:
1. I buy a $3200 35mm f/1.4 lens - because I want a very fast WIDE-ANGLE lens. On a cropped sensor it becomes a psychotically-priced NORMAL lens. A 50 f/1.4 for $2500 is bad enough - but $3200?!
2. I still want a 35mm-EQUIVALENT f/1.4 lens for low-light photojournalism. Oops - Leica does not make a 24 or 28 f/1.4 lens to use for that aperture and FoV on the M8.
3. My most important money-making lens is a 21 f/2.8. Again - oops - there is no 15mm f/2.8 lens from Leica (even now) to give me that framing and that speed on the M8. Just a big, f/4 Tri-Elmar thingy or a compact f/4.5 Cosina thingy.
Not being able to see that these would problems for some people implies a certain lack of a) imagination, or b) empathy.
jlw:
While on the whole I can deal with the M's cropped sensor, I can see a whole range of reasons why some other people can't:
.
Andy
Your reasons are legitamite but it really comes down to a lack of fast, wide angle lenses. But before the advent of the 1.33 sensor there was no need for faster, wider angle lenses. Now there is.
The situation with regards crop sensor DSLRs was exactly the same. But after a few years, the void was filled in. My 10-22mm EFS does a wonderful job on the short end and the 17-44 F2.8 is a great midrange zoom. I know there not primes but this is DSLR-land.
Of course, some will say,"no fair, those aren't full frame lenses". That's right and whadda think is gonna happen to the M lenses over time. Yes Folks, get ready for the reduced format "M" lens! LET THE FLAME WAR BEGIN:)
Rex, troublemaker
Berkeley, Ca
You're kidding, right? You have no idea about 35mm lenses and their circle of coverage, in which the 24x36 area fits? The whole perspective thing? You are kidding, right?
Who's kidding who? We all know you well enough to know that you are fully aware that perspective is dependent on the distance of camera to subject, not on focal length and of the quality falloff towards the corners ;)
[QUOTE=aton]he was a Leica user for years and with the ending of the Kodachrome in Europe he changes for a digital camera
QUOTE]
That is a strange thing to do. I just bought twelve rolls of Kodachrome 64 in Rotterdam and already hd three of them developed through the central collection post in Germany.....
That patently untrue remark plus that a professional photographer would:
a: know that the DOF changes just half a stop
b: has sense enough to change his 50 mm lens for a 35 and take the same picture with the same perspective from the same spot.
c: with an investment of between 15.000 and 150.000 Euro in professional tools be fazed over 3500 versus 4300 Euro for a high -end body, when professional DSLR's set him back between 5000 and 10.000.
makes me feel that the whole anecdote has but a tenuous connection to reality, to put it mildly.
That a digital RF body would not fit into the DSLR workflow of a pro, on the other hand, is totally understandable.
And, as mentioned by other posters, professionals are not Leica's main target group anyway, however to see some M8's in well-known hands would be nice for the marketing department.
J. Borger
08-30-2006, 23:21
Andy
That's right and whadda think is gonna happen to the M lenses over time. Yes Folks, get ready for the reduced format "M" lens! LET THE FLAME WAR BEGIN:)
Rex, troublemaker
Berkeley, Ca
Yes Rex ...... this will happen .... and it's about time Leica jumps the digital bandwagon and starts making some money.
I also think they have to upgrade the sensor every two year to sell new cameras ..... (2mp at a time at the most and some minor other improvements) ..why? Because that's the way the camera industry works these days .
It's the Canon strategy .....feed the crowds in small doses .... i am just afraid Leica çan't get away with it!
The reduced format lenst might happen ... i personaly would never buy one .. and go for the full frame alternative ... just to keep options open.
But lens sales is where the money for Leica has to come from.
That's also the main reason they went the lenscoding path.
Hi Andy,
in general, what you're describing is a problem shared by people who use primes in the DSLR world, as there isn't even a lens that delivers the same images as the common 50/1.4 in terms of depth of field.
However, if the M8 were full-frame, people would complain about bad performance in the corners. In the long run, this would be a lot worse for Leica in terms of reputation, since the company defines its product as one that delivers superior performance. It's easier for Leica to make people buy new lenses than to work against the image of a bad product.
3. My most important money-making lens is a 21 f/2.8. Again - oops - there is no 15mm f/2.8 lens from Leica (even now) to give me that framing and that speed on the M8. Just a big, f/4 Tri-Elmar thingy or a compact f/4.5 Cosina thingy. You are aware of the 15 f/2.8 from Zeiss?
Philipp
Mark Norton
08-30-2006, 23:48
Leica talked about "some interesting wide angle solutions" and it looks like their initial response is a 28mm Elmarit ASPH to provide a lower cost wide angle solution plus the Tri-Elmar where their priority seems to be equivalent coverage, even if there is a speed penalty. Their logic might be that you can turn up the ISO to compensate if you need to go beyond wide-open but it remains to be seen how good the noise performance is. Also, going faster seems to be more expensive than going wider.
While I understand the ideal of keeping all lenses FF compatible, I would have liked there to be a series of lens - even 1 or 2 - for cropped use only which would allow the lenses to be (presumably) wider, faster, smaller, lighter and (a little) less expensive., If an FF camera appears in the future, these lenses could be still be used by having a cropped exposure mode, a bit like the High Speed Crop on a D2x.
Yes Rex ...... this will happen .... and it's about time Leica jumps the digital bandwagon and starts making some money.
I also think they have to upgrade the sensor every two year to sell new cameras ..... (2mp at a time at the most and some minor other improvements) ..why? Because that's the .
I think Canon and Nikon are not upping the pixel count any more. That war seems to be over. It wouldn't make sense anyway. Where the improvements lie now is dynamic range, noise and colour diffrentiation.
You have no idea about 35mm lenses and their circle of coverage, in which the 24x36 area fits?
What do you mean by 35mm? If you mean 35mm the film format, it's kind of a non-statement that the film area of a given picture format fits in the circle of coverage of lenses designed for this particular format. Do you mean 35mm as in 35mm the focal length? Are you somehow implying that lenses of a given focal length have an intrinsic circle of coverage? Unfortunately this isn't so, as any 6x6 or LF photographer can tell you after a long, sad glance in their wallets :)
The whole perspective thing? You are kidding, right?
I don't know. In effect you choose a focal length that produces the kind of perspective you want on the film/sensor format you have. I've been taking portraits with a 80mm f/2.8 medium format normal lens on a Canon FD body, and I didn't feel the least bothered by the "different" perspective. (Different from what, anyway?) Those people adapting cine lenses to 1.5x crop sensors are doing the same thing. All we have to do is stop thinking that focal length determines perspective; it's the combination of focal length and medium size that determines it. I guess it helps shooting other formats than 35mm for a while.
Some luxury possibly might have to go, as there is no Noctilux equivalent and lenses tend to be expensive. OK, then this is the reality of digital photography as of now, and as photographers we have to live with it or continue to use film for the present. (When I started doing medium format, I was very much bothered that all lenses were slower; eventually I started taking pictures instead, accepting it as one of the realities of the new format, and suddenly it wasn't that much of a problem.)
The alternative would have been a body with a 24x36 sensor that produces vignetting and mediocre corner sharpness with the wideangles that RF photographers are especially concerned with, due to constraints of physics, and that would have been a lot less acceptable.
Philipp
Nachkebia
08-31-2006, 00:15
He knew what he was talking about, well ofcourse bird shooters will love crop factor :D
He knew what he was talking about, well ofcourse bird shooters will love crop factor :D
Why the grin? That is the gospel truth! One of my photographic things is wildlife photography and if you ever lugged a film SLR with a 800 mm lens and motordrive around, and found how difficult it is even lift the stuff let alone to handhold that kind of combo, an APS sized camera with a converter and a 300 or 100-400 is a blessing . Plus the increased DOF.Plus the ability to bump up the ISO to get decent shutterspeeds when needed. I am working to get my Visoflex- Noflexar 400 and TEX converter together to get a managable set up to 1000 mm equivalent together :):):angel:
AndyPiper
08-31-2006, 00:39
Just remember that in my previous post I said I PERSONALLY can deal with the M8's crop - I have lenses that SHOULD work to take the pictures I want even with the crop. 15/21/28/50/75/90 - plus a 135 that I expect will work rather nicely (even though Leica doesn't). And I know from working with a demo DMR that a 50 f/2 makes a be-U-tiful "70mm" portrait telephoto (and in the case of the M8, a tiny one as well) on a 1.3--x crop.
I was just pointing why the crop may be a real problem for some other photographers.
it will be interesting to see which way Leica jumps regarding the format of future digital Ms. One bit of handwriting on the wall is that they are not even offering zebra-coding for the ungoggled 135s. Which to me indicates they NEVER expect 135s to work well on any digital M. I just have a strong feeling that Leica doesn't see full-frame 24 x 36 in an M body anytime soon (the R10 may be a different matter).
That's just MHO, of course.
16 days....
Nachkebia
08-31-2006, 00:56
jaapv : Excactly, but we are in rangefinder forum :D Mainly using wide angles with 50mm :) now everybody has to buy Summilux 35mm to get 47mm, and my future sonnar f/1.5 will be 65mm.. what the heck 65mm is? :D
jaapv : Excactly, but we are in rangefinder forum :D Mainly using wide angles with 50mm :) now everybody has to buy Summilux 35mm to get 47mm, and my future sonnar f/1.5 will be 65mm.. what the heck 65mm is? :D
Interesting question: Does the use of a Visoflex stop the M camera's being rangefinders??
Just remember that in my previous post I said I PERSONALLY can deal with the M8's crop - I have lenses that SHOULD work to take the pictures I want even with the crop. 15/21/28/50/75/90 - plus a 135 that I expect will work rather nicely (even though Leica doesn't). And I know from working with a demo DMR that a 50 f/2 makes a be-U-tiful "70mm" portrait telephoto (and in the case of the M8, a tiny one as well) on a 1.3--x crop.
I was just pointing why the crop may be a real problem for some other photographers.
it will be interesting to see which way Leica jumps regarding the format of future digital Ms. One bit of handwriting on the wall is that they are not even offering zebra-coding for the ungoggled 135s. Which to me indicates they NEVER expect 135s to work well on any digital M. I just have a strong feeling that Leica doesn't see full-frame 24 x 36 in an M body anytime soon (the R10 may be a different matter).
That's just MHO, of course.
16 days....
Let's start a new rumour!!:cool: :
Leica will introduce a Visoflex 4 with electronic coupling to project all info into the Viso's viewfinder and a range of adapted R lenses!!!:angel: :angel:
Nachkebia
08-31-2006, 01:26
Just don`t forget 35mm lux is much bigger, havier than 50 lux, and just don`t forget there is no way you can have 35mm f/1.4 on crop because there is no 28mm f/1.4 and even if it was it would be freakin huge.
So no doubt it is a huge compromise, why would an artist like that guy compromise? for what? just because he could see images when he gets in hotel? well I doubt it.....
That indeed is the only really valid argument : It doesn't fit the style of shooting. Spot-on!
I think Canon and Nikon are not upping the pixel count any more. That war seems to be over. It wouldn't make sense anyway. Where the improvements lie now is dynamic range, noise and colour diffrentiation.
I don't think so.
An A3 print at 240ppp (5lp/mm) needs 10MP and a A3 print at 300ppp (6lp/mm) needs 16MP. That range of 10 to 16MP is a confortable range.
Additional image size is convenient for crops, bigger prints or better sharpness in the prints. APS sensors have problems going beyond of 10MP, but 35mm full frame sensors can easily reach 22MP or even more. The range 16-22MP is a very interesting range and Canon will be established there very soon. APS sensors have reached its limits, but 35mm full frame sensors have at least one more step.
It is rumoured a new camera from Hasselblad with a sensor of 37x37mm and new specific lenses, to be announced at Photokina. Besides, if Nikon goes full frame the resolution range for professional applications will be consolidated over 16MP.
Nachkebia
08-31-2006, 01:42
New hassei is very interesting, I think it will be fully fuji all around as whole H system and that explains everything why fuji was so silent :D
Nemo,
The interesting question of course is: does the human eye at normal viewing distance of a A3 print, say one metre, really need more than 3 lp/mm. The biological answer is: no, it cannot resolve more for most persons. In practice I find your value of 5 lp/mm more comfortable, so there is no need for 22Mp at all, except for heavy cropping. But that dilemma affects film just as much.
If one looks at it from the lens side of the question there appears no gain at all to be had from the increasing of the pixel density. The Airy disks will start overlapping the pixels etc. The present 8-10 Mp for APS, 10-12 for 1.33 and 15-18 for 35 mm sensors is not such a bad choice at all.
Hasselblad's 37x37 will of course yield a larger pixel-number, but the pixel density/size will be similar again. And of course we are talking mid-format here, which makes this a rather cropped sensor.. I can see the increased MP being interesting for various professional applications. But for our type of photography? Well..not really.
Of course it does make marketing sense to have huge numbers of pixels.
16 days....
Why 16 days ? Is September 15th the release date ?
Nachkebia
08-31-2006, 02:26
Annauncment day I guess...
The embargo on information for dealers etc is until September 15th, I understand.
greggebhardt
08-31-2006, 02:48
This whole 1.33x crop conversation reminds me of when Nikon brought out their first DSLR, the D1. My God the sky was falling and the world was ending but it all worked out. There will be some who will hate loosing the wide angle but others who love what happens at the other end. I am still commited (deposit placed) with the M8, it can't get here soon enough! Many who swore they would never buy the D1 because of the crop, ended up, quietly, doing so anyway. :eek:
The M8 does not "threaten" any of the emulsion based Leicas, only some of the owners!:(
Nachkebia
08-31-2006, 02:52
but it all worked out it never did..... Canon 5D beats all of the digital nikons ever created...
greggebhardt
08-31-2006, 02:58
it never did..... Canon 5D beats all of the digital nikons ever created...
I will not argue the Canon/Nikon thing, but both companies had "cropped" DSLRs at first! :p
I have used the 5D, it is not the best I have ever used:eek:
Glad you are defending your equipment!:)
it never did..... Canon 5D beats all of the digital nikons ever created...
In what way?
This whole 1.33x crop conversation reminds me of when Nikon brought out their first DSLR, the D1. My God the sky was falling and the world was ending but it all worked out. There will be some who will hate loosing the wide angle but others who love what happens at the other end. I am still commited (deposit placed) with the M8, it can't get here soon enough! Many who swore they would never buy the D1 because of the crop, ended up, quietly, doing so anyway. :eek:
The M8 does not "threaten" any of the emulsion based Leicas, only some of the owners!
It is funny to read some of the "miniature" (read 35) mm vs "real size" (read 6x9) wars of the 30-ies to 50-ies of last century. Identical to now, only with our current "full-frame" at the receiving end. One would have thought that some new arguments would have been thought up over the last sixty years, but no, the same old leftovers recooked.....
Nachkebia
08-31-2006, 03:08
It is funny to read some of the "miniature" (read 35) mm vs "real size" (read 6x9) wars of the 30-ies to 50-ies of last century. Identical to now, only with our current "full-frame" at the receiving end. One would have thought that some new arguments would have been thought up over the last sixty years, but no, the same old leftovers recooked.....
Is there any doubt that 6X9 is better? no! it is just bigger! but full frame is not bigger if technology is mature! Got the point? :)
Is there any doubt that 6X9 is better? no! it is just bigger! but full frame is not bigger if technology is mature! Got the point? :)
Not really, I don't quite see what you mean. Maybe you could rephrase?
In what way?
It is funny to read some of the "miniature" (read 35) mm vs "real size" (read 6x9) wars of the 30-ies to 50-ies of last century. Identical to now, only with our current "full-frame" at the receiving end. One would have thought that some new arguments would have been thought up over the last sixty years, but no, the same old leftovers recooked.....
my local lab uses 402dpi as a standard print resolution so with a 5400 scan of a 24x36 neg I can give them a 35mp/200mb file; from a technically good neg I get a 12x18” print.
Now if I drop the dpi to 300 I’m not sure I can see any difference in the print, but I can see a marked difference at 200 so while 10mp may well be good enough that’s what it will be, good enough not as good as it can be, in the same way that 35mm was good enough in the 1950s
Nachkebia
08-31-2006, 03:17
6x9 has better quality then smaller format (miniature as you call it) does it? yes indeed! is it bigger in size? and it is much heavier? is it hard to drag it everywhere? is it hard to change films? can you take it with you everytime you go out? can you handheld it? NO! so thats why 35mm is a valuable compromise, now tell me what crop can do and full frame can not? :) got the point? just don`t bring arguments like 6x9 vs 35mm....
greggebhardt
08-31-2006, 03:33
10mp will be more than enough and it does not have to be full frame either. The has been argued so many times. 35mm is NOT the Gold Standard and IS a "compromise".
Every thing is a compromise!
Excuse me? It is exactly the same argument and nothing has changed in sixty years.
And why should one not be able to handhold 6x9?And are there not desirable mid-format rangefinders around that are a pleasure to "drag around"and use? And your argument about a valuable compromise is an argument for the smaller 1.33 sensor, not against it, as it is for the miniature 35 mm format. So I do not see any reason to be dogmatic about the historical decision of St.Barnack to choose the 35 mm film for his camera, although there were plenty of larger format apostles fulminating against it. There have been a number of posts explaining why 1.33 is probably the best compromise for a rangefinder and why 35 mm sensorrs may be preferable on DSLR's. So use your search function on those instead of asking for the same thing to be repeated over and over again. If in future the 35 mm-sensor rangefinder becomes possible it will make sense to debate this question and make a reasonable decision based on basis of personal needs. But for now we may safely assume that a 1.33 M-type rangefinder is the best camera of this type we will see for some time. So it seems rather silly to wish for the moon.
Btw I did not invent the term miniature format. It is the historical name of the 35 mm format.
The sooner Leica reveal this thing to the world, the better. Rejecting the camera simply because it has a crop factor of 1.33 is hardly a valid reason.
It is if it would mean that you would have to re-tool with a bunch of new lenses.
Mark Norton
08-31-2006, 03:52
Marco, September 15th is the day we find out that the new Tri-Elmar is not €2500 and the M8 is not €3800... ;)
greggebhardt
08-31-2006, 03:52
It is if it would mean that you would have to re-tool with a bunch of new lenses.
And we can be thankful THAT it will not be required!:)
It is if it would mean that you would have to re-tool with a bunch of new lenses.
Just one - and you can trade in your longest lens on that one :)
It is funny to read some of the "miniature" (read 35) mm vs "real size" (read 6x9) wars of the 30-ies to 50-ies of last century. Identical to now, only with our current "full-frame" at the receiving end. One would have thought that some new arguments would have been thought up over the last sixty years, but no, the same old leftovers recooked.....
Actually it's not that simple. There are really two arguments at work here. One is a resolution/pixel count argument that says that "bigger" sensors with more pixels give more fine-grained results. This is the "old" argument that you mention, and it is so trivial that I wonder how people even manage to argue about it. Also it has little to do with sensor format except that bigger sensors give more pixels, but that's not rocket science either. Still, this argument got resuscitated to no end throughout the history of photography. The other, newer argument in the DSLR context is the crop factor argument, where people are upset that the same lens gives different perspectives on bodies with different sensor sizes. This is also trivial, but it is more difficult to accept because it means people have to invest into new wideangles and nobody wants to spend money (or those new wideangles aren't available in the first place). The crop factor argument is actually quite new, I don't think you had that in the 1950s simply because back very few people used the same lens on medium-format and 35mm bodies. And those that did didn't bother about the different perspective, perhaps because they were more used to making compromises.
Philipp
Nicely argued Philipp. I never thought of the "same lens on different bodies" difference. But it is true, albeit with a 1.33x diffference it is just a matter of getting used to it I feel.
Calculations based on 300ppp assume that 6 lp/mm is the higher resolution of the unaided human eye at optimum distance (25cm or a bit more), at best (the average value for adult people is 3-4 lp/mm). Higher resolutions on prints have details that cannot be seen.
10mp will be more than enough and it does not have to be full frame either. The has been argued so many times. 35mm is NOT the Gold Standard and IS a "compromise".
Every thing is a compromise!
10mp will give 60-70 pine pairs per inch or 2.3-2.7 per mm as an upper limit on a 12x18 print I’m sure that will be adequate to produce quite a good image.
About Hasselblad and (likely) new system cameras:
http://www.valentinsama.blogspot.com/
(it is written in Spanish).
Marco, September 15th is the day we find out that the new Tri-Elmar is not €2500 and the M8 is not €3800... ;)
Ok, I'll skip to September 16th then ;)
Calculations based on 300ppp assume that 6 lp/mm is the higher resolution of the unaided human eye at optimum distance (25cm or a bit more), at best (the average value for adult people is 3-4 lp/mm). Higher resolutions on prints have details that cannot be seen.
Yes but in reality I can see a single blond human hair on a black sofa at 3 metres, and if I can see it I want to be able to photograph it!
Yes but in reality I can see a single blond human hair on a black sofa at 3 metres
What was you doing last night in that sofa?
:D
What was you doing last night in that sofa?
:D
Nothing…….sadly
Yes but in reality I can see a single blond human hair on a black sofa at 3 metres,
That's because it is a single hair. If it was hairs laid out next to each other at six hairs per millimeter (commonly called "carpet"), you wouldn't be able to tell them apart anymore.
This is one of the problems with this definition of resolution (another is that, as with lenses, resolving power varies with contrast).
Philipp
Yes but in reality I can see a single blond human hair on a black sofa at 3 metres, and if I can see it I want to be able to photograph it!
Well, I cannot, but unfortunately my wife can, and at 10 metres as well......
That's because it is a single hair. If it was hairs laid out next to each other at six hairs per millimeter (commonly called "carpet"), you wouldn't be able to tell them apart anymore.
This is one of the problems with this definition of resolution (another is that, as with lenses, resolving power varies with contrast).
Philipp
I understand that but that hair is less than the one minute of arc that is the theoretic limit of the eye, therefore applying that as an upper limit on a print is equally spurious.
6 threads per mm is a shirting, 11 is a silk tie, well beyond the 1.2 of a carpet
Nachkebia
08-31-2006, 05:35
this is looking dpreview ish...
Calculations based on 300ppp assume that 6 lp/mm is the higher resolution of the unaided human eye at optimum distance (25cm or a bit more), at best (the average value for adult people is 3-4 lp/mm). Higher resolutions on prints have details that cannot be seen.
How often do you view A3 prints at 25 cm? 75 is more near the mark. That would reduce the resolution to 1-2 lp/mm.
How often do you view A3 prints at 25 cm? 75 is more near the mark. That would reduce the resolution to 1-2 lp/mm.
I can’t believe that would be enough, my clothing has more threads per mm than that
That is why it is not transparant ;)
That is why it is not transparant ;)
How do you know?
How do you know?
Are you writing this from prison for indecent exposure?
Are you writing this from prison for indecent exposure?
No my exposures are pretty decent actually, that’s my gaol anyway
How often do you view A3 prints at 25 cm? 75 is more near the mark. That would reduce the resolution to 1-2 lp/mm.
That is right.
However, we tend to look big prints closer after a first general inspection, looking for details or for interesting parts in a composition.
Well, I cannot, but unfortunately my wife can, and at 10 metres as well...
...wives are dangerous, even at 10 meters of distance...
No my exposures are pretty decent actually, that’s my gAOl anyway
Groan......:p
Bob Ross
08-31-2006, 09:24
Nicely argued Philipp. I never thought of the "same lens on different bodies" difference. But it is true, albeit with a 1.33x diffference it is just a matter of getting used to it I feel.
That aspect probably was most common for Large Format users, but we didn't hear the mutterings, because they were into how far they could tilt,swing and shift and cleaning noose grease from their ground glass:D
Bob
Sorry to go so far back in the thread, but this
" Leica is not targeting the professional market, that is not where the money is. Some professionals will buy, some won't. But there are far more serious amateur and hobbyist users out there who love Leica and rangefinders, and it is THOSE people they are going after."
... has to be a load of tosh !
Leica desparately needs this camera to be adopted by the pro shooters. They hold the key to the market and lead the way for the masses.
Pro shooters I know & read of like digital capture, but hate the size of the Canon outfiit with a vengeance. Why would any 'Magnum ' photographer, et al, not look seriously at an M8. Errr... Dunno? They don't all go around with 28-200 f2.8 zooms for their undercover stories. DOH.
Honestly for me I think the 1.33 crop probably will not be as comfortable to use with Leica's existing lenses as a full frame sensor would be. I can't say for sure becase I don't have any 1.33 cropped sensor type cameras. But I do have two 1.6 crop cameras and one full frame digital slr camera. The full frame DSLR is my favorite. All my lenes just feel comfortable to me. I guess this is just what I am used to having - full frame.
I also have an M5 and six film 35mm slr's. So again this is what I am used to - full frame.
Also another poster said somthing important. He has a fast 35mm f/1.4 so even with the 1.33 crop he will have a fast almost normal lens. But he asked what will be his fast wide angle lens with the 1.33 crop. Someone else said there will be a new coming of cropped sensor lenses to take their place.
I think Leica will be wise to bring out a full frame sensor Rangefinder. This might be difficult for them. Perhaps they will not need to and this may be true if the majority of their customers don't have existing lenses. They can just buy the new lenses for the cropped sensor. I think in truth there are a lot of us who have existing glass and we want to use it with the new M8. Many will be fustrated with this approach. If Leica brings out a digital full frame rangefinder then , and please be honest with yourselves, then we will be happy to use our existing lenses with the this full frame digital rangefinder.
Harry Lime
08-31-2006, 21:16
I know David Alan Harvey, he practically made Kodachrome famous.
I hate to say it, but Kodachrome was probably famous long before David Alan Harvey was born...:)
Hi Jaap,
he was a Leica user for years and with the ending of the Kodachrome in Europe he changes for a digital camera
That is a strange thing to do. I just bought twelve rolls of Kodachrome 64 in Rotterdam and already hd three of them developed through the central collection post in Germany.....
Before you doubt the general reliability of his source on grounds of the Kodachrome statement: it looks like Kodak will indeed stop developing Kodachrome in their Lausanne facility, starting September 25. They apparently are still collecting films through their German office, but the film is then sent to the USA for development. This is not official yet, but it's been discussed in the Super-8 community for a while, and various different people apparently seem to have been independently told by Kodak representatives.
Philipp
Sorry to go so far back in the thread, but this
" Leica is not targeting the professional market, that is not where the money is. Some professionals will buy, some won't. But there are far more serious amateur and hobbyist users out there who love Leica and rangefinders, and it is THOSE people they are going after."
... has to be a load of tosh !
Leica desparately needs this camera to be adopted by the pro shooters. They hold the key to the market and lead the way for the masses.
Pro shooters I know & read of like digital capture, but hate the size of the Canon outfiit with a vengeance. Why would any 'Magnum ' photographer, et al, not look seriously at an M8. Errr... Dunno? They don't all go around with 28-200 f2.8 zooms for their undercover stories. DOH.
Thank you ... someone finally said it. I've never bought the "Leica isn't targetting/doesn't need the pro market" load of horse-hockey. The very fact that they lost their segment of the pro market is the very reason they have been in financial difficulty.
So even modest growth in pro market share will be quite significant for them. Does anyone believe managers and execs in Solms are say, "Naw, no real need to buy our cameras if you are a pro; we don't really care."?
I'm not a pro, so can't write off an M8. Off to buy lottery tickets, see y'all later.
Edit: This weekend I got my first look (glance, really) at what must have been a "full-frame" Canon digital SLR, with some enormous glass attached. The photographer was a teeny Asian guy, smaller than me; the camera nearly dwarfed him. I was stunned at the size of the rig, and it turned me right off. Hell, my Toyo 4x5 with a 400mm Fujinon-T is more ergonomic; I could handhold it if I had a rangefinder for it. And with the 90mm, it's a very portable wide-angle machine with MEGA-MEGA pixels.
Thank you ... someone finally said it. I've never bought the "Leica isn't targetting/doesn't need the pro market" load of horse-hockey. The very fact that they lost their segment of the pro market is the very reason they have been in financial difficulty.
If they really needed to the solution would be quite simple, like Nikon did in the sixties: just give away 100 camera's to pro's, a number will be seen using it. But the M8 is aimed at a rather specialist market, and though it would be interesting to see it used by some unsung hero documenting the gory bloodshed in the Middle East or some photographic nitwit trying to immortalize Madonna's boobs, it won't make any difference to the decision to buy the thing by the clientele Leica hopes to sell it to.....
"quite simple, like Nikon did in the sixties: just give away 100 camera's to pro's"
and
Canon is doing big time in 2006 ??? :rolleyes:
jaap: You are trying to "prove" your point by simply stating again that Leica's target market for the M8 is not the pro, whether daily photojournalist, documentarian, or whatever. We shall see, I suppose. And I don't think the only way to do it is to give away a bunch of M8s.
It may be true that Leica isn't really after that market, but just because "everyone" says it, doesn't make it true.
As for me, I think the more people say it, the less I trust what they say.
saxshooter
09-03-2006, 20:18
Leica would never outrightly state that they are not targeting the pro market. But it is simple numbers: there are more non-professional photographers in this world than there are professionals. And I daresay there are probably more non-professional photographers who can afford to buy this camera. I find it hard to believe that any newspaper, wire service, or photo agency is going to buy M8 and lens kits for their photographers, which for the most part are already using Canon or Nikon digital SLR gear, along with major investments in long glass such as 400 2.8 and 600 4's.
Leica would be thrilled if some professionals will buy and use the M8. Some may even be featured in Leica's marketing material for this camera (and in that case, those individuals/agencies could very well have gotten some deal on the equipment from Leica to use).
Twenty years ago up until maybe the end of the 90's the equipment used by photojournalists (to pick one breed of "pro" photographer) was quite varied. Leica M, R, Canon, Nikon, Olympus... medium format, etc.
Today, if the "pro" needs to deliver their images at the end of the day, they are most likely shooting either a digital Canon or Nikon SLR. For freelance photojournalists where work can be feast or famine, in the time that Leica (or anyone else) has not come up with this digital Leica M camera, many have sold off their Leica M kits (if the had them) and bought digital SLR equipment (or an Apple laptop).
Now that the M8 is soon to come out, how many of them can afford to repurchase those Leica lenses that they have sold? Also, many have gotten accustomed to shooting with digital SLR cameras since late 2001, when coverage in Pakistan and Afghanistan post Sept. 11 with digital was crucial in getting those images out to newspapers and magazines on deadline. During that time, I never met a single Leica M using professional photographer when faced with taking a job that entailed digital transmission (which entailed an SLR camera) to turn down that job. They had to adapt.
A photographer from one of the top agencies did a book on the fall of the Taliban and Kabul on a 3 megapixel Canon D30 (Canon's best at the time), and the man regarded as the world's greatest living war photographer was running around Afghanistan with a prototype Canon EOS 1D which was giving him horrible files due to incomplete firmware. But this is where the business was heading, and money was being spent on the two companies producing digital cameras that can be used in the field -- Canon and Nikon digital SLR.
Maybe if this digital Leica camera came out 6 years ago, the playing field would be different. But many rangefinder using pros have moved on to digital SLR cameras. But yes, some will buy the M8 if they can.
So I almost expect to see Leica advertising the M8 with photographers from Magnum. Better yet, find a Magnum photographer who has eschewed digital in favor of his or her Leica M6. Up until now, with the arrival of the M8.
The M8 will not be the bread and butter camera for the majority of professional photographers. Although I'd like to have one in my bag one day -- I was lucky to be able to afford to keep my M lenses.
jaap: You are trying to "prove" your point by simply stating again that Leica's target market for the M8 is not the pro, whether daily photojournalist, documentarian, or whatever. We shall see, I suppose. And I don't think the only way to do it is to give away a bunch of M8s.
It may be true that Leica isn't really after that market, but just because "everyone" says it, doesn't make it true.
As for me, I think the more people say it, the less I trust what they say.
I wish Leica well, but I cannot see them competing against the might of Canon and to a smaller extent Nikon.. Of course there will be a number of pro's shooting and enjoying the M8, depending on the type of work they do. After all there are still a number shooting M camera's and not all of them in Leica's stable and that number should increase. But that cannot be more than a couple of dozens, and even if it were hundreds, I am sure that the bulk of the M8's will be bought by amateurs and that is where the money is.
Anyway, there was an analysis of the digital camera market in a recent Time magazine. The author reconed that there was no place for smaller players than 8% of the market and that DSLR's were not the things that would make the money. Leica was not even mentioned once. They are and will stay a niche manufacturer for the more affluent amateur and die-hard conaisseur market and I believe the M8 is perfectly suited for that.
I think Leica will be wise to bring out a full frame sensor Rangefinder...I think in truth there are a lot of us who have existing glass and we want to use it with the new M8. Many will be fustrated with this approach. If Leica brings out a digital full frame rangefinder then, and please be honest with yourselves, then we will be happy to use our existing lenses with the this full frame digital rangefinder.
Would you still be so happy if the 24x36mm-frame camera were to cost twice the price of the M8? How about three times as much?
Based on the pricing of Canon (the only current brand that offers both 24x36mm and APS-size sensors) that's a very plausible ratio. In fact, Leica might have to charge more than three times as much for a 24x36-sensor camera, since (unlike Canon) they don't make their own sensors and would have to commission from a vendor a sensor that currently does not exist.
I find it hard to believe that any newspaper, wire service, or photo agency is going to buy M8 and lens kits for their photographers, which for the most part are already using Canon or Nikon digital SLR gear, along with major investments in long glass such as 400 2.8 and 600 4's.
Don't forget that the "professional" market extends far beyond the newspaper, wire service, and photo agency realm.
For example, the wedding industry probably employs more photographers than all the world's wire services combined, and with the rise of "documentary-style" wedding coverage, these photographers might well be attracted to the M8, at least as a supplementary camera.
The same might be said of corporate, institutional, and fine-art photographers. In fact, any segment of the professional photography field in which mobility, responsiveness, and lens quality are important might be a potential market for Leica. Whether they'll be smart enough to capitalize on that remains to be seen.
The same might be said of corporate, institutional, and fine-art photographers. In fact, any segment of the professional photography field in which mobility, responsiveness, and lens quality are important might be a potential market for Leica. Whether they'll be smart enough to capitalize on that remains to be seen.
That is very true. I know of at least one industrial photographer (see FM forums) who sold, I believe three 1 series Canon DSLR's plus all the Canon glass one could imagine in order to switch to Leica and the DMR, buying two plus two R9's plus a considerable number of lenses, claiming he could recoup the cost in two successful photographs. It seems there are pro's out there that can and will do that. But the number cannot be too large...
"But it is simple numbers: there are more non-professional photographers in this world than there are professionals."
Saxshooter, I've lost track of your point. Nobody was crazy enough to suggest that Leica M8 volumes would be from the professional sector, but a basic understanding of marketing and promotion would lead you to the conclusion that Leica will need celebrities to give the new product the credibility it needs for the mass market. Do you think that David Beckam, the footballer, actually shaves with Gillette blades and coats his hair with Brylcreme every day (actually never) ?
If the celebrity pros announce that the M8 is only a toy for old men to re-live HCB adventures will the volumes even match those of the M7 ?
As for "will a Pro be able to buy an M8" ? The cost of any gear needed is incidental when compared with income generated over the lifetime of the equipment. £25k a year for 10 years is a nice return on a £8k investment.
So there is no mis-understanding, I acknowledge there is a need to have a range of other equipment in the locker including DSLR's, 5x4's, Hasselblads, RB67's ....... I admire anyone who can pay a mortgage with the output from just a 6 mpix DSLR and a kit lens.
Leica is partly owned by a company specialising in luxury accessories, I don't think they will have a problem getting celebrities to market the M8 for them. Whether they will get photographer celebrities to do that is another story. I could imagine that Paris Hilton endorsing the M8 ("It's such a sweet camera and I understand all the buttons") would be kind of counterproductive.
Philipp
saxshooter
09-04-2006, 04:08
Saxshooter, I've lost track of your point. Nobody was crazy enough to suggest that Leica M8 volumes would be from the professional sector, but a basic understanding of marketing and promotion would lead you to the conclusion that Leica will need celebrities to give the new product the credibility it needs for the mass market. Do you think that David Beckam, the footballer, actually shaves with Gillette blades and coats his hair with Brylcreme every day (actually never) ?
You've hit my point right on the head. Leica won't be targeting the pro market for sales, but rather will be using pros to sell this camera to the wider market.
If the celebrity pros announce that the M8 is only a toy for old men to re-live HCB adventures will the volumes even match those of the M7 ?
Why would any "celebrity" pro "announce" this? When David Allen Harvey is given Nikon cameras to shoot with for whatever arrangement he has with Nikon, does he use Nikon? Yes. Does he go back to his Leica after the arrangement? Maybe.
The cost of any gear needed is incidental when compared with income generated over the lifetime of the equipment. £25k a year for 10 years is a nice return on a £8k investment.
I don't know anyone making a living off a digital camera that is more than 4 years old. And I see Leica, in order to survive, will have to continue introducing new products. SO hopes of an upgradeable camera body (beyond minor firmware tweaks) is unlikely, IMO. If that were so, Leica would have just introduced the M3 in 1954 and that would have been it.
So the cost of gear is far from incidental, especially for independent photojournalists and wedding photographers, who for the most part are also independent or working in small collectives (I am speaking in terms of pooling gear).
I admire anyone who can pay a mortgage with the output from just a 6 mpix DSLR and a kit lens.
Thanks. Up until early 2005, many of us were!
saxshooter
09-04-2006, 04:33
Don't forget that the "professional" market extends far beyond the newspaper, wire service, and photo agency realm.
Yes, I was speaking about only one "breed" of professional photographer.
For example, the wedding industry probably employs more photographers than all the world's wire services combined, and with the rise of "documentary-style" wedding coverage, these photographers might well be attracted to the M8, at least as a supplementary camera.
The wedding industry (which I do not work in) consists mainly of independent operators who are responsible for the purchase and service of their own equipment. Unless they already own Leica M glass, they will think long and hard before getting the M8. Staff photographers at newspapers and wire services are provided the equipment by their employers, so that financial burden is lifted and MAYBE they would want to buy the M8 themselves (I fall into that category). But yes, wedding photographers may be interested in supplementing their kit with the M8. But you can do documentary style photography with a digital SLR too, yes? It's a matter of preference (and funds).
I just wanted to take a step back here and restate my feelings about the upcoming M8 (as working-man digital SLR photographer and weekend Epson RD-1 shooter). I am very excited about it. The 1.3x does not bother me. The fact that it probably won't be upgradable from 10 megapixels doesn't bother me. The only thing that does, and I see as the main bottleneck for Leica in moving this unit in numbers (and hopefully saving the company), is the pricetag.
Even if the camera is $2500 (I'm dreaming) they would still struggle to move the numbers that would bring new users to Leica and their line.
Cheers, Charlie
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.