Foveon sensor & IR sensitivity

[anselwannab]

I was just reading about the Foveon Sensor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foveon_X3_sensor) . Since the red sensing part is on the bottom, would these cameras have inherently less IR sensitivity?

Less cover glass, less issues with oblique light rays.

Just a question that I couldn't find the answer to.

It seems there are rumors that the 1DsIII might have a sensor like this.

Mark

[cornellison]

That is good question. The Foveon sensor seems to be the most logical design to me, a very non-engineer, non-physicist. I wish you could get that sensor in something besides a Sigma.

[rxmd]

Less cover glass, less issues with oblique light rays.
The latter is wrong.

The Foveon sensor detects colour by detecting how deep a photon travels. Take a photon that hits the sensor vertically; let's assume it travels to depth d. A photon of the same colour that travels at an oblique angle alpha against the vertical axis will travel a distance of d within the sensor, but because of the oblique angle the depth it actually reaches is only d*cos(alpha), which can be considerably less. So in fact the Foveon sensor has a problem with wideangle lenses. Assuming that red is at the bottom, it also would mean that infrared gets read out as red with increasing distance from the center of the frame, depending on the lens.

You can work around this in software if you know the optical parameters of the lens (focal length, placement of back element, current aperture etc.), so that you know which areas of the sensor are likely to be hit at what angle. Note that since the back element moves, the precise parameters also depend on the focusing distance. This is why the only digital compact with a Foveon sensor on the market, the Sigma DP1, has a fixed focal length lens.

Or you can try to work around it by arranging the sensor layers differently, not in a flat shape, but instead in little pits (like this image (http://www.ixbt.com/digimage/sens/Foveon_X3_structure.gif) suggests). The difficulty with pits is that you don't know where the photon hits the surface, and if it doesn't hit the center of the pit its colour will be misdetected. So you have to mask out much of the surface, making the sensor less sensitive overall. At least that's how I understand it.

So the only way a Foveon sensor could possibly make sense in a rangefinder would be with a lens database in the camera and with coded lenses, and even then it would be very difficult. For instance, the camera would have to read out the distance setting electronically (probably the aperture as well). Maybe this was one of the reasons why Leica introduced lens coding, because they want to retain the option of using Foveon sensors in the future (which I don't think they will do, given the still-existing problems and the comparatively low sensitivity of present-day Foveon sensors).

Philipp

[shutterflower]

That is good question. The Foveon sensor seems to be the most logical design to me, a very non-engineer, non-physicist. I wish you could get that sensor in something besides a Sigma.

I know it. SIgma is the last company I expect to produce something of quality. Well...maybe not the last.

I have to say, though, that the Foveon just produces gorgeous images. Just darn good. And the newest incarnation of it is going to be something to have.

I want to DP1 to live up to the hype we have given it!

[shutterflower]

.
The latter is wrong.

The Foveon sensor detects colour by detecting how deep a photon travels. Take a photon that hits the sensor vertically; let's assume it travels to depth d. A photon of the same colour that travels at an oblique angle alpha against the vertical axis will travel a distance of 1 within the sensor, but because of the oblique angle the depth it actually reaches is only d*cos(alpha), which can be considerably less. So in fact the Foveon sensor has a problem with wideangle lenses. Assuming that red is at the bottom, it also would mean that infrared gets read out as red with increasing distance from the center of the frame, depending on the lens.

Philipp

that is probably why they chose the fixed lens 28mm for the DP1. they also say that they chose a design that would ahve light "hitting the sensor at a perpendicular angle" which means to me that they intend for the light to be coming in at the steepest possible angle - straight.

[MichaelB]

What about those microlenses for each pixel? Maybe they should ask Kodak how to do it. ;)

[anselwannab]

The latter is wrong.

The Foveon sensor detects colour by detecting how deep a photon travels. Take a photon that hits the sensor vertically; let's assume it travels to depth d. A photon of the same colour that travels at an oblique angle alpha against the vertical axis will travel a distance of d within the sensor, but because of the oblique angle the depth it actually reaches is only d*cos(alpha), which can be considerably less. So in fact the Foveon sensor has a problem with wideangle lenses. Assuming that red is at the bottom, it also would mean that infrared gets read out as red with increasing distance from the center of the frame, depending on the lens.

You can work around this in software if you know the optical parameters of the lens (focal length, placement of back element, current aperture etc.), so that you know which areas of the sensor are likely to be hit at what angle. Note that since the back element moves, the precise parameters also depend on the focusing distance. This is why the only digital compact with a Foveon sensor on the market, the Sigma DP1, has a fixed focal length lens.

Or you can try to work around it by arranging the sensor layers differently, not in a flat shape, but instead in little pits (like this image (http://www.ixbt.com/digimage/sens/Foveon_X3_structure.gif) suggests). The difficulty with pits is that you don't know where the photon hits the surface, and if it doesn't hit the center of the pit its colour will be misdetected. So you have to mask out much of the surface, making the sensor less sensitive overall. At least that's how I understand it.

So the only way a Foveon sensor could possibly make sense in a rangefinder would be with a lens database in the camera and with coded lenses, and even then it would be very difficult. For instance, the camera would have to read out the distance setting electronically (probably the aperture as well). Maybe this was one of the reasons why Leica introduced lens coding, because they want to retain the option of using Foveon sensors in the future (which I don't think they will do, given the still-existing problems and the comparatively low sensitivity of present-day Foveon sensors).

Philipp

Sounds like all the technologies have plusses and minuses. I would think that with the focusing cam position and lens coding you could get a better estimate of how the light rays are coming in.

[HAnkg]

If a bayer sensor is problematic for RF because of the proximity of lens and sensor the Foveon would be a much bigger technical challenge. Foveon really requires a lens/camera system designed for digital, ruling it out for an M system.

[Sailor Ted]

I would think that with the focusing cam position and lens coding you could get a better estimate of how the light rays are coming in.

Yes but if you think the uproar around Leica's use of lens coding on the M8 is anything can you imagine the howls if the camera hardly worked at all without lens coding on non-Leica, non-coded lenses?

[HAnkg]

Well they might get around the RF lens/sensor distance problem with a 2x lens factor. That should really get'im howling.

[IGMeanwell]

The Foveon sensor is definitely not free from all IR issues

some say the screen installed in the new SD14 is actually an IR filter (sigma says its a dust screen), because of its tint

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0609/Sigma/add03.jpg

Actually they mentioned this on Luminous Landscapes photokina feature....

[Gabriel M.A.]

Yes but if you think the uproar around Leica's use of lens coding on the M8 is anything can you imagine the howls if the camera hardly worked at all without lens coding on non-Leica, non-coded lenses?

Yes. We'd see a flood of vignetted images claiming the sensor is a POS. Of course, they would be the same who would not understand the tool that they're shooting with, and expect the same results from a P&S camera, which does not use the same technology, so you'd think they'd know.

"Flaws" will be found and exacerbated to gargantuan proportions until a legend is created.

[Sailor Ted]

Gabriel you eluded to the idea in a prior post long past that people are basically looking for a camera that takes "good" pictures for them- this is correct. Many who are attracted to the Leica marquee are not true photographers in as much as they are toy lovers. With the Internet Leica toys have been available at rock bottom used prices (even the R-D1 is quoted as being a $1200 camera by some on RFf) so the M8 and it's tight control of retail pricing comes as somewhat of a shock for many. Since they must pay dearly for the camera most choose not to buy and instead harp on the cameras issues- something all cameras have one way or another; while others purchase the camera, take the same crap photos they always do, and proclaim the camera a POS due to the fact it and their pictures are not perfect.

Me I'm taking the same kind of pictures I always have, but I do notice the IQ of these images are much improved and I in turn am learning every day so I too am getting better as a direct result of this camera. I'll get my second M8, however when the IR issue is sorted. For the moment I am glad of having the M8 to work with right now, and unlike money, I can’t make any more time and this, for me, is the rarest of commodities.

Wow that was OT : )
T

[anselwannab]

Yes. We'd see a flood of vignetted images claiming the sensor is a POS. Of course, they would be the same who would not understand the tool that they're shooting with, and expect the same results from a P&S camera, which does not use the same technology, so you'd think they'd know.

"Flaws" will be found and exacerbated to gargantuan proportions until a legend is created.

I guess they call those enduring quirks.

I know everyone is sick of car comparisions, but it seems everytime BMW remakes the 3-series and Jeep redoes the wrangler, there are people screaming about how it has sold its soul yada, yada.

The more and more I read, I starting to think that the essence of Rf photography needs to be taken and a clean piece of paper solution engineered. Everyone bemoans the capital in their lenses. I thought we were all about the final image costs be damned? Why be held hostage by these collectors with Stockholm lens Syndrome. Yes, the camera companies will make more money, but that might be what it takes for them to take this market seriously.

As true photographers, and artists, we should be advocating for the best system, not a "Horseless carriage" that is a blend of old an new.

Mark

[jaapv]

Me I'm taking the same kind of pictures I always have, but I do notice the IQ of these images are much improved and I in turn am learning every day so I too am getting better as a direct result of this camera.

Hear-hear! You made the post I did not dare to make for fear of being shot down in flames, but you are SO right!

[shutterflower]

The Foveon sensor is definitely not free from all IR issues

some say the screen installed in the new SD14 is actually an IR filter (sigma says its a dust screen), because of its tint

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0609/Sigma/add03.jpg

Actually they mentioned this on Luminous Landscapes photokina feature....

I follow. I think you're probably right. That makes alot of sense.

[HAnkg]

the essence of Rf photography needs to be taken and a clean piece of paper solution engineered. Everyone bemoans the capital in their lenses. I thought we were all about the final image costs be damned? Why be held hostage by these collectors with Stockholm lens Syndrome.
The problem is Leica has an economic incentive to produce an RF digital because of it's installed base of customers -M lens users (collectors with Stockholm lens Syndrome). What would be the financial motivation for another company to create a digital RF?

The small distance between lens and sensor that gives RF an edge in the analogue world - higher quality, smaller lenses together with a camera body that is more compact (the best performing and smallest lens in medium format are the Mamiya RF) are a huge disadvantage in digital. Starting with a clean sheet of paper would probably mean SLR type (big) retrofocal lenses better suited to digital. Canon could make an RF 5D (with a 'retro' look body design) that used the Canon prime SLR lenses - the body would be only a little more compact then a 5D (no prism). You would get RF viewing in an SLR sized package and a less expensive lens line that can leverage the economies of scale of a much bigger market. Somehow I don't think that would be very appealing to many RF users.

[clintock]

Would the angled incident light be a concern for a sensor if color was not an issue? A black and white only sensor?
I'd give up color in a second if it meant a full frame sensor with no kluge-coding compensation or artifacts..

[jaapv]

Yes- vignetting in exposure value. It is correctable in post-processing and on the M8 in firmware as well, but that loses dynamic range in the corners.

[Olsen]

Gabriel you eluded to the idea in a prior post long past that people are basically looking for a camera that takes "good" pictures for them- this is correct. Many who are attracted to the Leica marquee are not true photographers in as much as they are toy lovers. With the Internet Leica toys have been available at rock bottom used prices (even the R-D1 is quoted as being a $1200 camera by some on RFf) so the M8 and it's tight control of retail pricing comes as somewhat of a shock for many. Since they must pay dearly for the camera most choose not to buy and instead harp on the cameras issues- something all cameras have one way or another; while others purchase the camera, take the same crap photos they always do, and proclaim the camera a POS due to the fact it and their pictures are not perfect.

Me I'm taking the same kind of pictures I always have, but I do notice the IQ of these images are much improved and I in turn am learning every day so I too am getting better as a direct result of this camera. I'll get my second M8, however when the IR issue is sorted. For the moment I am glad of having the M8 to work with right now, and unlike money, I can’t make any more time and this, for me, is the rarest of commodities.

Wow that was OT : )
T

I think you are a bit arrogant on behalf of your fellow amateur photographers.

Further; I disagree with you. I see a clear trend showing most Leica shooters being far better photographers than those with, say, cheap P&S. And: What is 'good photography' to you is not neccessarily 'good photography' to me.

When our photography hobby has brought us all the way to these RRF pages it is far beond 'just taking pictures'. Collecting cameras, lenses and accessories are an integral part of that hobby. That more toys makes us less photographers is not true. They are tools and inspiration to take even better pictures.

Leica has no perfect fix for the IR casting on their new M8.

If you read their statements you see that this is what they are saying. To avoid soft and dark corners they had to cut out IR filters in front of the sensor. To avoid this they had to accept that. Some react to this with astonishment since most digital cameras has very heavy IR filtering. From 12 to 16 times IR filtering. It is a design flaw that M8 users will have to live with and try to compensate somewhat by putting IR filters on the lenses. As you will see, neither is this a perfect solution.

Since you already have a M8 you are in a better position than most to describe what a problem the lack of these IR filters really mean in day to day amateur photography. For quite a few, particularly the professional photographers, it means a hell of a lot. It is not accepted in any newspaper to come back from a press conferance at the UN building with picture files showing the new secretary general in a purple suit, - when we all can see that it is black.

[IGMeanwell]

The problem is Leica has an economic incentive to produce an RF digital because of it's installed base of customers -M lens users (collectors with Stockholm lens Syndrome). What would be the financial motivation for another company to create a digital RF?

The small distance between lens and sensor that gives RF an edge in the analogue world - higher quality, smaller lenses together with a camera body that is more compact (the best performing and smallest lens in medium format are the Mamiya RF) are a huge disadvantage in digital. Starting with a clean sheet of paper would probably mean SLR type (big) retrofocal lenses better suited to digital. Canon could make an RF 5D (with a 'retro' look body design) that used the Canon prime SLR lenses - the body would be only a little more compact then a 5D (no prism). You would get RF viewing in an SLR sized package and a less expensive lens line that can leverage the economies of scale of a much bigger market. Somehow I don't think that would be very appealing to many RF users.

You kind of already get that with the new Panasonic and Leica DSLRs using the 4/3rds system. They are roughly the same size as a Mamiya RF but with bigger lenses.

[jaapv]

It is not accepted in any newspaper to come back from a press conferance at the UN building with picture files showing the new secretary general in a purple suit, - when we all can see that it is black.

If I were in that position, my preferred weapon would be an old Canon 1D with a 100-400 lens.;) And if I were excentric enough to use a M8 (and I would be, I guess) I would have the sense to use an IR filter. That is assuming the SG cannot afford a woollen suit:rolleyes:

[HAnkg]

You kind of already get that with the new Panasonic and Leica DSLRs using the 4/3rds system. They are roughly the same size as a Mamiya RF but with bigger lenses.
The drawback of the 4/3 system has been that the sensor is 1/2 the size of full frame 35mm but the cameras are not. If 4/3 had meant f2 zooms or 1.0 primes at a smaller size and much reduced cost there would be reason to go with the much smaller sensor.

Second issue, the viewfinders on 35mm DSLR's suck, the 4/3 systems are even worse. Now if Leica put it's rangefinder viewfinder on the Olympus/Panasonic that problem would be solved (assuming potential 4/3 purchasers could live with the limitations of RF photography).

But having said all that the 4/3 system is as close as Leica can likely get to a clean sheet digital system and it may be a sort of back door way of building an all digital line without incurring the wrath of the M lens owners. If Olympus comes out with a new professional camera that can compete with the image quality of the Canon/Nikon offerings Leica could have a platform for a pro digital camera unhampered by legacy issues and a customer base that zealously guards what they precieve as what equipment that carries the brand should look like and expecting complete backwards compatibility. I can only hope the D line develops that way. Who knows, a future compact Asian manufactured Leica D 4/3 digital, prism or RF viewfinder options, compact size and Leica quality AF/OIS lenses. RF body for wide-normal, SLR body for Macro, Tele and PC lenses. Additional lens/body compatible options from Olympus -sounds good to me!

You will be able to produce a medium format quality 22MP 4/3 or 35mm chip at some point in the future. How much will it cost to produce a lens that can out resolve that set up? A single lens will cost much more then the camera, as the optical component is not likely to get any cheaper to produce. Maybe at that point smaller format chips will have the edge because the lens costs can theoretically be less.

[Nick R.]

. . .

Now if Leica put it's rangefinder viewfinder on the Olympus/Panasonic that problem would be solved (assuming potential 4/3 purchasers could live with the limitations of RF photography).

. . .

As a 4/3's user, I'd say what's the point? I firmly believe that the only reason to make a digital RF is to use M lenses. Current 4/3's lenses are largish because they're mostly zooms and are fully auto-everything. That automation is what you have to get rid of to make the kit smaller and that's what I do when I put my old M42 Pentax 50/1.4 on my E-330. Installing an rf viewfinder isn't going to make the camera body smaller because we're still using retrofocus slr lenses. Take away the retrofocus, and we're back to the M8 problems. As far as the rf advantage of low-light focussing, liveview takes care of that.

There is no advantage to rf in the digital world except the abiltiy to use M lenses.

[HAnkg]

If the only advantage for RF in the digital world is Leica lenses, then Leica is as good as dead. I have been able to find lenses that gave me results that were as good as Leica in every format I have used. I'm using Canon 1 series digital now and except on the very wide angle side the real world results don't make me miss my Leica, image quality wise.

Despite the fact that modern DSLR's have autofocus and image stabilization, I find RF still superior for me with wide to normal lenses in most situations. Combine that with the small form factor of RF systems, the more traditional/streamlined user interface and level of control and you have the reason that RF digital makes sense for me.

[jaapv]

There is no advantage to rf in the digital world except the abiltiy to use M lenses.

Without wanting to go back to the 1950-ies arguments I do think that most users on this forum are aware that there are more arguments that distinguish a RF from a SLR.

[HAnkg]

I would add that I am planning on getting an M8 later this year and the lenses that I will probably purchase with it are the Zeiss 50/1.5 and Zeiss 21/4.5. I might also pick up a 4th gen 35mm Summicron used. So while Leica lenses are fabulous (at fabulous prices) there is more to RF digital then Leica lenses.

[IGMeanwell]

As a 4/3's user, I'd say what's the point? I firmly believe that the only reason to make a digital RF is to use M lenses. Current 4/3's lenses are largish because they're mostly zooms and are fully auto-everything. That automation is what you have to get rid of to make the kit smaller and that's what I do when I put my old M42 Pentax 50/1.4 on my E-330. Installing an rf viewfinder isn't going to make the camera body smaller because we're still using retrofocus slr lenses. Take away the retrofocus, and we're back to the M8 problems. As far as the rf advantage of low-light focussing, liveview takes care of that.

There is no advantage to rf in the digital world except the abiltiy to use M lenses.

I will point out that there will be by this summer a few 4/3rds mount primes... already knowing that they won't be small

namely the Sigma 30mm 1.4 (60mm with crop) and the Leica is putting out a 25mm 1.4mm OIS (thats right optically stabilized)

Also mention that Olympus has a couple primes for 4/3rds as well ...

I think Leica is attracted to the 4/3rds mount because multiples manufactures will be using it, just like the LTM or M mount

[Nick R.]

The film rf vs slr argument just doesn't apply in the digital world because of advances in electronics. All the benefits an RF cameras had in the past over other types of film cameras have been superceded by digital P&S cameras. There's nothing you can do with any hypothetical digital RF that you couldn't do as well or better with either a digi p&s or a dslr except use M lenses. You name any quality film users benefit from by using an RF, be it: low-light use; stealth; pocketabity; image quality; multiple focal lenghts; or whatever, and I'll show you a digicam that does the same as well or better. There's only one thing the digicams can't do; that's use film compatible rf lenses. That's really the only thing the M8 and RD-1 do that you couldn't do with some other dcamera.

[HAnkg]

The film rf vs slr argument just doesn't apply in the digital world because of advances in electronics. All the benefits an RF cameras had in the past over other types of film cameras have been superceded by digital P&S cameras.
P&S with tiny noisy chips, poor level of user control, slow AF and no viewfinder -so you have to hold the camera out in front of you in an unstable shooting position before you snap the shutter (which will snap the picture after a delay) are not a viable replacement for any pro level camera SLR or RF. I've got the Panasonic DMC-LX1 and the wife uses it for family snapshots. It's great for it's intended use. Not just P&S, at this point I wouldn't consider any 4/3 camera up to replacing any pro camera either while the M8 is cetainly capable of fulfilling some pro applications at a level competitive with Canon/Nikon.

On the 4/3 lenses here is a complete list:

http://www.wrotniak.net/photo/oly-e/lenses.html

I guess the fate of 4/3 is hanging on the success of the next Olympus pro camera coming this year:
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/photokina2006/Olympus/IMG_0518.jpg

[jaapv]

The film rf vs slr argument just doesn't apply in the digital world because of advances in electronics. All the benefits an RF cameras had in the past over other types of film cameras have been superceded by digital P&S cameras. There's nothing you can do with any hypothetical digital RF that you couldn't do as well or better with either a digi p&s or a dslr except use M lenses. You name any quality film users benefit from by using an RF, be it: low-light use; stealth; pocketabity; image quality; multiple focal lenghts; or whatever, and I'll show you a digicam that does the same as well or better. There's only one thing the digicams can't do; that's use film compatible rf lenses. That's really the only thing the M8 and RD-1 do that you couldn't do with some other dcamera.
You mean you can get MF quality 40x60 enlargements with a P&S with minsensor? Or shoot unobtrusively with a Canon 1DsmkII? You might as well add cellphones to your argument...

[Socke]

I think Leica is attracted to the 4/3rds mount because multiples manufactures will be using it, just like the LTM or M mount

And as far as I know the only mount they can get.

[IGMeanwell]

And as far as I know the only mount they can get.

But also because it means more revenue

If leica puts out a small batch of 4/3rds mount lenses that are desirable from the get go... it puts a little more change in their pockets

because not only do they have Olympus cameras that can use that mount but also Panasonic as well.

http://www.4-3system.com/modules/news/

The one thing I can say is that the shutters are quiet ... at least much more than any of my Nikons

but I will say the viewfinders due kind of suck... the D80 is like a cinema screen compared to the E-500 (my friend owns the Olympus)

anyways back to the idea at hand... I don't think the Foveon Sensor is something Leica can consider until someone gets a camera who can use it without all the problems that come with those sensors. So far Sigma is the only company that has had any success at all with those sensors

[jaapv]

Similar to the Wankel engine- a perfect idea, but very limited in scope..

[Sailor Ted]

I think you are a bit arrogant on behalf of your fellow amateur photographers.

Further; I disagree with you. I see a clear trend showing most Leica shooters being far better photographers than those with, say, cheap P&S. And: What is 'good photography' to you is not neccessarily 'good photography' to me.

When our photography hobby has brought us all the way to these RRF pages it is far beond 'just taking pictures'. Collecting cameras, lenses and accessories are an integral part of that hobby. That more toys makes us less photographers is not true. They are tools and inspiration to take even better pictures.

Leica has no perfect fix for the IR casting on their new M8.

If you read their statements you see that this is what they are saying. To avoid soft and dark corners they had to cut out IR filters in front of the sensor. To avoid this they had to accept that. Some react to this with astonishment since most digital cameras has very heavy IR filtering. From 12 to 16 times IR filtering. It is a design flaw that M8 users will have to live with and try to compensate somewhat by putting IR filters on the lenses. As you will see, neither is this a perfect solution.

Since you already have a M8 you are in a better position than most to describe what a problem the lack of these IR filters really mean in day to day amateur photography. For quite a few, particularly the professional photographers, it means a hell of a lot. It is not accepted in any newspaper to come back from a press conferance at the UN building with picture files showing the new secretary general in a purple suit, - when we all can see that it is black.

It's all good- I was not implying that M8 shooters or modern day RF shooters in general to be little more then P&S photographers. I was merely saying that we tend to over emphasize our kit and don't pay as much attention to our craft as a lot of DSLR photogs I know and shoot with; for them gear is secondary by contrast. It seems to me that many RF photogs and especially those that must pay the princely sum of 5K tend to pixel peep and bemoan anything less then perfect. The M8, like all other cameras, is less then perfect. They then make sweep pronouncements (kind of like I am doing here: ) regarding the M8 and it's lack of perfection and therefore it's unworthiness to bear the Leica name all the while ignoring it's considerable strong suites- namely the most film like prints currently in the digital world with out having to lug a medium format camera, hard drive and digital back around. And back to my original premise, I suspect this is due to some people’s love of kit over photography and a belief that boarders on religious zeal expecting a Leica DRF to some how transform their typically lack luster photographs into something spectacular instead of learning to work with the tool at hand (with it's inherent strengths and weaknesses) to the best if it’s and their ability.

That’s my take,
Ted

[John Camp]

The film rf vs slr argument just doesn't apply in the digital world because of advances in electronics. All the benefits an RF cameras had in the past over other types of film cameras have been superceded by digital P&S cameras. There's nothing you can do with any hypothetical digital RF that you couldn't do as well or better with either a digi p&s or a dslr except use M lenses. You name any quality film users benefit from by using an RF, be it: low-light use; stealth; pocketabity; image quality; multiple focal lenghts; or whatever, and I'll show you a digicam that does the same as well or better. There's only one thing the digicams can't do; that's use film compatible rf lenses. That's really the only thing the M8 and RD-1 do that you couldn't do with some other dcamera.

Yeah, but you can't do both -- that is, you can't find a digicam that will give you f1.0, interchangeable lenses, Leica-quality glass and the super-shallow DOF when you need it. And you can't find a DSLR with the Leica form-factor. My entire M8 kit, which includes nine lenses and the camera, will fit in a bag about the same size that it takes to carry one D2x and one lens; and a Canon 1DsII is bigger than the D2x.

But I agree with you in theory. I think the future of the M8 is limited not by the quality of the DSLRs, but by the coming quality of the P&S. Maybe. I think it's within the ability of a camera company right now to make a camera not much bigger than a Leica, both fully automatic and fully manual, with excellent lenses and a good chip for high ISO performance. You can see all the parts in the 4/3 system, the Canon G7, and the Pentax K10. It's just that nobody has put it all together yet -- although Pentax is getting close with the K10 and the pancake lenses.

JC

[rxmd]

And as far as I know the only mount they can get.
AFAIK Pentax K still isn't patented.

Philipp

[Nick R.]

. . .

But I agree with you in theory. I think the future of the M8 is limited not by the quality of the DSLRs, but by the coming quality of the P&S. Maybe. I think it's within the ability of a camera company right now to make a camera not much bigger than a Leica, both fully automatic and fully manual, with excellent lenses and a good chip for high ISO performance. You can see all the parts in the 4/3 system, the Canon G7, and the Pentax K10. It's just that nobody has put it all together yet -- although Pentax is getting close with the K10 and the pancake lenses.

JC

Exactly. If you wanted to make a P&S that took pictures as well as an M8, you could right now. Only how much will people pay for a P&S. Take the G7 you mentioned. Price that at the cost of the RD1 and imagine how many features you could add, but who would buy it at that price? As far as DSLR's go, currently people value automation over small size, but they are getting smaller. Witness the Pentax k10 or Oly E400. There's nothing special about what the m8 does that couldn't be duplicated in a P&S or Dslr or even a cell phone. It's just finding someone willing to pay for the technology. Leica users will because of the M lenses. I would consider buying an M8 to duplicate the special signature of my 21SA in digital, but that's the only reason.

[Sailor Ted]

There's nothing special about what the m8 does that couldn't be duplicated in a P&S or Dslr or even a cell phone.

Please- perhaphs a little too much cream on those strawberries? :p
Actually that would be a very large cell phone :rolleyes:

[Olsen]

The film rf vs slr argument just doesn't apply in the digital world because of advances in electronics. All the benefits an RF cameras had in the past over other types of film cameras have been superceded by digital P&S cameras. There's nothing you can do with any hypothetical digital RF that you couldn't do as well or better with either a digi p&s or a dslr except use M lenses. You name any quality film users benefit from by using an RF, be it: low-light use; stealth; pocketabity; image quality; multiple focal lenghts; or whatever, and I'll show you a digicam that does the same as well or better. There's only one thing the digicams can't do; that's use film compatible rf lenses. That's really the only thing the M8 and RD-1 do that you couldn't do with some other dcamera.

Hear! Hear! This is absolutely true.

But to make a digital RFF camera that can utilize the wealth of all the M compatible lenses out there is an important challange. And a potential market. Only a few are loyal to this market. Like Leica itself.

[Olsen]

It's all good- I was not implying that M8 shooters or modern day RF shooters in general to be little more then P&S photographers. I was merely saying that we tend to over emphasize our kit and don't pay as much attention to our craft as a lot of DSLR photogs I know and shoot with; for them gear is secondary by contrast. It seems to me that many RF photogs and especially those that must pay the princely sum of 5K tend to pixel peep and bemoan anything less then perfect. The M8, like all other cameras, is less then perfect. They then make sweep pronouncements (kind of like I am doing here: ) regarding the M8 and it's lack of perfection and therefore it's unworthiness to bear the Leica name all the while ignoring it's considerable strong suites- namely the most film like prints currently in the digital world with out having to lug a medium format camera, hard drive and digital back around. And back to my original premise, I suspect this is due to some people’s love of kit over photography and a belief that boarders on religious zeal expecting a Leica DRF to some how transform their typically lack luster photographs into something spectacular instead of learning to work with the tool at hand (with it's inherent strengths and weaknesses) to the best if it’s and their ability.

That’s my take,
Ted
You suspect people of 'love of kit above photography' and that some see the M8's lack of perfection. Isn't it the other way around? Isn't it the gear-nutted brand loyalty from half a generation of photographers - to their most admired toy; Leica, that important design flaws of M8 now are bagatellized and that a unbiased 'test' of this camera is nowhere to be found on the Net?

They are not 'gear nuts' those who rather decide to buy a Canon 5D or even a G7 - to the fraction of the cost of a M8 just because they take better pictures. But those buying a M8, what are they?

[rxmd]

And as far as I know the only mount they can get.
As far as I know, the Pentax K mount is still not patented. A *istD or K10D with Leica lenses would have been awesome.

However, I think Panasonic was in the 4/3 boat already.

Philipp

[HAnkg]

Exactly. If you wanted to make a P&S that took pictures as well as an M8, you could right now. Only how much will people pay for a P&S.
Yes if you can charge as much as a Canon 1Ds MKII or a Leica M8 you can make a camera that can make images like a Canon 1Ds MKII or a Leica M8. Although you will not be able to stuff it into a P&S sized package. If you can charge $3000. dollars for a lens you can make a lens as good or better then a Leica. So?

One day your camera phone will be able to make images equal to a $30,000 digital back and you will be able to fly to the moon. That may be true but it doesn't have any impact on my equipment choices today. Today, the Leica D series or the Canon G7 make nice images but they don't cut it in terms of final image quality when compared to Canon/Nikon DSLR's or the Leica M8. There is no way I would stake my business on a P&S or current 4/3 cameras. Nothing to do with brand snobbery its just $ for me.

Even the marketing departments of these camera manufacturers who are not shy about hyping their wares and making ridiculous claims are not making the claims you are making about their products.

[HAnkg]

I would add one more point -can you imagine anyone shelling out the price of a Canon 1Ds MKII for a camera that had a fixed super zoom and that required you to use the live preview LCD screen to frame your shots. Even if the image quality matched the 1Ds they would get laughed out of the market.

[RML]

I'll take Carl Zeiss lenses on those digital cameras any day over Leica lenses. They're cheaper and definitely not inferior to Leica lenses.

[nikola]

HCB would use P&S. :D

Just use your little finger. :)

[Sailor Ted]

Not so sure about Zeiss glass being the equal of Leica- very good but different in a subjective way. HCB cared not for DOF?

T

[Nick R.]

I would add one more point -can you imagine anyone shelling out the price of a Canon 1Ds MKII for a camera that had a fixed super zoom and that required you to use the live preview LCD screen to frame your shots. Even if the image quality matched the 1Ds they would get laughed out of the market.

I think that's what I said when I said "but who would pay for it?"

Anyway, my original point was and still is:
"The only reason for building a digital rf is to use M lenses"

M=anything that uses an M mount including VC, Zeiss, Canon, Nikon, ltm w. adaptor.

[HAnkg]

M=anything that uses an M mount including VC, Zeiss, Canon, Nikon, ltm w. adaptor.
You could exchange the word Range Finder for M (as the M is now the universal and only RF mount). The one thing all those lenses have in common is that they are RF lenses. Some are better quality then some SLR lenses some are not. The thing that sets all of them apart from SLR lenses is not quality (you can find quality SLR lenses from Leica, Zeiss, Canon, etc.,) it's the RF viewfinder and compact size of RF cameras and lenses. For some the key attraction is the size -in which case a compact non-RF camera would be just as or maybe more attractive. For quite a few though it's the RF viewfinder focusing and manual controls combined with the small size, for those users DSLR's and P&S type systems are not attractive alternatives. You could also add a third group, those who like the look of older classic RF lenses -for this group the RF system and M mount is also mandatory.

[Sailor Ted]

HAnkg,
Very well said and spot on- count me in groups 2 and 3 thank you very much.