Jump to content

Digital M7 or M8?


Recommended Posts

Interesting. Olympus (remember them?) just announced the E-1, a new 4/3

standard dedicated digital system based on a digital SLR body. The lenses

are interchangable, and have focal lengths designed for the sensor, which is

5 megapixels and smaller than a 35mm frame. They mention specifically

having a rectifier in the lens design to ensure that the incident rays are

perpendicular to the sensor plane to prevent falloff. Now this is an SLR, but in

a sub-small-format, so the mirror box needn't be as large as that of a 35mm

SLR. The lenses are built smaller than 35mm SLR lenses, due to the smaller

image circle requirement, more like, uh, rangefinder lenses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's start a new forum. Call it the Digital Leica Wannabe Forum.

 

Damn! Do you think maybe in 1940 there were a bunch of guys who sat around wondering when Leica would make an 8x10 view camera?

 

If you want to shoot digital, shoot digital. If you want to shoot film, shoot film. For the foreseeable future, if you want to shoot a Leica M, you'll be shooting film. And it ain't gonna be 8x10 sheet film either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

seems to me that a digital leica M could be possible if it were black and white. Wouldn't that negate the need for all the little lenes on the CCD? no need for an array of colour filters etc... and the smaller need for processing could make the whole thing smaller than other digis... just a though.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jeepers, if they didn't have to crap up the electronics with color sensers, let's see, they could have fantastic gradation! The menu would let you choose to immitate a variety of film and developer combinations. Shoot one photo on Tri-X pushed two stops in Acufine, the next frame HP5-Plus in ID-11 1:1 at ISO 250. Maybe even film and developer combos that haven't existed in decades. Anybody remember DuPont SX Pan? Agfa Isopan Record? Ilford HPS?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm with Lee on this one.

 

Where's this sudden obsession with digital Leicas come from? It's been cracking me up...

 

Surely film and digital bodies are different things. You may want an electronic machine that handles like an M, but there are probably reasons no one makes them. It's like Nikon turning the FM2n into a DSLR, and maybe putting the match-needle metering from the FE2 into it, oh, and keeping the F3's flash synch speed.

 

Edward, this may be a but unfair on you, but lately there's been a lot of why-can't-I-have-a-retro-camera-that-can-do-digital-because-I-don't-want-to-be-left-behind-with-crappy-looking-photos. And what do you mean by "tools that can enhance the photo"? Nailing the exposure with Leica/Leitz hardware? Or correcting your exposure on a computer?

 

If you want digital results, why not scan? Or do you mean that you prefer the digital style of shooting to the M style of shooting?

 

Keep the digital camera for pixellation, and the M for grain.

 

One thing's for sure, if Leica do make a Digi-M, the collectors are going to miss that wind-on lever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It cracks me up as well. Most Leica users spend a load of money on bodies because they know at least they will last for thirty years plus; and maintian a highish second hand value. Would they be willing to spend £3000 or more on a digital body that in the fast pace of development will be out of date and virtually worthless in a year? I think that common sense would take over and any theoretical digital M would soon die a death, along with the company.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cracks me up too Steve...that people would spend thousands on a system designed for a technology that's quickly reaching a dead end. It will be Leica's *lack* of a digital M that will spell the end for the company. A digital R back--even in the unlikelihood they'll ever actually produce it-- won't do it, the main interest in Leica is the M system. If you read this forum and the LUG and even the LHSA viewfinder you'll see that a great number of devoted M users are embracing digital. Some are even selling off their M's to finance their digital purchases. Money which would undoubtedly willingly have been put into Leica's pocket rather than Canon or Nikon or Olympus or Sony or whatever, if only Leica had a digital platform for the M camera. The huge collector market that Leica banks on exists only because Leica's *could* be used, even if the owner's choose not to. When in the near future 35mm film is available in 3 emulsions at $50 a roll and another $50 for processing at some far-off destination that takes 3 weeks, there won't be enough interest in Leica M's for Leica to be able to continue making them. Yes there'll still be film and yes there'll be millions of film cameras including Leicas. Used ones, no new ones. No Leica AG. Would someone pay $3000 for a digital back for their M camera? I bet yes.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<em>Most Leica users spend a load of money on bodies because they know at least they will last for thirty years plus; and maintian a highish second hand value.</em>

<p>

Does anybody think that their Leica is going to maintain value over the _next_ 30 years?

<p>

A $3000 turntable bought in 1970 was probably still fairly valuable in 1980. But by 1990, after the advent of CDs, how many people were still interested in investing $3000 in a turntable?

<p>

We are on the cusp of a transition here, and it's worth considering whether we're making predictions of the future based on an assumption that it will continue the patterns of the past.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After shooting digital for the first time (with a 5 megapixel pocket camera) on a trip and in response to Ian�s comments, there are a few positives in digital that in my judgment will significantly reduce film use in years to come.

 

With digital if I don�t like a shot or think I can improve a picture, I can simply delete it. That enables me can take another �better� picture. Sometimes a perspective is not as you imagined when translated to film. I find seeing what you take �now� to be big plus and should not be underestimated. If I expect to shoot with a flash, the camera will estimate how the picture will look (before the shot) what a regular flash and even a slow sync flash. All I need to do is look at the screen on the back of the camera. For example, the background is much lighter in a slow synch flash. My margin for error is reduced.

 

Then there is the cost, or lack of it when compared to film. That is a huge factor. I can shoot 100 shots and eliminate fifty and it still costs me nothing, while keeping the best pictures. If I make prints it costs money. After I take pictures, I can use a simple software product (Adobe Elements2) to enhance pictures for color, hue, contrast and lighting, or even crop it. And it is easy to use. Even with Leica shot, most of the time there is generally something that could be made better. Unless you have used software products, in my opinion, it is hard to think in these terms.

 

Scanning is cumbersome and requires hardware to be carried on a trip. That�s a burden that I choose not to have. Using digital software designed for ease of use and can a big difference. As with most of us, I have had bad experiences with companies that process film. Using proper software basically eliminates bad film processing for photos stored on a CD or DVD.

 

 

One of the best things about digital is the ability to �see it now.� Not only can you see the shot immediately after it is taken, but you can easily download it to a computer and send it. On a trip this enables me to send and share photos whenever I return to my hotel. This adds to the �fun factor� of photography.

 

I agree with Jay, Lee and Harry in that Leica may be writing its own epitaph by not strongly embracing digital. And, yes, I would be willing to pay $2,500 to $3,000 for a digital M that accepted the M lenses. Candidly, I hope Leica wakes up and smell the pixels.

 

Edward

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not doable with present technology. Nothing Leica can do about it. It's like asking that the moon should be brought closer to the earth so that we can photograph it with 50 mm lenses with great detail. If you want a serious digital camera, you need to get an SLR. Period.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The arguments on these digital versus film threads are, to say the least, strange. Regardless of the quality of the final image, each system has advantages and disadvantages across varying applications.

 

In a "general" photography application maybe either approach is acceptable, albeit with the endless arguments from both camps about why their approach is better than the other. In a photojournalistic environment the digital is beginning to win due to the speed it introduces into the image-to-print process. For snap shots (representing the majority of camera users; but obviously this applies to no one here) digital has again another potential win.

 

However, under the current digital technology, for other styles of photography digital cannot and does not work! If traveling in third world environments for a few weeks at a time taking 1,000+ frames (...and not as an escoteric example as this is something I regularly do) batteries / recharging / storage are just not practicable with digital cameras. Again, and back to a Leica plug, digital cannot overcome that unacceptable shutter lag that, although better, is still annoying even in film SLRs today when it comes to people photography.

 

Back to the black & white enthusiusts - again Im one of these - digital cannot even come close to approaching the exposure range of the available print films thereby positioning a piece of digital equipment as "incapable" of producing quality B&W prints with good shadow detail and without blowing out the highlights.

 

Even continuing on the printing line of discussion... My B&W printing is a hybrid approach. I shoot film, scan and print digitally with a quadtone ink set specifically targeted at quality digital B&W printing. I produce 10R and larger prints from 135 film and to achieve this output scan at 4,000 dpi and 42-bit pixel depth. This is effectively a 24 megapixel CCD and produces files of ~130MB - please tell me how on a trip taking 1,000+ frames you could possibly store this amount of information on the road and the digital camera needed to be able to transfer this much data to storage VERY quickly in order to allow the next shot to be taken in quick succession.

 

Finally, as I wind down from my little rant... Many people identify one of the benefits of digital cameras being that you can get instant play back and immediately decide on the spot if you have a keeper or not and should discard and shoot again. Apart from being very hard to tell anything about an image on a 2" square LCD screen with about 12 bits per pixel displayed, I'd like to share a comment from a friend of mine who in the majority shoots with a rangefinder and B&W film and recently acquired a prosumer digicam as an addition.

 

After a few weeks of just using the digicam he told me that the most noticable aspect to him (apart from obvious shutter lag, etc...) was that the percentage of keepers was significantly lower than when using film. Because of the "marginal cost of taking a shot is free" mentality he found that he tended not to think as much about whether something really was a worthwhile shot as when using film - he just took it anyway! Maybe its just him, but I would think there is a large degree of truth in this analysis for everyone using digital. Now what he does is he goes out with a limited number of small (16MB) CF cards, and doesnt consider to keep or not keep the shot until downloaded to the PC.

 

To me digital imaging technology has some significant advantages in the end-to-end process, but please, always let me use film to capture that moment...

 

regards

Craig

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[. . .]<I>after the advent of CDs, how many people were still interested in investing $3000 in a turntable?</I><P>

 

Open your yellow pages and find your local high-end audio shop. Give them a visit. You'll hear sound that sounds holographic. And you'll see gear that, more times than not, is analog. Vacuum tubes. Turntables. $3000? Try $350,000.<P>

 

Digital is good for many things (such as government work). But continuous tone, of either sound or sight, isn't one of them. And that is why film - and Leica - will likely be around for the rest of our lives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<Al..ummmm...B&W only sensors?...now that cracks me up!>

 

Actually, I think Al is on to something. Wasn't the first incarnation of the Foveon chip a B&W only back for medium format? I seem to remember they were targeting the fashion industry.

 

I'm presuming that after we leave the stage of "bleeding edge", digital cameras will have switchable sensors. Change sensors, change lenses, whatever. Al's idea don't crack me up. I like it!

 

owen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Man this thread is loaded with semi-truths and paranoia, not to

mention lack of information and experience.

 

First of all there already IS a B&W dedicated digital

camera...Kodak makes one.

 

Yes, people will and do pay $3,000+ for turntables which ARE

available.

 

Shooting digital is not FREE, the good digital cameras are

horribly expensive and even they are relatively worthless in a few

years; the media for extended use is expensive, and processing

is time intensive (unless your time is worthless). Not to mention

the cost of all the stuff you need to process at home (which,

unlike darkroom gear of old, is also worthless or unusable in a

few years). Finally, inkjet prints roughly cost the same as

purchased prints these days...except you have to do all the work.

 

The image size comment "digital verses film": Digital images

can be shot in RAW which are smaller files for storage but

translate to much larger files after opening them. A 16 meg

Kodak ProBack RAW file opens as a 94 meg 16 bit Tiff file in PS.

So you don't have to store 140 meg files.

 

Film will be a thing of the past in the NEAR future, costing a lot

per roll, and even more to develop at some far off place...there is

no proof of this what-so-ever. I can buy film everywhere even the

grocery store. I have to go to special sources to get most of my

digital supplies.

 

This forum is made up of mostly (not all) wealthy people.

Marketing people are very aware how isolated such people are

from reality. Even in the US, most people are way below the

income level to buy a digital gear and the computers required to

use digital. Yes, digital is making headway, even better labs are

becoming digital based...but while driving from your nice house

to your office look up from the expressway at the millions of lower

middle class houses along the way. How many of them have

digital cameras and computers? They are the ones who will

keep film alive for quite awhile...not us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<em>Yes, people will and do pay $3,000+ for turntables which ARE available.</em>

<p>

Sigh. The point is, given "supply and demand", what happens to the resale value of an item when 95% of the people who use that item transition to something newer? What's going to happen to the value of our M bodies that can only use film, and our M lenses that can only be used with bodies that use film, when 95% of us transition to digital? The argument is "digital sucks, they don't hold value like Leicas do", but, ironically, the value of Leica gear may be dependent on there being a digital future for it.

<p>

<em>... but while driving from your nice house to your office look up from the expressway at the millions of lower middle class houses along the way. How many of them have digital cameras and computers?</em>

<p>

If I'm living in a rich neighborhood, I wish my rich neighbors would stop breaking into my Jeep to steal my loose change.

<p>

Digital cameras need computers like disposable film cameras need darkrooms. The question isn't whether "lower middle class" people are going to go out and buy $500 digital cameras, it's whether their next cell phone (which they do have) is going to come with a camera built-in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<i> millions of lower middle class houses along the way. How many of them have digital cameras and computers? </i><p>

 

My son's illegal alien babysitter (one of the few jobs she can hold) has a computer and a digital camera. Her mother, an illegal alien maid has a computer. <p>

 

I think it's a stereotype to say people with lesser financial resources don't have and use technology. Get out in the real world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jeff, there are people who have moderate to high financial resources who are not using technology as well. In my office (government programs, both federal and state, with everyone using a computer to do their jobs daily), there are quite a few people who do NOT have home computers. Fewer have digital cameras. Most could care less about photography and would prefer buying a disposable camera for the birthday party than to replace the battery in their family Canon AE-1 Program.

 

Just because something is new technology doesn't mean it's Great. Going back to the audiophile comparison, whatever happened to DAT and the mini disc? For that matter, whatever happened to Pet Rocks?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Household PC penetration in the US is over 70% (this is similar to cable TV.) Maybe a large proportion of the other 30% work with you. Digital camera penetration in the US is over 20%.

 

PC penetration is more linked to education than to income, an interesting fact.

 

DAT is widely used in recording studios. The players never got cheap enough to get into the home and the focus shifted to CD players. However, digital cameras have already seen demand in exces of 100x DAT players. It's irrelevant to raise this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jeff, I am out in the real world every day making ads for the huge

middle class population that buys my client's products. You have

contact with a few people and draw your conclusions, where we

have to contend with numbers in the multiple millions. I see the

real world you tout as your narrow world of personal experience.

Valid for you, but not projectable to the entire lower and

middle-middle class of the US population. If you could do that

you would be a multi-millionaire.

 

Neither you or I are expert marketing research people (that I

know of), but I do have access to them on a daily basis.

 

Even using your numbers, 20% penetration of digital cameras

leaves 80% for film. And that doesn't mean the 20% still don't

use a disposable, or some other form of film. Dual useage is

still common.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<em>20% penetration of digital cameras leaves 80% for film</em>

<p>

There was presumably some year in the mid 80's where 20% of music sales was from CDs. That left 80% for LPs and tapes. So what?

<p>

The important question is "well, what was it the year before that? And the year before that?" Given that trend, what will it be next year, and the year after that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay-Dokey, I give...digital rules.

 

Glad most of my investment is in digital capture...mostly in the

glass from the leading digital manufacturers. New body, the old

one becomes a back-up.

 

Dump your Leica's while you can. Film will be unavailable in

short order...all the marketing experts on this forum say so.

 

Goodnight Leica.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The light striking the sensor is at the same angle; from a 50mm F2; no matter what brand or make of lens. A little man at the sensor surface would see the same angles; no matter whether a 50mm F2 Summicron; 50mm F2 Nikkor from a Nikon F; or a Retina IIIc 50mm F2 Schneider Xenon........; or a 50mm F2 Pancolar; from an Exakta...................<BR><BR>The SENSOR technology is different between different companies..........<BR><BR>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...