Someday an AFFORDABLE M mount digital?

This has probably been tossed around before, but I'm not sure how

I'd search for it. I guess the question is, will M lenses be

manufactured by someone, Leica, Zeiss, Cosina, for long enough that

somebody will eventually make an affordable (under $1000) M mount

body even if it takes 5 or 8 years? If they will, our M lenses

should be "affordable" dual format (film and digital) someday,even

if its longer from now than we'd like. My investment in M lenses

will always be worthwhile if film exists at all, but the affordable

digital would make it more so. I could even see a company making the

body and just a couple lenses, knowing that the used market of

lenses would make the body viable.

Answer: No.

 

Will you ever see a really good digital M? No.

" Will you ever see a really good digital M? No. "

 

For such a clear view, your crystal ball must be made from Leica Glass! :-))

John ,

I havea lot of respect for you but I think you are wrong .

 

Now will we ever see one new for less than a $1000? No. What is high end today will likely be just passable 5-8 years from now. And we are talking about a low demand, low quantity very high tech item.

I'm glad we got that resolved.

O.K., how about $1200.

OK, I'll expand on "no."

 

I don't think the M mount has a future in a digital camera. Epson's already shown why (terrible vignetting, inability to approximate anything like a 35f2, much less fast 21mm).

 

Something new is in the wings, beginning with the 4/3 Pana/Oly/Leica with Leica glass. Since zoom, stabalization, and autofocus are so well perfected and so cheap, I think that's the future and the Pana/Oly/Leica mount is the new game.

 

Ms began as compact, practical tools, not wildly expensive. Only Saudis collected them, everybody else used them. They devolved into collectables (in many instances).

 

The replacement for M needs to be a compact (ie not DSLR) practical tool that's well within the unbridaled, excessive prices of top-end digital Nikons and Canons, and far less physically bloated.

 

I think the Pana/Oly/Leica will fill most of the bill, though will still be too big.

 

The optical viewfinder aspect of M will be lost...I doubt we'll see it in any practical digital camera (unless you count Epson, lacking as it does any useful W/A capability).

 

If Epson introduces 10MP with a full frame chip (allowing WA M lenses), I'll be wrong.

Under $1000? Doubtful. Why?

 

IMO the owners of Leica M/LTM lenses will always be perceived as high-end consumers and the products produced for them will always be higher-end products.

 

Even in 10 years, I doubt whether a digital camera will be as cheap as you want. Maybe $1,500 or $2,000.

 

Skip

Skip's probably got the price about right. You'll probably see something in the $1,500 or so range from Cosina. They've been pretty innovative over the last decade. I see no reason why that won't continue with them surprising everyone again by producing an "affordable" digital rangefinder in an M mount.

John Kelly wrote: "I don't think the M mount has a future in a digital camera. Epson's already shown why (terrible vignetting, inability to approximate anything like a 35f2, much less fast 21mm)."

 

I disagree. Epson just didn't do it right. End of story. It can be done right - but like a lot of great TV series and movies that haven't had a DVD release (or took years to get there) it's a shame that as yet it hasn't been.

You can probably pick up a used RD-1 for about $500 within 3-5 years, I would guess.

To me the real Leica, the Leica of old, the reason why we still love a camera basically from the 1950s, is that they broke new technology. The use of 35mm film, the combined viewfinder/RF, small compact size and uncompromising image quality.

 

If I were Leica, or even Cosina, is bring the lens mount a bit farther back and add the ability to control the f/stop from in the camera. Provide an adaptor like the screw-to-M mount adaptor for backward compatibility.

 

Maybe the sensor should be 4/3. 35mm film was way smaller than medium format when it started to be used. I have a 20D and 8mp is a good match for most 35mm film.

 

DSLRs are just way too big lately, and lenses like the Canon EF lenses are just monsters compared to M mount lenses. If going to 4/3 type sensors means that I can get CL sized camera, I'm all over it.

 

I think the standard 4/3 sensor to flange distance is too big, and a digital RF should a shorter distance. Maybe have an adaptor that would allow the use of standard 4/3 lenses with the 4/3RF mount.

 

Leica, fuggedaboutit, not going to make a RF anywhere near a price point I can hit. Cosina, Mr. K doesn't seem to like digitial, but maybe RD-1 that is Consina'd. Dark horses? Sony through the KM RF expertise and a try to get street cred'. Out side chance; Nikon. They brought out the S3 remakes. Would be kind of a stick at Canon for all their Uber IS, diffractive lenses, FF sensor technology to bring back an old camera in new clothing.

 

Just a thought.

I can picture John Kelly's tombstone:

 

"He Never Found a Really Good Digital Camera"

To me, digital versus film is almost like drawing versus painting, or even singing versus playing an instrument. Kind of similar with the big picture in common, but totally different skill sets for the details. To me digital and film diverge right after the click of the shutter. After that you are down two different paths.

 

I have 35mm SLRs, 35mm rangefinders, DSLRs and am looking at adding a medium format film camera. All for different purposes, and actually different end uses.

 

The car may have killed the horse&buggy, but it didn't kill the train.

 

I wear an autmotatic winding mechanical watch when I could have gotten a Timex quartz that is a 1/100 the price and keeps better time. Why do people pay thousands for Mont Blanc pens, when Bics will do?

Because they have more money than sense. They buy them as jewelery, not instruments to write with.

 

Draw your own analogies with cameras...

 

The Leica M was a classic instument of the first half of the 20th Century. It's been dragged into the late 20th Century with added bells and whistles but putting a digital sensor in it is a bit like putting a Ferrari engine in a Model T Ford Sure you could do it, but wouldn't you be better off taking full advantage of 21st Century technology and engineering and redesigning the whole system from the ground up?

If I could only get a $1 for each time that someone made an analogy of Leica with something.....

 

Porsche, Mont Blanc, Rolex, whatever. All these product manufacturers are profitable. Leica is not.

 

Do people take less pictures today than they did, say, 50 years ago? Or do these people who spend gobs of money on other expensive items not have enough left to spare for a measly little $3K camera body and another grand or two on a lens that they could use to take pictures of all those other wonderful and expensive items that they bought?

 

What gives?

I hate to agree with our Bob Atkins but what he has to say in his third paragraph of the post above makes perfect sense to me.

 

but we shall have to wait and see how the M7d performs.

 

I seem to recall loud noises about how the DMR was going to be a complete disaster.

 

C.

Probably not. I love my R-D1, and will probably buy the digital M when it comes out, but the appeal is limited to those who really appreciate the fondle value of mechanical equipment. Of course it has to be functional and excellent in its own right but the sensual nature of the object of desire can not, nor will not, be denied.

Thats not to say that Leica can't make it in a Canon world. twenty years ago mechanical watches were good as dead, the Swiss were struggling to maintain ANY presence in the watch world vs the Japanese digital onslaught. Today, Switzerland exports more high end mechanical watches than every. If you know anything about watches you would know that a watch that runs on batteries is not considered a "real" watch be the affecianados.

In a similar way, I think that a market for a metal bodies, analog, manual, digital camera exist. Not a large one and not one for the working professional. But for the advanced amatuer and for the professional on holiday, an M mount digital would serve a certain need that plastic has never served very well.

However, AFFORDABLE? I don't think so

 

Rex

Cameras are modular objects, just like cars. There's no reason why a digital sensor in a 1959 camera body is a bad thing. Just like there's nothing wrong with the Nikon F6 - electronic in every way except for the film you put in the back. The M camera is still relevant (and offers certain advantages for some photographers) whereas the Model T is not.

 

Regarding the light fall-off on the RD-1: didn't someone post some images here taken with the RD-1 and some super wide angle lenses? I seem to remember the result as obvious darkening in the corners of the frame.

if the leica m digital camera does well , I would bet that there will be some knockoffs..and

maybe even clever folks to upgrade your existing m camera to digital..a la huw and co.

I think the 1000 dollar mark is unrealistic..you are buying unlimited film and processing... if

you only shoot 12 rolls of film a year you should stick to film.. but if you shoot 120 rolls at

10 bucks a pop for f&p..you do the math.

I wouldn't mind a perpetual energy source in a model T.. to borrow the analogy from

bobatkins above..some of us don't want or need autopilot or all the bells and whistles that

some manufactures extoll.

M Mount cameras are expensive, even a Bessa R2m or R2a is very expensive. For the price of a R2m with 50mm you get a Canon 350d with 18-55 Zoom and have money left for a prime.

 

When we compare DSLR prices to those of their film counterparts and extrapolate to a digital M Mount the Epson R-D1 might be slightly overpriced but economy of scale works against them so the price might be as low as they can as long as they want to earn money with it.

 

Compare the price of a Nikon D200 to a F100 and a Canon 5D to a 3 and you have a starting point for the added price of Sensor and support electronics. Adjust for small numbers and add this to the price of a ZI and you're at something in the $3000 range.

 

Given that Zeiss thinks digital is not where they think their customers want it, I don't think they'll build one with a sensor below 12MPixel and 24x36mm size.

 

I don't expect a RF camera with M Mount below $3000 anytime soon, if at all.

<b>john kelly</b><i>

I don't think the M mount has a future in a digital camera. Epson's already shown why (terrible vignetting, inability to approximate anything like a 35f2, much less fast 21mm). </i><p>

 

John, correct me if I am wrong, but the problems you refer to are due to the narrow angle of acceptance of the digital sensor, correct? (That is, while the outcome is acceptable to consumer cameras, it is not up to Leica quality.)<p>

 

Perhaps that issue will be addressed with a different sensor topography. In the meantime, is there a reason Leica cannot use Biogon (later type) designs for wide lenses? Consider a Biogon in which the rear element is larger than the sensor. Yes, it makes for a larger lens thereby obviating the compactness we want, but the outcome could be terrific.<p>

 

I can point to exactly that kind of Biogon if you like. It's not a consumer item, but could be.

Pico, I'm sure you're right about new (non-existent) lens designs and new (non-existent) lenses. Maybe we'll see them.

 

However, I think the digital M fantasy mostly lives with people who have a few M lenses that they'd like to use into the future, without film.

 

Unless one uses a 21mm Zeiss or Leica lens, one does not have a decent "standard" moderate speed 35mm equivalent with the Epson. The CV is slow and not equal. If walking-around-semi-wide and fairly fast is the goal, the only forseeable answer seems to be that pana/leica/oly concept...and that's not even raising price as a question. I'll bet the Leica version is $3000 with lens.

The Leica M mount wasn't available during the first half of the 20th Century. A digital sensor in a Leica built M mount will run about a $5000, maybe more given the limited production. With regards to dual format, you really want your cake and to eat it as well.

The waiting list for the M8 already exceeds the number of all the DMRs that have been sold to-date. There is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that it will be profitable for Leica. As to "affordability" and an "under $1000" body, at $20 for a roll of 36-exp C41 film, processing and 4x6 prints, a $5000 M8 can be thought of as a free camera and 250 rolls of prepaid film and processing. Assuming someone shoots only 5 rolls a month, that would take a little over 4 years. So to answer Mark's question, the M8 will represent an under-$1000 digital M body and won't take 5-8 years.