M8 Sighting

[__jon__]

I got a call from a coworker tonight. He was walking in NYC and saw a guy with an M8. Chatted with him

briefly about it... said it looked solid. I wonder how many pre-launch models are floating around?

 

I wonder how long it will take for a full frame version...

[uk]

"I wonder how long it will take for a full frame version..."

 

Well, the plans exist, the timings are known, resources defined and budgets specified. All

that is needed is approval and a start date. Nothing will be done until the M8 is confirmed

as a rip-roaring success. How long will that take?

[niklas_nikitin]

More information about the new Leica M8 (in France);

<ul>

<li>http://www.macandphoto.com/2006/09/prise_en_main_d.html#more

<li>http://www.lightmediation.com/blog/index.php?2006/09/06/25-leica-m8-digital-numerique-exclusif

</ul>

 

-- Nicke<div></div>

[working camera]

So Jon ...its only an alleged sighting then ;-)

 

how yar bin?

 

C.

[steve_levine]

I'll take the wonder a step further. Why in hell was the 1.5X crop sensor ever invented? The camera companies should have charged more, and gone straight to full frame.

 

 

My biggest pet peeve with most SLRs is their crappy viewfinders. A few camera makers got these right, but on most SLRs, the viewfinders are awful.(You are looking down a hallway at a little window). Now comes along the DSLR, and they've made awful viewfinders worse!

[carl_bretteville]

"I'll take the wonder a step further. Why in hell was the 1.5X crop sensor ever invented? The camera companies should have charged more, and gone straight to full frame."

 

Cost is one thing, vignetting is another. Image sensors are much more sencitive to the angle at which the light strikes it than film is. This can be controlled to some extent, but if the angle is low enough the light will not get to the receptors causing vignetting.<div></div>

[nathan_milford]

Not an alleged sighting. I'm the co-worker in question. I was walking down 42nd street on my way to see a play and saw a guy with a Leica taking photos of the big McDonalds. Noticed the eyecandy, assumed it was an M7, then did a double take when it didn't have a winder, and again when it had a screen. I asked him if it was what I thought it was, he replied that it was, infact, a pre-launch M8. Looked jsut like the pictures off of RF forum. I didn't want to bog him down with questions and requests to cuddle it so I left him alone after a few questions. I suppose he was writing a review. The LCD on the back seemed nice and bright and the shutter sounded pretty quiet.

 

I couldn't stop thinking 'I want an M8' all through the play...

[frederick_muller]

"Nothing will be done until the M8 is judged a rip roaring success"

 

That doesn't make sense to me. If the M8 fails, does that mean they won't proceed with a full frame M9? I for one think if they came up with a full frame M9 it would outsell the M8! Delivery of a full frame leica digital rangefinder should not be contingent on the success of a stopgap machine.

 

On another matter, does anybody really think this bar-coding system for lenses is an elegant strategic solution? What's going to happen to the bar-coding and the M8 once the full frame M9 (or a full frame M-mount anything for that matter) comes out? The whole system is going to bring new meaning to the word "orphan".

[seth_honeyman]

I don't think etching a few lines on a lens makes it an "orphan".

[doug herr]

"<I>What's going to happen to the bar-coding and the M8 once the full frame M9 (or a full frame M-mount anything for that matter) comes out?</I>"

<P>

I expect that the M9 will be programmed to optimize the image for the lens just as the M8 is. IMHO, if the M8's image quality is as good as the DMR's they're going to sell as many as they can make.

[vinay_patel]

The major dealers are saying based on what they've been told by their factory contacts that there are already as many pre-ordered as Leica is able to build for the first year, assuming significant numbers of orders aren't cancelled when reviews come out, and that's doubtful to happen. (That was not the case with the DMR, the backlog was only for a couple of months once the release delays were over and shipment began). There is no reason to doubt the M8 will perform as well as the DMR. Most people are hoping it will be much better in the high-ISO-noise department, as low-light shooting is one of the acknowledged selling points of the M.

[frederick_muller]

If indeed they have sold the first year's production, then I would say the M8 is a runaway success. That should clear the way to produce a full frame M9 that is already on the drawing board. I would be curious as to the price spread between the M8 and the M9 if the two were released within a year or two of each other. If there is a significant price spread, then there could well be a market for both.

[vinay_patel]

"a full frame M9 that is already on the drawing board."

 

You know that for a fact? How?

 

"If there is a significant price spread, then there could well be a market for both."

 

If a full-frame M9 comes out I bet sales of new M8s grind to a screeching halt. Unless by significant price spread you're talking double the cost, in which case they won't sell enough M9s to break even.

[guy_mancuso]

I know this maybe hard to swallow guys and coming from FF all my working life but after

14 months of the 1.3 on the DMR , i really have lost that i want a FF camera syndrome. it

really is somewhat meaningless , if you are getting the quality from the 1.3 than it does

not matter at all. the real and only issue is we are stuck on the old number system of

lenses in our heads, guilty as charged also. Hard to think differently after thirty years but

really it is just a number . now having said that lenses need to be reinvented a little to

match as well as in price. A 15mm 2.8 for my DMR costs a absolute fortune and that needs

to change. Look at Nikon as a example the changed a lot of there lenses to match that

sensor. What many don't understand is the the money that goes into a FF sensor and there

is really no one doing it like canon. leica , Nikon depend on vendors for this stuff. so just

saying lets get a FF sensor is one thing but everything changes along with it and the costs

are very high which comes right down back to your pocket. Do we honestly think the

1dsMKII was worth 8k when it came out , well i bought one because that was all ther was

but it is not worth that price. we can argue this one till the cows come home but after

awhile that need just seems to fade. We just need some lense to cover the lost area of

wide at a reasonable price and half the complaints would go away as long as there is no

loss in the sensor quality between the two. There is no doubt in my mind this is as good

as the DMR if not better and in the noise area it will be. But this will sell very well. I

honestly believe a whole new technology needs to come about for us to see 24x36mm

sensors from someone other than canon and they have there own issues with FF.

[joseph_wisniewski]

Frederick - "On another matter, does anybody really think this bar-coding system for lenses is an elegant strategic solution? What's going to happen to the bar-coding and the M8 once the full frame M9 (or a full frame M-mount anything for that matter) comes out?"

 

Actually, I think it's very elegant. As has already been mentioned, the full frame camera will have even more need for vignetting and color fringing correction than the cropped version will, so knowledge of the lens's exit pupil location is vital. The bar code allows a lens to be retrofitted without actually having to open up the lens and add a new mount with ROM contacts. (own a Nikon, been there, done that).

 

And, by using a bar code with only a Leica lens ID number, and putting the look up table for exit pupil, focal length, and aperture in the camera's firmware, Leica can effectively lock out Cosina or Zeiss lenses that don't have the same exit pupil location as an existing Leica lens.

 

It's positively brilliant.

[vinay_patel]

"Ithe real and only issue is we are stuck on the old number system of lenses in our heads, guilty as charged also. Hard to think differently after thirty years but really it is just a number ."

 

Some people are upset with the number, which is preceeded by a dollar sign, representing the cost of purchasing additional wider-angle lenses. And, some people have said they don't like the increased depth of field created by using a shorter focal length for a narrower f.o.v.

 

"A 15mm 2.8 for my DMR costs a absolute fortune and that needs to change."

 

Any new lens for the Leica R (or M) costs "a (sic) absolute fortune", and that isn't going to change so it's pointless even thinking about it.

 

"Look at Nikon as a example the changed a lot of there lenses to match that sensor."

 

Which of there (sic) single focal length lenses did Nikon change to counter the cropped sensor? I'd be interested to get some or even one for my D70.

 

"I honestly believe a whole new technology needs to come about for us to see 24x36mm sensors from someone other than canon and they have there own issues with FF."

 

I seem to recall that Kodak, who supplies the sensors for Leica, had FF sensors in both Canon and Nikon mount. The problem I read was very bad noise at all but the lowest ISO (80 or 100 or something), which although the DMR is not known for great noise supression above 400, is definitely OK. So it would seem Kodak's sensor coupled with innovative firmware could very likely make it into the R10. The problem with the M series is specific, according to the manufacturers, due to the proximity of the lenses to the focal plane.

[guy_mancuso]

You have to remember Kodak makes the Phase One sensors and look at those prices. All i am

saying is it is not as bad as it seems. It's a limitation but so is making a 10k sensor that no

one will buy for 35mm. Like I said we can argue it till the cows come home but honestly once

you get used to it, really not that bad.

[gene_e._mccluney]

The Full Frame Sensor in the last Kodak DSLR's, the SLR/n and SLR/c was not MADE by

Kodak, rather it was sourced from a company called Fill Factory. It was a CMOS sensor. It

has nothing what-so-ever to do with the CCD 1:3 crop sensor currently used by Leica and

actually manufactured by Kodak.

[guy_mancuso]

That is correct and you are speaking of the 14n. The current sensors that are made by Kodak

professional division are CCD and Phase one uses all Kodak sensors , the other is obviously

leica for the R and the M, there maybe one or two others also, leaf is a Dalsa sensor. The 14n

was fill factory and has nothing to do with Kodak professional division

[._._z]

<i><blockquote> I wonder how long it will take for a full frame version...

</blockquote> </i><p>

 

First, figure out how many companies are selling ff 35mm sensors to camera manufacturers . <p>

 

Answer: zero. <p>

 

Then figure out how many have announced any such thing in the next 12-24 months. <p>

 

See above.

[harvey_edelstein1]

Guy you got it all wrong, but Vinay corrected you. First as a Nikon system user, what Nikon did is discontinue the 20-35mm and come up with first a FF 17-35mm and a bunch of new 1.5x crop factor zooms 18-35, 18-70mm, then some wider ones down to 10mm on the wide end. Nikon has not come up with new focal length lenses to add any fast primes to replace the normal 50mm which are now 75mm. Many have bought Sigma 30mm F1.4 since the Nikon 28mm is so expensive.

 

Also, with the Canon 5D FF costing only arround $2500 after rebates the cost of Canons very good FF is half the price of the leicas and it can use R type Leica lenses. Bye the way to me the new Canon sensor has good skin tone and great ISO 1600 capture. I think it looks as good as the 1dsMII most of the time and I think the color might be better.

 

Leicas 1.3x crop factor is harder to live with than zoom lenses on a dslr since we can't vary the focal length to compensate for losing the wide angle so each lens ranges up to the next higher set of frame lines.

[._._z]

<i><blockquote> Also, with the Canon 5D FF costing only arround $2500 after rebates the cost of Canons very good FF is half the price of the leicas and it can use R type Leica lenses.

</blockquote> </i><p>

 

Other Canon forums have posts from people who've accurately provided info about models before their release, and they've reported the release of a lower-end full-frame model 7D to come out at PMA in February for $2100 street, meaning it'll sell for under $2K by this time next year.

[__jon__]

>craig hoehne , sep 13, 2006; 06:48 a.m.

 

>So Jon ...its only an alleged sighting then ;-)

how yar bin?

 

Doing well, Craig, doing well. And you? How is it down under?

[del_gray]

The big deal for many with full frame sensors is not just the focal length, but it's the combination of focal length and fast aperture. It is true that you can use a 28mm to approximate your current favorite 35mm focal length on film, but the problem comes when you want to keep the 1.4 aperture. Even if such a lens existed, it would have to be obnoxiously large, especially if Leica stays with their expressed philosophy of making all new lenses backwards compatible with film. I'd love the M8, but I'd miss a 35 lux equivalent. I have to say, though, that the idea of using the old 35 lux pre-asph cropped by 1.3 is an attractive thought for a not-too-expensive fast normal.

[oceanphysics]

<i>I'll take the wonder a step further. Why in hell was the 1.5X crop sensor ever invented? The camera companies should have charged more, and gone straight to full frame.</i>

<p>

Gee, I'll go way out on a limb here and say because the camera companies were interested in selling cameras. At the time the 1.5 and 1.6 sensors were introduced a full-frame would probably have retailed for $50 grand and they would have sold zero of them. As it was by the time Canon got around to producing them they cost $8 grand, and they sold a very small number of them. In the interim Canon and Nikon profits are through the roof because of the crop camera sales.