Perfect timing for Digital M introduction ??

[uk]

All Leica fans would have wanted a digital M sooner, but with the limited resouces that

Leica have available were they right to be a follower than a leader ?? It would have been a

big set back if they had introduced a 6 mpix when that was the fashion and then it failed.

 

If so, now things are levelling out, 10 mpix seems to satisfy 90% of the market and the

price is dropping, is the timing not perfect to bring out a class leading product ?? To me

this confirms that the Leica management have their finger on the pulse. Do you agree?

 

The company has a long history of providing tools that are perfctly matched to the job in

hand and we should expect a digital M that sets new standards for the industry, not a me-

too product. I have no doubt that it will be the best at what it does and will cause another

shift in the market.

 

Does it matter if it's not full frame if the lenses are available for the application? Nikon

don't offer a lens range to meet the needs of the low light wide angle shooter, Leica will.

 

If it is full frame, boosted dynamic range, half the weight and bulk of it's competitors and

no more than the price of a Canon 1Ds MkII, can it fail ? I put it to you that it will succeed

and the management will prove itself.

[Rob F.]

I don't think it has to be full frame. A 1.33 crop factor will allow the use of a 21mm to achieve a 28mm effective field. I think that's okay, as long as the camera has a corresponding frameline.

 

The deal-breaker for me, on the RD-1, is the lack of a frameline for the 21mm or even the 24 or 35mm focal lengths. Its widest frame is for the 28mm, which, with the 1.5 crop, only results in a 42mm effective coverage. A 21mm on the RD-1 would still only be about a 32mm. Not too awful in itself, but we'd have to use a separate finder just to get a moderate wide angle.

 

So hopefully the Digital M will have frames for the 21-24-28-35-50 & 75mm lenses, as some of us have discussed recently.

[Rob F.]

I didn't mean to say that the RD-1 has no frameline for the 35mm lens. It does. I don't know how that slipped in there. Maybe I meant that you can't get a 35mm equivalent angle of view with the built-in finder. It has frames for 28, 35, and 50mm lenses.

[john_graham3]

<i><b>It would have been a big set back if they had introduced a 6 mpix when that was the fashion</i></b></p>Right. Much better to introduce a 10 mpix with a 1.3x crop when 12-16 mpix with a 0.0x crop is the--I hesitate to use the word "fashion" even though this is a Leica discussion after all--standard among over-$2K digitals. Of course I'm biased as a Canon guy. If I were a Nikon guy stuck with 10-12 mpix and 1.5x crops the Leica might not seem so underwhelming.</p><i><b>10 mpix seems to satisfy 90% of the market</i></b></p>10 mpix satisfies 90% of the market because that's all they can afford. If Nikon sold a D216 with 16 mpix for $2000 how many people do you think would buy the D200 for $1700?</p><i><b>To me this confirms that the Leica management have their finger on the pulse. Do you agree?</i></b></p>It seems the jury is still out as to whether Leica even has a pulse.</p><i><b>Does it matter if it's not full frame if the lenses are available for the application? Nikon don't offer a lens range to meet the needs of the low light wide angle shooter, Leica will.</i></b></p>It won't matter to those who buy one, and those who it matters, won't buy one. OTOH if it was full-frame, I doubt there would be a contingent of buyers who would gripe that it didn't have a crop factor. Yeah, no doubt Leica will offer some extra wide lenses to make up for the crop. Another $3000 or so on top of the cost of the body and you're all set huh. </p><i><b>If it is full frame, boosted dynamic range, half the weight and bulk of it's competitors and no more than the price of a Canon 1Ds MkII, can it fail ?</i></b></p>Well, it for sure won't be full frame, Leica has said so. Based on the DMR (I had the dubious pleasure of using one for 2 weeks while a pal borrowed my 5D and 2 zooms to take on vacation because it was lighter than the DMR and his eight primes)the dynamic range should be great. High-ISO on the DMR was noisier than my 5D or 1DS-Mark II though the crop factor didn't really bother me. But then, the M is often chosen as a low-light wide-angle camera where ISO noise and the crop might pose more of an issue. That said, I have to concur that it can't fail because for folks that have a slew of M lenses the only alternative is the RD-1 which unless Epson has a secret new model ready to unveil, is going to be severely behind the Leica in just about every way, and is not cheap unto itself. That, and you know a bunch of people are going to buy one just because it's a Leica.

[andyaitken]

Was just thinking about this recently too.

 

The 1.33x crop is really a pretty good idea. Your 21 is a 28, fine. Your 28 is a 35, groovy. Your 35 or 40 is a 50, great. I even think my 50's will make nice portrait lenses (I seem to find 85 or 90mm far too long for some reason). Also you use the best of the image area of each of these lenses. Finally, you get a little more depth of field - which IHMO is welcome - but not so much that you can't isolate the background when you want to. Happy days.

 

I'm really hoping Leica will reverse engineer a new 50mm equiv. lens - something like a new 40mm 'Cron and include 40mm framelines.

 

This product is make or break for Leica, I hope they get it right. I also hope they just get over the whole "D" thing and just call it an M8.

[john_graham3]

I just hope they put in framelines for the 90 (120mm equiv) and 135 (180mm equiv)and that the 1.25x magnifier fits the viewfinder eye hole. The only fortuitous advantage of a crop factor is magnification of tele lenses and it would be a shame if people couldn't use the longer lenses. Hopefully the Visioflex would fit too. Imagine being able to use that 560mm lens as a 750mm!!!

[Rob F.]

I don't think those 90 and 135 framelines are going to happen, John. The 90 would have to be paired (triplexed?) with the 21/28 pair, and the 135 would be in there with the 24 and 35. Pretty busy!

 

The Visoflex idea sounds possible. You'd need a new groundglass screen with framelines to match the crop factor.

[nels]

"10 mpix seems to satisfy 90% of the market"

 

Yes, until you get 12.8MP...then you want 22MP. I think I'll be satisfied at 22MP. Until I actually get 22MP in a body no bigger than 5D, that is. Then, we'll take it from there.

[uk]

Nels,

 

I really don't think that's true. I believe we will be in the top 5% of THE whole market.

 

The top 5% want more pixels, but even then file space and speed become major issues.

Who really wants 100 mpixels in a personal camera ? I agree that 20 mpix would satisfy

nearly all of the market.

 

I don't expect Leica to take the digital M that high. Hey, I'm just tap dancing like the rest

of us.

[nels]

Gary,

 

I have always been peeved at Canon for not putting the 1DsII sensor inside 5D, though 5D <a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/locations/namibia-equipment.shtml">apparently</a> shows better noise performance than 1DsII. This leads to the obvious question. What will the (noise) performance of the next upgrade to 1DsII look like? And how many pixels will Canon be able to cram inside it while still giving better/smoother tonality and DR?

<br><br>

I believe Chuck Westfall mentioned somewhere that it will be 22MP. I am sure the upcoming Photokina will reveal the details, right about the time when DM is likely to be introduced.

[christian_kolinski]

Well, during a guided tour at the Leica-Werk in Solms last weekend - I've seen it.

Just a short time (we still don't know if that door was open by accident or on purpose) - but it was there, the new, digital Leica M8.

The 0-Series is out there. Big testing at Leica (and propably all over the world).

 

Digital. Crop 1.3. Same size of a M7, but 3mm thicker at the 2.5" LCD. All Leica-M lenses will fit. Finder and rangefinder should be the same as with the M7. No winding lever (motorized shutter).

 

Unfortunately, they didn't mention a price, nor how many pixel it will deliver. Seems that will have to wait till the Photokina in fall. I'll be there to see it.

[jean_.]

Funny to see the folks continuing to rave about magapixels! More is of course always nice to

have, but 10MP really by all means is good enough. And in case you missed some math

lessons, the 12MP or 14MP are a pathetic improvement over 10MP..

 

What could bother a bit more however is the crop factor, which nicely limits the wide angle

options - unfortunately wide angles seem to be very popular among the leica shooters. I

believe that in this regard, leica did not set the correct priorities for the digital M. I still would

want one, though!

[len_smith]

Gary Rowlands wrote:

>If so, now things are levelling out, 10 mpix seems to satisfy 90% of the market and the price is dropping, is the timing not perfect to bring out a class leading product ?? To me this confirms that the Leica management have their finger on the pulse. Do you agree?

 

 

If Leica management have the timing right, it is only through luck. Their inaction so far has cost the company dear. Only after a major financial restructuring does Leica Camera AG have any chance of a future.

 

But we should be grateful for luck. The M Digital will follow in the footsteps of the hugely capable Digital Modul-R (DMR). If it can also sell a lot faster than the DMR, Leica will probably survive.

 

Leica needs the M Digital, because collecting small royalties from Matsushita for using the Leica name on Panasonic cameras and lenses will never be enough. The M Digital has to succeed.

 

I think it probably will, even though I will personally be staying with film and a scanner until there is an established used market in M Digital bodies. I already have two digital SLRs (of different brands) so I can afford to wait.

 

Tony

[fotografz]

Meg count depends on what you are shooting and what the end print size will be.

 

I am very open to the digital M because I already know that it will fill the practical needs I

project for it.

 

Those who process RAW files know that a 10 meg RAW file produces an un-interpolated

16 bit, 56 meg. tiff that's about 9" X 12" @ 300 ppi.

 

A 9" X 12" leaves enough room for cropping/straghtening if you wish, and produces a

clean 8" X 10" or 7" X 10" print ... which is 95% of the wedding photography prints

produced ... especially for the more candid rangefinder type work.

 

For me, the up-side of the digital M will be system size. 8 hours of carrying around a

Canon 1DsMKII is no picnic ... especially with lenses as fast as the M offers. The other

upside will be unobtrusive presence.

 

If Epson had produced a 10 or 12 meg rangefinder, I'd already be there.

[guy_mancuso]

I will go back up what Christain said a couple of leica reps were in germany already playing around with it and will be announced formally about 3 weeks before photokina and ready to ship immediately. At the moment it is still being tested and all that but they are expecting a huge amount to be sold and much more than the DMR. Also there are other announcements to be made at the show, so looks like Leica is on the move this year and they need to be. New management and new strategy. Also there is something else happening in the next couple days that will produce more sales of existing gear, don't ask becuase i won't tell you but it is good news. I believe if the M is anything like the DMR which i have 2 of, they will have a huge hit on there hands.

[jtk]

http://www.letsgodigital.org/html/review/pentax/medium_format/645_camera.html

 

18.6 MP.

 

Same sort of size as DMR, better form factor, affordable to any professional. Not a digital M, but maybe ideal for folks who need fine images more than they want gizmos with red dots...

[akochanowski]

What many people who have never really used a mid or top range DSLR don't or won't consider is that the need for ultra fast lenses, with apertures larger than f2, is virtually non-existent with a clean digital chip. You want more shutter speed? Raise the ISO in 1/3 stop increments until you have the speed you want. Other than lens fetishists, no one needs an f1 lens, and even an f1.4 leaves you precious little depth.

 

I'm sure that the DM will be a nice product, but if it's really going to be $5K , that's a lot of scratch to pay for a 10MP camera.

 

It's funny, I could mentally justify buying a $2500 M7 that had the old-time mechanical rangefinder mechanism, and felt heavy and so...mechanical.. because I knew it was different in a good way from an EOS or an F6. But the guts of a DM will really be just the same as the mid-range Canon 30D or the Nikon d200-- what really counts in digital is the chip-software interface, not the lens optics. Paying an extra $3000 so I can mount a one or two stop faster lens? I don't know about that. Especially since, as someone pointed out above, you will likely have true medium format capability from a 20MP sensor before the bottom plate plastic on your DM gets taken off.

[Allen Herbert]

Why do you want a Digital M?

 

Why,just why?

[Allen Herbert]

I sinking in BS. Just can't cope with much more.

[working camera]

Allen

 

initially people wanted the digital M because it was unattainable. Now there is a possibility of one... nobody will want it.

 

Anyway folk have had long enough to save for their Euros.

 

Personally, I'm waiting for the MP3 digital version.

 

C.

[fjords]

perfect timing (1.3x crop bp @ $5,000), yeah, hehehehehe. Bankruptze!

[andy_piper2]

John Graham (and others): How about a fair comparison?

 

Professional-grade photojournalists' DSLR: Canon 1D, 1.3 crop, 8 megapixels, SD card usable, split-image manual focus available via optional screen: $4,295 (per B&H today)

 

Professional-grade photojournalists' digital rangefinder: Leica M8, 1.33 crop, 10 megapixels, SD card usable, split-image manual-focus built-in: $4,995 (per 3-4 sources)

 

Last time you could get a Leica for only $700 more than a Canon was about 1980. Last time you could get a Leica for just 17% more than a Canon was - never.

 

Hey, if Leica goes the way of Mamiya, my plan "B" is a Canon 5D and a few lenses.

 

But it IS only plan "B" - plan "A" is still the M8.

[harvey_edelstein1]

Marc has a point that 10-12MP is good enough if your final product is 8X10". For me the extra dynamic range making it work like film would mean less burn out highlights and more shadow detail. Today only FF sensors seam to be able to do this real well. Fast lenses are not really such a big deal when ISO 1600 looks like ISO 400 on film and cameras or lenses have image stabilization.

 

I'd like to mention something I would love to see happen to solve the frameline issue. I have been reading about Olympus an its continuous view (is that what its called). This let you see what the sensor is picking up. No parralex view, slr view without mirror slap and no squinting at rangefinder focus. Now if they can quicken the response time the way the latest LCD monitors are fast enough for motion pictures, that would be nice. It would also let us use polarizers with no hassel.

[lucien1]

I think there is the only unknown factor.

 

The noise level.

 

AFAIK, the M Digital is using a Kodak CCD;

 

And AFAIK, until now, none of the camera using a Kodak CCD was very good at ISO higher

than 400.

 

Then maybe it will really matter to have Asph. lenses like the 28/2, 35/1,4 and 50/1,4.

[uk]

"Allen Herbert , may 10, 2006; 09:34 p.m.

 

Why do you want a Digital M?

Why, just why?"

 

Allen,

 

Because no other product adequately fits the bill and for all the very same reasons that

dedicated Canon 1n users cast aside their superb cameras to buy into the convenience of

digital. Many deliberately downgraded their equipment to less capable tools to buy into

instant gratification for themselves, or clients.

 

The high volume shooters, or those hiring models/studios easily justify it on a cost basis,

but they may be a small part of the market. The Leica M8 isn't addressing them.

 

For myself, I don't need immediate feedback from a high spec camera, a P&S would do for

ePay or lighting checks etc. My Leica/MF/LF outfits completely satisfy me, except that film

purchase is becoming mail-order only, and processing to CD takes two hours out of my

day 2 times a week. These inconveniences do not justify me purchasing an M8 at $5,000

and I probably won't, but maybe I will.

 

The Leica M's (I've owned 4) suited me much more than the Canon 1n, or the F6 (I've

owned 0). I used my MF if the bulk was acceptable and have never needed the extreme

telephoto' of the SLR's, so I stayed with Leica.

 

So, why should I throw my camera preferences out of the window to acquire images via a

digital chip? To me it didn't make sense and I'm back to film & Photoshop for all their

advantages. I suspect others will appreciate the M8 for the same reasons.

 

That's why.

 

Gary