nathaniel_pearson Posted January 1, 2006 Share Posted January 1, 2006 Mulling the hypothetical mockup of a digital M from LFI, I wonder whether going digital might allow major redesign/improvement of the M rangefinder setup. Presumably, Leica (unlike Epson) will forgo manual shutter wind; this should free up a lot of space theretofore filled with film winding and spooling mechanism. <p><p> Not only should this design simplification off-set some of the new cost of digital manufacture (note that a conventional justification for the high cost of M bodies is the mechanical intricacy of their innards), but it it should also allow a much more accurate and/or robust rangefinder, a la early Contax, if Leica is willing to try. Perhaps the extra space could be used to allow variable finder magnification (a la Canon screwmounts), or just to widen the parallax of an existing finder (would dimming become a problem?). Thoughts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vivek iyer Posted January 1, 2006 Share Posted January 1, 2006 No amount of trimming will bring the cost of a puported Digital M below $3,000.Canon might just be able to swing it though! I wouldn't expect the reliability of an M3 in a Digital M. Who wants to be stuck with the same digital sensor (keeping in mind, this is an evolving technology) for more than 3-4 years? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob F. Posted January 1, 2006 Share Posted January 1, 2006 Nathaniel, variable finder magnification sounds nice, if it could be under user control, and not inextricably tied to focal length. I might like to use a .58 setting with a 35mm lens (or equivalent) and you might like the .72 setting. I'd like a .85 or even 1.0 for my 90mm lens. Vivek, we would all be tickled to death if Leica can do it for $3000, or even $3250. I think we can expect more like $5000. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nathaniel_pearson Posted January 1, 2006 Author Share Posted January 1, 2006 Vivek, perhaps an ideal 'digital M' would be a ~$1.5K modular insert, like an (eventually) cheaper digital R module -- and would thus be more upgrade-friendly over the long term. But as it's a new chip-integral body instead, we should hope to get the most out of the entailed re-design. <p><p> Many here have long stumped for sensor features such as 24x36mm size, anti-shake, optional bayerless bw-only, moving-sensor autofocus, &c. I want to add rf accuracy improvement to that list. We'll see how well Leica listens, if at all... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob F. Posted January 1, 2006 Share Posted January 1, 2006 Assuming that we will be able to use our 21mm or 24mm lenses, I'd like finder frames for them. If Leica uses a 1.33 ratio, the 21 will be equivalent to a 28mm; so a finder frame should be easily achievable. User-selectable framelines would reduce finder clutter. 21/24, 28, 35, 50, 75, and maybe 90. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nrb Posted January 1, 2006 Share Posted January 1, 2006 Any rumours of Canon planning a full frame 24 x 36 M mount rangefinder? :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter_white2 Posted January 1, 2006 Share Posted January 1, 2006 Sure. Let's start one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig_Cooper11664875449 Posted January 1, 2006 Share Posted January 1, 2006 Im still surprised and cant get over the fact that for the investment people have already made in Leica glass at focal lengths (or more specifically, at angles of view) that suit their style, that everyone is drooling at the idea of a camera that would require starting all over again with glass to match your usual angle-of-view preferences. Shorter focal lengths also necesitate lenses becoming slower - oooh but I forgot, you can always crank the ISO up to compensate for that :) Sorry but I juz dun see the point of doin all dis to an "M"... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nathaniel_pearson Posted January 2, 2006 Author Share Posted January 2, 2006 Craig, I don't understand what you mean by shorter focal lengths meaning slower lenses. If anything, it's easier to build a -fast- lens for a given focal length if the required coverage is smaller (as is the case for a sub-135 format sensor). Some other advantages of 'full-frame' digital shooting, including avoiding film and processing costs &c. (though, yes, batteries are needed, and sensors may wear out) are pretty clear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill_marshall1 Posted January 2, 2006 Share Posted January 2, 2006 Nathaniel, I think Craig's point is that as the focal lengths get shorter, the maximum speed available in the current Leica lens line-up gets slower, i.e. 50 max = f/1, 35 max = f/1.4, 28 max = f/2, 24 max = f/2.8. Not bad when you replace a 50 with a 35 unless you use a Noctilux because you can just use the 35 Summilux, but if you use a 35 Summilux, you'll be restricted to the 28 Summicron or a 24 Elmarit as a replacement, and a 21 Elmarit to replace the 28 Summicron. I think Craig is getting at the fact that this will require investment in new lenses for many people whether or not Leica produces faster lenses at wider angles. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig_Cooper11664875449 Posted January 2, 2006 Share Posted January 2, 2006 Spot on Bill :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nathaniel_pearson Posted January 2, 2006 Author Share Posted January 2, 2006 I see. That concern is valid, esp. if one plans to go all-digital (rather than keeping film in reserve for wide angle use). In that case one might at least sell one's slower wides (now depreciating, tho?) toward the cost of a new faster wide (I think Leitz -- if not Cosina/Zeiss/etc. -- is committed to making all new M lenses 'full-frame' in coverage). <p><p> Anyway...Craig, would a significantly longer effective rf -- letting you confidently shoot that '100/1.4' Summilux wide open up close -- sweeten the deal at all for you in considering a digital M? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter_yankin Posted January 2, 2006 Share Posted January 2, 2006 "Who wants to be stuck with the same digital sensor (keeping in mind, this is an evolving technology) for more than 3-4 years?" Er, ummm, someone who isn't a volume-shooting pro and doesn't have a trust fund, a money tree, or a sugar daddy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robert_haller Posted January 2, 2006 Share Posted January 2, 2006 ...I see most of you get distracted from real photography... Taking HQ-pictures was never cheaper and never better then today - with film of course... - enjoy it as long as film is around... Discussing chips, sendors, crop-factor and the more to come is really un-cool and not even smart in my eyes... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nathaniel_pearson Posted January 2, 2006 Author Share Posted January 2, 2006 Robert, the thread was originally about rf base length. A gearhead issue, yes, but one relevant to everyday use (and some of us gearheads -- 'cool', 'smart' or not -- do indeed blow through some film nearly every day). <p><p> As often happens, however, the thread got snarled up around the vaguer 'is digital worth the trouble?' question -- one of those 'strange attractor' issues around here. But I still hope the point will get through to some Leitz or Zeiss lurker that a digital rf body could allow unprecedented focus accuracy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kelly_flanigan1 Posted January 2, 2006 Share Posted January 2, 2006 Mihayi's RF in the Ektra has a magnified image; plue a huge 4 1/8 inch baseline. This is 104.8 mm. It was designed for a 10 inch focal length lens, ie 254mm. The viewfinder windows are at the edge of each side of the camera, they tend to be blocked by ones hands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knut_schwinzer Posted January 4, 2006 Share Posted January 4, 2006 Sorry- private message to Nathaniel- Hi Nat, I sended you various E-mails about the rokkor 40mm. What happened? Knut, agendapantheon at hotmail dot com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now