M8 ...tweak Vs trounce

[jtk]

Kodak presumably didn't design the camera body, whose configuration Vs the

sensor's design seems to be the problem. Evidently a compatibility issue.

 

Perhaps Kodak/Leica communication will save M9. But is it more financially

reasonable for Kodak to redesign a sensor or for Leica to hire a new engineering

team?

 

A wilder, better fantasy: Kodak could abandon Leica, have Cosina produce a

Bantam Special Digital with more compact, more sleek, more beautiful body and

improved M8-size chip. Lenses would be engraved "Schneider Ultra Ektar"

 

Wouldn't you love to have a light, easily pocketable 10 MP rfdr..

 

...Barnack/Bantam size?

[harvey_edelstein1]

I"d like Canon to come up with a P based DRF with a sensor based on the 12 MP Canon 5D FF sensor and the M mount.

[tedms gallery]

There definitely was collaboration between the companies, though maybe not enough. You can read the press release from Kodak on my photo blog:

 

http://tedmphoto.blogspot.com/

[adrian bastin]

A sensor does not exist which would work unproblematically with Leica WA lenses. Comparing SLR sensors is pointless, they don't have the same design requirements.

[al_kaplan1]

An art deco styled Bantam Special? Kodak screwed up big time years ago when they decided to introduce the Bantam 828 size roll film. It never went over with the public. For those too young to remember 828 it was 35mm wide unperforated film packaged in 8 exposure itty-bitty rolls with paper backing, no cassette required. On the plus side the frames were a big 28x40mm and you could buy Kodachrome to project in your Kodaslide projector.

 

I think that we should be glad that the filters will solve the problem. It really shouldn't be difficult to make lenses that incorporate the coatings already. When you look at the number of generations of relatively incompatible optics the other manufacturers have come out with over the years Leica users have been damned lucky with only having to buy LTM to M adapters so far.

[ronald_moravec1]

What Adrian said. The design requirements are totally different and the close lens/sensor distance is the root of the problem. There is an engineering trade off to get what they did, traditional M body and use of current lenses.

 

Perhaps the future will yield a sensor sensitive to oblique rays and then we will get a full frame sensor.

 

So live with the compromise or wait who knows how long.

[charles_stobbs3]

Al, a young man like you can't remember the depression when pocessing 36 pictures would blow your photo budget for most of the year. 8 pictures every few months was doable.

[andrew robertson]

"What Adrian said. The design requirements are totally different and the close lens/sensor

distance is the root of the problem. There is an engineering trade off to get what they did,

traditional M body and use of current lenses."

 

Somehow Epson managed to escape from most of those problems while using an off the

shelf SLR sensor.

 

If Canon wanted to do a DRF they could do it a hell of a lot better than Leica ever could.

[frank_nesbitt]

Al, I should have guessed you would be firmiliar with the Kodak 828 format that surfaced

briefly and then died, unmourned.

 

My father-in-law started a small company in Chicago before WWII. He produced a simple

camera for that format called the Ranger. My wife found a Ranger body, incomplete,

among his things after he died.

 

I examined it and at first didn't realize it wasn't a 35mm. Then I saw that there was no

provision for sprockets, just smooth rollers. The format (and the Ranger) didn't stand a

chance up against 35mm film cameras which in the '30s were becomming the standard for

"miniature" photography.

 

I've always been amused that over the years Kodak made so many tries at new consumer

miniature and sub-miniature formats. The Instamatic, Disc Camera, APS come to mind.

But none lasted very long, despite, aggresive pricing, extensive marketing support and no

competition from digital. Too bad my father-in-law bet on a horse that hardly got out of

the starting gate.

[jtk]

Kodak does survive, doesn't it? Despite (or because of) eliminating almost all of its capital investment (physical plant and human capital).

 

There will certainly be a Kodak tomorrow, continuing to rule the Leica camera brand's future, along with Panasonic. Leica is almost certainly only an incidental exploratory project for Kodak, not nearly as important to shareholders as licensing of the brand and chip design.

 

I do suggest folks browse for Bantam Special pictures, and fondle one if you can find one. Nothing else comes close, beauty-wise.