Designing a digital M (opinions wanted)

[roberto_watson_garcia]

I know any one that´s interested in Leica M photography wouldn´t ever think about digital photography; any way thank´s for reading.

 

<p>

 

This is my idea:

Take an M body, without baseplate and backdoor; instead of a backdoor we put something exactly the same but with a digital sensor instead of the film preasure plate, all the conections go down to something like a motordrive that will hold all the electronics stuff and battery

that may needed.

Tecnology will recive our exposures from a clasic camera and will read it into the new tecnology.

And I think it can handle over exposures or under quite easy, so we could use the shutterspeeds and apertures we wanted in any ligth situations; f/2 and 1/8 at sunligth or wathsoever tecnology alow us.

 

<p>

 

You may think I´m a digital tecnology freak; no way, I love the grain of my TRI-X; but I belive Leica M can make a steep into new tecnology; for me the most important thing is to have another reason for M leicas to live.

 

<p>

 

Please let me know wath you think.

 

<p>

 

RW

[joe_buechler]

Take an M body, keep the baseplate and backdoor, and load FILM. Expose

the film, then have it developed and scanned. There, you're digital.

Your Leica M has taken the step to the new technology.

 

<p>

 

Myself, I haven't done any darkroom work in 20 years. I'm sitting in

front of a computer, a film scanner, an inkjet printer, and a copy of

Photoshop. How digital can you get? I use an M6 for most of my

photography.

[kaj_froling]

If leica would make such a camera with a 24X36 mm sensor I would

start saving right away! - Even though one can scan film from a M6

with digital one would have the opportunity to evaluate instantly.

This would be a gread suplement to a Film based system.

 

<p>

 

Kaj

[bobtodrick]

I think you'd be better to look at a digital R camera. After

extensive use of the D1 (Nikon) and rudimentary use of the D30

(Canon) I've found the big problem to be noise at low light levels.

You can easily see this in newsphotos (big usere of digital

technology). Photos in low light usually exhibit banding and

'sparkly colors' (there's no better way to describe it) in the shadow

areas.

The main reason many people buy the M series cameras is for low light

work. As stated above, an M camera, a good scanner, and you're

digital. Other than photojounalism and some types of commercial and

art uses, I think the best way to go 'digital' is a marriage of the

two technologies.

[jay_.]

With the current resolution of single-shot, hand-holdable digital

cameras there really isn't any need for the expense and precision of

the Leica or its lenses. The "Leica" digilux is not going to give a

worse image quality than if it had M lenses on it. Even the

resolving power of Nikkor SLR lenses is wasted on the D1. Aside from

the $$$$ scanning backs for Hasselblad or large format, film +

scanning would be the way to go at present. Personally, I never

liked darkroom work, including scanning/Photoshop. I'll always want

to be out shooting, let someone else take it from there, so all I

care about is how to get the maximum sharpness and I don't care

particularly what the medium is.

[steve_swinehart]

You could always get a Leica S1 with the "M" lens adapter...

[Rob F.]

If wer'e going to form a committee to redesign the M, let's

concentrate on an LED exposure display on the top of the camera so

that we can set the exposure without having to raise the camera to

the eye. This will facilitate shooting candid shots without tipping

the subject off by raising the camera to the eye, which tips off the

subject. One could preset the exposure, then raise the camera to the

eye for a split second to shoot. My Nikkormat had an auxiliary meter

on the camera's top plate. I'd like something like that on my M6.

If they insist on leaving that naked, blank area where it's supposed

to have the scripted "Leica" then let's put something useful there.

[buzz_andersen]

There is already a company out there working on basically the

same thing you are suggesting. They used to be called Imagek,

but they recently changed their name to Silicon Film. Their

product is a little device that fits into the space inside the camera

where you normally put your 35mm film.

 

<p>

 

Until recently many people believed this product to be vaporware,

but now it looks like it may be getting close to release. The only

real huge problems with it seem to be that, first, it only does 1.3

megapixel images; and second, it is only intended to work with

the Nikon F, Canon EOS, etc. (whether this would actually

preclude other cameras, I don't know).

 

<p>

 

Anyway, here's an article:

 

<p>

 

http://www.dpreview.com/news/9909/99090501siliconfilm.asp

 

<p>

 

Buzz

[buzz_andersen]

Oh...sorry. Here's a clickable version of that link:

 

<p>

 

<a

href="http://www.dpreview.com/news/9909/99090501siliconfilm.

asp">http://www.dpreview.com/news/9909/99090501siliconfilm.

asp</a>

[bobtodrick]

Concerning the digital film insert mentioned above:

1. It is only 1.3 megapixels, giving maybe a photoquality 4X5in print.

2. There is no preview panel. One of the beauties of digital cameras

is being able to preview/review your shot to know whether you want to

file it, or take it in the first place.

3. An inexpensive, feature laden digital camera with preview screen

can be had for under $500.00 (CDN), leaving your expensive Leica,

Nikon or Canon to do what it was designed to do, expose film.

 

<p>

 

Until these things are at least 3-4 megapixels I don't see the use.

[robin_smith]

I agree with the others that there is no need to have a digital M.

Scan the film and you are digital. However, I do fear that the

success of the Nikon D1 and Fuji S1s of this world will make a

digital M type of camera inevitable, so Leica better keep up. From my

perspective film is still the best medium out there in terms of

archivability, easy accesibility and quality - and there is no need

to keep upgrading and spending money on the marketing-lead nonsense

that these companies are selling us with such statements as (recently

read in PC World) "the film costs nothing". As if buying a new camera

and software, printer, cartridges, paper etc cost nothing!

 

<p>

 

Unless digital becomes inherently superior to film in terms of image

capture I see no reason to buy a digital camera myself. Photography

is enough of a money sink without having to start all over again for

questionable benefits. I have a film scanner and printer so I am not

a true Luddite. The relentless push of computer, digital and web

stuff by clever marketeers does tend to annoy me with its hyperbolic

claims though I must say.

[Rob F.]

Hey, you know what? On page 118 of the current Leica catalog there

appears, not a digital M7, but a digital S1. With your choice of

adapters, you can use your M lenses, your R lenses, or even your

Haseelblad lenses. There are 3 models, and in true Leica tradition

the lesser models are upgradeable to the fancy one. The latter is

capable of 5140 by 5140 pixel resolution. Leica even gives the

equivalent ISO ratings, which range from 200 to 9600 ISO depending on

a few things like the "dynamic" which I imagine refers to the

contrast ratio of the scene. Lower dynamic allows a higher ISO.

 

<p>

 

This camera looks pretty weird, being mounted into of an oval-shaped

hoop, the purpose of which is not clear from the catalog. They don't

show anyone handling it.

 

<p>

 

At any rate, it looks like the future is upon us. You can go digital

and keep using your favorite Leica lenses, bokeh and all! I find all

this a little scary. Part of photography involves fussing over

films, papers, and developers. I suppose for a while I'll be

resisting, critically examining digital prints for signs of

inferiority, like a lack of tonal richness in the gradation, or

something. Where will get slides to put in our projectors? What

will I do with my four-projector widescreen setup in my living room?

[buzz_andersen]

The reason they don't show anyone handling the S1 is that it is

really aimed at people doing copy work and studio stuff (product

shots, etc.). The reason for the hoops is that it is designed to be

mounted on a copy stand, not hand-held. At any rate, it is a long

way from the "digital M" we have been pining for in this thread.

[mark_wrathall]

The big advantage of Leica M; outstanding, fast, compact lenses, is

still valid in front of a sensor. I've spent all my free time the

last six months scanning the stuff I shoot in the M2 and EOS, and

will not miss film when the affordable 8 megapixel full frame body

comes along. Film is great for making prints or displaying slides and

will always be the preferred media for some. But if you intend to

digitize the image, for any reason, it is a huge time saving to shoot

it digital. I look forward to not fighting dust, time and color shift

by having to scan negitives.

 

<p>

 

In the meantime, get good at scanning, as the affordable full frame 8

megapixel sensor is going to take time. It's the full frame part

which hurts. Consistant manufacture of flawless peices of 24x36

silicon wizardary is expensive. Olympus must be so pleased they

dropped out of the SLR business, as a 8 megapixel sensor without the

size requirement will be much cheaper.

 

<p>

 

When you think that you can buy two R8's for the price of a consumer

grade D30, or three for the price of a D1, it is going be ages till

the economics of the full frame digital SLR (or M) makes sense for

the amateur. I paid 1/20 the price of the D30 for my EOS 50 in mint

condition, and it would take my 880 rolls of film with development

(~11 year for me) to brake even even on the D30. For Professionals

it's easier, as many countries allow tools to be depeciated against

tax.

[robin_smith]

Mark

 

<p>

 

I largely agree with your statements, although Olympus remain

powerful contenders in the digital camera scene including excellent

"point and shoot" SLRs at up to $2000. Your economic argument I also

agree with which is what I was saying essentially in a different way

in my earlier response. The fact is that the economy of digital

products (the new economy?) is in many ways selling us stuff that we

do not really need in any real sense. One can argue it is better in

some ways, but equally film and a good darkroom print is still

essentially the yardstick of quality (I know, LIghtjet prints may be

superior), so all most of us keen amateurs are doing is paying all

over again for stuff that we could do quite happily 10-20 years ago

with very little real benefit. And we have to keep continually update

our software and hardware at great expense to keep everything valid

and running - it is the scam of the millenium! Even cameras that are

50 years old still take fine photos - what use will a

scanner/computer/operating system or CD of archived Photoshop files

be in fifty or five years?

[mark_wrathall1]

Good points Robin. The consumer electronic industry has done a

marvelous job of getting people on an obselescence treadmill.

 

<p>

 

For me Digital is definitly "better", although my Epson 870 prints

don't have the quality of the best FB prints I made before I sold the

dark room. The digital selling point for me is the flexiblity to use

10 minutes or xx hours productively on printmaking. In my non-

permanent darkroom (bathroom) set up, I couldn't use much under 4

hours productively. Since my daughter was born, 4 hours free time is

a fading memory :) The control of digital is it's second selling

point.

 

<p>

 

It is important not to get wrapped up in buying digital improvements

you don't need. The best example can think of is sound cards. A

friend has a $400 SB 128+++ blah blah. I use the SB 16 compatable

chip on my mother board. A 16 bit sound chip is close enough to CD

quality for me, and being able to play 5 different CD quality sources

at the same is nothing I need.

 

<p>

 

For the same reason I bought the 870. In four 10 years of darkroom

work, I think I printed 2 photos bigger than 8x10 as I don't like

grain.

 

<p>

 

An 8 mega pixel EOS with the features of the EOS 3 for under $1000

will be a camera I could see using till it died. This is quite enough

resolution for an 8x10. Epson is bringing out 2880 DPI printers now

with the flawed 870 inkset. By the time my 870 dies, Epson's consumer

photo printer will be near perfect.

 

<p>

 

The fans of chemical darkrooms sound trumpet the advantage of

digital, Have you all seen the dumping prices on second quality

darkroom gear? Same goes for digital. In a couple of years a used D30

will be dirt cheap just after christmas. I saw an EPSON 750 for $60

in the paper and was tempted to buy it just to experiment with MIS

quad tone inks.

 

<p>

 

Back to the original thread, the Leica M is the perfect counterpoint

to obselescence. At times when I just had the M2, I longed for an M7

with motor, TTL flash, Aperture priority, DX, 1/250 sync. Since I got

the EOS and use it lots on manual, I realise how right Leica's

philosophy is.

[robin_smith]

Mark

 

<p>

 

I have an 870 too. Well, you are right in a way about the time

factor. But, when all is said and done I went into the darkroom last

week for 8 hours straight and printed maybe 6 "fine art" (if you know

what I mean) 8 x 10 or 8 x 8 images and a further 12 5 x 7 or 6 x 6s

2 copies each. There is no question about the final quality or

archivability of the result. It was pretty straight forward and

actually a lot of fun. If I could have a darkroom at home at present

I would. Of course you really win on the color printing with digital

in that most of us cannot be bothered or do not have sufficient

volume to justify color printing. I too do see that in 5 years time

there will be an affordable 4000 res scanners for up to 4 x 5 and

then I will become fully digital. But I resent in a way buying into

all this as I know that I will not take any better or higher quality

pictures because of it. I will probably still want to archive my

photos as film though as I think they will last much longer.

 

<p>

 

I do completely agree with you about paper sizes. I use a Hasselbald

and people obsess about huge enlargements in MF - why? As you say, I

have in my life only probably printed about 50 16 x 20 photos and

most of those were for competitions. Then I bring them home and I

don't know what to do with them! Give me a nice 8 x 8 full frame MF

shot or 8 x 6.5 full frame 35mm and you have all you need for 90% of

the time.

[roberto_watson_garc_a]

Thank´s to all of you for your opinions; I knew it could be a

diferent opinions subject.

My idea wasn´t change any thing from an M, but have an accesory like

a visoflex could be, that could be incorporated to the back of the

camera without the need of any other change.

Thank´s again and my apologies for such a delayed answer.

[grant_.]

i suggest not to make a digital m....theres enough digital cams out

there already without ruining a classic camera..