Leica M8 no FF hows it going for you guys?

[david_lau4]

I was a bit shocked to find out that the Leica M8 isnt Full Frame chip. How are you guys getting on with it?

[steven_moseley1]

"I was a bit shocked to find out that the Leica M8 isnt Full Frame chip"

 

...why? It is beyond current technology to install a FF sensor in a rangefinder body. Leica struggled as it was to fit the sensor they have and even then, there are 'issues'.

 

It is a very different ball game installing sensors in rangefinders than it is into SLR's. The sensor is much closer to the rear of the lens and there are huge problems with light reaching the edges of the sensor anything like parrallel to the sensor pits.

[furcafe]

It's not ideal, but I can cope.

[zoran_arsenijevic]

Great....

[ray .]

Not really the answer to your question, but the more I shoot with the 5D the more I love using it~ as much or more than I

ever did my Leica.

[frederick_muller]

It is what it is. I've surprised myself by adapting to an RD-1s which has an even higher crop factor than the M8 (1.5x vs 1.33x). I adapted by using the RD-1s with 28, 35, 50, and (sometimes) 90mm lenses. (Sounds boring, doesn't it? :-) ) I carry a Bessa R4 or some other M for full-frame 15mm, 21mm, 25mm. Maybe an SLR for 105mm and 180mm.

 

Sometimes I just look at the RD-1s with its selector switch for 28, 35 and 50mm lenses, equivalent in my mind to 40, 50, and 75mm fields of view, and I think "these are the lenses with which it is most useful, and those are the frames they built in. Use it as it was intended, and be happy".

 

There are times I mount a 21mm on the RD-1s with a VC 28/35 minifinder, just to give myself a rough 31mm FOV. But to be honest, I don't like to push the machine's envelope. I am happier going straight to a film body with a full frame wide angle when I want it. The joy of a full frame 12mm or 15mm on a dedicated Bessa L or a full-frame 21mm on a Bessa R4 is just pure happiness. :-)

[carbon_dragon]

"...why? It is beyond current technology to install a FF sensor in a rangefinder body. Leica struggled as it was to fit the sensor they have and even then, there are 'issues'. "

 

Probably not. After all, if it's not beyond tech to make the 5D, you *could* make a rangefinder to do it too, but it might be infeasible to make a Leica body full frame while using the existing lenses. I wonder if Canon could do it with an updated version of the Canon 7 rangefinder? Not that they would.

 

The first generation of DSLRs were reduced sized sensors. Maybe Leica will resolve some of those issues in the M9. Of course I still won't be able to afford it. I'll have to stay with DSLRs and my old M2s and leave the M8/M9's to the well heeled.

[david_lau4]

I am just disappointed. A photographer just had to re-sell his M8 kit cause he was on the assumption that it was Full frame

like his M6 was. Live and Learn witha big hole in the pocket. I too assumed that it was full frame. I think that Leica has

the technology to make the M8 FF. Even with vignetting which I find rather romantic.

[stuart_richardson]

David -- the difference is not so much fitting the full frame into a smaller body casing (which is admittedly difficult), it is that

the Canon EOS cameras have 44mm of space between the sensor and the lens, while Leica only has 27.75mm between

the sensor and the lens. Digital sensors are more intolerant of light rays coming in at an angle than film. They want the rays

to come in straight. In SLR lenses, that is more or less how they work. In rangefinders, the lenses are far less retrofocus,

and the light rays come in at sharp angles. This causes strong vignetting, color shifts and general softness on digital

sensors. This is why Steven said that it is not (or was not when the M8 was being made) possible to do with current

technology. Until digital sensors are more tolerant of off-axis light or there is an improvement in micro lenses, we will not

see a full-frame M8.

[stuart_richardson]

Sorry, I cross-posted with David Lau. My response was directed at David Griffin.

[david_lau4]

Thanks Stuart, Thats a really good explanation, I dont use teh Leica myself, but just feel a bit guilty as photographer spent

money with expectation without doing research assuming that a Marque like Leica made FF cameras. Its all good and well

if you want monster lenses. But this wasnt the case.

[bobtodrick]

"I am just disappointed. A photographer just had to re-sell his M8 kit cause he was on the assumption that it was Full frame like his M6 was"

 

...have to admit I have absolutely no sympathy for someone who would spend 5K without doing the very rudimentary research to realize the M8 was not full frame.

[carbon_dragon]

That's pretty much what I said. That it might not be feasible with existing Leica bodies and lenses but that you could

design a digital rangefinder from scratch (where you would be free to set the sensor to lens distance to whatever you

wanted). Thing is, would anyone buy it?

 

I like a rangefinder camera, but there are limits to what I will pay for the privilege. If I could buy a modern day Leica

CL with a digital sensor for about $900 it would be very tempting (the Sigma DP-1 is the closest to that ideal). But

$5400, no. Not even to use my expensive Leica lenses. Still got my M2s though and a new Nikon Coolscan V

scanner that does very nice things with my Leica color images.

 

I'll try to post an image here, not sure if it will end up inline or not.<div></div>

[Brad_]

It's simple, the price for a FF would be considerably more, in addition to the $5K. Especially since Leica depends on others for sensors,

electronics, etc.

[pc_b]

Aaahm, if Leica were to develop their own microlens ff sensor it would by all means be _much_ more expensive per piece than _any_ sensor on the market now. Starting up a brand new R&D department plus such low production volume... isn't that economics 101 ??

Cheers, Pete

[cole_cyccone]

I have not experienced this trouble with my m8.. I just adapt as follows: 35mm is my normal, 28mm is my walk-around/

semi wide, and my 50mm is my portrait. Although i do prefer my mp because i like film more, It not that big of an adjustment though...

[carbon_dragon]

It's ironic that the very thing I like about Leica (built to last to almost an absurd degree with my M2s) is the very thing

that keeps them from being a real player in the modern camera market. If you look at say a Canon 1DSmkIII, why is

that an $8000 camera? Partly it's the fact that it's built rugged (and Leica has that part down), but partly it's the

technology of the sensor (and it's support gear).The M8 is probably a pretty amazing camera for a first attempt, but

Leica isn't really in the same ballpark with Canon and Nikon and Sony (and even Pentax and Olympus).

 

And let's face it, besides that pro who actually had the temerity to try to use an M8 as a photojournalism tool (with

less that great results), Leica doesn't even target photo pros these days. Leica needs to produce something

more "relevant" (a.k.a. cheaper) if it wants to be a camera that produces tools for people who want to take pictures

rather than collectors items. I don't know if they can. It's awfully hard for a company to "re-invent" themselves. I think

they'd need to practically start from scratch to build something that wouldn't appeal to the collector crowd, but which

would appeal to actual photographers.

 

They need something that re-invents the concept of the M. Something small, with at least an APS-C sized sensor,

with interchangeable lenses (Leica lenses), a rangefinder maybe or possibly an electronic rangefinder with

something like the Contax RX focusing aid and an indicator of what was being focused on, high impact plastics

sealed against water and dust, and costs $2000 max (preferably with a $1000 version as well). This camera would

be the rangefinder re-invented for the modern era, designed not for looks or collectability, but for use as a camera.

Small unobtrusive high quality with GREAT glass. It's what the Sigma DP-1 wants to be when it grows up.

 

Every photojournalist would have one in his pocket as a backup (or maybe a primary camera). It would be

indestructable, superb optically, fairly minimalistic in terms of features, 3 inch display in the back (that could be

turned off for times when you wanted to preserve battery life or be less conspicuous), good menus (hire an actual UI

specialist to really make the menus as easy to use as possible). It would be the carry everywhere camera. Leica

would be a household word again and Canon and Nikon would be scrambling to copy the new machine.

 

On second thought, maybe they should get Apple Computer to build it and supply the lenses. The next generation

of "gotta have it" technology. Heck I probably have this all wrong, but if it were easy, somebody would already have

done it right?

[david_lau4]

When a photographer buys into a system like this you assume that you lenses fit the new system and the Bodys work the

same way just like the old days, except during the days of AF.

[john_shriver]

The core problem is that the existing sensors are all really pathetically slow. That includes sensors made by Kodak (as used on Leica and many MF backs), Canon (their own), Sony (used in most Nikons, Pentax, Sony, Minolta, and others), and Nikon (just in their newest models). They need the microlenses to get any sort of reasonable ISO speed. The microlenses are much of the reason that oblique incidence of light doesn't work well with current lenses. They also have to do with "purple fringing" issues on DSLRs.

 

It's going to take several generations more of technology to get native high ISO speed out of the sensors without the compromise of microlenses. Then a full-frame Leica RF will be more practical. Problem is, the other problems of microlenses really don't both other sensor users much, as DSLR lenses are very retrofocus.

 

Kodak's sensors aren't bad. You don't hear any grousing about their 39 megapixel sensor used in many digital backs for medium format cameras. It's the same cell design as the sensor in the M8, just a bigger chip.

[ellis_vener_photography]

I'm still shocked that anyone can do decent photos with the weirdly elongated minature format Leica and Contax championed. let's get real: Photojournalistic quality standards have just gone completely downhill since photographers abandoned <A HREF = http://www.camerapedia.org/wiki/Ermanox>the Ermanox</A>.

[cole_cyccone]

David, I understand where you are coming from. Leicas are expensive as hell. Leica isnt about to lower its standards for

"prosumers". They've got point n shoots and professional cameras. If you're a true professional the price of a leica

shouldn't mater because you trust the quality and the leica name. I love leica for protesting the 'dumb down' of cameras.

a camera is a camera, now a days it has lost its use as a tool. The camera is starting to do the work for you. Leica is a

true professional artists camera. if you don't think this way, don't shoot leica.

[carbon_dragon]

I don't think it's about cost, not entirely. It's about what you get for the money. I'm not going to buy it for $5500, but

people do buy 1DsMkIIIs at $8000 but that person isn't the same kind of person why buys an M8.

 

In the beginning, the Leica was a "small format" camera whose extraordinarilly *small* size and reasonable optical

quality made it stand out. It was essentially what we call a "disruptive" technology that offered "good enough" quality

at substantially smaller size and weight.

 

Then in the M era, it was an extraordinarily *rugged* 35mm camera with superb lenses that could be relied upon to

keep on working with lots of other cameras packed up.

 

Now it's an extraordinarily *expensive* camera (M8) with decent (but not outstanding) performance relative to it's

contemporaries with retro engineering. It can take good pictures but there's nothing outstanding about it's weight or

size or picture quality (though it's lenses are admittedly first rate). Leica is surviving on it's well funded collectors ...

for now.

 

To survive it has to find a new niche. It can go on making the M8 to appeal to traditionalists who want to use those

expensive Leica M lenses, but it needs a new high concept. It can't compete with Canon and Nikon on price. Either

that new concept allows it to build a camera as revolutionary as the Leica was in it's day, or it eventually goes the

road of Carl Zeiss, designing fine lenses for other people's cameras.

 

There's a hole in the market right now -- a gaping hole. The pocket camera, epitomized by a legion of tiny sensor

digitals isn't up the job of photojournalism or landscapes or lots of other genres. Yes you can use your Canon G9

and get a pretty good picture, but not like you'd get with a Rebel XTi or XSi (or better a 5D). The sensors are small,

the controls are minimal or non-existant, there are no interchangeable lenses. Wouldn't this kind of camera be

something like a reborn Leica standard? Think about a camera as nicely designed as the iPod but with

interchangeable Leica lenses that you could put in your pocket. Leave the platinum plated M8 on the shelf and think

about where Leica could go (maybe with the right partner).

[bobtodrick]

Why would you assume that David.

 

New Nikkor lenses don't have aperture rings and won't work on bodies only 5 years old.

 

Ditto the new Pentax lenses.

 

There are a plethora of FD Canon lenses that won't fit any A/F body.

 

Every M lens made will fit on the M8 (though having older ones 'chipped' makes sense).

 

I know you want to defend your friend, but surely you've heard of 'buyer beware'? Again, anyone who shell out 5K without reading what is all over the 'net, in every M8 brochure as well as the manual...nope, no sympathy here...ain't Leica's fault at all...your friend has more money than (you know what I'm getting at).

[SCL]

I'm just shocked anybody would plunk down real money and not have a clue what they're buying.

[vivek iyer]

Didn't Leica announce a $2,000 upgrade a while ago?