Next step of Leica?

[warren_lafever]

noise at high ISO - isnt that what film does? and, why should we expect digital cameras to have less noise than film at the same ISO numbers? grain is good. it is not the evil menace people make it out to be. I personally think that digital cameras should match grain at a given ISO in relation to film. noise at high ISO's is a very poor excuse to not buy a M8.

[jeffrey_prokopowicz]

Warren, for one thing noise is not grain, it's noise. Digital artifects. Even if noise resembles grain, it's fake grain. A noisy digital image is not a beautiful grainy film image.

 

Every where you turn, folks are constantly trying to validate Leica digital by comparing it to Leica film. I can understand why since Leica film photography is a glowing highlight in the history of photography, but that, unfortunately, does not transfer to Leica digital. Nice try though. ;)

[warren_lafever]

i meant grain. i dont like the artifacts. isnt there a noise reduction feature?<div></div>

[jeffrey_prokopowicz]

Huh, digital images don't have grain. It's a characteristic of film. Unless you're talking about scanned film.

[warren_lafever]

ok. artifacts are bad, noise (that looks like grain) is good, grain is good.

[jeffrey_prokopowicz]

Noise that looks like grain are artifacts. I see your point though, but it depends on the camera too. The original GRD created lovely grain artifacts. Your Oly image looks good too.

[danielhan]

damn it people, why do y'all have to fight.

 

As long as a camera suits your personal needs (be it subjective or objective needs), isn't it good enough?

 

Some ppl may think I am stupid for using a 1976 Pentax K1000, or a crappy shooter just b/c I also use Canon 400D

with 70-200 f/4.0 L, but what the hell. Professional or not, it's the joy of pressing the shutter and capturing

the moment that counts.

 

p.s. I would never, ever pay $5,000 for a Leica, simply b/c I don't like RF's. Even if you gave me one, I'd sell

it for a Canon Mark III.

[jeffrey_prokopowicz]

I have to laugh at myself because I absolutely love film grain. :) I've just always had a hard time equating digital grain-like artifacts to film grain, but grudgingly admit that some of it looks good. :)

[jeffrey_prokopowicz]

Daniel, that's what's great about this thread, I don't think anyone is really "fighting." It's pretty dang civilized if you ask me.

[john_r._fulton_jr.]

François P. Weill , Aug 02, 2008; 04:26 a.m. - your point's taken about my "American" view of cameras. I will say that the

Canon 1DsmkIII is in essence a medium format camera. It's full frame and more than 20 megapixels. Comparing it to the

M3 - in its' time - may be an exaggeration. I believe you'd agree with that. A photographer in the 1950's who needed fine

detail, and no grain did not look to the M3, as today's photographer might look at the 1DsmkIII. You are obviously very

knowledable on these subjects so I could be wrong. Good luck.

[kelly_flanigan1]

Here I used an Exakta vx slr in High school to shoot sports; and also a TLR too; before the Nikon F was born. Later I bought a used Nikon F, fixed prism and 5.8cm F1.4 in 1962. LEICA's were expense then too; I remember mostly the "old guys" had them too. I never got an M3 until later; and a used one. My Noct was bought used in the late 1970's for 400 bucks. I used several Kodak Signet 35's and a Retina II; I and IIIc; an Argus A2; and my brothers Konica Auto S2 before I bought my first Leica. Its interesting how money and cost is mentioned on this thread like its a new thing with Leicas; they were expensive when they first came out too.

[danielhan]

p.s. Leica Schmeica. If you have time and money to invest in Leica or other heavy-priced cameras, I'd suggest rather investing more of your resources in studying how to make a image work, instead of 100% crop pixel counting or lusting after MTF charts. That would be way more rewarding in improving your photographs.

 

Yes, professionals need the best IQ they can get b/c they do that for a living. They also know how to make a stunning image with just about any other cameras. But for the rest of us? Thought so. Ah, yes, you appreciate the fine craftsmanship, sure. But, isn't the simple point of photography to create a fine image? If you're lusting after the tool not the end result, I'd say you're in it for a wrong reason.

[marc_bergman1]

I think one has to be careful when looking at depreciation of digital cameras. The era of the affordable DSLR is only 9 years.

 

The Nikon D1 came out in 1999. The Canon D30 came out in 2000. The capabilities of these cameras have been greatly superseded. Compare the D1 to the D3. Compare the D30 to the 5D.

 

I doubt if there will be improvements made at such a rate as in the past. People will be satisfied with their existing cameras and won't be upgrading at a fast pace.

 

Even the entry level cameras have 10-12 MP and show excellent performance up to 1600 ISO. Who cares about depreciation when you have 80 gazillion images to process? My money will go to a larger monitor, a larger format printer, and it goes without saying, more hard drives.

[danielhan]

Marc -

 

 

yes. Definitely more hard drives. Any portable USB-powered ones you'd recommend under $100?

[don_e]

Some near-random thoughts regarding "small format IQ" and digital...to get an A3 print without resampling plus a

bit of crop headroom would require 22-24 megapixels and a sensor-size for those pixels for s/n that does not show

noise in an A3 print. The Foveon sensor, measuring megapixels in 2, not 3 dimensions, requires (so far)

resampling and the color advantage (imo) of the design is compromised (imo).

 

Noise, no matter how 'grain-like' is not grain. It is interference with the image, not a constituent of it.

Noise, resampling, AD conversion, filtering, interpolation, compression all have impact on IQ. These are

electronic, not optic, issues, issues which Leica needs a strong partner if they intend to market more digital Ms

or Rs.

 

It seems to me that digital "small format IQ" is what some call digital "medium format IQ", ie full frame, 24

megapixels.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong here.

[michael s.]

Don E wrote:<p>

 

<< ... <i>to get an A3 print without resampling plus a bit of crop headroom would require 22-24 megapixels and a

sensor-size for those pixels ...... <p>

 

Correct me if I'm wrong here. </i> ... >><p>

 

OK. :-)<p>

 

The words "without resampling" may be where we part company.<p>

 

The 22 - 24 mpxl 'requirement' for printing at A3 may once upon a time have been widely accepted. But that

orthodoxy has not held.<p>

 

On this <a href=http://www.photo.net/digital-camera-shopping-forum/008bvo>2004 thread</a>, photographers discussed

making A3 and larger prints using 4 megapixel cameras, one of which, the Nikon D2h, was of course a pro-level

body.<p>

 

And turning back to the M8, many have referred previously to <a

href=http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m8-forum/9022-30-x-40-inch-m8-prints.html>this very long

thread on another forum</a> in which a professional printer in Washington, D.C. discussed his (quite favorable)

experiences printing photos at 30 x 40 inches from an M8.<p>

 

### Is it true that mine is the 365th post on this thread ? ###

[ray .]

Personally I think Leica's tack sharp lenses are best suited to the relatively soft medium of film. Some like it, but there's

a kind of brittleness with some of the needle sharp, rather clinically cold images I see posted with the M8. And for much

less cash, there's a fullness and lusciousness in the color the 5D consistently produces that I haven't really seen from

Leica's digital M. Of course in the right hands the M8 can make fine pics, but most photographers don't find enough appeal in the

end result (Other than extreme sharpness I don't see where the images are technically exceptional) to spend 5 grand and

more for its particular characteristics. The only reason I'd want one is for the viewfinder and the size and smooth focus

action of the lenses, but for 2, maybe 3 grand for a body, not 5.

 

Cameras like the GRD and DP1 are fast overtaking Leica for what it did well, which was to shoot fast with quality results.

Lots of street shooters who used M's or Hexars are moving to those cameras, not the M8.

[kelly_flanigan1]

Many newspaper chaps left the rangefinders when the 35mm slr became more modern; say the 1959 Nikon F with a instant return mirror; a quick bayonet larger than Exakta's. The funk and doldrums of removeable lens rangefinder sales rose in the 1960's; in 1969 a used screw mount Leica was only 19 to 29 bucks; a summicron say 40 bucks; an M3 body say 100. One could trade in a Leica M3 with 50mm F2 Summicron and have to pay extra cash just to buy a Petri slr; a Nikkormat FT with 50mm F2; or a Miranda. One could take Rays last sentence and make it fit the dogma 40 years ago <i>Cameras like the<b> Nikon F</b> are fast overtaking Leica for what it did well, which was to shoot fast with quality results. Lots of street shooters who used M's or rangefinders are moving to those cameras, not the<b> M3.</b></i><BR><BR>

[marc_bergman1]

"Any portable USB-powered ones you'd recommend under $100?"

 

I wish I could. I am looking at eSATA drives for my DVR. I want to get one prior to the Olympics.

[garrison_k.]

think you guys will hit 400 responses? wonder what the PN record is?

[warren_lafever]

this can easily hit 400. the debate is just getting warmed up. with todays technology you can print as large as you want to within reason. pixel peeping imo is stupid. who would go up to an Ansel Adams print with a magnifying glass to look at it? if you would you need help.

[robert_haller]

... one in this forum once stated, that he is confident, that film will not disappear in the foreseeable future as not

everyone on this planet will have a computer to store, modify and view his pictures - nor electricity to do all that !

 

Of course, those mostly also wont be able to afford a M camera - still, I am holding my M6 and MP (BP) with pride and

full confidence into the future, as it is just the right equipment for me doing "quality".

Discussions like crop-factor, lens-coding, dust on sensor, battery level etc.. just don´t trigger me - all that counts is that

the fridge is full of best film - that`s it ...

The result is some sort of freedom, which cant by me any other camera - thank you Leica for the analog equipment and

please produce it many years more !

 

Actually, the range-finder has a better future than the reflex-cameras ... why ?? Simply, because it is the next logical

step, when point-and-shoot digi-users want to upgrade, without carrying a elephant style lens and camera with them -

something that just fits into the handbag.

 

Carrying a fat digi-reflex is just not relaxing - the M`s with a nice 50 elmar for-example and easy to cary and don´t bang

into everything passing your body - Leica should sell this fact and of course needs a simple entry-price-level M - the

equivalent to the CM.

Many many people want a Leica - so damn add one to the portfolio at the right price and you have a mass-market, where

some many will upgrade later to the real M ... is it so difficult !?!?

 

http://robhall.webng.com/RaceDays%202008%20B/index.html

[marc_bergman1]

My goodness. I just looked at the original post.

 

There is going to be a Part 2!

[don_e]

Good image quality in small format film cameras depends on the quality of the lens, but with digital cameras much

depends on the quality of the camera's electronics (not just the sensor), design of the raw format, and also

image editors such as Photoshop. Leica is aware of this as their attempt to lessen the effect of the AA filter

in the M8, and, as I 've read, their unwillingness to accept Panasonic's in camera sw solution to their noisey

sensors. I recall Leica attempted to join with a European electronics manufacturer for the M8s sensor, but the

deal fell through.

 

To be a player in the digital camera field at the level of the advanced quality reputation they would like

requires involvement in the electronics field. How they will manage concepturalizing and designing the

electronic transformations of the signal from capture to print, I do not know. But no amount of optical

engineering or interface design expertise is going to provide it.

[warren_lafever]

they can buy it though. i think they should continue to work with olympus and panasonic.