Next step of Leica? - Part 2: Full frame M...why not?

[chris_chung]

True. Since the market is so small, M8 definitely requires a longer payback, so even FF already available, it may not be pushed out to market so soon. But it is a vicious cycle. That's why I still suggests that the evil chain has to be cut by attracting new customers and grow the customers. By successfully implementing this strategy, well some stubborn Leica fans may be lost, but more new customers will join.

 

FF or not is an important decision, but only part of the strategy ahead. Bringing new experience should be the majority part of the strategy.

 

Cheers

[harvey_edelstein1]

Ralph you have what you want now and so I was addressing those who want better wide angle performance, cheaper than FF sensor cameras and a scheme to lessen the edge of frame effect of the steep acute RF lens angle of light striking the sensor.

 

A few mm in lens focal length change has a much greater effect on a wide angle lense than short tele lenses.

 

1.33x crop factor makes a 28mm lens a 37mm lens ; and a 21mm lens into a 28mm lens.

 

1.2x crop factor makes a 28mm lens 33mm lens : and a 21mm lens into a 25mm lens.

 

The difference between making a 28mm lens into a 33mm vs. a 37mm lens is real and same with a 25 vs.28mm lens and its easy to see the in the results.

 

Thats why I see the link between losing nothing to cropping in the final print by selecting a 5:4 format with the associated lower crop the format imposes on the lenses effective focal lenght is in the photographers interest.

 

Ralph I would just like to know what size prints you use that maintain your 3:2 ratio. 35mm became the frame of choice because of its accessibility to film stock at that time not for its golden frame look. People over decades have chosen 8x10 and 16x20 because they like the look better then Ralph.

 

I am glad we have 3:2 for Ralph but a 5:4 choice like Nikon gave the D3 seems to makes sense for RF cameras.

[teun_dijkstra]

Hi,

 

Just seconding Andy Piper's opion on Leica being a European company. In Italy there is a factory making outboard motors for boats. The Silva

brand is tremendously proud they are the last an only European company doing so. Their main market is the Mediterranean. Here in Northern

Europe they have few dealers and that makes sales difficult. Canon and Nikon can be bought around every corner. When disregarding internet

buying, for buying Leica you need to travel when you live in a place smaller than let's say 50.000 inhabitants.

[john_shriver]

To fix the full-frame issue with the M mount, Leica needs a sensor that doesn't need micro-lenses.

 

So why are there micro-lenses? Because the current sensors are unusably slow without them. There would be no digital cameras with useful ISO 1600 without the micro-lenses.

 

So what is needed, and I'm sure is wanted by all the sensor designers, is an order of magnitude increase in the fundamental sensitivity of sensors. This might be an incremental change in the CMOS or CCD base design, or might be a dramatically different technology.

 

This possible future generation of sensors could provide incredibly high sensitivity with micro-lenses, or much improved image quality without micro-lenses. (The micro-lenses cause a host of problems, such as fringing.)

 

Unfortunately, this isn't something where Moore's Law helps -- smaller features aren't going to make more sensitive sensors. Instead, new electro-chemistry is needed.

[chris_chung]

Thanks John for the technical advice. The total solution is to have a sensor without microlenses....another way could be FF with wide angles redesigned for the time being before that new sensor becomes real.

 

We have a lot of discussions about the sensor...but my point is that we need much more on other areas in order to revive the M...or maybe M should evolve into something else...

 

Cheers

[andy_piper2]

"we need much more on other areas in order to revive the M..."

 

Strongly rumored (even pictures purportedly from the French photo magazine "Chasseur D'Images") are a 21 f/1.4 Summilux ASPH and a 24 f/1.4 Summilux ASPH.

 

Rather large, and with fairly long back focus, from the pictures. Tend to support the idea that Leica is backing the 1.3x crop but ALSO moving towards glass that would be more full-frame friendly.

 

Pocketbook-friendly, however, they're not....

[aplumpton]

One point that is being forgotten is that the current distance between the lens flange and the M8 sensor, due to the short

back focus of Leica M lenses, cannot be changed without scrapping existing Leica M lenses.

 

The micro lenses, as far as I can tell, redirect these short and oblique rays from the lens so that they arrive perpendicular to the

sensor (as it requires). A FF sensor would increase the angle of incidence of these rays to a point which even the micro lenses may not

be able to adjust. For this reason I don't see a FF sensor in the short term for Leica M. This is not the case for DSLR bodies like the

Canon or a recent Nikon FF body, which all have longer back focuses (required for mirror lift-up action).

[mohir_ali]

Is the 'sensitive' portion of a digi sensor thicker than film emulsion? Don't silver x-tals (through binder) also 'like' to be struck as directly as possible? More internet bollocks.

[35mmdelux]

Hi Chris:

 

you lost me on about the tenth para. pls shorten next for those of us who have day jobs.

 

anyhow, we're all waiting for the FF M9. I'll let them figure out the inner workings; only to say lose the magenta cast, lower the noise, bigger screen, and lower the price. If I can use my 35mm Summilux ASPH the way it was intended maybe I'll buy one. Thanks.

 

Paul

[jtk]

The easiest way to improve M8 would be to use a better APS sensor. Samsung's 14.6, for example.

[aplumpton]

Mohir, the "bollocks" also recognize that the silver-base emulsions on film are much, much, flatter (therefore take image-

forming light from many directions in front of the film plane), whereas the photocells of a sensor, which are like beehive cells, have walls

(or divisions or whatever they are known as by the technicians) that cut off oblique-arriving image-forming light rays. Therefore,

the reason for microlenses in the M8 to attempt to re-direct most of the rays.

 

If that you consider "Internet bollocks", you are quite welcome not to believe it.

[aplumpton]

Paul, I hope you have a lot of patience, my friend.

 

Leica's new superfast lenses for the M8(.2 and M8, and film bodies) seem to suggest that they will stay with the 18 x 27mm

sensor, at least for a good while. And why not, even Hasselblad 6 x 6 digital doesn't fill its full frame capabilities with a same-size

sensor?

 

I guess I don't shoot black clothing in colour very much, or not notice very minor vignetting without Lens coding (even

using my Leica 21mm or VC 12mm lenses), so I do not use the radiation blocking filters or even bother to have these particular lenses

coded (by Leica or with a template).

 

Maybe 0.1% of my photos suffer from that decision, but my normal shooting reject rate is quite a bit higher than that figure!

[film rules]

Next step possibility #1 - Develop, manufacture and sell a high-end enlarger and lens with a Heiland Splitgrade like controller, along with film and paper developing products and chemicals, and redesign the film body M to modern ergonomics. Give up on digital - digital sucks!

 

Next step possibility #2 - Get Panasonic to make a digital camera body with a decent rangefinder that takes M-mount lenses. Focus on lenses (no pun intended) for film M bodies and the new Panasonic digital rangefinder.

[aplumpton]

Possibility no. 1: Ben, check out the Kienzle company in Germany. Have been building enlargers from the late 1800s.

Made the Focomat IIc for Leitz and presently offer a model virtually identical to the same Focomat with modern (Apo or

not) Schneider or Rodenstock enlarging lenses (They also do lens upgrades for the Focomat IIc and sell various parts of it).

Also sell the same enlarger equipped with Mr. Heiland's Splitgrade controller and the Dunco light source.

 

Therefore no need for Leica to re-invent the wheel in this case. Film and silver bromide/chloride papers are far from becoming museum

pieces!

[mohir_ali]

Film is flatter than a clean-room manufactured chip? I was going to add film flatness to my post, but PN does not facilitate editing.

[andy_piper2]

"John Kelly , Sep 10, 2008; 10:51 a.m.

The easiest way to improve M8 would be to use a better APS sensor. Samsung's 14.6, for example."

 

Better in what sense, John? - You LIKE heavy dark corner vignetting - which is what you'd get with any SLR-based sensor behind wide-angle M lenses?

 

Arthur and Mohir:

 

A sensor is flatter in the macro scale (no curvature caused by the 1-sided gelatin emulsion) - quite right.

 

Arthur's point that film can respond to light coming from any direction (including from behind - thus the need for black paper backing for roll film) is also correct, even if "flatter" isn't quite the right word for it.

[aplumpton]

Mohir, I am not an engineer working on sensor technology, but it has been written that sensors do not SEE non-direct rays

as easily as film does (even at the micrometer or nanometer level the design of these cells is apparently responsible for this. What

appeares flat is apparently not - they have sides). Otherwise, Leica might have more easily gone to a full frame sensor like Canon, the

lenses of which sit farther forward (owing to the the mirror) than M lenses. The outer rays from the Canon lens arrive with

less of a deviation from the on-axis rays than for the M lens.

[film rules]

I'll revise my scenario #1 - get Kienzle to private label their A35 enlarger under the Leica trademark and sell it with a Leica enlarging lens. Add an introductory camera package for the M that includes the MP or M7 body and a 50 summicron, developing tank, beakers, 8x10 trays, private labeled VC paper, etc.

[aplumpton]

Leica would certainly have to upgrade the quality of their out of date 60mm and 100mm Focotars, with the possible

exception of the 100mm which is pretty good.

[peteradownunder]

All Leica had to do to 'fix' the so called angle issue was put a larger dimensioned chip in the body - and there ya go full frame - whatever that means - is delivered. Sure some Leica users who like to shoot Jpegs may have been bothered with having to do post shot cropping out to size of the resultant dead bits - you know the bits outside the image circle of the lens - but hey that would have been a preferable Leica 'feature' to a cropped sensor which makes wides - the reason one presumably buys Leica lenses at exorbitant prices - be wides.<p>

 

OR<p>

 

peole with the cashola who care - can go out and kit up on MFD and Alpa and a couple of 'real' wides and be blown away by the benefits and convenience of large format photography in a handholdable kit - without all the messy and environmentally unfriendly toxic chemical accoutrements associated with traditional processes.<p>

 

Still <p>

 

TRX <p>rules.

[aplumpton]

The image circle of the Leica lenses could easily handle a larger sensor, but going from 27mm wide to 36mm wide means a

more oblique angle for the edge light rays, something we are told is not possible given the short lens to sensor distance in an M

camera with current Leica RF lenses (used for both film + digital).