Of course the M8 sensor can be upgraded

[larry_kincaid2]

<p>I'm no engineer, but if Nikon can double the megapixels to 24.5 with a new sensor that fits into the same old D3X (that's full frame) slot, then there's no reason why Kodak cannot make new sensor to "plug into" the same sized slot on the M8 and call it an M8X, M9, or simply one of the (very expensive) upgrades to the original M8s. Then I'd get the others thrown in as a package. No hurry, the M8 I have now does everything I want it to do except point itself for the photograph. Okay, electronics and software upgrade at the same time. <br>

SEE: <strong><em>The Nikon D3X’s 24.5-megapixel FX-format (35.9 x 24.0mm) CMOS sensor was developed expressly for the D3X in accordance with Nikon’s stringent engineering requirements and performance standards, with final production executed by Sony.</em></strong><br>

Let's get some "expressly" development from Leica and Kodak. </p>

[ronald_moravec1]

<p>I hear ya, but there are some difficult problems in dealing with short focal length non retrofocus lenses. Would you like it if the solution was R glass that was rangefinder coupled. This solves the problem and Leica could do it, but it would hardly make customers happy as the camera concept was to be able to use existing lenses.</p>

<p>Going from a 16x24 sensor slot to 24x36 is different than from the same size and just changing the chip. It also remains to be seen if 24 MP is better than 12 on the same chip. I suspect it is because of new advances, but I would not trade my low noise D700 to get a noisy 24 MP.</p>

<p> </p>

[Karim Ghantous]

<p>I think users would be happier with a super sensitive 12Mpx sensor than a 24Mpx one. The way most people use the M, it makes more sense to have high ISO performance over resolution. IMO.</p>

[andy_piper2]

<p>Can Leica upgrade the M8 with a new 1.33x crop sensor with more pixels (or less noise)? Probably, although it would probably mean a revamp of the processors and buffer to accomodate the new file size - basically all the electronics except maybe the SD-card unit and metering LEDs.</p>

<p>Given the noise levels of the current sensor, I wouldn't want to shrink the existing pixels much. I guess Leica/Kodak could do a "low-light" upgrade by dropping back to 6-8 Mpixels for a better S/N ratio.</p>

<p>Can Leica upgrade a full-frame sensor into the M8 body? Not the same thing at all. The D3 was designed for a 24 x 36 chip all along - swapping a different chip of the same size is much easier than changing the area of the sensor.</p>

[robert_clark]

<p>Having recently compared the M8 and D700 at higher ISO's it struck me as blindingly obvious that Leica needs to do something about improving that sensor - 1280 on the Leica was considerably worse than 6400 on the Nikon.<br>

Bear in mind that I have all the Leica M glass I need and much prefer the size and ergonomics of the M rangefinder, I wanted the M8 to be good enough. However, to be stuck at ISO 640, when Canikon are providing almost comparable 6400 files is too much self-sacrifice, especially at Leica's gouging prices. So now I am lumping around a 5dII and marvelling at the level of light I can now shoot in even with a lowly 35/2, and have masses more resolution. Leica is too slow to react to keep the M as a premium camera, the fine lenses alone don't compensate enough.<br>

They need full-frame AND they need a high res high ISO sensor - it's not an either or anymore - Canon have done it and technology only marches on.</p>

[ray .]

<p>For years people shot with 400, 125, 64, even 32 ISO film. Now all of a sudden it's got to be 6400. I suppose it's fine if you don't mind shooting with a big square box. As has always been the case with cameras, it ends up being a trade off and a matter of priorities.</p>

[larry_kincaid2]

<p>Right, Ray. Not to mention a fortune invested in f1.4 and f2.0 lenses for low light photography at 64, 100, or 200 ISO.</p>

[02Pete]

<p>Competitive considerations aside, Leica doesn't have to take the M8 all the way to ISO 6400 and 24MP to make worthwhile improvements. A full-frame sensor, high quality operation at ISO 1600 without a lot of digital noise, and 12MP or so would offer meaningful improvements. Karim Ghantous is also right in noting that Leica users would probably place greater importance on improved ISO performance than on improved digital resolution. Leica currently seems to be focusing its engineering efforts on development of the new S-system DSLR. Given the constraints on development costs imposed by the current difficult economic climate, this is understandable. Let's hope that the S-system is enough of a success with professionals that Leica can afford to keep developing an improved M8 or successor digital M rangefinder body.</p>

[sfcole]

<p>The most interesting question I have is: why, instead of introducing the Summarit line of 35/50/90 lenses recently, didn't Leica instead change the focal lengths to reflect the cropped sensor? Why, for instance, would one pay so much for a 24 or 28 lens when you can't get the same angle of view? </p>

[ray .]

<p>My guess would be that if they come out with a full frame sensor it will be an added model, not a replacement of the M8 with the same sized body. The M8 as it is now already performs well enough to make pretty good use of Leica glass. And for now a crop sensor probably helps their sales of lenses. I wouldn't be looking for a 21mm lens right now if the camera were full frame.</p>

[robert_clark]

<p>Ray, you are right: "The M8 as it is now already performs well enough to make pretty good use of Leica glass."<br>

<br /> This is certainly true when considering low ISOs, when one is happy to shoot within a relatively narrow focal length range.<br>

<br /> Nevertheless, if you want to shoot even at 24/2.8 (35mm) focal length - one of my favourite focal lengths and hardly demanding when considering the Canikon range - then you need an 18/2.8. Where is that? There is only an 18/4 in the Tri-elmar, and then one is forced to use a bulky add-on, awkward viewfinder AND shell out thousands.<br>

<br /> The combined cost of new camera and extra lens/es makes the competition seem not just so much more advanced but also so much cheaper and better value - a lethal combination for Leica sales.<br>

<br /> My thoughts are that they need FF urgently. They also need to reduce the body price to get people into the system. This means either sell them at cost, keeping all the traditional intensive labour, or/and get Panasonic, or someone, to use similar ergonomics to produce a more modern body concept, where updates and advances are more frequent - keeping Leica up with sensor technology - and making things less crippling for the buyer, but still generating good profits to the seller. Nikon seems to be a good model for this - high build quality, great sensor, reliable and robust, but without costing an arm and a leg.<br>

<br /> The basic form of the M is a thing of beauty, as is it's simplicity; there is no need to radically change that. But they can improve it. There needs to be a direct access ISO/compensation dial (such a stupid, arrogant omission, given how much this was asked for way ahead of production).<br>

<br /> So yes, what you say Ray is true, but it is hardly going to get people to line up to buy M8s when even buyers' most modest expectations for competetive parity, incorporating useful modern advances and more thoughtful and refined ergonomics, is being ignored, and yet they are still being gouged.<br>

<br /> In the days of film, the M6/M7 were still, in many respects, premium instruments for those that wanted quiet, low light, inconspicuos shooting in a robust body with excellent lenses. I spent years shooting with the 35/1.4 in dimly lit Asian interiors. Even to maintain that level of low-light shooting I would now need to invest in the enormously expensive 20/1.4 or the 24/1.4 (wonderful beasts though they are, I'm sure). In the low light category Leica is now being left behind by Canikon and others at far lower prices - this is too important to ignore.</p>

[robert_clark]

<p>And how about live view - perfect for discrete photos and very useful on a tripod for accurate framing and focusing. Salesmen tell me proudly that Leica decided not to provide this so as not to distract from the picture taking process - Leica photographers don't want live view they tell me. Ha Ha. The management at Leica seem to want to isolate themselves from practical user feedback, preferring instead to think that they or their boffins know better.</p>

<p>The screen on the M8 is abysmal, so instead of offering me a $1200 upgrade to a non-scratch screen, how about offering me something USEFUL like a better screen! How about more pixels in the screen, better daylight viewing or even make it larger.</p>

[vic_.]

<p>Robert Clark: <em>"... And how about live view - perfect for discrete photos and very useful on a tripod for accurate framing and focusing. Salesmen tell me proudly that Leica decided not to provide this so as not to distract from the picture taking process - Leica photographers don't want live view they tell me. Ha Ha. "</em><br>

 

<p>Amazingly, not many users (those who post, anyway) use the live view feature on the D300, as discussed here:<br>

 

<p>http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00RnOM<br>

 

<p>However, Leica's attitude is paternalistic and annoying, perhaps a cultural thing. They seem to have used the same logic in deciding not to enable users to code in their lens focal length and max aperture, something that Nikon provides. (I had expressed my frustration about the 6-bit coding.) To pay $125, plus shipping, just to have a lens coded is a shame.</p>

</p>

</p>

</p>

[vic_.]

<p>PS. The wording that was provided to me was that they were afraid people would key in the wrong focal length or max aperture, thus the 6-bit method, for your own protection.</p>

[natures-pencil]

<p>No problem for me. I am just carrying on using film in an M6.</p>