Digital M Solution

[wayne_murphy8]

Leica has stated that a digital M body is technically impossible because the M

lenses are too deep in the body and the light rays are too oblique for the

sensor.

 

The obvious solution is to (re)design a set of lenses for a digital M and

produce either a digital back or a new digital M body. Maybe the full range of

lenses would be asking too much but a 35, 50 90 and perhaps a 28 would

suit 99% of users. Yes therewould be a cost but it could not be prohibitive.

 

These lenses could be readily designed, based on current M and R designs,

possibly retrofocus, but with full Leica performance.

 

Instead of Leica wailing and moaning, why not get on with it. They are

supposed to be innovators. Maybe they once were.

[gl5]

why do you assume that they are not?

[yochin]

I was thinking earlier that they would either have to create a new standard for the frame size if they redesigned the M to make it digital or choose a new standard to design for. Think about the Leica "A" camera; on his website Gandy talks about how <a href="http://www.cameraquest.com/leicaa.htm">Barnack</a> chose the already existing 24mmX36mm format and then designed a really good simple camera around it, eventually popularizing that format and making it the standard we use even today for 35mm film cameras. That's what I was thinking Leica would have to do to create a new Digital rangefinder camera. Probably like Barnack they could make just an attached 50mm Elmar-like lens that collapsed into the body and camera that could be sent back to Leica to be upgraded as new more powerful sensors and other little knicknacks are developed. Also, eventually a Leica digital M mount could be developed and then they can make interchangeable lenses from there. Hell, if you're talking about the retro and the digital crowd this would be killing two birds with one stone if you made a Barnack "A" camera that was digital...! hah, hah...! =-) That would be pretty funny if they came out with this one.<br><br>

[Rob F.]

I think that for all lenses shorter than, probably, 75mm, they would absolutely have to be retrofocus. And the rear element would, I believe, need to be farther from the film plane than in present M lenses. This would call for a redesign of all the lenses 50mm and shorter (as I see it. It would make the lenses longer and bulkier, and they would then intrude more on the viewfinder window. I think the Leica M feel and handling would be lost in the process.

[hunter_rose]

I'd think the value of a digital M would be the reusability of existing lenses. If I'm going to have to buy all new glass anyway, how is it a digital M? I may as well just switch over to R if I'm hellbent on Leica glass that has dual digital and film capabilities. (Granted, it isn't exactly a "compact" solution.)

[jay_.]

<<Leica has stated that a digital M body is technically impossible because the M lenses are too deep in the body and the light rays are too oblique for the sensor.

 

The obvious solution is to (re)design a set of lenses>>

 

Leica also stated that an electronically controlled shutter with AE was impossible to put in an M without substantially changing the size and shape of the body. And they stated when the M7 hit the streets that the M6TTL would stay in production and there were no plans to discontinue it. And they stated that the coated windows in the M7 was the solution to the flare problem. So you'll have to excuse me if I think Leica's full of sh*t when they say it's impossible to make a digital back or body that takes current M lenses (note that by "current" I am excluding such exotics as the 2 21 S/A's, the 1st-version 28/2.8 and the Hologon which all have rear elements that sit a couple mm from the film). Truth is, as I see it Leica has no intention of digitizing the M line as long as their market research (and they need go no further than this forum)shows a substantial number of buyers in complete denial over the rapidly advancing demise of film, and bubbling over with excitement and money in hand for warmed-over reincarnations of Leica's past. It's easy money for them, so why would they sink real capital into a digital back?

 

A digital M body that requires a new set of lenses would be unacceptible to most Leica M users since they already have loads of money sunk in M bodies and lenses and want to be able to use them for filmless digital capture, perhaps now and for certain at that point in the not-distant future when film and processing are either uneconomical or unavailable.

[shambrick007]

"If I'm going to have to buy all new glass anyway, how is it a digital M?" -In my opinion, that sums it up perfectly!

[ilkka_nissila]

So Jay, please tell us how you would solve the angle of incidence problem? Why do you assume that a small company like Leica has that kind of R&D money? Of the digital camera manufacturers, only Canon and Sony to my knowledge develop their own sensors, and they don't have to solve this kind of a problem. Do you have any idea how much money it takes to develop an entirely new sensor technology?

[wayne_murphy8]

If the sensor is smaller than 24 x 36, then the lenses can be smaller. Given

that some would be retrofocus, they could end up the same size as the current

M lenses. That solves the viewfinder obstruction problem.

 

Also, the lens does not have to be in the same position as the current M body.

The sensor and the lens can be located anywhere. There is no longer space

required for the film casette and take up spool.

 

New technology sometimes requires a break from the past - think of the

Canon EOS lenses and their new mount. It was criticised at the time. Now it

is seen to have been correct. Hasselblad's new H1 will not accept the 6 x 6

lenses. Leicflex lenses will not work properly on R bodies. Nikon has

developed a new series of special and smaller lenses for its digital cameras.

 

Perhaps some existing M lenses could be made to work on a new body. The

current M body is, and probably always will be, a film body. If you and I want

a *digital M* camera, then I suggest that new lenses are a small price to pay.

 

Of course, not everyone will agree. it is just my view.

[jay_.]

First of all, I don't believe that the techology doesn't exist, just because Leica says it doesn't. They've proven themselves prolific liars as I pointed out above. Second, they're in the camera manufacturing business, the M system is their bread and butter, they've a fiduciary responsibility to their stockholders to keep the company going, which won't be for long if the M system dies with film. Third, Leica got Kodak and Imacon to partner-up for the Digital R back and given the sales of R vs M there's certainly a smaller market for them than there would be for a digital M back, so I don't believe it's a matter of Leica needing huge cash resources to fund the project. Last, the MP and even the M7 did not represent huge R&D expenses or retooling, so there's obviously a fat profit on those models.

[yochin]

Maybe digital M is a misnomer because like Sheldon, Jay and Hunter said most people won't want to repurchase their lenses at the prices that they've already paid for M Lenses. Obviously, it would be something more along the lines of a digital rangefinder in the M style, not an actual M digital camera itself if it had to be redesigned for a straight path sensor.

 

I still think something like a digital Barnack camera with an attached lens but all the goodies of an M camera is probably the way to go for now, that way no one will have to bitch about repurchasing their lenses, the retro crowd are happy, the digital crowd is happy, and you maintain the smaller size of a Barnack camera.

 

I was thinking also you could add some kind of wireless technology to it so you won't have to attach an LCD directly to the camera thus maintaining its classic old style look. Obviously you would still have to have an LCD but maybe it could be mounted on a watch or something and the camera can transmit the pictures to a small separate pack with all of the storage and processing. You could point the camera over your shoulder without turning your head and you can take pictures of the person in back of you using the watch as a viewfinder... huh, huh... Yeah, right!

[yochin]

Oh, you're right about the R cameras, Jay. There's no way they sell more R cameras than M cameras...! Maybe they're just pooling their resources and accumulating funds or waiting for the right idea to hit them before they move forward on anything as big a digital M style camera on that measure.

[dan_brown4]

I think the right solution for Leica is to produce a digital product

that is true to the M heritage and that allows the Leica optical

company to sell consumers a whole new set of lenses. Since

their business is to make and sell fine lenses. A business

strategy geared to appease customers that regret their last

purchase anyway is idiotic, and probably grounds for a

shareholder suit against the Board and executive management.

[beau 1664876222]

It might be smart to wait until the technology matures a little more rather than jump in and adapt to something temporary. Who knows, the angle of incidence thing could be solved by hardware or software engineering, and sensors could get smaller and thinner and the compact body could be retained. Sometimes it pays to lag behind while the sands are shifting under your feet and then commit when things solidify. Leica might eventually win out by having superior lens technology, because good glass will still be a hard thing to make in the future. Of course, by doing this they gamble that film will last until they can make the transition.

[benny_spinoza]

As most readers of this forum know, an advantage of a rangefinder is that there is no need for a retrofocus lens because the rear element may be positioned close to the film. In such cases, light is incident at relatively oblique angles to the film plane. Currently, digital sensors have problems with light incident at oblique angles to the sensor. So, it makes sense that the M system is better suited for film rather than a digital sensor.

 

And note how over the years there has been a steady progression in film speed without a loss in resolution. 400 speed color film produces great results, and in a few years most users of color film will probably be shooting with 800 speed, with great results. To paraphrase Mark Twain, the demise of film is greatly exaggerated. Film will be around for a long time. Most if not all of us will be in the ground long before film dies out.

 

So as long as there is a market for film rangefinders, they will be made. Perhaps someday film will be obsolete. But by then, so will I.

[al_kaplan1]

I can remember when ISO 64 Kodacolor, double the speed of the Kodacolor it replaced, was considered way too grainy for decent 8x10 prints. That was about 1964. A dozen years later Kodacolor 400 hit the market making it possible to make grainy 5x7 prints from 35mm negatives. Today's 400 speed film is sharper and less grainy than any of the films of the 60's and 70's. I predict that in another 10 years we'll all wonder what the problem was all about as we pop in our digital converter, and make a mental note that the first edition 28mm Elmarit and 21mm Super Angulons will give way too much vignetting.

 

http://www.siliconfilm.com/

[lee_shively]

And yet another candidate for the Digital Leica Wannabe Forum.

[steve_chan5]

Just for grins, I calculated the shallowest angle of incidence for the Canon 50/1.4 with a 30mm rear element, a 44mm back focal length and a 36mm x 24mm sensor (Canon 1DS). The angle of incidence came out to 53 degrees.

 

If the hypothetical maximum rear element size is 40mm on the Canon lenses, then the shallowest angle of incidence is 49 degrees.

 

Assuming that a Leica M mount lens wider than 28mm is a retrofocus design (not necessarily an unfair assumption), then you can try plugging back in the 53 and 49 degrees angle of incidence, along with a 28mm back focal length into some trig equations to find the maximum image circle that maintains the same angle of incidence.

 

When I played around with various rear objective sizes from 25mm to 30mm, and the different angles, it seemed that you could have an image circle of 12mm to 23mm - while maintaining the same angle of incidence that the Canon 1DS supports.

 

I'd be interested to know the size of the rear element on the really fast Leica lenses, and if the back focal length on the <28mm Leica lenses is still 28mm (due to being retrofocus).

 

Just doing some armchair/backseat engineering, my guess is that you could drop one of the Kodak/Olympus 4/3" CCDs in and get acceptable performance (assuming that you can handle the same angles that the Canon 1DS does) but at the cost of cropping that results in a 2x "magnification" of the lens focal length.

 

There is a lot of speculation in this of course, and I may be making some bad assumptions - but the problem is definitely open to a more technical analysis, instead of passing around wishful speculation vs. Revealed Truth (from Wetzlar).

 

Steve

[scott_k.]

M lenses are the heart of the M system, so redesigning the lenses would be a waste or time and money for leica.

 

At some point, some sort of technology will be developed that will allow the use of the current M lenses. We'll just have to wait.

 

On another note, it will be darn easy to make a digital adapter for the M, considering the flap that swings up in the back.

 

-Scott

[lucien1]

Jay wrote:

 

"Leica also stated that an electronically controlled shutter with AE was impossible to

put in an M without substantially changing the size and shape of the body. And they

stated when the M7 hit the streets that the M6TTL would stay in production and there

were no plans to discontinue it. And they stated that the coated windows in the M7

was the solution to the flare problem."

 

Please Jay, give us a written proof of each of those lies.

 

As far as I know, nothing is true in your statement.

 

But please, give us the proof I'm wrong. A written proof !

 

You know, it's not true only because you say it's true.

 

Lucien

[carl smith]

All they have to do is take a full frame sensor and poke it in the middle to curve it, right? :)

[fotografz]

I'm sorry, but I have had enough. Perhaps it's time to give it a

rest.

 

This horse has been beaten to beyond death, (how many recent

threads have been devoted to this?) Flogging the horses'

corpse is sapping the life out of just shooting and creating with a

proven, reliable and superbly made tool.

 

It's gotten exaggerated to the point that people ACTUALLY

believe a crummy little plastic digimatic P&S with a thumbnail

sized sensor is as good as a M for some shots.

 

IMO, it's either mass dementia, or there are a lot of folks who just

don't know the difference...forgot what a great print looks like...or

never knew.

 

I'm not defending Leica M gear because I've sunk a ton of cash

into it so I feel fearful about my investment. That's a drop in the

bucket compared to going pro digital. No one on this forum is

more committed to the highest end digital than I am, and I can

see the side by side difference, can't all of you?

 

Yes, in the hands of a great photographer any image making tool

will produce wonderful results in terms of content. BUT, give the

same photographer a digital and a film camera and the prints

will be different. Film makes it's own class of beauty. Cram a

Leica lens on the end of a digital camera and you'll get prints that

are digital looking (which can be beautiful, but not the same

beauty as a film based print).

 

Currently we have a choice, yet if we keep up the "Sky is falling"

routine, it'll become a self fulfilling prophesy.

 

Personally, I could care less whether they ever come out with a

digital M...I have enough great digital cameras for when I want

that choice.

 

Huff, Huff, Bleat, Bleat... : - )

[kevin m.]

If a digital M were available today only Leica users would buy it. It would likely offer fewer features and cost more than the competition, so it wouldn't attract new customers to the Leica line in sizeable numbers. So why shouldn't they wait? Let the dust settle down, let the technology stabilize a bit and bring out the digital M in good time. Seems the smart thing to do as Leica can't afford to make too big a mistake. I'd say they have from now until all the film is gone. ;-)

[carey_russ]

You want a digital M? It's available right now. Just get a film scanner. OK, no instant gratification, but if you process your own b&w or have access to a good 1-hour lab, you can get results fairly quickly. You have to visualize the results for DOF and even coverage while composing, but that's part of the intellectual process of rangefinder photography, and no different than looking through the (non-LCD) viewfinder on a digital like a G3/4/5. Rangefinders make you think more, not necessarily bad.

 

This, of course, will also work for a Leica A - remove and process film and presto! A digital Leica. Oh yeah, *and* you have a convenient back-up medium that is not impacted by disk crashes and other computer problems. It's proven technology, called film.

[jay_.]

<<A business strategy geared to appease customers that regret their last purchase anyway is idiotic, and probably grounds for a shareholder suit against the Board and executive management.>>

 

Dan, how about a business strategy that pisses off a loyal customer base by rendering their tens of thousands of dollars of gear useless?

When Canon dropped the FD lensmount it took them a decade to recoup their customers--and that was just incompatibility, the FD cameras

and lenses were still usable, not nearly the same thing as what happens to Leicas when film dies.

 

<<Please Jay, give us a written proof of each of those lies.

As far as I know, nothing is true in your statement.>>

 

If you want to be Leica's self-appointed revisionist, that's your prerogative, but everyone who was into Leicas as long ago as a year and a half remembers when Leica said the M6TTL wouldn't be discontinued, then it was just the 0.72 that was being discontinued, then it was the 0.58 and 0.85, and then all the traditionalists were pissed off because there was no more mechanical Leicas. And everyone who isn't amnesiac remembers Leica said the M7 had fixed the flare problem with the coated windows, and plus it's in the sales brochures.