marco_guerra Posted November 7, 2003 Share Posted November 7, 2003 Hi to all - I'm a new photonetter, and I decided to register to post this one (please forgive my poor english...). I recently bought an M6 with 24 asph, 35 asph and 90 elmarit (last model). I'm very happy about how the leica gear works, finally I got what I was looking for (sharpness, color rendition, portability, reliability, full control of what you're doing - at least, after a short time of practicing...etc, you all know which are the strenghts of the system). Having put a lot of money on the whole thing (everything is new or in superlative conditions), I look to the evolutions of the market with some anxiety. Here in Italy it seems that only digital photografy has a future, even if they (read: the specialized press) admit that film won't die in a short time, they are busy in demonstrating how digital is becoming as good as analogic, referring to quality. That's obvious, as they're only promoting a new product that has to be sold. IMHO digital is - by now - (I'm not talking about other not questionables strenghts which all of you know very well) very far from analogic quality (and I mean sharpness, contrast, color rendition) and I doubt if it will never reach it, due to the difficulties of making a sensor with the same registering capabilities of a film. Anyway, I read this on a magazine: a digital back for the M is nearly impossible to make, because of the very high angle (respect to a SLR camera, eg the R9) of the rays that, from the inner lens surface (the closest to the film), reach the film. A digital sensor, due to the inner positioning of his "registering" surface (comparing to a film), wich comes after a glass surface that should reduce the "noise", can accept only rays with a smaller incident angle. So, as in the M the inner lens surface is closer to the film than what happens in a SLR camera, the rays are more "bended", and that is why the making of a digital back for a Leica M is out of question... I don't know if this makes sense, and if it could be considered a valid explanation...any comment? Forgive me for the long post Marco Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_chan5 Posted November 7, 2003 Share Posted November 7, 2003 Ummmm, might be a good idea to do a search for "digital" and "leica", or else look under the sub-topic of "Leica in a digital world". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob F. Posted November 7, 2003 Share Posted November 7, 2003 Marco, that is correct. I was there last week when Stefan Daniel, who is head of Leica product development, said there will be no digital M until someone comes out with a sensor that does not have this restriction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marco_guerra Posted November 7, 2003 Author Share Posted November 7, 2003 Thanks Rob...this ends the questioning - so let's hope for a new type of sensor able to let Leica M survive to the possible(hopingly far far far to come...) dead of analogic photography... Marco Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy_piper2 Posted November 7, 2003 Share Posted November 7, 2003 Marco: 1) What you wrote is generally the accepted wisdom. 2) If Leica does solve the sensor problem, they will still not make a "BACK" to go on the existing film cameras. They will build a separate body from the ground up so that it has the appropriate electronics, and does not waste space on film chambers. The hinged back on Leica-Ms is 50 years old. In all those years, neither Leica nor anyone else (that I can find reference to) has EVER used it to add 'accessory' backs such as a data back or a Polaroid back (despite their popularity on other cameras). It isn't intended for that, and won't be used to add a 'digital' back, either. Its ONLY functions are to make film-loading and checking/testing shutter speeds easier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raymond_tai Posted November 7, 2003 Share Posted November 7, 2003 If and when Leica comes out with a digital back I won't be able to afford it anyway given what they charge for various bits like rewind cranks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marco_guerra Posted November 7, 2003 Author Share Posted November 7, 2003 Andy: no hope, then...I'm going to put-let's see...-10.000 rolls of Velvia 50, EPR 64 and T-Max 400 in my freezer for the years to come... Thanks to all for your replies Marco Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotografz Posted November 7, 2003 Share Posted November 7, 2003 Even if they succeed in developing a digital body, the images won't look the same as with film. Even the mighty Canon 1Ds at 11 meg looks different. Film has it's own set of characteristics which has established the visual criteria for many photographers, especially on this forum. Enjoy your Leica and the film(s) it produces. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim_mcbride Posted November 7, 2003 Share Posted November 7, 2003 Marco: first of all, your English is better than mine and English is my first language. As far as a digital back for Leica M is concerned, it looks like it is an "impossible dream" for a whole variety of reasons. I recently read (probably right here on this forum) that a single frame of 35mm film contains the equivalent of 18 million pixels. When someone (even Leica) comes out with an affordable camera with an 18 million pixel sensor, then I might consider going digital. For now, I intend to use my Leica Ms and lenses for the rest of my life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aa2000 Posted November 7, 2003 Share Posted November 7, 2003 Digital? What's "digital"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kelly_flanigan1 Posted November 7, 2003 Share Posted November 7, 2003 The chances of a digital back for Leica M are slim. Andy bakes the very good point that the back is about 50 years old; and about no special backs were toyed with; made.<BR><BR> The chances that a new digital sensor body will be built are far greater. This could be by Leica or the gang who makes the Bessa R series. <BR><BR>There is abit of a smoke screen with the "sensor wont work diatribe." Sensors do work poorer when the light is far off axis. It is a nice canned statement; which hides the far greater "return on investment" issues. Many slr's use smaller sensors for economic reasons; sensors are bloody expensive to tool and build a custom design. <BR><BR>A full 24x36 frame sensor would well with longer lenses; 50mm; 90mm; 135mm., The shorter guys might have angular/sensor off axis problems; if you believe the marketing myths/truths.<BR><BR>I believe that the Bessa gang could make a digital body that works with M lenses. They seem to explore the envelope abit more. My wish would be for a longer rangefinder baseline; and NOT a zillion digital features in a confusing menu. Add a feature switch; that places the camera in a more dummer mode; like a fully mechanical camera. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kelly_flanigan1 Posted November 7, 2003 Share Posted November 7, 2003 makes = bakes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marco_guerra Posted November 7, 2003 Author Share Posted November 7, 2003 Jim: that was very very kind of you, I wish it was true (talking about my English...) - go out and shoot(at least until I'll find a film roll to buy!), that's what I intend to do, that's for sure! I would surely consider buying a digital body able to let me enjoy those beautiful lenses, but the results I expect should be no way below those I obtain today. I read somewhere that one square mm. of a 50 ASA film contains nearly a billion of light-sensitive grains. If that was true (I'm not so sure), even with a ten million pixel (and not to mention the smaller - with few exceptions - format of the sensors, which will produce smaller images which carry the need to enlarge them much more, with all the related problems getting into the scene) we still are far far away from the quality of an analogic 24X36 (mm)(the 6x6 and more is out of question, I assume...). Oops! I'm going towards a "Digital versus analogic" topic here, I'll better stop! Happy shooting! Marco Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al_kaplan1 Posted November 7, 2003 Share Posted November 7, 2003 I was talking with as young photographer last night about Leicas. He's 26, I turn 61 on Sunday. I knew his dad, also a photographer, 30 plus years ago. Anyway, this young photograher works as a free lance assistant to some top advertising photographers when they're in the Miami, FL area. They all mostly shoot 4x5, or use Hasselblads and Mamiya RB and RZ. They shoot FILM. They like the way it looks, it holds more information than digital, and it all gets digitized for reproduction anyway. He said that you have so little control with auto exposure and auto focus, and it'seasier to set f/stop and shutter speed the old fashioned way than run through a program while pushing buttons. He went on to say that most everybody he works with feels that way. Now he's looking into buying a Leica MP and a few lenses, 21, 35 and 50 to start. I've heard this before: things don't happen in a straight line. It's more like a pendulum. At first digital was seductive, but he says things are swinging back towards film. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marco_guerra Posted November 7, 2003 Author Share Posted November 7, 2003 That's a very nice new, Al...And it explains - perhaps - why Fuji and Kodak came out with Velvia 100, Ektachrome 100 and so on... I agree completely, in any case. Marco Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bruno_menilli Posted November 8, 2003 Share Posted November 8, 2003 Marco I remember reading somewhere that Leica agreed that it was possible to have a sensor with compensating lenses over the edge pixels to counteract the effects you mention, but that they did not want to do that( maybe working on another solution?). With modern technology I believe that little is impossible, but what is needed is the (financial ?) will, to go ahead with its development. Maybe there is a better alternative technological answer that is not yet public knowledge? Who knows? It's a very interesting subject, but in the meantime I'm not loosing sleep over it. Tri-x rules! Regards Bruno Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan flanders Posted November 8, 2003 Share Posted November 8, 2003 It seems to me that principles involved in the Fresnel screen would offer some possibilities here. I have freebie that will give about 3X magnification on reading matter yet is only about 0.3 mm thick. And then there is the matter of off center rays from shorter focus lenses, particularly wide angles. Nearly all WAs made today are retrofocus � even for RFs. Then where is the cut-off in focal lengths suitable for digital sensors? Another factor that I have not seen mentioned in this debate is the supply of silver. Obviously it is finite and sometime in the future that factor is likely to become critical. Industrial users recycle the developed out silver, home developers do not. . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marco_guerra Posted November 8, 2003 Author Share Posted November 8, 2003 Once more, thanks to all for your answers Marco Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now