fran__ois_p._weill

Charles,

You can meter the light on a subject and have a perfect exposure by many methods. I had the occasion to practice

all of them.

By far the most precise one (non-interpretative) is incident metering with a hand held meter. you measure the

light falling on the subject and you have not to take care if the point you meter is equal to a neutral gray for

which the metering system is set. However, this method is SLOW and many times if the subject is distant the only

way to proceed is to find a near object deemed to be lighted as your subject (with all the subjective character

of the judgement from the photographer it implies).

Reflective metering needs a part of interpretation from the photographer, whatever the area covered because not

all subjects have the same reflectance as the neutral gray. Then a scene metered in its entirety can (and more

than often have) highlights and shadows which alter the average metering taken to a point the main subject is not

perfectly exposed. Hence a more limited and well determined area helps. The ultimate one being the spot meter.

However, the reflectance problem is the same and as you cannot chose the area metered in the finder and the

limited area is more than often centered in the viewfinder, To allow for the best metering implies you take the

measure and then re-frame as a central main subject is hardly the best composition for most pictures. This

dosen't bother me as long as I have the time to proceed so. But when you need something faster than the brain and

the hand, you'd better have something which will most of the time give you a correct exposure without the

constraint of re-framing the subject before tripping the shutter.

And here comes the matrix metering, something IMHO improperly named as it is in fact not simply a metering system

but a true "light analyzer". Your remark about the alleged fact the matrix metering is as easy to fool as a

centerweighed system proves only one thing : you've never been accustomed with such a system and you ignore how

it works. Beside the decomposition of the image in areas, there is a library of thousands of examples of

compositions which permits most of the case to the camera to correct properly the exposure by analogy to one of

these samples. On the evolved systems both the colors and the distance set on the lens are taken into account. Of

course the system is not totally foolproof, but it works without human intervention 95% of the time and for the

rest, any experienced photographer will immediately know he or she has to compensate.or use another mode.

I sincerly doubt any centerweighed metering system can WITHOUT ANY HUMAN INTERVENTION reach this level of accuracy.

For years I dealt with all the situations (with more or less success like anyone) with the traditional

centerwieghed system. It doesn't prevent me to recongnize when you need to go full auto to capture an elusive

scene, take a picture from the hip or above a crowd without seeing the scene through the finder, with matrix

metering, the correct exposure rate is far above what I obtained with the classical system and my personal

guesswork. It is also faster.

Matrix metering is quantum leap forward in auto-exposure. Auto-exposure is not for me a lazy way to take pictures

and whenever the subject allows for a more researched interpretative measure, I use manual settings. but when I

need fast capture of a subject I don't hesitate to use Auto-exposure with a matrix metering as an insurance

against (my) failures ! ...

FPW

Harvey :

>> 1.1 million M and M compatibles were manufactured by Konica, Minolta, Leica, Zeiss, Voightlander. Most of these cameras are still in usable condition. Many owners have heavy investment in very very expensive lenses and want to get a digital camera to put them on. <<

Fully agreed

But to which you conclude :

>> We don't need a FF camera a 5:4 (direct to 8x10) would be equivalent of a 3:2 and cropping down. This is a 1.2x crop factor, which also eliminates edge of frame issues, lowers cost of sensor with minimal change in lens effective focal length. <<

Which is in full contradiction with this part of your own statement : >> ... Many owners have heavy investment in very very expensive lenses and want to get a digital camera to put them on.<<

Who will seriously want to lose part of this investment in the tele-lens side (because such a rangefinder cmaera won't focus and moreover frame properly the "elongated" tele-lenses with the crop factor) and who will seriously accept to have to buy a very expensive multiple focal length lens or three or four brand new lenses to recover the all too important in rangefinder photography wide angle capabilities he or she had on the film cameras ?

Few people and certainly not the majority of these people, me included.

On the contrary we NEED a full format camera accepting our M mount lenses. Even if this camera is not cheap, it will permit us to dispense with selling our cherished lenses and have to pay for a complete DSLR system of another brand. The budget to consider to buy such a camera is to be considered as a whole and the choice is not only the rangefinder body price but the alternative between this rangefinder body (which if FF will be bought alone) and a DSLR body with all a range of lenses covering the same FOV once covered by the M-lenses. To put the thing squarely, in the present state of thing paying a full frame (and reliable, no IR problem, a.s.o...) "M9" $ 5000 will even be cheaper than buying a Nikon D700 with the necessary equivalent lenses. But to pay an M8 - M8-2 (even if it has no IR and reliability problem) $ 5000 with a tri-Elmar new at $ 4000 so $ 9000 is totally out of question for me. And I'm not the only one I think.

Kelly :

>> The market was tested with a lower end DRF; its the Epson RD-1. As David mentioned "Because there is no significant market for digital rangefinders.. Younger folks dont have boatloads of lenses; one can buy several drebels for the price of a M camera; M8 or even a Epson RD-1 <<

I have to disagree. The RD-1 was even more overpriced for the segment of the market it was destined to than the M8 is !

You need some experience with photography and more precisely small format photography to fully appreciate the advantages of a rangfinder camera over an SLR system. people with such experience will look for an all other level of IQ the Epson was ever able to deliver.

People who might have a real inerest in buying a rangefinder camera are professionals or advanced amteurs. These people won't pay the price of a Canon 5D MkII or a Nikon D 700 for 6mpex low technology cropped sensor camera... And the market for lower priced digital camera is fully satisfied for what they do with their camera by a far more polyvalent APS-C sensor amateur DSLR and will never want a DRF.

Pros and amateurs already loaded with M-mount lenses would be the first customers for a really high end full format "viceless" DRF and any advanced amateur or pro buying such a body without already having the lenses in his (her) bag will be able to resort to second hand market for ALL the necessary lenses or to good if not spectacular lenses from Cosina-Voigtländer to begin with.

The problem with younger, less experienced phtographers is not only the price but also the total ignorance of what a rangefinder can bring an SLR can't and the fact to many pros and advanced amateurs a RF system is only a complement to an existing SLR system for sake of polyvalence. Only if many pros and advanced amateurs buy again a RF system, this handicap will be partly overcome. Then and only then, the problem of a cheaper entry level body will be in the order of the day.

What we really need and what will probably be a true commerical success is an M-mount, weather proofed full format DRF, built like a rock with no IR filter problem, high ISO performance in the 12 to 16 Mpx range which is priced at the level of a Nikon D 700 with its additional handle, have matrix metering in AE mode and a variable magnification high point finder. I personnally don't care if it will be branded by Leica or any other one, look exactly like a Leica M and if the body will be traditionally built in metal or covered with composite material over an armature like modern pro DSLR's. What it should not have in any occasion is a fully removable baseplate to load the card(s) ! ...

FPW

Richard :

>> The lack of 'Matrix' or true 'Spotmeter' is not a detrement <<

This is exactly the kind of remark one can hope from the average Leica nut... And the kind of remark which encouraged Leica AG for years to pay no attention to the latest technlogical developments... Constantly enlarging the gap between the price requested to buy an M and the technology you get in return.

O YES, the absence of matrix metering is derimental to the M series (probably more than the absence of a true spotmeter).

As soon as you have an AE capable camera, matrix metering proved time and again to be far superior to any other metering system.

With a tad of experience and dexterity, one can almost equal in speed an AE Lock mode in manual, but even with an AE lock mode, you need to take the meter reading on the most appropriate part of the subject and then after locking the AE re-frame. A good matrix metering system will most of the time dispense you of re-framing the composition : i.e. you compose and focus (or have already focussed by using hyperfocal technique) and take the metering at the same time and you have just to trigger the shutter. It takes less time to proceed so than to write it and it is the only auto-exposure mode to be decidedly faster than manual mode. It is also the only one which will give you an accurate measure 95% of the time (for the best matrix system in existence today) when shooting from the hip or above the crowd without the ability to frame your pic. Matrix metering is for someone using an M for what it was allegedly designed for (Press and street photography) one of the major progress of camera bodies which was never adopted on the M.

I admit a real spot meter mode is less indispensable, because it is mainly useful when you search a special effect on a picture (for example a low-key or high key effect) or the perfect exposure of a subject small enough on the image again for a special effect (emphasiazing a building receiving more light than the environement for example to isolate it from a context you make darker on purpose). All of this is generally made in manual mode with time to think about composition and exposure, so the use of a separate hand hels spot meter is not a liability. But it is nonetheless useful to have one built in the camera as it dispenses you to buy and to carry an additional piece of equipment.

The heavily centerweighed average metering of the M6-M7-MP-M8 series is not bad, but it is rather obsolete and less efficient and - frankly said - rather "cheap" for cameras in this price-range.

FPW

Hello Guo,

I can't tell for your sample but here is how I was forced to abandon my M5 :

In 2001, in the midst of a picture taking session the shutter suddenly stopped working : No way to re-arm properly.

I immediately unloaded the film and went to a repair shop I knew. The culprit was a broken part on the body : one of the "retainers" which hold the end of one curtain roller. Cost of the repair was at that time around 7,000 FF (French Francs) so around €1068 now.

The price of an allegedly mint second hand M5 was then about the same (mine was far from mint aesthetically) but without any kind of guarantee.

As a user only, and after my retail shop owner loan me a brand new Hexar RF for a week to test it, I went for the Hexar new for a price of 8,500 FF then (around € 1298) with full warranty.

An M6 or M6 TTL, even second hand, was beyond my budget (the M7 was not issued yet) and the M5 was at that time still mainly a"user's camera" and disdained by the collectors, so I was likely to get a much used one even if it looked in mint condition.

The "morale" of this story is a Leica M (of the film variety and the M7 excluded, of course) is and will probably always be technically repairable. But as to know if it will be economical is another thing.

The second morale I learnt the hard way is the "indestructible" reputation of the mechanical M is a pure legend. A Leica M, even if it is is part of the more robust cameras ever made is submitted to the effect of wear and tear like any other mechanic. A much used M (mine was already a second hand one) won't last for 50 years or more. An M which was used by a careful amateur taking a few shots each year will last much longer. Leica M mechanical bodies are submitted to the same inflexible law as the other cameras. Its precise and careful construction will simply allow it to endure more and last longer for the same kind of work load.

For me, without an official evaluation of the repair cost and a seller lowering the price evaluated according to the average second hand market price of the model by the same amount values absolutely NOTHING ! ... If you need a paperweight, take a stone it will be cheaper !

FPW

I know some of you mates are adept of conversion tables in constant money, but Ihave some doubt about the validity of such a comparison.

Is the original question related to the absolute value of the gear or more related to the comparative value of Leica gear versus the other cameras for the same peirod of time ?

And if so, did the other brands offered similar technical performance and capabilities ?

Putting the problem this way might be more appropriate for a fair appreciation.

Pre WW-2, set aside the cardboard boxes using 620 or 120 films, any evolved (I mean with at least aperture and speed control) camera was likely to cost in constant money (and moreover when compared to the average income) more the latest film camera of yesterday. Even with a cheaper manpower hour these all precision mechanic hand made devices were time consuming to produce with the contemporary equipment as robots, not to speak of computer controlled machinery was nothing short of science fiction...

So a pre-war Leica was certainly a very costly camera by all means, but it offered something not any competitor was able to offer at that time in terms of precision, reliability, quality and over all a perfectly up to date and even advanced system. For Press photographers - at least in Europe - it was the equivalent of today's high end full format DSLR's... A reason why it was so copied everywhere up and including during the 50's ! ...

Post war and until the first M was produced, it stood firmly the best 35mm available. Though, with all the copies issued worldwide in perfect legality (the Allied Commission having nullified the German patents), the old LTM series was severly challenged and the emerging Japanese phootgraphic industry was beginning to show with its own Leica copies what it was able to produce and sell for a lower price (it has been said US war correspondents during the Korean war discovered these Japanese "clones" and made praised them a lot...)...

During this period, the other way to 35mm photography, namely the SLR, could hardly claim any advantage over the Leica system. Anyone who ever peered into the finder of a 35mm SLR from this period knows it has no inwstant mirror return, had an awful (by our standard) ground glass and was finally no less cumbersome to use than a Leica rangefinder with a Visoflex. The serious choice for the real Press photographer (the main customer's panel for a Leica then) - the American way of using a "Speed Graphic" large format set aside was between a 35mm rangefinder or the 6X6 Rolleiflex TLR ...

Leica reacted just in time with the M3 which was a logical evolution of the preceeding models with the remarkable improvement of a finder combined with the rangefinder window and multiple frames and with the M bayonet, which beside speeding-up the lens change had the additional merit for the manufacturer to be exclusive and patented ! ...

So, Leica were still expensive but they remained the best in their speciality... During the 50's and until the Japanese made modern SLR systems began to flourish from 1959 on, both the M body and the unequalled optics produced by the brand stood the best money can buy in 35mm photography.

Expensive, YES but by all means a good value for money and a true perspective to remain at the spear point of technology for long years.

Then came the 60's and this superiority began to be eroded by the Japanese SLR's. Though until about 1965 with the intorduction by Nikon of the Photomic Ftn finder the main advantage of the SLR's over the rangefinder concept was limited to an easier than with a Visoflex use of tele-lenses and macro accessories, the instant return mirror and the so-called automatic aperture (which maintained the lens full open until the shutter was released) were deicisive improvements over the preceeding SLR's. One can arguably consider Leica gear was no more technically superior (but for the lenses) to these new competitors and was more pricey (due both to the higher cost of manpower in Germany then and to the favourable to exports change of the Yen). But habits die hard in the professional world of photography, moreover during those years. So leica was not in major troubles then and was still offering a competitive system.

After 1965 and when TTL metering became a standard feature of Japanese SLR's and as the color slides were more and more used by a part of the Press, Leica's situation began a then slow but constant trend toward obsolescence as new generations of pro photographers were more and more numerous to adopt the more polyvalent and cheaper Japanese SLR's. For the first time in Leica history the reac(tion was slow, extremely slow...

When the M5 finally appeared which at least had a TTL metering, a lot of press photographers had already parted with the rangefinder concept and joined the SLR bandwagon. Those still encroached to their Leica M's were too old and too conservative to appreciate the virtues of the M5 and harshly ciritcized the new model. Both because of its teething troubles (though they were promptly and fully corrected) and because the shape and dimensions were not the same as with the previous models. With the time elapsed though, the M5 was arguably the most user's friendly M of them all... It was also in terms of price - though a tad more expensive than a Nikon F or F2 - probably the last M to give you technical value for money.

Conservatism killed the M5 as the slow reaction of Leica facing its new competitors with a great disdain when they first appeared on the market.

Alas, the remedy was worse than the illness... to replace the M5 (instead of trying to upgrade it again) by a cheap copy of the M4 (M4-2) devoid of TTL metering and then by the M4-P was a major fault of Leitz.

Here, Leica began the downward spiral they are still in... And these cameras began to be very pricey, not only in absolute term (which is a limited handicap when you are able to offer something above the average) but in value for money when the technical features are compared to other brands.

Leitz demise, despite the issue of TTL metered M6 (no less than 15 years too late IMHO !) is a proof this policy was a mess. And M6 were largely overpriced for a camera having only TTL metering when any other serious brands already offered AE as a general feature

Leica AG which succeeded Leitz saved his neck by being the only brand to offer an interchangeable lens rangefinder system with superior optics. But the mere amelioration of giving automatic flash TTL metering with the M6 TTLwas nothing short of a mockery when the other brands already used matrix meterinf and true spotmetering options... And from the M6 it is clear that keeping the removable baseplate (a loading system discarded in 1972 by nikon on the F2) was ridiculous. You can do many things and survive when you are the only game in town...

The appearance of many special series and other fancy options under the influence of the major share holder of Leica AG eptiomized the orientation toward a fondler and snob customer's panel to the detriment of real users and between them, pro users.

From this period on, Leica bodies became really expensive in terms of value for money.

The 90's marked once again both the increase of the technical lag of the M series with a M7 which embodied an AE system which would have been possible to embody since the late 70's onward and a backward looking MP... At a price which was again above the reasonable...

Unfortunately for Leica, new competitors began to appear at the same time... On the entry level with the Bessas and on the high side the Hexar RF which was curiously superior in some domains the M7 failed short and inferior on some others just as if both cameras had been the result of a divorce between partners!... Stupid rumors of incompatibility killed the Hexar but if was a harbinger of things to come... point in case, the Hexar RF cost less than half the price of an M7...

As the film era drew to a close and digital revolution was at the corner of the street, the Zeiss Ikon appeared with a better finder, a modern shutter, a series of first class lenses (almost equal to Leica if not better for some of them!) and a price which was again about half the one of an M7.

Leica reacted to the digital revolution with the M8... We shall not enter the recurrent debate on the virtues and vices of the model... Suffice to say the camera is very expensive for what it brings technically and like any digital camera it is far more concerned by fast obsolescence... So its price is perhaps (special series set aside) the worst value for money of all M series cameras.

IMHO, Leica M gear has perhaps never been so espensive for what it bings to the user than today !

FPW

I've been thinking about what the "S" system can bring to the photographers and what are its chances to succeed commercially.

For me, the S system is conceptually (provided it keeps its promise in practice) a first step toward a truly universal photographic system many people have been looking for since the beginning of photography. In opposition to the many polyvalent systems which emerged during the four last decades of the 20th century and which are epitomized by the 35mm SLR.

Polyvalence is a quite different notion from universality. It means your camera can be used in a lot of situation and gives you an "acceptable" result, universality means you can cover (almost) all situations but also equal the best specialized tools designed for each of them...

In theory digital photography is able to offer the photographer such a universal camera (of course by using proper accessories) the only remaining question being when will it be a reality...

Conceptually the S2 seems to be a first step toward this kind of camera : it offers the MF quality with the compactness of the small format camera. It has the ergonomy and, hopefully, the speed and ease of use of the latter, while keeping the uncompromised IQ of the latter.

If Leica produces some lenses authorizing the same kind of movements (tilt and shift) a view camera has and the camera can be tethered or Wi-Fi linked to a computer on which screen the image can be magnified to control focus and movements, then - again conceptually - you've got the universal system.

On the other hand, there are still lingering doubts concerning the possibility to cram all these pixels (even with a larger than 24x36 sensor) without loosing the benefits of high ISO performance for press and street photography. There are still no report on the model limitations.

Now, there are also many questions related to the economics of this camera...

Everybody seems to agree it will be beyond the reach of most customers (even professional ones, sorry Ilkka), but it might be less a handicap for Leica than for the M8, considering the targeted customer's panel which is deliberately limited in number by the the very essence of the product.

As a number of participants already mentionned, the question of a proper professional grade service is of pime importance to the commercial success of this system, although it might be easier for Leica to properly handle the demands of the comparatively small number of owners of such a system than to handle - as limited as it is - of the many times more numerous M8 customer ones. Hopefully the S2 will also be more reliable and better individually controlled before being sent to the retailers.

However, at the present time there are still a lot of practical questions which are still remaining unanswered. The camera is still at a prototype or pre-production stage and its actual performances remain unkown.

To what extense will it actually perform as advertised... Leica is not a non-profit organization and like any other manufacturer will tend to present its products as the best even if they know about some shortcomings or limitations. Moreover when you consider the way they treat their customers since some years...

How many of the potential customers will accept to pay not only an expensive body, but also a new set of no less expensive lenses, in a time most MF format market actors are deliberatly renouncing to a proprietary approach regarding lenses and backs compatibility and are issuing more and more ergonomically designed and automated bodies compatible with most existing MF lens range (even "old" manual ones) which are generally already owned by the S2 potential customers?

The high ISO performance is also a somewhat limiting factors... In the studio or in controlled exterior conditions, where the studio flashes reign, the theoretical advantage of a speedier, better ergonomy comparable to the one of a small format camera is minimized. This advantage only makes its full sense when the availble light (even with some reflectors) is used. In such situations, better to be able to exploit the potential of higher ISO settings and - why not - the newly open "available darkness" potential of some small (but full) format DSLR's. So, to fully justify the switch from an existing MF system able to be gradually improved simply by exchanging the digital back as the performance of the sensors grows and to replace existing expensive high quality lenses by an entirely new and proprietary system, you need to have something really different and able to perform not only like an MF but just like the cream of the best small format DSLR's where those shine. With the pixel density of the S2, unless Leica has made with its partner a remarkable breakthrough in digital technology, I doubt the high ISO performance will even approach the ones of these DSLR's. Which leads to this fundamental question : is not such a concept too much in advance considering the present state of the art ?

Regarding Leica place on the market, is the choice of this camera the best way to :

1 - Regain a place in the professional world ?

2 - Solve the financial difficulties of the company to prepare for a brighter future ?

The first problem depends both on the actual performance of the camera versus the competition and the ability of Leica to offer the users a top class professional service.

The second is more complex to answer... Most camera manufacturers have a flagship camera which serves more as an advertisment for the rest of their range than anything else. But Leica has no comparable product to offer to a broader panel of customers and the M8 as the digital continuator of the M series which used to be the brand flagship is neither an affordable camera nor particularly successful technically (even if some people use it with satisfaction) and fails below the expectations of many M film camera users (lack of full format, lack of high ISO performance, lack of reliability in demanding conditions, lack of proper QC when leaving the factory, lack of proper service...) ... So it appears to me legitimate to have doubts regarding the usefulness of this remarkably advanced concept as a leverage to re-instate Leica as a major competitor on the digital market. Experience with other manufacturer's flagships showed time and again these flagships to cost more than they actually bring in cash and their value usually lay more in the image they bring to the brand than anything else...

A lot of people here in this forum have said time and again Leica is a small entity and as such cannot directly compete with the major brands to justify the price of Leica products and - to a certain extent - their lack of advanced features and shortcomings. With the S2, Leica, once again, seems to want to tackle a niche market, hopefully this time with valuable technical arguments. But they are also entering an unknown territory for them : the MF market.

I do appreciate this attempt and its boldness. But I'm not convinced this is the "right" bold movement. They cannot rely on Leica legend and history to promote it. The funds invested in the R&D of this camera and the accompaining lenses might well have been better employed creating a full format (24x36) "M9" solving all the problems of the M8 regarding its use in press and street photography, loaded with the relevant features already present in available DSLR's and fully compatible with existing M and LTM (with a conversion ring) lenses (except perhaps those with goggles and those of the collapsing variety)... Even if this camera had a high retail price, at least people already having Leica (and other M-LTM compatible) lenses in their bag should have accepted to pay the price for this body, knowing they won't have to spend anything more to cover the FOV range in term of new lenses. Let's imagine someone buying a Nikon D3 or a D700 and having to buy lenses to go with it while having already a bunch of Leica glass and compare the total cost of this Nikon with appropriate glass and the cost of the imaginary M9 body alone... I don't think the total budget to invest would have been so different. Moreover, this total budget would have been far more accessible than buying the S2 system so the customer's panel would have been far larger. And as for the image of the company, the legend would have been easy and fair to use again as a selling argument. Yet, the market would not have been large enough to overflow the brand production capabilities. What Leica has done with Phase I, they could have done with any reliable partner and with such a partner, may be, it would have become possible to lower the price to an even more acceptable level...

Time only will tell if Leica has made the right choice to recover its place as premium image making tool manufacturer.

FPW

Jay :

>> ... would assume you mean landscape and the like. But "fine art" photography can have many subjects. Gary Wingogrand, and Cartier-Bresson to name two Leica rangefinder users generally now called artists, not to mention the likes of Sebastiao Salgado. <<

Jay, like you I consider these people as artists but they don't appear to me linked with what is usually called "fine art photography" and may I attract your attention to what i wrote in the original post :

<< ... "a craftsman photographer or an artist photographer" looking for the best possible imagery (on the technical side) >>

Emphasize should be put on the words "technical side"...

Neither Winogrand, Cartier-Bresson or Salgado were particularly trying to extract perfectly "clean" (technically speaking) images (though i'm sure they would have preferred to proceed so). What was their main interest (and still is for Salgado) is the subject itself and the way they show the subject.

Cartier-Bresson was notorious for working at f/8 in hyperfocal (to speed-up the process of capturing the decisive moment in pre-AF time), he completely f...ed - up the exposure of its May 1968 assignement in Paris by grossly overexposing the pics which were saved - only because it was "Monsieur" Cartier-Bresson - by copying the negatives to obtain a printable film at the laboratory.The result is nonetheless an example of capturing decisive moments but is far from being a technical example of "perfect" photography and a demonstration of Leica lens potential of definition (look for the grain :) ) !

Our friend Douglas is looking for the best technical quality (at the same time he produces excellent captures of the birds he likes so much). This is not the same kind of needs. Thanks to his good eyes (even with glasses) and dexterity he has proven us time and again he can capture his favourite subjects with manual long tele-lens which are indeed optically superior to the equivalent AF lens of Canon or Nikon. Here the man behind the camera is surely counting a lot in the final results. I would never try to proceed the same way, with a tele lens my poor eyes now need a good AF :) . He is looking for a gear which stays not too much obtrusive though still give him very high quality files almost comparable to a MF file. He chose a certain compromise which suits him. My opinion is this compromise won't suit a majority of photographers for diverse reasons (and this is one of the main reason so few professionals use A Leica R+DMR combo. As far as I know, Douglas doesn't use an M (which is totally unsuited for birding anyway). Some people may buy an M8 because they use it as a landscape camera and don't want to bother with a more obtrusive gear. But it is clear in so doing, they use the M camera a far different way this camera was originally designed for. Few of them are professionals and few professionals will admit the shortcomings of the present M8 for the kind of job they have to perform. I have nothing against the leisure time landscape photographer who choses an M8, though when you examine the problem in a cold objective way the lack of obtrusiveness - despite the file quality - is paid a high price in terms of optimal tool and quality when compared to a MF or large format camera. But I can't accept a "demonstration" of the M8 "quality" based on such an objectively distorted choice when almost every report from Press photographers testing the M8 are totally negative for their kind of job, despite the fact the very concept of a small format rangefinder camera is dedicated to Press and street photography. And I consider unfair from Leica to advertize the M8 mainly by using (explicitely or implicitely) the Leica legend which is based on Press photography. I would have preferred an affordable reliable full format M mount digital rangefinder with a modern card loading system, high performance at high ISO and with matrix and spot metering options even at the expense of "some" image quality. It would have been far more conform to the original "Leica spirit" and Leica legend and far more useful for those who really *need* such a modern digital rangefinder : the Press and street photographers.

FPW

Hello Douglas,

You wrote :

>> Francois, how do you propose I get a 6-degree angle of view lens on a medium-format camera, and then climb mountains with it? <<

Douglas, I suppose you mean an ultra wide angle (so not a 6-degree FOV but a 6mm focal length...).

Without reaching such an extreme (and there are some medium format fisheyes available though) I think I'll simply use a SW camera from Hasselblad : very compact, weighs very few (probably less than most contemporary DSLR with a lens of the same field of view). Did you ever tried one ?

Now if you really mean a tele-lens covering 6-degrees only, let me insist on the fact it is a so heavy and cumbersome lens (if you want a sufficient maximum aperture) that the volume of body itself is simply dwarfed anyway (and you'd better have a somewhat heavy body to balance the weight by the way).

On a more general point of view, the first pics taken of the Wild West in the 19th century were taken with a 50x60cm "Tourist" view camera using wet collodion glass plates and many landscape photographers even to these days are still using a 4x5 inch view camera and a tripod even on very rough terrains...

I agree it is simpler to use a small format camera in such situations, but I'm prepared to admit a certain reduction in image quality as a necessary price to pay for this simplification.

>> How much medium-format equipment are you willing to carry on your back for a backpacking trip, <<

Currently my MF backpack is composed of a Mamiya 645 1000s with three film inserts and a metered prism with a 55mm, an 80mm, a 150mm, a 250mm and a 500mm, plus films, filters a bunch of accessoriesand a hand held meter should the need arise. When I had the Hassy gear, I had five lenses, two backs and a Polaroid back and a metered prism, a complete set of extension rings, a bunch of accessories to be used on a 553 ELX...

To answer your question I am used to carry a lot :)

But I won't carry such a cumbersome gear to cover action situations (but I used to carry no less than three SLR's in film days). And my prefered gear for a close to the subject press action work is obviously a small format rangefinder gear.

>> and how "essential" is high-ISO capability when you're using the camera on a tripod and especially when there is not just a slight but substantial difference in the raw files? <<

Part of the high ISO capability is just required by the simple fact I don't want to have to carry a tripod at all by being able to reach a sufficient speed to avoid using a tripod. Weight is not the only problem with a strudy tripod and modern carbon fiber ones can solve this aspect of things but carrying a tripod means to carry a very obtrusive accessory even if it is featherweight. The other side of the problem is you can now use ISO 3200-6400 and obtain a very printable detailed pic you would never have obtained in film era... To the point you can speak of "available darkness" handheld photography moreover with a wide aperture high quality prime... Imagine what the new f/0.95 Noctilux can capture full open at ISO 6400 !!

>> Did you ever seen Galen Rowell hanging from a rope on the side of the mountain with a medium-format camera, or while he was running to catch the light at the top of a mountain? <<

I admit no... but what is the end product he (and photographers like him) expects ? Most pictures end printed by offset process and I sincerly doubt even the best printing processes can do justice to the high level reached on a classical or even inkjet print and keep the difference between a Leica made file and a "Nikanon" made one in definition... On the other side, I'm almost sure the smoother tonal transitions characterisitic of Leica lens will still be visible.

>> If one must define the uses for small-format cameras as narrowly as you have then Fang is right, we should just dump our 1Ds, D3 and DMR systems, get a digiReb and be happy, but uses for cameras of all sizes are limited only buy the imaginations of those who use them. Recall that Barnack's original concept for the camera was "small camera, big picture", something he could carry hiking and still get high-quality pictures. <<

Try to have a look to early Barnack pics ... Both the flood at Wetzlar and I don't remember what post WW-1 international peace conference taken inside without flash. They are clearly inferior in definition and tonal variation to the ones which could have been obtained with a contemporary large format press gear... For the flood at Wetzlar, though less spontaneous the images would have been of much better quality. Inside the conference building and without a flash (i.e. a magnesium discharge) these pictures should not have been possible to take. Great photographies are not ever the best technically speaking, though I prefer to get both the right subject at the right moment and a high I.Q. ... I think your interpretation of the saying "small camera - great pictures" is largely biased... Great should not be primarily taken as an equivalent of large or extremely defined :) ...

In many "philosophical" ways, the new world of "available darkness" handheld photography is an evolution which can be legitimately compared to the birth of small format photography. It allows the photographer to take pictures in a way which was deemed impossible before, moreover, it allows it with an IQ threshold which is an important progress versus what used to be the one of very high speed films. To take a picture at slow ISO settings and expect a high quality in defintion is nothing new at all (memories of K 25) and to expect from them not to equal but to approach the MF quality (though the tonal transitions are still less smooth) is nothing new.

I simply regret Leica is still going farther and farther from Barnack spirit as far as the M's are concerned...

Now let's see if the S2 will become a landmark combining effectively MF I.Q. quality and the reduced obtrusiveness of a small format camera... It is still a prototype and unfortunately for most of us the stated price level is beyond reach. If this camera keeps its promise, then it will be the perfect one for you :).

FPW

Fang and Douglas,

I think in this recurrent debate you've - perhaps unintentionally - put the finger on the right problem and the source of all the dispute between unconditionnal Leicaphiles and what the formers consider as Leicaphobes...

In many earlier messages I've tried to explain the main reason I consider the M8 a "lemon" (and to a lesser extent the R8-9 + DMR combo)...

I think this everlasting dispute won't end until each party realize it is not talking about the same camera specs.

I (and I think most photographers with a certain experience in the now past film days) NEVER considered 35mm cameras (SLR's or rangefinders) as efficient tools for the "a craftsman photographer or an artist photographer" looking for the best possible imagery (on the technical side). There were (and there are in our digitalized world) far better tools for that kind of photography. May be the new S2 (price set aside) will conciliate both the medium format quality and the ease of use and reasonable size of a small format camera. May be it will be the forerunner of things to come... But neither the R8-9 + DMR (facing a Hasselblad for example) nor the M8 (or M8-2) are, facing a digital medium format camera.

Based on EXISTING cameras (not prototypes), a small format digital camera is still something which is a compromise between the image quality of a medium format and a reduction in size and weight when compared to an MF, even if the image quality of small format cameras is ever improving (it was already the case in film times). To put it in simpler terms, you trade a part of the image quality potential to get a smaller, faster, to use camera.

For me, trading the low light capabilities, the high ISO performance and anything which compromises the fast action recording of an image specific to the small format camera for a better IQ though not good enough to compete with a medium format is a sheer nonsense, moreover when as far as the cost is concerned the difference is so small. I know Douglas, your mileage differs, I respect your point of view, but I fundamentally disagree with you.

My opinion on the M8 is based on the fundamental assumption a small format rangefinder is CONCEPTUALLY a press and street photographers' camera, not a "fine art" tool.

In film times I've worked most of the time with multiple systems : SLR's (for their ability to use long tele-lenses and be portable macro-photographic tools) and appreciated their ability (increasing with each generation) to work faster and capture action ; small format rangefinder cameras, I used for their unobtrusivness, silence and their unequalled abilities in low light ; medium format cameras which gave me the ability to reach a far superior IQ when compared to my small format cameras (I'd whish my Hasselblad system was never stolen !) and even large format view cameras for their unequalled IQ and their movements.

I never expected from one of these systems to perform something as well as what the prime advantages of another authorized. I never envisaged them as competitors but as tools complementary to each other.

A universal system never existed and even if with digital times it may lay in a near future it doesn't exist today.

I think El Fang position is perfectly realistic *when you consider the kind of photographic tool he expects to find with a digital rangefinder camera*.

As is your position *when one considers what you are trying to get from your gear*.

Let's use an example which doesn't imply Leica...

Unless proven otherwise if you consider the present strategy of Nikon vs the one of Canon in the small format DSLR world, you see Nikon trying to maximalize the advantages related to a small format camera with the D700 and the D3, while Canon issues as a flagship the 1Ds Mk.III which is more oriented toward definition at the expense of speed, high ISO capabilities and fast AF. These opposed strategies perfectly illustrate the debate between you and El Fang. And, between some other reasons (related to the extended retro-compatibility of the Nikons regarding the lenses), I have chosen to buy a Nikon because their main highlights are just what I expect from a small format DSLR.

Unfortunately, Leica (nor for all intent and purpose any other manufacturer) offers me the Digital small format rangefinder I'm dreaming of as a perfect tool for the kind of work I practice now... Even if the M8-2 proves more reliable in extreme conditions than the M8, Leica succeeds in providing a reliable and fast service and has a remarkable IQ at low and even medium ISO levels, there are still problems Leica has not addressed which are for ME and MY kind of work and budget definitely deal breakers :

1 - Format : One of the reason why I don't want an M8 is the fact I can't use my M mount lenses at their nominal FOV (and one of them, the 135mm cannot be used at all) and I would have to buy a wide Tri-Elmar to have my wide angle capabilities back. This last point (as this lens is almost unavailable at a reasonable price second hand) would affect my budget to an unbearable level.

2 - I.R. filters : At $ 100 each this is something I'm not ready to pay to correct a major flaw, presented as a feature destined to get sharper images. I'm still extremely astonished by the ease with which some Leica diehards which once in film era swore they'll never put a filter which was supposed to diminish the quality of their precious Leica lenses accepted to put such a filter to use their M8 !!!

3 - The separate baseplate : already obsolete in film times (the last Nikon with a separate baseplate for loading - the F - was discontinued around 1972 with the introduction of the F2 and neither my Hexar RF or the new Zeiss Ikon are affected by this "antique" feature). Some people can arguably defend the loading procedure of a film in an M (I disagree with them but admit this baseplate had an economical reason to be maintained) with a digital M using an SD card this is ridiculous (the fact this M8 baseplate seems unable to allow the use of a tripod notwithstanding).

4 - The lack of certain modern features regarding auto-exposure which have proven their value for fast "decisive moment" shots : namely some kind of matrix metering light evaluation system and, conversly,the lack of a true spot metering system in manual mode.

5 - Last but not least, the poor high ISO performance of the M8, which as El Fang put it makes the throne of the M camera as the king of low light fall apart.

All the Leica legend used to be based on Press photography, this is the legacy of their past. When I judge the M8, I judge it from this point of view. I really don't care if the RAW files are a tad better at low and medium ISO (before post processing) than with a Japanese DSLR, just because this Japanese DSLR (and moreover when it goes to a Nikon D3 or D700) has already reached the threshold of IQ which I consider sufficient for the work I do, the kind of image I take and what I expect from a small format camera. I don't care if I had to loose some potential of Leica glass by using a built on the sensor IR filter, because I did exactly the same in film times, when I pushed the ISOs of my film and when the actual superiority in definiton of these lenses manifested itself only when using the camera on a rock steady tripod when I used my M handheld. To have clean, almost noise free and publishable image at ISO 6400, looking even better than a film image taken at ISO 800 is far more important for my kind of work. And this, the M8 can't do.

Let's try to talk about the same tool or recongnize we are not talking about the same kind of photography hence we need different tools.

let's recognize the M8 whatever we may think about it intrinsically is not on par with the old M's of film era as a tool for Press photography.

And please try to end a dispute which has become meaningless.

FPW

Ilka,

As far as I know, the 20mm (all versions) are giving good results on FX sensors (good doesn't mean perfect)... Of course, he won't have either the perfection reached by the costly latest zoom form Nikon or the result (and FOV) he can expect from the latest Zeiss ZF 18mm F/3.5 , but I bet he will have better result than with any lower range super-wide AF zoom from a third party and it will cost him far less.

Sorry for the late answer

FPW

Hello all,

I think choosing a D 700 is anywayn the right way to go... But why try to get a poor ultra-wide zoom ?

There is an even cheaper solution to get quality ultra wides, Nikon is the only manufacturer to offer us with its enlarged retro-compatibility...

Most of the time under 35mm (assuming your 35mm allows for a maximum aperture equal or better than f/2) AF is a luxury you can easily dispense with and most of the time an ultra wide will be focused by the depth of field table to allow for maximum effect...

The best and cheapest solution is to buy one or two manual prime(s) wide(s) Nikkor F with an Ai or an Ai'ed mount second hand for the price of dust.

You'll get a splendid lens, on par with the all the ultra-wide zooms available except the latest high end ones from Nikon, used at its nominal FOV with an efficeint and handy DOF scale engraved on the barrel...

Who really needs more ?

Don't be fooled by the "AF'ite" and "zoom mania" when it goes to wide angles...

FPW

Marc,

I can confirm the price concerns the 50mpx camera... Now is it an error of the shop webmaster I don't know...

FPW

IMHO, Brooks is spot on the problem,

We should not forget manufacturing a camera and selling it is a business and as such their owners search for the

maximum profit to be extracted from what they produce.

The only link between production cost and retail price is the economic law the production cost should in no

occasion be superior or equal to the retail price as you won't make any profit.

However it seems to me a new evolution is manifesting itself in technology: during the first part of the digital

evolution the technical difficulties to produce large sensors which induced a high rejection rate were the main

limiting factors, first to the production of full sized sensor, then to its massive diffusion due to the cost of

each acceptable unit. This was the decisive factor for the widespread use of APS sized sensors on DSLR's (and

even smaller ones on compact cameras). The main way to improve sensors was to increase the pixel density while

the engineers tried and successed to fight the loss in dynamic range and the noise at high ISO by any mean. This

period will probably stay in the fledgling history of digital cameras as the "Pixel counters era" :-) ...

Nowadays, it seems the production engineers have found some way(s) to produce bigger sensor more economically and

to cut more and more the rejection rate of these bigger slice of silicium. It is IMHO clear this trend to return

to the tradtional formats of film photography has more immediate promises for performance increase (by using

bigger pixels the noise reduction problem and the increase in dynamic range seems easier, less costly in R&D, and

faster) while the increase in pixel density without reducing or precluding the increase in performance at high

ISO and maintaining or increasing the dynalmic range at the same time has taken the back seat.

As there are a lot of good reasons (including user's preference) to return to the old nominal formats, we can

only speculate on the extent of this trend.

But it looks like we are approaching the moment a given technology is mature enough to reach the point its

progress become slower and more difficult to obtain (so will cost more for each positive step) with the increase

in pixel density while maintaining or increasing the resistance to noise and dynamic range on the present sensor

technology.

I'm convinced this is not the case for the increase in size of the sensors. Recently even the compact cameras

were touched by this trend with the Sigma DP-1 (it has an APS-C sensor), in the medium format world, the increase

of pixel density is still gaining momentum but the demand for high ISO performance is less important than with a

small format camera and the prices are steadily decreasing. In the small format DSLR world, the best compromise

for the state of the art has been reached by Nikon with the D3 and then the D700 while the very high pixel count

Canon 1Ds Mk.III which cost a lot more is nowhere approaching the high ISO performance of the D3/D700 couple

while it remains unconvincing and rather uneconomical for medium format users who can find a better defintion for

relatively few more $ in buying a MF body for which most have already compatible lenses. A reason why I doubt

Nikon will ever issue a "D3x" in the 20mpx + category to complete the range of pro DSLR's of this generation.

I think Nikon engineers will wait for their next generation of DSLR where the progress made will allow for a

better defintion without sacrificing the high ISO performance and dynamic range to introduce a new sensor with a

higher pixel density. There is also another reason of economic nature: producing a unique model for a given

target will allow for economy of scale and consequently a decrease in price while maintaining the profit margin

per unit and broadening the potential market. Remember that Nikon is already using the same sensor unit on the D3

and the D700, which is a smart move as to cost amortizement.

The immediate future seems to me very predictable. the next generation of Nikon DSLR's will probably eliminate DX

format from the pro and semi-pro range, while the (I will call them D4 and D800 for sake of facility of reading)

new high end models D4 and D800 will share the same new sensor (may be 24mpx) with the same high ISO performance

the D3/D700 have (may be better but I doubt that). The DX lens range will stay as it is with (almost if at all)

no new lens. The next high end amateur grade body will use the D300 DX sensor and electronics. The FX lens range

will be developed probably with "revised" prime designs. Unless an unpredictable technological breakthrough

appears, the following generation will completely eliminate DX format to allow the concentration on the

production of FX lenses only (again economy of scale). The prices will probably decrease in the meantime (even in

constant money) to stabilize at the face value of the old film camera bodies for each level of performance. After

the total elimination of the DX range, we will probably see a concentration on fewer amateur DSLR models, may be

only one (the 21st century Nikkormat) with a sensor and electronics which will probably come nearer and nearer in

performance to the high end models but with a cropped menu and more automatism and probably no

retro-compatibility with manual lenses. The delay before obsolescence of a camera body will probably increase as

times goes by and the technology will reach its maturity.

FPW

Douglas, Jeff and Marc,

I'm aware of the AF problem on the Canon EOS 1D Mk. III (the small sensor "fast" model) but never read anything about the 1Ds Mk.III full format model ...

Is there anything new about the 1Ds being concerned by the same problems I'm not aware of, even if it has been corrected ?

I've considered for a time going to a Canon EOS 5D, but when Nikon issued successively the D3 and the D700, I went back to Nikon to buy my future DSLR. The main reason versus the Canon 5D (the fact it is now long due for a replacement set aside) concerns the lens compatibility problem. At least the full format Nikons can use at their designed FOV an F lens of 1959 vintage provided it has been converted to Ai norm. This is very interesting for me as I won't have to buy the latest AF zooms at least for the time being and can use manual focusing wide angle primes instead of AF versions (a personal preference under 35mm) and buy prime the kit I need second hand for a very reasonable price, so the total amount won"t exceed my budget. In so doing I expect to get a body wioth superior performance (noticeably at high ISO) without spending a fortune.

FPW

FPW

Marc,

The price I indicated is the one announced as a special offer by "le Moyen Format" boulevard Beaumarchais in Paris on their site...

http://www.lemoyenformat.com/Neuf/CVDS.htm

Can't say anything more.

FPW

Marc Bergman :

>> When one looks at noise tests they have to look beyond simple ISO noise level measurements. You also have to look at the type of noise, luminance or chroma noise, whether there is any clumping or blotching, whether there is smearing or loss of resolution, any loss of color accuracy, and to what level there is a decrease in dynamic range. <<

Agreed

>> The Nikon D3 and D700, along with the Canon 5D and ID Mark III have remarkably low noise. The IDs III has very low noise taking in to account the number of pixels. <<

Of course yes, but I consider for the present time (let's see what will comme some years from now) more important for a small format camera which IMHO is primarily designed for ACTION photography and which has already reached the threshold of being equal (or better) in defintion to (than) a film camera using a medium sensitivity film to reach a very high level of high ISO performance than to put the emphasize on a definition which tries to equal the one of current MF backs. This is a question of priority due to the present state of the art which forces a trade between the two qualities. Of course, when it will be possible to have both (and at a more resonable price than a 1Ds Mk.III), I will heartily welcome a better definition.

>> We can't just lump all cameras inferior to the D3 noise wise into the same trash bin. <<

It is far from my opinion to put the 1Ds Mk.III in the trash bin (anyone who wants to do, that, please give me the address of the bin :-), but to pay Euro 8000 (body only) for a small format camera for which the main advantage is an exceptional definition of the sensor at the cost of high ISO performance versus its main competitor (costing about half its price) is not something I'll do. Moreover when the Hasselblad 50Mpx camera will be offered next October at a special price of Euro 11,995 (taxes not included) with a 80mm f/2.8 HC ! ...

I think Canon didn't take enough into account the downward curve of digital medium format camera price while they are still increasing their definition and despite the real qualities of the camera issued this one too early for what state fo the art offers in terms of pixel density vs Dynamic range and noise reduction at high ISO. At Canon they ended up with a good camera and perhaps a show pîece of technology more than a truly effective camera on the market. It is too expensive and too near to the price of a true medium format camera for a small format pro DSLR, offers too much defintion at the cost of high ISO performance for the average small format user (pro or advanced amteur) or not enough definition to be truly convincing for the medium format user. Beside, for most medium format users, already using a set of MF lenses to convert to the Canon body will be more costly than to buy a state of the art MF body compatible with their lenses. Nikon's choice seems to me a far better approach to a state of the art small format DSLR, mostly aimed to P.J.'s and more generally action photographers. This doesn't mean the 1Ds Mk.III is a bad camera but more accurately a camera which will find its market with some difficulties.

It is a problem not so far than the one of the M8 (reliability problems and very slow customer's service set aside) in the way it is just - IMHO - a case of misunderstanding the very nature and reason to exist of small format. But in the Canon case, at least the body performs as advertised and is really a high end one.

FPW

Mohir :

>> What good is weather sealing the camera body when the lenses aren't? Ever heard of the capillary effect? <<

Mohir, without disrespect, do you have carefully examined a plumbing work ? You don't need more than one seal to seal two parts. A proper seal on the body will do. Weather sealing is not waterproofing. What is liable to be damaged more on digital camera than on film one is the sensor and the electronics in the body, not the lens. Any Leica lens (and a lot of other makes) are and were resitant enough to weather and occasional water drip. And on a digital camera, dust penetrating into the body is a major problem too.

>> The current size and price is fine. It's ONLY $1500 more than a new MP/M7 and demo w/warrantee M8s can be under $4000. <<

Sorry but I fully disagree... as MP/M7 are (and were) grossly overpriced themselves... You can get a better camera buying a Zeiss Ikon for half their price which is as well built, have a better shutter performance, a better viewfinder and a more precise rangefinder due a to a more important distance between the finder and the rangefinder window than a current x0.72 M model and which is fully compatible with any M mount lens without goggles.

I won't comment a lot on your proposed specs except they are totally unrealistic for most potential users of a modern small format DRF both in the required definition and the lack of some features like the control screen.

FPW

Douglas

>> ... while new lenses can take advantage of a larger sensor. <<

I didn't even imagine they envisage to tackle the problem this way... It means Leica envisage seriously to produce an all new line of lenses, something they certainly can do technically, instead of limiting the investment in adapting a new performing sensor to full 24x36 fromat and using the existing R range to its full potential ... It also means - like it is the case with the Nikon D3 and D700 - R lenses users will have fewer useable pixels (on the 12mpx Nikons using a DX lens means an image without more than 5mpx)...

If this is true, I think they are taking the wrong way once again... and a foolish spending in investment unless they really go to medium format and equals the best available backs in definition.

I don't beleive in compromises that much. A half small format/ half medium format doesn't seem to me so attracting. Despite what a contributor said, the Canon EOS 1Ds Mk III with its 22mpx full format sensor has been described in all serious tests as inferior to the Nikon D3 at high ISO noise wise and we don't know anything serious about the 24mpx Sony 24x36 sensor which is rumored. Looking on this problem on the pixel density side, the new Hasselblad 50mpx sensor will carry them on an area of 1798,3 sq mm, versus the Canon which carries 22mpx on a 864 sq mm. So the Hasselblad sensor will carry 2.27 times the number of pixels on an area which is 2.08 times larger. Which means the Hasselblad will have even smaller pixels (but not very much). To limit the noise resistance at high ISO by craming a lot of pixels on a limited area might not be a liability for a medium format user but it is IMHO (and I think I'm not part of the minority here) a very difficult thing to accept on a small format camera. Though I'm confident technology will take care of the noise resistance and dynamic range problem in the future.

But the present trend clearly indicates this progress is bound to be slower than the progress of the technology concerning the production of bigger sensor. Thus, if Leica is bound to introduce a larger than 24x36 sensor and an accompaining range of lenses, they must reach the 50mpx threshold with a sensor area about 4 times the one of a Nikon D3 so, a true medium format (it means for example a square of 58,92mm x 58,92mm, in fact almost a 6x6). With such a format and 50mpx the new Leica MF will beat the Hasselblad in resistance to noise and dynamic range retaining the same performance as the Nikon D3 on these points and equal the Hasselblad in definition, based on what exists today. Given this assumption, the user of an R lens will have 4 times less pixels available, so will end up with 12,5mpx available. So he will have the equivalent of a Nikon D3 sensor... But what about the body size ??? It will definitely be a MF.

Taking the medium format this way won't be a bad idea for Leica but the threshold is very high.

Bottom line, it means a de facto end of their small format reflex range and a very important investment. As everybody seems to agree on the impossibility for Leica to produce something akin to the average prices of the market, I wonder what will be the eventual cost for the user, body plus an entirely new lens kit ?

For me, Leica strategy remains unclear on most points and seems to be once again oriented toward a very limited number of potential customers. Even if they produce the MF with the specifications I referred to earlier, I'm afraid the answer of larger and potentially more wealthy corporations already engaged in MF will be swift and powerful, and will probably bring similar products (performance and format wise) on the market with a lower price and I think with a whole lot of bells and whistles on the body modes. And this in a time major actors on the MF market are leaving the proprietary approach in lens and back compatibility to broaden the potential market of their bodies.

Considering all these problems, I think it would be much healthier for Leica to direct their main investment toward a superior full format (24x36) rangefinder body and - if they have enough to spend on - it a "R10" with simply a full format 24x36 sensor and a revision of their existing R lenses to give a performing AF to the focal length where it is really relevant. I think they can also develop a MF lens range but this one with all the necessary compatibility with other body makes.

But you are entirely free to disagree.

FPW

Allen,

Like almost always, we are in complete agreement.

Leica must go back to its roots.

FPW

Douglas wrote:

>> I don't claim that the DMR is a competitor to Hasselblad. Hasselblad considers Leica's next reflex a

competitor. The R10 (if that's what its name is) is expected to use a sensor larger than 24mm x 36mm. <<

It seems to me rather difficult to believe. A full format (24x36) is entirely possible but unless all the R

lenses are designed with a ircle of sharpness exceeding the 24x36 format I can't see how they can use a larger

than full format sensor and still use their R lens range. Do you have any insight on this problem?

Now, for me, who is myopic since I was 12 (and heavily), so wearing glasses permanently and who like any person

over 45 is now long sighted, focusing precisely a long tele lens manually at full or near full aperture is beyond

my physiological ability. Beside I know a lot of persons similarly aged who, despite being long sighted only,

have real difficulties focusing manually on a ground glass. So I maintain despite you wear glasses since 16

years, your eyesight is exceptional (after correction) for your age.

As far as I'm concerned, I need AF in these situations.

FPW

Douglas,

Your pics look excellent, though you don't offer here any positive evidence of the way the DMR handles things... These are jpeg's dimensioned 600x400px and I suppose they come from "developed" RAW files, so with the adequate post processing done. Not a reproach, just the statement of a fact.

As to your prints (I would really like to see them but Sacramento is a bit far form where I live) i don't doubt they are fine. But I think you stretch the things a bit when you say a Leica R + DMR might have been a serious competitor to an Hasselblad, IQ wise.

Imacon technology under Hasselblad ownership has now reached a point they are issuing next October (in France) a 50mpx medium format digital camera with a 36,7x49 mm sensor based on Kodak technology. it is not yet a full 4,5x6 sensor, but we are slowly nearing this threshold. I don't see how a DMR can beat or even compete with such a sensor.

IMHO they don't "kill the DMR" because it was a competitor to the Hasselblad line, but because producing the DMR cost them too much due to the very limited number of them they can anticipate to sell (discarding the line was more profitable). Whatever the intrinsinc quality of this back and probably because they already knew even at this date the cropped sensor way was nearing its end a a valuable way to fast improvement in image quality. The present trend is clearly toward going back to the nominal formats of film era as the technology which allows improving dynamic range and lack of noise at high ISO which dominated the sensor world in the past years is slowing down. With a larger format and a similar number of pixels, you can improve the dynamic range and the resistance to electronic noise faster and for a lower R&D cost.

The worst part of it is Leica invented a fairly good concept with the DMR : a digital back for a small format film SLR but was unable to pursue its developement into a full format digital back (with whatever knowledgeable partner they can find) and for the original model was unable to market it at a reasonable price.

By the way I think you've a superior eyesight, far above the average, as to capture with such a precision birds in flight with a manual tele-lens in nothing short of remarkable.

It makes me understand also why you value so much your equipment. However, few people in their fifties like me will have the capability of focusing so fast and precisely in these conditions...

FPW

Warren wrote :

>> digital medium format RF.. i like the ring of that. maybe leica could whip something up? and charge 4295.00

body only. and it could use the m lenses. post 390 and i stayed on topic! <<

Sorry Warren but you have demonstrated here a complete lack of technological knowledge in optics... M lenses are

designed with "circle of sharpness" which covers the 24x36 format, try to use them on a larger format and you'll

end up with a circular image in the center with the edges progressively becoming more and more blurred on a black

background.

By the way, and this is not directed on Warren personnaly, this kind of affirmation makes somewhat relative the

argument you cannot form your judgement and emit an opinion on the M8 if you don't own one... Something which,

after all, may be true, provided you don't have the necessary technological knowledge on things applicable to ANY

camera or lens, as actual experience will be the only way to know :-)

FPW

Vic:

>> So in the end, after all these 385+ posts, it boils down to money, the relative cost of a Leica M8 compared to one's income or budget. (I thought I'd save readers having to plough through this lengthy eulogy.) <<

How to make a diversion, lesson two...

No Vic, it is not the relative cost of an M8 compared to "my" budget I consider and I don't think it is the case of most of its detractors either. The main problem with money and the M8 is the technological value for money of this camera. El Fang may be using harsh terms to describe it but he is fundamentally right : Considering the M8 random problems of reliability, its unability to take noiseless pictures at high ISO; its cropped sensor and its lack of relevant modern modes, it makes it a camera inferior to a less than $ 1000 entry level DSLR. What it has these entry level cameras doesn't is a far better image at low ISO and a PART of the inherent advantages of a rangefinder camera (it lacks the >> suitability for shooting in "available darkness" << to quote Mike Dixon)... Very few indeed to justify spending $ 4000 more... To which you have to add the cost of a wide angle Tri-Elmar at best (if you have already some M-mount glass) to compensate for the loss of wide angle capabilities. This is not acceptable for most phtographers and compounded by a poor customer's service.

You can forgive a manufacturer for issuing a very cheap camera with random reliability problems which is not destined to professional use. You can forgive a manufacturer to issue a more serious camera which is not loaded with all the features a pro model will have and which doesn't reach the performance of the best pro ones in all categories, like an entry level DSLR, but you cannot forgive a manufacturer which pretends to issue a "described as high end", intrinsically overpriced camera and for which, to add insult to injury, it is unable to offer a proper service within reasonable delays.

Late M film cameras already had some of these problems - including being overpriced moreover for the technology built in the body - but they used to be reliable and the remarkable Leica lens quality was useable on a body which used the same high speed film any other one of identical format used and the lenses were used at their nominal FOV.

I wish to make mine as a conclusion the remark of William Tuovinen : >> My hope for their future steps is to make a DRF of a quality that makes their current critics at least wish they had the budget to buy it. <<

FPW

Shun :

>> If a larger format were always better, the norm wouldn't have gradually gotten smaller and smaller from 8x10 to 4x5 to medium format to 24x36mm .... over the last century. <<

I beg to respectfully disagree Shun...

What remained more or less unchanged (for a given period) was the threshold of image quality. Progress made smaller fromat cameras able to deliver this "required" quality and as they were more practical for use and allowed for a more dynamic style of photography, they became prevalent.

But any attempt to use a smaller film format than the 24x36 standard became invariably a failure in film era, the last one to date being the APS format.

Ilkka explained more than once, using MTF reference, you will need a better lens to obtain the same results with a smaller sensor even if the resistance to noise at high ISO and dynamic range issues of smaller pixels were solved, than with a larger one, both sensors having the same pixel count.

This means, the argument of shorter, so cheaper, focal lengths to obtain the same apparent magnification will be void as far as price is concerned as the sensor quality will progress. Because, for example a 200mm lens in DX format will need to be a far better (so a more costly) lens optically speaking than a 300mm for an FX format to get the same results.

My personal experience also tells me a smaller, lighter, camera body (as far as the DX format will indeed alllow a truly smaller camera, of which I doubt when I compare the size of a D700 to the one of a D300) may be not the best deal when you go to using long tele-lenses (a domain where the size of the lens makes it far more obtrusive ans heavy than the body it is attached to), weight balance being better with a heavier body.

How good the D300 might be (and it is a good camera), unless you absolutely want (or need) the latest Nikon zooms and don't even look to second hand primes, the difference of price between a D300 and a D700 is not so important and even may be totally negated when you consider the cost of the lens to go with the D700 and the relative expected time before total obsolescence of both cameras.

I have the feeling the choice between the D300 and the D700 equates to chosing between the last of the line of Nikon semi-pro DX format DSLR and the first of the line of FX format Nikon semi-pro DSLR...

Unless you have a bunch of DX lenses in your bag or specialize into long-tele lens use, or - like you do - have the possibility to afford the D300 as a second body in company with a D3, I see no positive reason to get a D300 instead of a D700.

FPW

John :

>> 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. <<

I do agree with you about the Canon EOS 1Ds MkIII. It is more akin an attempt of Canon to tackle the medium format defintion level... I don't consider it a particular success and all things equal it is as overpriced as the M8. Canon issued this camera too early for the state of the art as craming 22mpx on a 24x36 sensor does not allw for good performance at high ISO (strangely enough the 1Ds MkIII becomes a poor performer at more than ISO 640, like the M8).

Of course you are right about the use of an M3 in the 50's. But because the film and not the camera was the limiting factor, you can take much better images today with an M3 than when it was brand new... The M3 was by any mean a "state of the art" camera when it was issued, unfortunately tyhe M8 isn't and no external factor will decisively improve it.

FPW