X1 sensor in an M8.3?

[peterb]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Just wondering. If the X1 has such a terrific APS-C sensor that has low noise up to ISO 3200 and the fact that (as far as I can tell) it required no IR filter or anything, could an M8.3 that utilizes THAT CMOS sensor be far behind? It would mean an APS-C camera with all the advantages of being an "M" APS-C camera. I doesn't seem like that would be all that hard to do. (Or has this question been already asked?)

[jsrockit]

It would take too many sales away from the M9 and people would complain about the crop factor.

[el.nino]

It would take too many sales away from the M9 and people would complain about the crop factor.

 

And also from the X1.

[ljclark]

Just wondering...could an M8.3 that utilizes THAT CMOS sensor be far behind?

 

I think the concept of "never" would cover most discussion (and useless speculation) about any M8.3.

[luigi bertolotti]

With the intro of M9, M line is identified as the Full Frame line, no contest... but is just a matter of time, money to invest and strategic decisions... a X line with interchangable lenses, positioned correctly as for price, would be an interesting complement to M line, and it could be also an occasion to design and sell specific lenses for its format.

[ottocrat]

Dear Leica, I would happily pay to upgrade my M8.2 with the sensor from the X1, thx

[theendlesshouse]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

It's a smaller sensor?

[ottocrat]

Very slightly. Despite that the high ISO performance is clearly much better.

[peterb]

I'm not sure I agree. Marketing-wise it would make sense.

 

For $2000 you get a great sensor in a compact (albeit fragile lightweight) body and a great fixed, standard lens. (And pokey AF): The Leica X1

 

For $5000 you get a great sensor in a solid body and access to a range of fabulous lenses with no need (I presume) for any IR filters. And a rangefinder. And people would no more complain about the crop factor than they do with an X1. My proposed Leica M8.3

 

For $7000 you get the above camera (for a $2000 premium over the M8.3) with a full-frame sensor. The existing Leica M9

 

Those who want to get their feet wet can go for the X1.

 

Those who want to get an X1 loaded to the nines with full access to M lenses can get the M8.3 It's the same concept--an X1 with interchangeable optics (but now in a more solidly made body and now with a rangefinder instead of some half-assed AF) some folks on the X1 forum have been whining for. And no need to develop a line of AF lenses at great cost no doubt for it. And remember with the OVF (which some need on the X1) and a grip the cost of the $2000 X1 quickly zooms to around $3000.

 

Those who want nothing less than a digital equivalent of the film M would get the M9.

 

And if the M8.3 is where most people are content, it's still a win for Leica.

 

If more people still fantasize about a digital full frame M with everything (and NO crop factor issues whatsoever) there's the M9. Again still a win.

 

Personally I don't see the problem any more than Nikon doesn't see the problem.

 

The dies have been cast. The cameras can be made. It's merely a matter of determining the ratios of how much of each based on predictable demand.

[Ronazle]

I think the concept of "never" would cover most discussion (and useless speculation) about any M8.3.

 

Hmm, never may well be correct. I do think "useless speculation" is probably not accurate. Speculation produces all sorts of byproducts most of which are useful in a forum such as this. In that it is unlikely to interfere with any grand scientific or philosophical endeavors, I welcome it.

[wattsy]

If the X1 has such a terrific APS-C sensor

 

That's the problem - it's actually not that terrific. I've used the X-1 and had a close look at the DNGs. It's true that the noise is low but then so is the detail. All said, the X-1 sensor is pretty decent but I wouldn't swap the sensor in my M8 for it.

[andybarton]

For $2000 you get a great sensor in a compact (albeit fragile lightweight) body and a great fixed, standard lens. (And pokey AF): The Leica X1.

 

Fragile? Lightweight?

 

Not heard an X1 described thus before. Have you handled one?

[peterb]

Look at it this way. Suppose Mercedes were to sell just two cars: The C300 (at around $30K). And the S600 (for some $99000). The C300 to 'get people's feet wet' to the idea of driving a Mercedes. And the S600 the full bore Mercedes that's everything you want in a car.

 

That's analagous to what some are saying is the situation with the X1 and M9. Two cameras. Two choices. Thousands of dollars apart. And nothing in between.

 

While it's certainly purist, there may be a missed opportunity.

[el.nino]

While it's certainly purist, there may be a missed opportunity.

 

You can't compare a small manufacturer with one of the biggest companies in the world.

Introducing an M8.3 would be stupid in every economical aspect (e.g. Cannibalization - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia).

[peterb]

Fragile? Lightweight?

 

Not heard an X1 described thus before. Have you handled one?

 

Hi Andy,

 

No I haven't personally handled it. I'm going by descriptions posted by Steve Huff and DPreview. They described the camera as lightweight (as in not very heavy) and 'fragile' (as in not being built I suppose to M standards) . Don't get me wrong, I think the X1 is a fine camera and meets the spec of providing the highest IQ for a camera its size.

[peterb]

You can't compare a small manufacturer with one of the biggest companies in the world.

Introducing an M8.3 would be stupid in every economical aspect (e.g. Cannibalization - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia).

 

I'm not trying to compare Leica to Nikon per se. Just saying that even for a small company like Leica, if you already have the parts for an APS-C sized M in your bins what's to stop you from making an M8.X with a CMOS vs a CCD sensor? How many of the parts in both bodies are totally identical? I would imagine except for frame masks, sensor circuitry and the sensor quite a few. (But I could be wrong.) I don't think it would be a major financial hurdle like coming out with a full frame digital M altogether.And again that's now done. Like I said the die(s) have been cast.

 

Now as wattsy said there may be a problem with the X1's sensor and ergo it's IQ in the details. That's the first I've heard of that. All other reports suggest a fine image producer.

 

And I don't see cannibalization. If Leica sells more M8.3's than M9's that's good. If they sell more M9's than M8.3's that's good too. Leica is company with a very quirky following. They bought M8's and M8.2's in droves (and put up with cut IR filters just to have that M digital experience). And now many are dumping their M8's and M8.2's for the M9. Many of the compelling arguments on other forums and even reviewers against the X1's steep price have been that a USED M8 or M8.2 may be a viable alternative with certain advantages. So I can't believe that an M with an APS-C sized sensor is no longer viable.

[el.nino]

I'm not trying to compare Leica to Nikon per se.

 

i was referring to your mercedes-example.

 

How many of the parts in both bodies are totally identical? I would imagine except for frame masks, sensor circuitry and the sensor quite a few. (But I could be wrong.) I don't think it would be a major financial hurdle like coming out with a full frame digital M altogether.

 

that's exactly the point. the manufacturing cost would be almost the same.

BUT: they can charge way more for a M9 than for a M8.3 as I don't think that anybody would pay about 7000$ for a M8.3.

So if some people would buy an M8.3 instead of a M9 they would loose money. simple equation.

what do you think why the X1 does not have interchangeable lenses? not because they could not do it. no, for the very same reason. it would hurt the M-sales very badly!

[peterb]

i was referring to your mercedes-example.

 

 

 

that's exactly the point. the manufacturing cost would be almost the same.

BUT: they can charge way more for a M9 than for a M8.3 as I don't think that anybody would pay about 7000$ for a M8.3.

So if some people would buy an M8.3 instead of a M9 they would loose money. simple equation.

what do you think why the X1 does not have interchangeable lenses? not because they could not do it. no, for the very same reason. it would hurt the M-sales very badly!

 

True. An X1 with interchangeable lenses would not only be problematic for M sales it would also be a major undertaking for a small company like Leica. For one thing a new line of AF lenses would have to be developed. A mounting system capable of working the lenses would have to be engineered. A more robust mount (not really a big issue but still a consideration). Now granted they've pioneered their own AF through the S2 and I suppose it could be adapted but individual engineering in each optic would remain. They've already embarked on the S2 at great expense in R&D and, personally, I'm not sure what the ROI will be. It's a lot to ask a medium format person who's heavily invested in Hasselblad and other makes with digital backs available to simply swap and run. And for those starting out the price of admission to medium format is steep enough. And the S2 steeper still. And now extremely high IQ, full frame 35mm equiv. digital sensors are showing up all over the place that can produce monstrous prints. Nikon's D3S is about the same size and can produce images I'm sure for most purposes that are on a par with the S2.

 

Then there would be the issue of viewing. With the rangefinder you have multiple masks that come into play when a particular lens is mounted. With an X2 (as a place holder name) do they continue the rangefinder-less view system and ask owners to pony up extra bucks for each additional matching OVF (if they choose to go that route) or go with an HD EVF (which I find tolerable but find others still do not). Or some other, simpler approach.

 

Oh and I'm sure after the juries have come back there'd be a clamoring for a better battery. With the larger sensor and other matters the current battery apparently poops out after 150 shots. And a better AF which if I read Sean Reid's review on the subject correctly requires new circuitry if the camera is to compete with the likes of a GF1 in that regard. (Firmware tweaks simply don't cut it.)

 

Of course to build a camera with a robust body to withstand lens changing and the like you're suddenly back in M territory.

 

If owners choose to buy an M8.3 over an M9 Leica wouldn't lose money. They simply would not make AS MUCH money. Or would they? Hmmmm

[wattsy]

Now as wattsy said there may be a problem with the X1's sensor and ergo it's IQ in the details. That's the first I've heard of that. All other reports suggest a fine image producer.

 

There's no problem with the sensor at all - it's simply not what I'd call "terrific" (which is the term used by the OP). It has the IQ of an average mainstream consumer orientated DSLR with an APS sensor (which puts it well ahead of cameras in the small sensor class). The sensor IQ wouldn't stop me from buying an X-1 if I wanted a small(ish) lightweight camera to put in a (largish) coat pocket, I just wouldn't want an M class camera to have such a sensor.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[wattsy]

No I haven't personally handled it. I'm going by descriptions posted by Steve Huff and DPreview. They described the camera as lightweight (as in not very heavy) and 'fragile' (as in not being built I suppose to M standards) . Don't get me wrong, I think the X1 is a fine camera and meets the spec of providing the highest IQ for a camera its size.

 

I have handled it and it has a decent quality feel. I'm usually quite sensitive to 'cheapness' (e.g. I've long criticised Leica for the choice of plastic they use on the ISO selector on the back of the M7 and, lately, MP and I'm a bit dubious about the quality of the wheel on the back of the M8 and M9) but the X-1 feels fine in terms of general build quality. What I would criticise it for is the looseness of the aperture and shutter speed dials (so loose you could almost spin them around with a flick of the finger) but the example I used (late pre-production) may not be representative of what is eventually sold in the shops. All said, it's a nice camera that will sell very well.