M8's useful lifespan

[ski542002]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hello:

 

I think 10mp is entirely adequate to reproduce images at any practical size via offset, photo-prints, or ink jet. In that regard, the M8 should be viable for many years to come.

 

The challenge to Leica and other dslr manufacturers including Canon, is the perception that the MF backs, by the nature of their size, produce files that just look cleaner and have a wider tonal range. As much as I enjoy shooting with our MKII and prefer it over the MF backs for it's flexibility, our Phase One H20 and P25 beat the Canon hands-down, abit at a much higher price! I don't think most amateurs, and regrettably most pros, really see the difference in this perceived quality difference.

 

One of the things I really enjoy about this forum, is reading about, and viewing, the high regard most of it's participants place on image quality and concerns over composition, tonality, sharpness, noise, et.al. In the real world, I don't see that level of "high-regard" from most viewers of our craft.

 

CD

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[carstenw]

Interestingly, although many companies like Leica have really suffered through this new digital age, and fast-moving companies with short life-cycles and quick design-cycles have thrived, once the MP wars settle down a bit and the demands on a sensor stabilise a bit, it will be exactly the other way around. Canon et al will suffer from having built a business model on planned obsolescence, and Leica and other similar companies with high-quality, long life-cycle products will be back in their element, selling new lenses to a stable customer base. Food for thought.

[blakley]

Carsten, you've hit the nail exactly on the head there, and some of the photo magazines are already commenting in their year-end wrap-up columns last month and this month that this is starting to happen. The price pressure in the consumer DSLR segment is fierce, and the volumes in the pro DSLR segment are not high enough to sustain growth without lots of help. The p&s digi market is also under tremendous pressure, as evidence of which I offer that you can get a wide range of 7-plus megapixel p&s offerings for under $300 US street now.

 

When this shakes out there will be more exits from the camera business - but Nikon & Canon will still be standing, and probably Sony too. Eventually, though, the product cycles will have to lengthen and prices will have to stabilize. When that happens, there's gonna be a bunch of hard times until companies adjust their business models.

[Guest magyarman]

Life to M8 is before Leica change to sensor who does not need to IR filters. This mast to happen soon, ora they lost busness. M8 who got already in hands going to life many years becaus after new one comes, nobody who gonna able take back money from sale old one.

[ChrisC]

There have been some postings touching on this subject as parts of other threads, I know; but I wonder how long it will be before the M8 file quality is significantly overtaken? .................

 

Phil - It is clear to me from reading responses from M8 owners whose evaluations I respect that the file quality exceeds the needs of most owners in it's capability to produce prints considerably larger than the vast majority of users will make.

 

I have over 30 years concern for image quality in my film photography, but I have never looked at one of my negatives under a microscope. Digital gives us the ability to view files at screen sizes which [if the screen displays at 72 ppi, and the file is written for 300 dpi output] is over 17 times the area of a print output at full size. Caution is needed when habitually viewing files at full size because even apparently nasty and horrible file glitches can be rendered unnoticeable in print.

 

In the commercial world, clients have to be satisfied, and if that needs using equipment which exceeds their needs but conforms to their wants; that is part of the commercial pact. But another reality, I suspect, is that 6 million pixel sensors deliver considerably more than is needed by the vast majority of digital camera owners who never see their 72 ppi images printed at 300 dpi or 360 dpi full size.

 

With respect, placing the emphasis of your post on the probability of future Leica file improvement focuses attention on something Leica mostly are getting right [the file quality], and draws attention away from simpler camera design issues they got horribly wrong. The M8 will be significantly improved I hope, but for me [exclusively a 6x7 and 6x9 rollfilm user for the last 25 years] changing design features and weaknesses which follow the M film legacy will be far more important than incremental file improvement. Many of those criticisms are amply covered in other threads and I am loathe to re-hash them again.

 

...........................Chris

[Stevez4]

Sean touches on the real issue. Quite specifically what was done. We believe that a few forum members know but they ain't telling. Very curious.

[ChrisC]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Sean touches on the real issue. Quite specifically what was done. We believe that a few forum members know but they ain't telling. Very curious.

 

Steve - It may well be curious , but I have absolutely no idea what you are alluding to. Would you care to expand on what is real, specific, known, and untold?

 

..........................Chris

[carstenw]

Steve, if you are talking about Sean's comment about the hardware change not being the sensor, this is no secret. Leica has made a statement on this. It is believed to be the sensor board with timing chips and all which was replaced, but not due to sensor problems. The readout of the image was the problem, and probably the timing was the bug.

[ed_oneal]

There's a consiracy theorist hiding behind every tree and bush.

[brunom]

For me the idea of changeable sensors [used in much the same way as focussing screens or film cassettes are ] which would change the basic use of the camera, would give an M body much better longevity than perceived at present.

 

Image a 'standard' M digital with a full frame sensor with all the [good] qualities of the M8 sensor but because of it being full frame, giving around 14 mpixels, and that, this sensor could be easliy exchanged for one of say 2 others - one of around 7mpixels with much larger pixels and with a very good high ISO performance, and the other with around 21mpixels-28mpixels and much smaller pixels, that had a range of around 50-200 ISO only.

 

 

As long as the basic M camera gave what most M users wanted I believe the basic body would once again be giving the long lasting appeal of all the previous M film cameras ?

 

If only!

 

Bruno

[jonoslack]

There have been some postings touching on this subject as parts of other threads, I know; but I wonder how long it will be before the M8 file quality is significantly overtaken? I look back at pictures I took on fairly good digitals four or five years ago and their technical quality is mostly awful by today's standards. I'm likely to buy an M8 this year and I'm sort-of expecting it will give me five years at the most before technical advances have made it unappealing to use any more (I'm talking about those that affect image quality, not convenience features).

As someone who still owns and sometimes uses the SL2 I bought in 1976, this is kind of a sad subject; but I realize we're in a brave new digital world now ....

Any thoughts?

 

It'll be just fine until your

"That new camera looks really cool"

gene gets more powerful than your

"My existing camera takes great shots"

Gene

 

Which has no bearing on image quality, or anything much else!

[jrc]

<snip>Old digital cameras, are getting "assaulted and battered" for not being up to current standards. Think about the old Monoliths such as the Canon/Kodak DCS 520 or 560. They cost as much as a decent new car, and they where celebrated back then! Today? Ha, you can almost get them for free. They had state of the art technology back then, but today they are nothing but an outdated and outperformed piece of Digital camera history.<snip>

 

Talking of sensor sizes. The natural development is a larger sensor. Perhaps even larger than 35mm full frame. I think that in the future we will se more cameras solely built around digital photography. This will mean all new design concepts. Given the problems that digital sensors have in today's "relic of film" lens situation.

 

Sensors that are bigger would mean less noise, higher resolution. The lenses wouldn't need to be better, but the effect would be more of a Medium format one. <snip>

 

But size and resolution are not everything, and never have been. In the 1940s, virtually every pro used what we now call a "large format" camera with great resolution, and they were largely dumped, in the space of a few years, for 35mm cameras with much less resolution -- because 35mm was "good enough."

 

Making bigger sensors means bigger cameras and bigger lenses and more expensive computers, and it also means that you need a mass market to buy all of these things. And they won't be cheap. I agree that people are not using cameras from five years ago, but that was because there was lots of room for improvement using the current 35mm model -- same lenses, cameras about the same weight, same speeds, and so on. Now, if you're full-frame, if you want more MP, you're probably going to get more noise. If you want to keep noise low, and more MP, then...you're talking about all new lenses, camera bodies, etc. So the situation is different. I think there will be improvements, but they'll be more subtle, and people will often decide that they can get along without them.

 

I really think we are now reverting back to the pre-2000 model: we'll have the P&S market, the "35mm" market, the medium-format market, and the large-format market. At each step, except perhaps for the last, chip sizes, pixel sizes, and costs will increase dramatically.

 

JC

[rvaubel]

The sensor pixel density war is reaching a plateau. The pixel size needs to stay the size of the M8 and 5D in order to keep good DR and high ISO values. In fact, that is about the only areas that I would want to see improvement. I would like to see the M8 achieve the same ISO speed as the 5D which should be possible because there pixel size is identical. Of course, at some point Leica will figure out the IR contamination problem. That would be a fix I would consider upgrading to,

 

It will be interesting to see if Canon comes out with a full frame camera with any more pixels than the 1Ds or the 5D have already. For that matter its kind of unbelievable that the 20-30D is still at 8 MP. I don't think that Canon will be easily driven into any kind of pixel war with their DSLRs. However, the great unwashed seems to still love more pixels. I wouldn't be surprised to see a 16MP point and shoot next year. Of course it's highest noise free speed will be about 10 ISO. Just like shooting Kodachrome in 1955! How Retro

 

Rex

[rceres]

Marketing theory is against Leica not releasing the M-9 as a "better" camera. Once most folks that are going to buy the M-8 have made the purchase Leica runs out of new sales. Then they need the next great thing One - to sell to those that held off buying because they wanted even more - and most importantly - Two to sell the newer and better model to those that already own the good enough M-8! Think about it. When you run out of room for growth in your market share, you need to create a new catagory. Come to think about it, that's the genius of the M-8. Lots of folks that might never have thought of Leica are now wondering if they need to take the M-8 plunge.

 

Just my two cents.

[spersky]

I would have bought the Leica M8 instead of cancelling my order if the IR issue was not such a problem, and the ISO issue was better, not to mention the horrible banding issues that existed in the initial release. Finally, a better solution for dust and weather sealing would be nice in a 5000 dollar pro camera. I am planning to get the next generation RF digital camera. I actually think that it might be Zeiss or a Leica M8 version 2. I was really looking for a very portable low light camera. I ended up using some of my Leica money on the Canon 85mm f/1.2 L lens which is very nice in low light.

 

The leica M8 will have a very useful lifespan for many people this is all they will ever want, and it will produce images that they are very happy with. I think realistically it will become a novelty in the near future when any new model RF camera come out whether it is from Leica or Zeiss.

 

It seems that some of the success for the M8 is driven by the barren digital RF market. People have been so desperate for a really nice digital RF that they will jump on anything sight unseen. I almost took the same plunge until I came back to reality.

 

Regard,

Steve

[jaapv]

I for one think that the future M9 -and I am convinced rceres is right, it has to come for marketing reasons, although these for Leica as a small company with a large world out there are certainly less pressing- wil be a M8 that can do something different. Maybe be weathersealed, or without Ae fully manual and a bit cheaper, maybe something else, and will be offered as an alternative to the M8 for a considerable time. I think Leica will go down the a la carte road sooner to boost if not sales but certainly turnover in the future.

[wattsy]

It seems that some of the success for the M8 is driven by the barren digital RF market. People have been so desperate for a really nice digital RF that they will jump on anything sight unseen. I almost took the same plunge until I came back to reality.

 

I think there is a lot of truth in that. If I try and look at the M8 objectively, the IR/filters issue would really be a deal breaker but for the absence of decent equivalent alternatives. When the RD-1 came out I jumped on it as soon as the first shipments arrived in the UK (I think around November 2004?). I was initially very enthusiastic about it but eventually came to the conclusion (after about 7 or 8 months) that it didn't really cut the mustard vis-à-vis using film with my Leica M7 bodies (asking myself whether the results I was getting from the RD-1 was justifying the use of £1500+ lenses was the clinching factor, but I was also unhappy with various apects relating to the RD-1 finder). I think the situation is rather different with the M8 - the basic image quality is very impressive indeed, the quality of Leica's M lenses is realised, and the viewfinder is up to the usual M quality - but, even here, by having no real competition, Leica have a large amount of leeway that enables them to get away with various bugs and other eccentricities that would spell doom if the M8 were a DSLR product in today's marketplace.

[wattsy]

I for one think that the future M9 -and I am convinced rceres is right, it has to come for marketing reasons, although these for Leica as a small company with a large world out there are certainly less pressing- wil be a M8 that can do something different. Maybe be weathersealed, or without Ae fully manual and a bit cheaper, maybe something else, and will be offered as an alternative to the M8 for a considerable time. I think Leica will go down the a la carte road sooner to boost if not sales but certainly turnover in the future.

 

I don't wish to be overly cynical but I fully expect Leica to be planning to introduce the M9 very soon after new M8 sales begin to tail off significantly (perhaps mid-to-late 2008?). I also don't expect the M9 to be hugely different from the M8. Possibly higher pixel count (16MP-ish), probably better ISO performance, probably no need for external IR filters, etc. I also predict that many (most) of those currently saying that the M8 is all the camera they need for x number of years will be drooling over the new M9 and ordering it as soon as it becomes available.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[marknorton]

Ian, how about Photokina 2008 for announcement? Either an M9 or an M8-2?

[jaapv]

I don't wish to be overly cynical but I fully expect Leica to be planning to introduce the M9 very soon after new M8 sales begin to tail off significantly (perhaps mid-to-late 2008?). I also don't expect the M9 to be hugely different from the M8. Possibly higher pixel count (16MP-ish), probably better ISO performance, probably no need for external IR filters, etc. I also predict that many (most) of those currently saying that the M8 is all the camera they need for x number of years will be drooling over the new M9 and ordering it as soon as it becomes available.

 

Their next turnover-maker will have to be the R10 - not a M9.