jrc Posted July 2, 2006 Share #21 Posted July 2, 2006 Advertisement (gone after registration) Seriously though, while I can imagine firmware upgrades and the like, bigger (megapixals, crop factor), are probably beyond reach. After all, has any manufacturer done it before? Kodak upgraded the SLRn from one sensor to a different one, because of problems with the first. Both were ~14mp, but they did it on the fly, too, not planned in advance. If Leica is planning a somewhat modular camera, then it should be possible. But I'll believe it when I see it -- the stuff I've seeen on other forums seems to be rumor based on wishful thinking, rather than anything said by one of the gnomes of Solms. JC Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted July 2, 2006 Posted July 2, 2006 Hi jrc, Take a look here Digital M with Tri-Elmar?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
marknorton Posted July 2, 2006 Share #22 Posted July 2, 2006 I agree that it's likely wishful thinking. The packaging constraints of the M8 are extreme - DMR/D2x+ performance in an M7-sized package; the M7 is smaller than the R-D1 but we're expecting a larger higher definition sensor, a better rangefinder, a bigger LCD, a motor wound shutter, greaster power consumption and you can argue to R-D1 needs bigger batteries anyway. All that says that the M8 will be "full" and the sort of modularity which would make upgrades possible inevitably compromise the efficiency of packaging. The combination of the sensor and the electronics, which, like a lap top, will be highly integrated - you replace most of it all at once - will account for at least half the material cost of the camera - and if you then add the cost of several hours labour to update the camera , insurance, warranty, shipping, profit and you end up with a job which will cost more than half the cost of a new camera. Just not worth it. Anyone trying to design a camera which is upgradeable has to try to second guess how things are going to be in the future and that's tough to do. Even if Leica were to say the camera is upgradeable, it's an empty claim until they actually come up with an upgrade. No manufacturer to my knowledge has offered this sort of upgrade at this price point and there's no reason to believe Leica will start doing so. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ed_oneal Posted July 2, 2006 Share #23 Posted July 2, 2006 Seriously though, while I can imagine firmware upgrades and the like, bigger (megapixals, crop factor), are probably beyond reach. After all, has any manufacturer done it before? Best, Jerry No one made any kind of a digital camera for public sale back a couple of decades ago. There's always a first time for everything. It could be that the entire electronics package will be replaceable. I know that is a major part of the camera, but so is the lens and Leitz started making replaceable lens cameras in the 1930s. Let's hope they have really made it modular and replaceable. Ed Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ed_oneal Posted July 2, 2006 Share #24 Posted July 2, 2006 Seriously though, while I can imagine firmware upgrades and the like, bigger (megapixals, crop factor), are probably beyond reach. After all, has any manufacturer done it before? Best, Jerry No one made any kind of a digital camera for public sale back a couple of decades ago. There's always a first time for everything. It could be that the entire electronics package will be replaceable. I know that is a major part of the camera, but so is the lens and Leitz started making replaceable lens cameras in the 1930s. Let's hope they have really made it modular and readily replaceable. Regards, Ed Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted July 2, 2006 Share #25 Posted July 2, 2006 It's a good lens, not as quite as sharp (ultimately) as some of the best prime RF lenses but it makes a beautiful file on the R-D1. I agree with others that the primary limitation of the Tri-Elmar is the F/4 max. aperture but this may only be of concern to people who work in low existing light. Cheers, Sean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rvaubel Posted July 2, 2006 Share #26 Posted July 2, 2006 It's a good lens, not as quite as sharp (ultimately) as some of the best prime RF lenses but it makes a beautiful file on the R-D1. I agree with others that the primary limitation of the Tri-Elmar is the F/4 max. aperture but this may only be of concern to people who work in low existing light.Sean Sean I agree that the only real problem with the TriElmar is speed. What I would like to see is a F2.8 Tri-Elmarit! This would be great on my RD1 or on the upcoming M8. With the Epsons very usable 1600 ISO, F2.8 would be acceptable for most indoor work, the bane of the current Elmar. The fly in the ointment is the increased lens size and cost required by a full frame design. My suggestion is to design a crop sized Tri-Elmarit! I know we are talking heresy here. But crop sized lenses and cameras are here to stay, period. No matter how much the full framers lament the fact, reduced format cameras will be the de-facto standard for most DSLR users. Nikon has bet there very corporate existance on this stategy, as has everyone but Canon (who also fully supports their "S" lenses). I can imagine that a 1.3X format F2.8 Tri-Elmarit would be roughly the same size and weight as the FF Tri-Elmar F4. But what a useful lens! While traveling all you would need in addition would be a prime ultra wide, a fast normal and maybe a 75 or 90mm telephoto, to cover ALL the bases. For a more focused day trip, the TE alone or one extra, maximum, would be plenty. Sure, I want full frame compatibility as much as the next guy. But today is today and their is not a full frame "M" mount rangefinder lurking over the horizon that I am aware of. Leica users have slowly had to come to grips with this 1.3X thing. Begrudgedly, acceptance is finally emerging. Get over it, guys! You can always look at the M8 as your backup camera when the full frame M9 comes out, if ever. Meanwhile, I think it would behoove Leica to look into "S" lenses (I'm a Canon guy in the DSLR world) where ever design constraints and cost dictate. Don't worry about pissing off the film guys, they are of no economic significance(sorry). Rex Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ho_co Posted July 3, 2006 Share #27 Posted July 3, 2006 Advertisement (gone after registration) I agree that the only real problem with the TriElmar is speed. What I would like to see is a F2.8 Tri-Elmarit! ... The fly in the ointment is the increased lens size and cost required by a full frame design. My suggestion is to design a crop sized Tri-Elmarit! ... Rex Rex-- I'm sure I'm off-base on a couple of these assumptions, but: 1) In my experience, the DX (APS-C) lenses don't give much weight/space saving. Nikon still uses a 77mm 'standard' filter size with theirs, for example. 2) I think that doubling light grasp increases lens aberrations by a factor of 4. If so, the incredible performance of the Tri-Elmar would be very difficult to maintain with a lens just one stop faster. 3) Correcting those aberrations would mean a larger lens yet again, as well as increasing the cost tremendously. 4) As you said, Leica has staked their very existence on being able to use (virtually) every lens on later bodies, and has said they will continue to do that in future, and not offer reduced-coverage lenses. 5) I personally find the Tri-Elmar marvelous for what it does; more speed would be nice, but when would I cry, "Hold! Enough!"? 6) But then, Leica does have a way of surprising us. :) Who would have expected a lens like the Tri-Elmar in the first place? Or a 90mm macro on a rangefinder? --HC Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rvaubel Posted July 3, 2006 Share #28 Posted July 3, 2006 Rex--I'm sure I'm off-base on a couple of these assumptions, but: 1) In my experience, the DX (APS-C) lenses don't give much weight/space saving. --HC You are not off base, current APS size lenses are almost as big as their full frame brothers. However, they generally gain an F stop in the translation. For instance, the Canon full frame 24-105 F4.0 is about the same size as the APS 17-55 F2.8. I know the comparison is exactly perfect but you get my point. The other factor that makes DSLR lenses so huge is the necessity of using retrofocus designs so the rear element can clear the mirror. No mirror in a rangefinder. Thats why "leica" lenses are so compact. I'm not claiming a F2.8 Tri-Elmarit would be either easy to design or cheap to build. But I can tell you, I'd be the first one out of the block to buy one at almost any price (well, $4k max) As for Leica breaking a tradition of compatibility, that holds water only if you think that there will BE a film standard for much longer. Don't get me wrong, I love film (I have a wet darkroom) and it won't disappear for me or the other people on this forum. But film will have NO economic viability in a few years. If anyone produces film cameras 15 years from now, it will be Leica, but the market will be a small group of analog/geek/gearhead/artists, myself included. These next few years should be very interesting Rex Berkeley, Ca Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.