dseelig Posted February 4, 2008 Share #161 Â Posted February 4, 2008 Advertisement (gone after registration) I do not know about nikon but with canons L glass hood's are included . UV ir s are because of a design flaw in the sensor leica should not be making a nickel on there design flaw. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
guidomo Posted February 4, 2008 Share #162 Â Posted February 4, 2008 What effect would the appearance of a FF M have on our lens needs? Â If we assume the FF sensor to provide similar resolution (i.e. have a pixel count increase equivalent to the increase in sensor area), I think the following lens equivalences can be drawn: Â M8 - FFM WATE (taken as 16/4A) - 21/2.8A 21/2.8A - 28/2.8A 28/2A - 35/2A 35/1.4A - 50/1.4A 50/1.4A - 50/1.4A Â My thinking for the last line (and in fact for all longer lenses) is, that you can still get the same effect as before by just cropping. Â The first (current) column is 7000EUR(!) (German list price) more expensive than the FF column. I think this shows that you'll be able to save in money, lens size/volume, weight or get faster lenses for the same FOV, whatever avenue you want to pursue. Â Any comments/corrections? Â (But please don't start on DOF dependence on crop factor - we've been through this 100 times here.) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted February 4, 2008 Share #163 Â Posted February 4, 2008 I think we've probably beaten this horse to death (as the saying goes). Â Steve Lee's comment is the first one from a Leica official speaking publicly that, yes, a 24 x 36 sensor IS on their roadmap - they will do it when they can get the technology to work. Â Michael points out that there are still non-trivial problems to resolve regarding M wide angles and a bigger digital sensor. Â I point out that Leica/Kodak have managed to move the bar significantly in how the M8 sensor at 1.33 crop surpasses the performance of Sony's 1.5x crop sensor in the R-D1. But I agree that going from 1.33x to 1x will be at least as difficult as getting from 1.5x to 1.33x was - geometry being something that does NOT change, even if technology DOES. Â Leica MAY pull a rabbit out of their hat in 8 months. But I wouldn't start holding my breath or offering to eat lenses just yet. Â Â [Edit] "(But please don't start on DOF dependence on crop factor - we've been through this 100 times here." Â I second THAT motion!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
waterlenz Posted February 4, 2008 Share #164 Â Posted February 4, 2008 But I wouldn't start holding my breath ... ! Â I think I will take pix with my M8 instead! Nevertheless it is fun contemplating a FF M8! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ptomsu Posted February 4, 2008 Share #165 Â Posted February 4, 2008 Now that all specialists have had their words, we can safely stay with current crop and do not have to fear to be surprised by Leica too soon with FF. Or is this still wrong? Â Well, keep taking pictures and do not care any further, these type of discussions are just going in circles, reiterating different arguments again and again - it makes one tired. Â So yes, really better to make pictures. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdai Posted February 4, 2008 Share #166 Â Posted February 4, 2008 ... Â Leica: Hmm, it's impossible. Forum Members: Yes, you can! Â ... Â Leica: Yes, we will. Forum Members: No, we don't think so. Â ... Â Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stnami Posted February 4, 2008 Share #167 Â Posted February 4, 2008 Advertisement (gone after registration) ............... probably not Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ptomsu Posted February 4, 2008 Share #168 Â Posted February 4, 2008 ... looking to yours .... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andym911 Posted February 4, 2008 Share #169  Posted February 4, 2008 I would do some training before the event. Like eating glass, coins and small stuff first. Then increase to spark plugs, knives and forks. There was a guy in America who ate up a whole automobile. - If he drank the, glycol, lubricant oil and petrol, I don't know, he is dead now. So, an Elmar should be no problem. Good Luck!  Tom,  thanks for your guidance, I have a little time to prepare, so am still confident that should the FF not be there I can still honor my words. BTW I don't care myself about FF, the 1.3 crop is perfect in my opinion, but for those who want it it will be exciting. I am only an enthusiast and having FF or crop does not have the slightest impact on the quality of my final images and prints, if you know what I mean.  andy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest tummydoc Posted February 4, 2008 Share #170 Â Posted February 4, 2008 It must be clear to anyone given to rational thought vs emotion, that upgrading the M8 to FF, which would require replacement of the majority of the camera's innards, would cost more than assembling a new camera from the ground up. Leica is already asking a third the cost of a new camera simply to replace the shutter module and LCD cover glass. Â And yet I do believe there would be many who would pay more to upgrade their faithful old friend M8 to FF than it would cost them to trade to a new one. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest moonwrack Posted February 12, 2008 Share #171 Â Posted February 12, 2008 I seem to recall reading somewhere that the full-frame feature of the new M8 can be retrofitted to existing M8's. Cost may be around 1200 Euros and turnround about 2 weeks. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
vanhulsenbeek Posted February 12, 2008 Share #172 Â Posted February 12, 2008 I seem to recall reading somewhere that the full-frame feature of the new M8 can be retrofitted to existing M8's. Cost may be around 1200 Euros and turnround about 2 weeks. Â Sorry, but incorrect: the coming update, reservations starting in March - @ 1200 EUR - , only pertains to the shutter and the LCD screen. Plus a check etc. Â Full frame is nowhere near. And two weeks seems ambitious, tp put it mildly. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
punktum Posted February 12, 2008 Share #173  Posted February 12, 2008 Is this full farme upgrade really working with the M8? Appart from all the measurement things and shutter thing.  I just can not imagine how the current M8 processor is handling a 12 or 16 mp file. I´d fall asleep during shooting and waiting.  So doesn´t an upgrade change the whole inside technik, and only the body remains? Is this economically reasonable?  I believe this is just a marketing joke. Keep on buying the M8 is the story behind this.... and sell it later if you like to have a FF M9 the real one.....for a bad price.  I´ll sell one of my M8´s know.  No risk no fun Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Roberts Posted February 12, 2008 Share #174 Â Posted February 12, 2008 It must be clear to anyone given to rational thought vs emotion, that upgrading the M8 to FF, which would require replacement of the majority of the camera's innards... Â I'm afraid this is simply not a factual statement, but an opinion. Â Only the electronics would need to be changed, and perhaps the battery compartment. How that compares with rebuilding the lens mount front, back, rf assembly, shutter and back dials is another question entirely and depends on how modular the M8's constructions really is. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
waterlenz Posted February 13, 2008 Share #175 Â Posted February 13, 2008 I'm afraid this is simply not a factual statement, but an opinion. Â Only the electronics would need to be changed, and perhaps the battery compartment. . Â + change of framelines! Â This can probably be done by swapping out the mask. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
woodda Posted February 13, 2008 Share #176 Â Posted February 13, 2008 I think the Head of Leica was only ecpressing all our wishes and has probably sacked himself. Â Seriously I just hope he does not dash our hopes. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chilihead Posted February 13, 2008 Share #177 Â Posted February 13, 2008 Leica engineers are waiting to get there hands on a Sigma DP1 first before they proceed with such a ludicrous proposal as "full" frame, and then Leica will work on price reductions for said "full frame". Then... we can put on our magenta wedding tuxedos and... party!!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Roberts Posted February 13, 2008 Share #178  Posted February 13, 2008 Well, it's been just 16 months since the M8 was released, but that means the sensor in there is over 2 years (at least) old by design. That's a very long time in professional sensor circles, and I'm sure Kodak hasn't been idle. IOW, I suspect a lot of the problems with IR and other artifacts will simply go away.  For example, there's an article on dPreview right now about new Kodak sensor technology that allows larger pixels on higher resolution chips. That's interesting in a full-frame context  So I'm actually pretty hopeful that Leica is already most of the way there. If they weren't, Leica wouldn't be dropping the hints (however qualified) they have been. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
woodyspedden Posted February 13, 2008 Share #179 Â Posted February 13, 2008 My concerns are that the current M8 has had a very long birthing period but is finally at the point where it can pretty much be trusted as a reliable shooting tool. I now want to forget about the details of firmware upgrades (not that I don't want leica to keep improving things), rangefinder tweaks etc etc. I just want to shoot images and finally treat the M8 as just a tool with great IQ. Â I, for one. would wait at least a year after a full frame sensor is available to let these early teething problems be solved by Leica and others. I've done the beta tester thing on the M8 (first body bought on November 6th 2006!) and don't want to do it again. JMHO Â Woody Spedden Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
durangotang Posted February 14, 2008 Share #180 Â Posted February 14, 2008 If the photographic data or the electronic processing requirements get larger, it would seem to be a mistake to have an upgradable sensor without also upgrading the electronics inside. This is all speculation of course, but if this is the case, I don't know how cheaply or easily that can be done. Perhaps that would be a $3500 upgrade ;-) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.