Given the speculation about future M8 upgrades

[GarethC]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

it occurred to me that the most obvious question that has not been addressed is whether Leica intended to do this when they introduced the M8 or whether this was an afterthought.

 

If it is really that difficult to put a FF sensor package into an M8 body then either it will never happen, Leica can make it happen and had planned for it all along or they will stumble on a way to do it.

 

I want to believe the third option because I can't believe that a company that was hurting as much as Leica would introduce a crop sensor camera knowing the market appetite for a FF sensor. As you may have guessed, I'd love a FF M8.

 

So let's speculate some more.

[AlanG]

I don't think Leica had a viable option of full frame when they designed the M8.

 

Looking forward, at worst Leica will buy full frame sensors from Sony and they will need to design and sell a few retrofocus wide angle lenses. If they couple this with live view the camera will be much more versatile than the M8 allowing R and many other brands of lenses to be used on it with a fair amount of efficiency.

[Advertisement]

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

[marknorton]

Maybe the WATE is the first of those retrofocus lenses and it will be interesting to see if any future Leica wide-angles follow the same trend. It might just be that if you want FF, your 21 and 24 Elmarits are not going to work that well.

[adan]

There are three questions here: 1) Will Leica be able to produce a full-frame M rangefinder?, 2) will they be able to do it within the M8 shell and thus make it available as an "upgrade"?, and 3) What did Leica know and when did they know it?

 

As to 1) - the only thing LEICA has ever said is that they are aware their customers would like full-frame and that they are working on it. Many people here seem to think "working on it" = "PhotoKina 2008" - when it means no such thing.

 

Leica may be "working on it" for the next 20 years, for all the evidence we have to the contrary.

 

As to 2). Maybe. Mark's field-strip of his M8 seems to indicate that most of the insides would need replacing or reorganizing to fit in a 24 x 36 CCD. Different-shaped battery, among other things. So there would not be a lot left of one's "original" M8 after the upgrade - top plate, bottom plate, RF/VF, and leatherette.

 

I think that IF Leica sees a way to do it, they will - and if they don't see a way, we'll get an M9 that has no more relationship to the M8 than a Canon 5D had to a Canon 20D.

 

As to 3) I think Leica and Kodak put their heads together and came up with the best possible sensor they could produce - with 2006 technology - that would work with existing M wideangles. I don't think upgradeability was foremost in their minds as regards sensor design - I think they just wanted the best they could get FAST so they could start selling SOMETHING before the market evaporated completely.

 

I do think they gave SOME thought to making future upgrades possible in the overall camera design, since it seems to be fairly modular and off-the-shelf. But I don't think it was the controlling design goal, nor do I think they had a full road-map of everything they were going to do as regards upgrades (and likely they don't even have one now - they will see what the market is asking for, that is REALISTIC, and produce new upgrade offers accordingly).

 

That being said, I am sure Leica is constantly reviewing the technology and likely continuing to push their own little corner of it with Kodak, Jenoptik(?) and Phase One. How much further can we push the offset microlens technique? Does a revised Bayer pattern with some "clear" pixels make sense as a way of increasing light sensitivity? Or are we better off bumping up the pixel SIZE instead?

 

And also constantly reviewing the market and customer desires.

 

And also looking at what can be done with new lens designs to meet the sensor halfway.

 

I doubt strongly that Leica will go "sensor shopping" - Kodak this year, Sony next year, Dalsa the year after that. Throwing away established relationships with technical experts - when one is a small technologically challenged company, doesn't spell longevity. Leica and Kodak know what each other are doing, they likely own the offset-microlens patents jointly (critical for a rangefinder sensor - and if not, I'll bet Kodak owns them, not Leica), and in the long run, they'll be better off sticking with Kodak and gradually growing the technology together than running off after the "newest thing" for each revision.

 

---------

 

As speculation, I would not be surprised at all if Leica's FIRST full-frame sensor for M lenses still requires external IR filters, while at the same time they offer an M8-cropped sensor that does away with them.

 

I.E., that they figure out a way to increase internal filter strength so long as the crop stays at 1.33x, but with the bigger sensor that requires more "stretch" and shallower light angles for a given focal length, the internal filtering has to stay thin to avoid reflections and image smearing.

[marknorton]

We'll have to hope that Kodak stays in the sensor business and some bright spark doesn't suggest they get into photo-copiers...

[rob_x2004]

I doubt it was ever intended as wholesale upgradable. Look at the R9/DMR.

Leica dropped a few people in holes, themselves included and have to shore up a bit of a mess that is all.

If ever they rebadge the M8 I doubt it will be any radically different than say the R9 was from the R8.

I guess what everyone hopes is the M8 settles down to do what it should have done out of the box, and everyone can shop in confidence.

[Guest Essemmlee]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Maybe the WATE is the first of those retrofocus lenses and it will be interesting to see if any future Leica wide-angles follow the same trend. It might just be that if you want FF, your 21 and 24 Elmarits are not going to work that well.

 

Would you mind explaining this to those of us that don't now what it means? I thought that the wide angles were designed for the original 'M's and that a full frame sensor is dimensionally similar to a film frame.

 

Why wouldn't a 21 or 24 Elmarit work that well?

[richam]

Would you mind explaining this to those of us that don't now what it means? I thought that the wide angles were designed for the original 'M's and that a full frame sensor is dimensionally similar to a film frame.

 

Why wouldn't a 21 or 24 Elmarit work that well?

 

It's more than size. Film basically doesn't care what angle the light strikes it. Digital sensors register light best when it strikes at perpendicular angles; they become much less sensitive when light strikes at angles. Hence the current M8 sensor with novel offset mini-lenses to ameliorate the situation. Still, there is vignetting to compensate for in software for wide angle lenses. The lens to film (or sensor) distance is quite close on the M or any rangefinder camera, so the problem of designing a full frame sensor is much more difficult than with a SLR. SLRs have a much greater lens to film (sensor) distance because they must accommodate a viewing mirror, hence light reaches the edges of the frame at a much less acute angle. Designing an acceptable full frame sensor for the M (or any rangefinder) is quite a challenge by comparison. Not saying it can't be done, but it will take another evolution of sensor design to make it happen.

[thrid]

Let's put it like this.

 

If Leica is going to make a full frame sensor camera, it will HAVE to fit inside of an M8 body, because that is what embodies the M series.

 

Unlike Nikon or Canon, Leica is very much tied to a particular body shape and size.

Leica is in the same boat, as Porsche is with the shape of the 911.

[Guest jimmy pro]

IF Leica makes a FF M, existing wideangle Leica lenses will have to perform as well as they do with film. The lawyers and dentists with display cases full of lenses won't have it any other way. Maybe that will mean better microlenses, maybe some software magic, maybe both.

 

I have great doubts as to that the M8 will be upgradeable to FF without major disassembling, gutting, and reassembling and that would definately cost more to do than assemble a FF M9 from scratch. However it could still work because a lot of M8 owners don't count dollars and cents rationally. Someone who'll pay $1800 bucks for a new shutter when the old one's still working is a likely sucker, er I mean candidate for a $5000 buck FF upgrade gimmick.

[gmaurizio]

I seriously doubt the appearance of a FF upgrade/new-body anytime soon. The challenges from the point of view of electronic integration, firmware, microcode programming and opto-electronics are too big for a small company like Leica.

On the other hand, I am not sure why we do not see a FF R9/R10. It might make way more sense to experiment and learn there.

Leica needs to make up its mind regarding its business model and product positioning. They are under attack in every segment except rangefinder digital bodies, that you can argue are at a dead end in their evolution, specially when you see the progress Nikon has made in the wide-angle area, traditionally thought as the unchallenged kingdom of rangefinders, due to higher focusing accuracy. This is no longer true without doubts.

Let's put it this way, forget you are a Leica customer for a second, and think as a Leica shareholder/investor... What would you think of Leica performance and business model? Would you buy more stock, thrilled by the new upgrade-path? Would you lend them $100m to develop the upcoming $5,000 FF upgrade? Would you think the Summarit lenses will outsell in big numbers the new CV/Zeiss lens offerings?

What happens when Fuji/Canon/Nikon make a breakthrough in sensor design and kiss goodbye to the Bayer model? What if Mamiya makes a digital Mamiya 7? Why does not Leica fix their not-outstanding customer service and experience?

Leica made a bold choice when selecting the M8 upgrade path. They are basically saying that the optical viewfinder/rangefinder is they way of their future, and that it cannot be improved upon. This is scary, since due to the low tolerance of the sensor, achieving a perfect focus has become quite challenging. Of course, changing this would severely impact the small size of the M8/9.

While I not always agree with Mr. Putt's views, I think he hit the nail on this one, it is a distinct possibility that we might be at the end of the M-series evolution, and that an M9 might become a mythical beast never to see the light of day.

In the meantime, we must thank Leica for making the M8, and giving us the chance to recoup the investment made in leica lenses over more than 50 years. It is a fine camera, with its problems, but very, very good.

[grober]

Any FF M camera would consume considerable amounts of capital to engineer, develop, manufacture and market.

 

Assuming you had the necessary pile of Euros in your jeans, which of you would like to fund that gamble?

 

. . .

 

Ah, I don't see many hands. In a nutshell then, that's the problem Leica faces.

 

-g

[GarethC]

Thanks for the education as much as anything guys, especially Michael and Gus, I didn't fully understand why FF was so difficult. It's a pity because when i went from a 20D to a 5D it was a delight going to FF, sounds like it may never be with the M8 or any following iteration.

[AlanG]

The more I think about it I think that Leica would be fools if they did not try to make their next M body with Sony's 24 megapixel sensor. (Assuming they could get it.) It would put Leica at the forefront of technology and would maximize the quality of the Leica lenses.

 

Introducing new retrofocus wide angle lenses would be an opportunity to sell more product. It might seem bad if the old wide angles wouldn't work so well on this new body, but that wouldn't be much different from the need for new glass (for the same field of view) on the M8 due to its having a cropped sensor. They'd be better off getting a high res FF body out there quickly rather than lose potential sales waiting to see if it ever becomes possible to make one just to accomodate some wide angle lenses. And they'd be eliminating the need for IR filters too. Those who don't like it can keep using their lenses on the M8.

 

If they implement live view, the camera would find many additional opportunities open to its use enabling it to fill the needs of more photographers thus broadening its appeal. And this would also open up the possibility of a clip on hi res electronic viewfinder. (Making it easier to use macro, tilt-shift, long and extreme wide angles with accuracy.) And worrying about whether your rangefinder was super accurate would be less of a concern when you can do accurate focusing on a magnified screen image. (At least for relatively static or prefocused shots.) There'd be lots of potential gadgets for Leica to introduce and sell. (Sort of like in the old days.) And electronic focus confirmation could be included.

 

For those who don't like to see Leica move away from its traditional role, there will always be the M8. But why not at least start designing cameras for the 21st century now that we are 7+ years into it?

[gmaurizio]

Alan, the ideas you are suggesting would be extremely difficult to implement in an M8 body! They are more suited for the R9/10. Also, retrofocus lens design calls for larger and heavier lenses, much against the general design ideas of the M-series.

Macro, while possible with any focal length, really calls for 180mm to be useful, not in the rangefinder realm!

[AlanG]

Any FF M camera would consume considerable amounts of capital to engineer, develop, manufacture and market.

 

Assuming you had the necessary pile of Euros in your jeans, which of you would like to fund that gamble?

 

. . .

 

Ah, I don't see many hands. In a nutshell then, that's the problem Leica faces.

 

-g

 

They'll have no choice if they want to stay in business. The M8 and future upgrades for it can't be a long term strategy and they'll have to keep designing and selling new cameras to stay competitive.

[AlanG]

Alan, the ideas you are suggesting would be extremely difficult to implement in an M8 body! They are more suited for the R9/10. Also, retrofocus lens design calls for larger and heavier lenses, much against the general design ideas of the M-series.

Macro, while possible with any focal length, really calls for 180mm to be useful, not in the rangefinder realm!

 

A full frame sensor and live view won''t take up much more room than a 1.3x sensor does in the M8. (Electronics should have shrunk significantly by now since the M8 was first designed.) Gee I don't thiink a 5D is any bigger than an M8 once you subtract the prism and mirror box. Plus it is a several year old design.

 

As for macro etc. that's why I say live view will give the M* new life in fields that were not traditional roles for the M cameras. One will use live view on the rear LCD or on a separate viewfinder and not use the rangefinder/optical viewfinder. This would allow someone to use an M* handheld for street photography and then place it on a tripod and use one of Nikon's new tilt-shift lenses on it. (They have manual f stops.)

 

I think "reasonable" size retrofocus wides can be constructed. My old Nikkor 20mm 3.5 was very small and light and that was about a 25 year old design. It probably could have been made smaller if they weren't interested in keeping 52mm filter compatibility. As it stands today, some wides need a separate viewfinder for use on the M8 thus forcing you to focus with the rangefinder and then move your eye to the viewfinder. Why not have the option of using one clip on electronic viewfinder for this?

 

Perhaps existing 35mm focal length lenses will work fine on fullframe. What is their alternative - keep making compromises or delaying the camera just so you can use a few current lenses? I don't know what focal length will be the cut off with the Sony sensor. Do you?

[AlanG]

...Also, retrofocus lens design calls for larger and heavier lenses, much against the general design ideas of the M-series.

 

This made me wonder so I looked up the specs of the Leica 24 2.8 and the Nikkor AF 24 2.8D

 

Nikkor - 266 grams, 63mm x 45.7mm

Leica - 290 grams (black - silver is heavier) 58mm x 45mm. (Consider that an IR filter adds a little more to this length and weight.)

 

Remember the Nikkor has to incorporate an auto diaphragm, AF focusing mechanisms, and electronic linkages, so this has to add something to the size and weight. The Leica lens goes a little deeper into the camera so may seem a bit smaller in practice.

 

This makes me think that a 24mm 2.8 Leca retrofocus can be made that is comparable in size and length to the current model.

[thompsonkirk]

This may seem 'off-topic,' if everyone is so involved in discussing a FF sensor - but why??

 

My M8 already offers better resolution & tonal gradations than my FF DSLR. Do folks who relish FF usually print larger than 16x24? Do they crop a lot (not my problem)?

 

My impression is that the lens lineup is just about perfect for 1.33, with 21=28, 24=32, 28=37, 35=47, 50=65. Already more choices than one needs in the range where rangefinders excel? Wider angles & teles work better on a DSLR anyway, because of viewfinder problems.

 

What exactly is are problems that FF would solve? Or are we - hallelulia & praise Solms - already blessed?

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[lct]

...What exactly is are problems that FF would solve?..

No fast wides with crop factor.