Given the speculation about future M8 upgrades

[grduprey]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

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.

 

Simple answer: Going from a 20D to a 5D is a completely different set of problems, which are far easier to solve. Remember there is a huge mirror box of room to play with, that does not exist in a M body.

 

Gene

[gmaurizio]

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.

 

You make valid points. I wonder though how the short flange-film distance plays in the lens design...

[AlanG]

You make valid points. I wonder though how the short flange-film distance plays in the lens design...

 

That's what allows Leica to use non-retrofocus designs. If they use retrofocus designs, the lenses might have to be a bit longer.

 

I guess all I am getting at is that Leica will need to keep pushing the technology and come up with some new ideas for bodies and lenses in the near future or else their gear will look old in the tooth pretty soon. Whether you specifically need more megapixels, full frame, live view, IS, or anything else, technology marches on relentlessly.

 

I for one could have used a Nikon F, Hassy 500CM, and a view camera for my whole career, but digital advancements are much more significant and force more rapid change.

[carstenw]

Alan, how does digital force more rapid change? I don't think Leica will get caught up in the ratrace, releasing new compacts every year and new high-end cameras every two years. They have already shown that they won't do this, and recent financial results are encouraging, if not on the same scale as the big players.

 

In fact, I expect that Canon will have to change its high-end camera strategy before Leica will. They have not been doing well lately, and are having trouble differentiating their cameras properly, unlike Nikon. Canon has had a tendency to differentiate their high-end cameras by leaving out key features from low-end cameras, unlike Nikon, which have tried to put as much in every camera as they were able to, allowing them to catch up with, and pass, Canon.

 

Leica's age-old strategy of making cameras with lasting value, instating upgrade programs, and making most of the money from lens sales, seems more appropriate to today's world, although the last few years have been hard. It is getting harder for camera manufacturers to find enough new features to keep the treadmill running. Megapixels are already getting hard to add, and compacts are already moving into territory where the lenses don't resolve enough for higher resolution to make effective differences.

 

I think that the 1Ds3 will be Canon's last big release for years to come. I don't see what they can do to their line any more to add customers. This is all a bit like Microsoft, who got big while they were hungry, but got lost somewhere along the way, and now just bleed market share, everywhere. The camera manufacturers will end up having to figure out a way of earning money from stable markets, rather than the yearly upgrades that they have built their business model on in recent years. This is exactly where Leica is well positioned, having never left this ideal.

[marknorton]

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.

 

Thank you for clarifying my comments, It's easy to forget that Leica/Kodak cracked the sensor vignetting issue in the M8 with the micro-lenses and in-camera correction but that the problem of going full frame remains the same and is most acute (no pun intended) for those wide-angle lenses which are current production but older designs.

 

The 21mm Elmarit was designed before anyone cared about digital or FF; the WATE was surely designed with that problem in mind and is more likely to work well on FF than a 21mm Elmarit. The clue? There was no difference in the in-camera processing required with the WATE until IR filters came along to spoil the party. The M8 does pretty well with a WATE mounted and lens recognition switched off.

[AlanG]

Alan, how does digital force more rapid change? I don't think Leica will get caught up in the ratrace, releasing new compacts every year and new high-end cameras every two years. They have already shown that they won't do this, and recent financial results are encouraging, if not on the same scale as the big players.

 

 

I have no idea what Leica will do but I bet if they don't keep up, their market share will dwindle.

 

As for rapid change - new features and improvements keep coming out for digital cameras. And many of these show up as improved image quality under a variety of conditions. In the film camera days, improvements in cameras usually did little to significantly improve the image quality, so if you didn't need some of those features, there wasn't much advantage in buyuing the newer cameras. A Hasselblad from the 50s shoots about as good an image on film as does a current model. This isn't the case with digital. I first used a Kodak DCS 460 6 megapixel camera about 11 years ago (or whenever they first came out.) It cost nearly $30,000, didn't even have an LCD for review, and it compares poorly to $500 cameras of today. I guess you could still shoot with one but why would you? The same will happen to Leica if it doesn't keep making new models.

 

35mm digital cameras now compare quite favorably to the results from medium format film cameras. To that end a 24 megapixel full frame Leica that gets the most covering power and detail from its lenses will be a significant improvement over the M8. What is wrong with that?

 

Many of the other recent advances in digital photography - good quality at very high ISOs, live view, fast frame rates, higher bit depth, IS, are examples of features that have shown significant improvement and are features that are demanded by many shooters.

 

If Leica stays where it is and everyone else becomes used to shooting low noise 6400 ISO stabilized images at 5+ frames per second and 25 megapixels full frame images with high bit depth with other cameras, where will that leave Leica? Especially after these features drift down to the cheaper models from Nikon, Sony and Canon. This is where the market is heading.

[GarethC]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

So I guess the real question for me, and possibly manny others, is whether FF is the real preference or whether I'd prefer a 1.3 crop sensor with 6400 ISO low noise images.

 

This may sound strange but I actually have little desire for low noise 6400 ISO images per se as I enjoy the challenges that low light presents in much the same way as I appreciate capturing images iwth a rangefinder with all its foibles and idiosyncracies and having to rely on many manual controls.

[gmaurizio]

Let's take a look at the cold numbers. Nikon is producing about 10,000 D3 per month, at $5,000 (give or take) per unit MSRP, and expects to make 10-15% on the product. We can safely assume 3 years of sales will be about 350,000 units. That should recover development, service, marketing and other costs.

Leica has not published the number of M8 sold so far, let's say a year of sales. Estimates locate this number around 20,000 units, give or take. Assuming sales volume remains at this level after the initial hype is gone --a wild assumption--, how will it be possible to introduce a new M9, or an FF upgrade to the M8, and recover its costs its beyond my grasp. Even assuming Leica makes about $1,000 for each M8, the numbers are not very promising.

On the other hand, if Leica sits on the M8 plus $1,000-$1,800 upgrades, then it can start to think on a new camera some 4-10 years from now, when the technology makes the next non-incremental jump.

My guess is forget about FF, embrace the 1.3 crop factor, hope for some firmware and software improvements and let's pray Leica Camera AG does not go out of business, or is sold to Cosina or Zeiss.

[charlesphoto99]

I for one could have used a Nikon F, Hassy 500CM, and a view camera for my whole career, but digital advancements are much more significant and force more rapid change.

 

Well, Platon, one of the most successful portrait photographers in the world (and damn good imo) uses little more than a Hasselblad, a Leica M6, and quite often his lighting set up is a single umbrella. Go figure.

[adan]

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.).

 

Oh, c'mon, Alan - the Nikkor's casing is PLASTIC about 1.5mm thick, with some aluminum framing inside. The Leica 24mm has from 3mm to 7mm (depending on where one measures in the barrel) of solid brass and aluminum layers surrounding the glass.

 

Leica 24 : Nikkor 24 AF :: Mosler safe : plastic under-mattress storage bin - as regards construction.

 

The glass in the two designs is probably quite similar in weight, but that is not surprising since the Leica-M 24mm lens is ALSO a retrofocus design. In fact, all of Leica's M wideangles designed since the M5 have been retrofocus to one extent or another, to allow for the various forms of metering Leica has used.

 

They aren't as strongly retrofocus as, say, a Hassy Distagon or Nikkors or Canons that have to clear swinging SLR mirrors, but they ARE retrofocus in layout compared to the true symmetrical wides of the 50's and 60's.

 

A Nikkor 25mm for the S-series practically disappeared inside the camera, it was so short. Much different from either the Leica 24 or Nikkor AF.

 

As to length - remember that a Nikon (or any) SLR incorporates a good 15-20mm of the lens's back-focus into the camera body - that big bulge in the front around the lens mount that sticks out from below the prism to the bottom plate.

 

So the Nikkor sticks out 45.7mm from a body already over 50mm thick, whereas the Leica 24 sticks out 45mm from a body only 35mm thick.

[adan]

"Everyone else becomes used to shooting low noise 6400 ISO stabilized images at 5+ frames per second and 25 megapixels full frame images with high bit depth with other cameras..."

 

Which camera is this? LOL!

 

I'm sure we'll see more full-frame, I'm sure we'll see cheaper full-frame, I'm sure we'll see at least 3 cameras with the Sony 25Mpixel sensor (Sony, Pentax, Nikon). Soon.

 

But "low noise 6400" and "25 megapixels" in one body...2010 at the earliest. And that will be a top-end camera with 5% of the market, not the ones "everyone" is shooting with.

[AlanG]

"Everyone else becomes used to shooting low noise 6400 ISO stabilized images at 5+ frames per second and 25 megapixels full frame images with high bit depth with other cameras..."

 

Which camera is this? LOL!

 

I was talking about what will happen at some point if Leica falls behind in development of the M line. But since you asked:

 

Probably the next Nikon. (With stabilized lenses) And the Sony one will only be 12 bit. Maybe all of those features will be available before 2010, maybe not. Pretty much the only thing we don't know is if the Sony sensor will be as low noise at ISO 6400 as is the D3 or if they can build a full frame camera with sensor based IS. But I bet it will beat the M8 hands down at 2500.

 

In any case, why shouldn't Leica consider using this Sony sensor and make a new retrofocus w/a lens or two. By using a sensor that incorporates a good IR filter Leica could eliminate the need for IR filters on all lenses and the need for all of that corner fix and most vignetting correction?

 

I believe this sensor will be for sale to anyone but maybe those ordering large quantities get preferential treatment and Leica will have to wait even if they want it. But for all I know, Leica already has a prototype planned for this sensor.

 

Sony Electronics News and Information

 

And you have to figure that Canon is working on new sensors. (They are building a new CMOS sensor plant after all.) So is Panasonic and surely others too.

 

As for the lens weight comparison. I know that Leica lenses are made with a lot of metal. But it was in response to the post that retrofocus lenses must be bigger and heavier. The manual focus Nikkor 24 f2.8 is metal and weighs the same with identical dimensions. I for one have nothing against plastic when appropriate. (My Rollei 6006 had a lot of plastic and it kept the weight down and held up well - I dropped a back onto concrete and it just got a little scuff on it. There are a lot of plastic panels on my Z4 too!)

 

I'm just speculating that Leica could make wide retrofocus lenses that would work on a full frame sensor (similar to those in Nikons and Canons) and still keep the size and weight within acceptable limits. I could be wrong as I'm not a lens designer.

 

If Leica plans to stick with the 1.3 crop for some time, then why haven't they made some smaller wide angles for this format?

[woodyspedden]

I was talking about what will happen at some point if Leica falls behind in development of the M line. But since you asked:

 

Probably the next Nikon. (With stabilized lenses) And the Sony one will only be 12 bit. Maybe all of those features will be available before 2010, maybe not. Pretty much the only thing we don't know is if the Sony sensor will be as low noise at ISO 6400 as is the D3 or if they can build a full frame camera with sensor based IS. But I bet it will beat the M8 hands down at 2500.

 

In any case, why shouldn't Leica consider using this Sony sensor and make a new retrofocus w/a lens or two. By using a sensor that incorporates a good IR filter Leica could eliminate the need for IR filters on all lenses and the need for all of that corner fix and most vignetting correction?

 

I believe this sensor will be for sale to anyone but maybe those ordering large quantities get preferential treatment and Leica will have to wait even if they want it. But for all I know, Leica already has a prototype planned for this sensor.

 

Sony Electronics News and Information

 

And you have to figure that Canon is working on new sensors. (They are building a new CMOS sensor plant after all.) So is Panasonic and surely others too.

 

As for the lens weight comparison. I know that Leica lenses are made with a lot of metal. But it was in response to the post that retrofocus lenses must be bigger and heavier. The manual focus Nikkor 24 f2.8 is metal and weighs the same with identical dimensions. I for one have nothing against plastic when appropriate. (My Rollei 6006 had a lot of plastic and it kept the weight down and held up well - I dropped a back onto concrete and it just got a little scuff on it. There are a lot of plastic panels on my Z4 too!)

 

I'm just speculating that Leica could make wide retrofocus lenses that would work on a full frame sensor (similar to those in Nikons and Canons) and still keep the size and weight within acceptable limits. I could be wrong as I'm not a lens designer.

 

If Leica plans to stick with the 1.3 crop for some time, then why haven't they made some smaller wide angles for this format?

 

I think that all this discussion about the Sony FF sensor is ignoring the microlens design problems. The microlens requirements for an M9 is totally different from the requirements for a FF DSLR. Thus the concept of simply buying a Sony FF sensor and "dropping it" inside an M series rangefinder body is seriously flawed. And asking Sony to "develop" a new 24 Mpsx sensor with the required microlenses for the M body, at the volumes projected would not make R & D sense for Sony. JMHO

 

Woody

[adan]

Pretty much the only thing we don't know is if the Sony sensor will be as low noise at ISO 6400 as is the D3...But I bet it will beat the M8 hands down at 2500.

 

But we can get a good idea, by comparing noise levels of a FF 1DsIII @ 22Mp to a FF 5D @ 12 Mp - or a host of other cameras that have boosted the pixel count in a sensor of a given size. Noise ALWAYS increases.

 

In any case, why shouldn't Leica consider using this Sony sensor?....By using a sensor that incorporates a good IR filter Leica could eliminate the need for IR filters on all lenses and the need for all of that corner fix and most vignetting correction?

 

I'm surprised I have to keep posting this example - but take a look at the picture below. This is what happened using M-mount wideangle lenses (15mm, 21mm, 28mm) on a Sony sensor that incorporated a "good" IR filter - and only a 1.5x crop one at that (Epson R-D1).

 

Leica's M lenses require very special sensor engineering - they WILL NOT WORK with an off-the-shelf SLR sensor.

 

Be honest, Alan. Should Leica REALLY "consider" trying to sell c**p like this for $7000. Would YOU find it acceptable? Because this is what you will get with the Sony 25Mp sensor behind an M 21mm.

 

The manual focus Nikkor 24 f2.8 is metal and weighs the same with identical dimensions.

 

As I said, the dimensions of the Nikkor 24 leave out an extra half-inch of depth permanently built into Nikon SLR bodies. A Nikkor 24 adapted to the M-mount requires a 15mm-thick adapter. See the Nikkor 20mm + adapter pictured here:

 

Adapters:* SLR to RF

 

This is how "long" a SLR-style retrofocus wideangle really is, compared to the M lenses.

 

If Leica plans to stick with the 1.3 crop for some time, then why haven't they made some smaller wide angles for this format?

 

They will get around to it. Watch PhotoKina 2008.

 

The WATE introduced with the M8 was something of a stop-gap, a quick way to add TWO new focal lengths to the M line (16/18mm) with one lens design, one set of parts to make, one item to stock and catalog - and likely SOME adoption of sensor-friendly optical design.

 

Leica is not Nikon or Canon - or even Cosina. Their usual M lens revision schedule is about one new design every 2 years - not every 2 months (and from 1980 to 1989 they created NO new designs). The past 18 months, with 6 new lenses (Summarits + 28 f/2.8 ASPH + WATE) is Leica operating in "ultra-fast-forward" mode! While also straightening out the M8's bugs.

 

Now that they have covered the wide end with the "quicky" WATE, and gotten out some less expensive designs for the M newbies who get sticker shock at $3000 lenses - I'm sure they are turning their attention to one or two sub-21mm primes - likely at least one pricey ASPH and one "Summarit-class".

 

Leica will never be a high-volume, crank-them-out, 5-different-body, something-for-everybody, me-too Nikon or Canon. They are interested in THEIR market, not THE market.

 

And THEIR market is interested in an M8-sized-camera that works with M-sized lenses - not a D3 or D3x-sized camera (and lenses) that happens to have a window in one corner.

 

If Leica can put FF and 25 Mpixels into the M8 box and have it work with my 1982 21 Elmarit - great!

 

If they can't - I'll stick with the M8 size and the M lenses and whatever sensor size and pixel count happens to be compatable.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[Guest jimmy pro]

And asking Sony to "develop" a new 24 Mpsx sensor with the required microlenses for the M body, at the volumes projected would not make R & D sense for Sony. JMHO

 

Woody

 

You know that for a fact? You on there board of directors? Somehow Kodak was convinced to adapt one of there sensors for the M8. The only stumbling block is right now Sony don't have a high-MP chip, but now that Nikon's at least got a FF the next step is to catch up with Canon, who's already got 16 and 22MP chips. The 5D replacement will prolly be at least 16MP.

[adan]

"right now Sony don't have a high-MP chip,"

 

- out-of-date info - Sony announced their 25Mpixel 24 x 36 sensor at PMA 2 weeks ago.

 

Kodak already knows how to do offset microlenses, from working with Leica on sensors for the DMR and M8. Likely they have patents that Sony can't use.

 

And there is a lot of value in working within an established relationship - something Japanese industry has known for decades. Stick with your established suppliers who know your product, and encourage constant improvement from those suppliers, rather than running around from supplier to supplier based on who has something "new" this week.

[carstenw]

I have no idea what Leica will do but I bet if they don't keep up, their market share will dwindle.

 

I fully agree with that, but I disagree with your description of what it means to "keep up":

 

I first used a Kodak DCS 460 6 megapixel camera about 11 years ago (or whenever they first came out.) It cost nearly $30,000, didn't even have an LCD for review, and it compares poorly to $500 cameras of today. I guess you could still shoot with one but why would you? The same will happen to Leica if it doesn't keep making new models.

 

Okay, now you exaggerate. Those were pioneer days, not the market we have now, and anyway, Leica is not going to wait 11 years to release a new camera. Nor probably even half that. They will go with upgrades for a few years, and then a new camera once in a while. I would guess a new M every 3-5 years. I hope for 5, but maybe they feel pressure to do it every 3.

 

35mm digital cameras now compare quite favorably to the results from medium format film cameras. To that end a 24 megapixel full frame Leica that gets the most covering power and detail from its lenses will be a significant improvement over the M8. What is wrong with that?

 

Many of the other recent advances in digital photography - good quality at very high ISOs, live view, fast frame rates, higher bit depth, IS, are examples of features that have shown significant improvement and are features that are demanded by many shooters.

 

There is nothing wrong with advancement, but I don't think it is necessary. Many of these features are useful, but many will also not be used by most people, and Leica has not tried to cater to the mass market for half a century. They just need a successful niche. Of the list of features above, I expect that Leica will only chase higher megapixels, and better high ISO results with the M line. Add fast frame rates, live view and IS for the R, maybe also IS for the M, but I don't know if it will fit. Leica doesn't need to add higher bit rates. Both the M8 and DMR have 16-bit circuitry. They just need to stop adding funky bit manipulation to the M, and that point is covered.

 

By the way, I think that a lot of the demand is fake. There are pros who need some of them, sure, but a lot of it is just keeping up with the Joneses. I sold my 5D to a friend who was talking about all the features he "needed" from a camera, but in the end, he uses the 5D like I use my M8, except for one thing: a 70-300 zoom for travel. That's it. Other friends do even less. Most features aren't needed by most people, and Leica won't fall behind by not keeping up with the checklist feature war, because that isn't and never was their market.

 

If Leica stays where it is and everyone else becomes used to shooting low noise 6400 ISO stabilized images at 5+ frames per second and 25 megapixels full frame images with high bit depth with other cameras, where will that leave Leica? Especially after these features drift down to the cheaper models from Nikon, Sony and Canon. This is where the market is heading.

 

Oh? :D It took Nikon 3 years to add ISO 6400 while leaving the MP the same. It took Canon 3 years to add the MP while leaving the ISO performance similar. I guess Leica has 5 years or so before even the *high-end* Nikons and Canons get there, which is plenty of time to release a new model with an upgrade or two. I guess Leica has nothing to worry about there. I don't suppose that the low-end models will get those features for a very long time. There isn't enough coming to keep up the mass marketing upgrade cycle alive and well. Look at the recent features you listed, and where they help:

 

- more MP (most people don't even print large with their existing cameras)

- high ISO (this is the one feature which maybe most people will benefit from: evening events like birthdays)

- live view (more or less a macro feature)

- 5 frames per second (fast baby???)

- IS (maybe useful sometimes, but a surprising amount of the time there is enough light)

- high bit depth (please)

 

Sure, pros can use, or even *need* some of those, although they always got along without. A few people might use one or more of those features more than once or twice, but overall, it is a checklist feature battle, not a real one.

 

What a lot of people could use, however, is smaller cameras and better lenses. Surprise. There are a lot of crap bo-ke (hello Olympus) and soft corner (hello Canon) lenses out there, and everyone bitches about camera weight (DSLR). Guess where the M is positioned, and yes, a lot of people have enough money for one, especially when they can upgrade every couple of years instead of having to buy new.

[Olsen]

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.

 

Hear, hear! This is the most realistic on this Full Frame/Up Date Subject.

 

First of all; a Full Frame on a rangefinder camera is not technically possible. Within a time frame of 4 - 5 years. Still then problems have to be solved. Like the economy behind it. The price of sensors quadruples with the size, and contrary to memory does not fall in price. Actually, in dollars, the price of sensors have gone up! When you study the alternatives and the economy behind it you will see that the 1,33 cropped M8 is an ideal solution - out of what is possible today.

 

We can daydream specs on sensor sizes and high ISO/low noice - but it isn't possible. Put a 24 mill. pixel Sony sensor into an M8? Forget it! What Leica have done, however, is to put a CCD version of the 16 mill. pixel sensor and 'cropped' it down, which utilizes the sweet spot of the optics.

 

What would a FF M cost? The new 1Ds III will cost 'only' 8,000 $ since Canon, I am sure, reckon they can sell 200.000 of them. Maybe more. What is a realistic production run of a M9? 20.000...? What will that cost? How shall Leica be able to sell a full frame M9 for less than 20,000 $ - or Euros?

 

Then look closely at M8. It is as close as you can get an optimum between price, crop factor, ISO noice and rangefinder-optics-adaptability as you can get.

 

Well done, Leica!

 

What I could wish for is higher reliability. And now Leica offers a decent fix for that too; an up grade with a few gadgets, a warranty and a return to factory to put anything faulty in order. Excellent!

[AlanG]

I hope I'm not driving everyone crazy. This really isn't very important to me. I just consider it an academic discussion as we're all speculating. (That's in the title of the thread.)

 

I thought I made my opinions clear on my earliest posts on this thread... My basic and first point - It may be possible for Leica to buy the 24 megapixel Sony FF chip and put it in an M body. (New model or upgrade of an M8) This may or may not be available with microlenses allowing for various lenses shorter than a certain focal length to work satisfactorily.

 

Should a satisfactory microlens solution not be found, in my opinion it may be possible for Leica to make one or more retrofocus wide angles that will be small and light enough to be successfully used on a FF M model.

 

Alternatively Leica could buy a sensor from Kodak or someone else should that become possible. But the Sony chip has been announced as going into mass production and seems to be offered to all comers. I do not know what it will cost.

 

Keep in mind that Kodak made several FF SLRs (14N, 14Nx, SLRn and SLRc) that used a chip they bought from Fill Factory rather than using their own sensor. It is also curious that Kodak's own MF backs use chips made by Dalsa. Does Kodak know something about its own chips that it isn't telling us? So if Kodak isn't loyal to Kodak, why does Leica have to be?

 

As for who needs all of the features in some of the modern cameras... Gee as far as I can see many people could get by with a p&s. But what does that have to do with it? Features sell or we'd all still be driving Model Ts and living in little homes with tiny closets and tiny kitchens. (My Dad once special ordered a Honda Accord because he didn't need more than one speaker and really only wanted an AM radio. They drew the line and insisted he have AM/FM. But how many people are like this?)

 

If anyone is willing to pay a lot for even small improvements it might be Leica users - 1200 Euros for a quieter shutter and a saphire crystal coverglass. So they should be willing to spend a reasonable amount should a new model be significantly better than the old one. Besides, even a $5,000 Leica body with a $3,000 lens probably needs to stay somewhere near the forefront of technology and overall image quality to make financial sense to most buyers. Whether they need it or not.

 

What Leica may or may not do is anyone's guess. I'm just speculating.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[AlanG]

...First of all; a Full Frame on a rangefinder camera is not technically possible. Within a time frame of 4 - 5 years. Still then problems have to be solved. Like the economy behind it. The price of sensors quadruples with the size, and contrary to memory does not fall in price. Actually, in dollars, the price of sensors have gone up! When you study the alternatives and the economy behind it you will see that the 1,33 cropped M8 is an ideal solution - out of what is possible today.

 

You can buy a FF Canon 5D for under $2000. It started out at $3200 a couple of years ago.