Given the speculation about future M8 upgrades

[Guest jimmy pro]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Stick with your established suppliers who know your product, and encourage constant improvement from those suppliers, rather than running around from supplier to supplier .

 

You mean like how Leica stuck with Jenoptik for the M8's firmware. Oh, wait....

 

Fact is we don't know how many different suppliers Leica uses for the M8, or how many times they've changed suppliers on a single part. What counts is that when it goes out the door it works the way it's supposed to (not that very many M8's did that). If Sony and Kodak are stuck because of patent issues, maybe it's time for Leica to get friendly with the Chinese. They don't give a rat's corpse about patent infringement.

[jrc]

I'm not sure that Leica knew what it would do after the M8 -- it sort of depended on future developments in the sensor world. In that area, I found Kodak's recent announcement of a new sensor technology to be fairly interesting, in that (in the press release) it seemed to promise better response at smaller pixel sizes. Maybe the answer is that Kodak/Leica will offer 18mp and better ISO performance at 1.3x.

 

I don't think Leica would even try to retro fit the current M8s with a bigger sensor. Other than in the area of firmware, I think most Leica "upgrades" will more amount to tinkering, than anything really substantial.

 

JC

[Advertisement]

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

[charlesphoto99]

I'm not sure that Leica knew what it would do after the M8 -- it sort of depended on future developments in the sensor world. In that area, I found Kodak's recent announcement of a new sensor technology to be fairly interesting, in that (in the press release) it seemed to promise better response at smaller pixel sizes. Maybe the answer is that Kodak/Leica will offer 18mp and better ISO performance at 1.3x.

 

I don't think Leica would even try to retro fit the current M8s with a bigger sensor. Other than in the area of firmware, I think most Leica "upgrades" will more amount to tinkering, than anything really substantial.

 

JC

 

Yeah, I seriously doubt Leica will try and cram a FF sensor into the 8. Esp one that is 22mp or whatever. I doubt the rest of the electronics could keep up with processing that much info. It's already slow enough as it is (always fun to shoot a series of pics and then hong out watching the red light blink and blink and blink while the subject or client is asking to see).

 

Give me decent framelines (electronic or traditional, doesn't matter), a way to see what shutter speed I'm using in dimly lit situations (either in viewfinder or lit externally), a cleaner high iso (3200 is plenty), a dedicated ISO switch , and a sensor in the 12-18 mp range (any more than that is overkill, slow, and a storage headache imo), and a higher res preview screen (I think they should have included that as part of the sapphire upgrade). And a faster buffer and quieter motor. Mmmm, and lose the traditional baseplate!

 

Oh and it wouldn't kill them to let us have a few more basic menu options such as choice of initial previews, a few custom functions, etc. Simplicity is nice and all but at least give us the options! Then it's your choice to use or not to use. This should be offered as an online only update. That way you could choose to leave the M8 as it comes with the original instruction manual FW or download a "custom function FW" that has an online pdf of instructions.

 

Really, I think the M8 is pretty good as it is, but with an M9 they had better include the above features for it to be a truly modern camera (yet still within the M tradition).

 

And beyond a new sensor, what other upgrades do you think they can realistically do to the M8?

[chris_tribble]

Do agree about shutter speed in low light conditions. I use Manual much less these days as the dial is so cramped + there's no absolute stop (so you can't count up to the stop you want).

[Guest jimmy pro]

If you want to cut through Leica's marketing crap all you have to do is ask yourself why they aren't offering a re-sized set of frame masks for people who don't shoot 95% at minimum distance, a lens detection menu, SDHC compatibility, or more than 8-bit, or split the shutter recocking off to one of the buttons on the back or when you let go the shutter release. Those would be very possible upgrades (well, to be honest I don't know what's involved with SDHC but the rest for shure). Instead they're selling a new shutter for $1800. Because for some ulterior reason it works out for them.

[chris_tribble]

Do have to admit it makes you think - I'd certainly see most of your shopping list more valuable than the crystal lcd cover...

[Jamie Roberts]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Do have to admit it makes you think - I'd certainly see most of your shopping list more valuable than the crystal lcd cover...

 

Yes and Leica isn't stupid, or evil either. They're just a company, and one that was burned by their own mistakes on the M8's release.

 

Given that not one major "35mm" digital camera maker has offered such a program before, I for one am glad Leica is starting with something relatively low-interest and mechanical, and therefore relatively easy for them with their current expertise.

 

All snide and paranoid comments aside, when the good stuff comes down the upgrade pipe, Leica will have this first upgrade under their belt, and have lessons learned. So by the time the general M8 rush is on for framelines, sensor or other electronic upgrades (like processor or SDHC), there won't be a general hue and cry about their incompetence. Well, there will, of course, but you understand what I'm saying...

 

If I were in charge, this is how I'd roll out the upgrade program too, with something easy and low-volume to start.

[jaapv]

If you want to cut through Leica's marketing crap all you have to do is ask yourself why they aren't offering a re-sized set of frame masks for people who don't shoot 95% at minimum distance, a lens detection menu, SDHC compatibility, or more than 8-bit, or split the shutter recocking off to one of the buttons on the back or when you let go the shutter release. Those would be very possible upgrades (well, to be honest I don't know what's involved with SDHC but the rest for shure). Instead they're selling a new shutter for $1800. Because for some ulterior reason it works out for them.

 

I'm not in Leica's confidence, but I can guess at some of the answers here. (not always my opinion, so don't shoot me for being an apologist, just trying to guess at the logic (or lack thereof)...)

Resized frame masks - fear of complaints about undersized framing at closest focussing and a feeling that "people should understand the theory". I'm convinced they will come as an upgrade at some point of time.

Lens detection menu hmm, more complicated. Possibly competition considerations.Firmware, not upgrade.

SDHC - computing capacity limitations? Personally I do not see much advantage there. It is firmware- not upgrade material anyway.

8-bit. That has been chewed to death. It is clear Leica does not feel the marginal advantage is worth the slower camera.Firmware not upgrade again.

Split recocking - The new shutter is a step in the silent direction. The noise is not the recocking anyway, it is the first sharp click. Again, a firmware thing.

ISO button - it would be nice for some. Again, firmware, not an upgrade. I guess they find it confusing to have a wrongly labelled button on some cameras.

[adan]

".....maybe it's time for Leica to get friendly with the Chinese. They don't give a rat's corpse about patent infringement."

 

Oh, Yummmy! Lead-coated sensors!

 

Seriously, Jimmy and Alan - have you guys been switching back and forth between Nikon and Canon the past few years, just because one or the other comes out with a new product this quarter? LOL!

 

I have nothing against Sony (well, there was the "spyware" issue a couple of years back - but as a Mac user it didn't affect me) - bought an R1 as my 10Mpixel stopgap to cover the year between my dismal Epson experience and the arrival of the M8 - nice sensor, nice colors, not a bad lens for a 5x zoom, good camera to learn RAW with. Cost me a net $400 to shoot for a year.

 

Sony and Kodak are both innovators. Kodak has experience getting good images out of compact Leica-M lenses, Sony has experience getting BAD imagery out compact Leica-M lenses. I'm sure Leica could "train" Sony in how to accomodate the optics of a rangefinder - but Kodak already has the headstart, so why bother?

 

Just out of curiosity, has anyone seen actual output from the Sony FF 25Mpixel sensor - taken with any lens?

[Olsen]

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

 

Per summer of 2007 something 670.000 units were sold of this camera. A totally different league compared to the small market segment of a FF M at some 20.000 units. The actual price fall you refer to is a couple of hundred dollars of which most must be off the dealer's gross profit. Starting with a situation in early 2006 when Canon could not deliver enough cameras to now when the model is on it¨s way out. With the pace that the US dollar is falling now I have no belief in that a significant price fall of silicon sensors can be traced at all, - in US$.

[Guest Olof]

Gold plated !

[Guest jimmy pro]

Split recocking - The new shutter is a step in the silent direction. The noise is not the recocking anyway, it is the first sharp click.

 

Huh? You do own an M8 right? The major noise is most definately the recocking. Lots of people have said so beside me. One guy even took the damn thing apart and fired the shutter without recocking and said it was nearly silent. There's some kind of a solenoid or something that also makes noise but it's mainly the motor. My M8 sounds almost exactly like my M7 with the Motor Drive attached. A sharp click could be anything and it's over in a fraction of a second, but that recocking goes on long enough to attract attention and the sound screams "camera at work" to everybody.

[vertekijker]

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?

I agree. My Tri-Elmar 28-35-50 is far more useful on my M8 than it ever was on my M6. An advantage I would loose again with FF.

[carstenw]

I hope I'm not driving everyone crazy.

 

As for me, not at all. I consider your comments intelligent and enjoy discussing this.

 

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.

 

I am with Adan, Leica is too faithful and would not leave Kodak for a short-term advantage.

 

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?

 

Those are independent. Kodak uses Dalsa chips in Leaf backs because when they bought Leaf, they were already using them, and they don't want to force them to change. I presume that Kodak didn't use their own 35mm sensors back then because they weren't as good at the time. As we have seen with the M8 and DMR, this isn't the case any more, IQ-wise. High ISO remains the target to improve, as well as a comparatively easier megapixel increase. That is honourable enough, I think. I believe that Phase One uses Kodak chips, and they compete head-on with Leaf, so there should be no problem with Kodak sensors.

 

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?

 

My point was that Leica doesn't cater to the market of people who shop for features they don't need. Leica cameras are for photographers who are minimalist perfectionists, or just wealthy.

[mjh]

I believe that Phase One uses Kodak chips, and they compete head-on with Leaf, so there should be no problem with Kodak sensors.

Yes, Phase One does use Kodak CCDs, and so does Hasselblad.

[AlanG]

I am not knocking Kodak... I used to be a big fan and tried to use their products almost exclusively until Velvia came out. (Some Cibachrome too.)

 

Kodak bought Leaf almost three years ago. That would seem enough time to switch sensors if Kodak thought it was important. Even if Leaf is run as an independent unit, don't you think it would be more profitable for them to use their own sensors? (Maybe it is harder than I think to switch sensors in a given design, but we are talking about Kodak and Leaf, not some mom and pop company. (Perhaps Leaf has some kind of commitment to Dalsa.)

 

I don't know how any of this will shake out but I do know that every year that goes by there will be more and more camera companies that will be able to offer cameras capable of high quality images because the pool of sensors is increasing. And if Kodak somehow comes out with a great new chip they probably will offer it to companies besides Leica. It is my contention that Leica will have to keep up with them.

[mjh]

Kodak bought Leaf almost three years ago. That would seem enough time to switch sensors if Kodak thought it was important. Even if Leaf is run as an independent unit, don't you think it would be more profitable for them to use their own sensors? (Maybe it is harder than I think to switch sensors in a given design, but we are talking about Kodak and Leaf, not some mom and pop company. (Perhaps Leaf has some kind of commitment to Dalsa.)

Whatever the reason, it’s not like Dalsa sensors were that great that Leaf would prefer them over their Kodak equivalents just on the strength of their image quality.

[jaapv]

Huh? You do own an M8 right? The major noise is most definately the recocking. Lots of people have said so beside me. One guy even took the damn thing apart and fired the shutter without recocking and said it was nearly silent. There's some kind of a solenoid or something that also makes noise but it's mainly the motor. My M8 sounds almost exactly like my M7 with the Motor Drive attached. A sharp click could be anything and it's over in a fraction of a second, but that recocking goes on long enough to attract attention and the sound screams "camera at work" to everybody.

 

No- I do not own an M8 - I own two.

[SJP]

"And beyond a new sensor, what other upgrades do you think they can realistically do to the M8?"

 

Exactly - the limitions in fact are in the eye of the beholder. No more no less. This was always the case 50+ years ago and now. We do not actually need more resolution, or DPI, or contrast, or sensor size or whatever.

 

The difference between Leica glass and the rest of the world does not depend on that anyway. It is the difference between love and measurement. We love this stuff and rightly so.

 

I am still amazed about the quality that Leica manages to achieve. Considering the minute size of the company this becomes even more extraordinary ...

 

We are dealing with 0 competition even if Nikon or Canon have iso 20.000 and better sensors this is not the issue at hand. The fun thing is that they do not understand that.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[AlanG]

Whatever the reason, it’s not like Dalsa sensors were that great that Leaf would prefer them over their Kodak equivalents just on the strength of their image quality.

 

I can't say for sure, but the MegaVision rep once explained to me that they used Dalsa chips because they cause less color shifting when the lenses were used off axis. He got into the technical differences between the physical makeup of the two chips but I can't recall exactly what he said was the nature of the "barrier" that helped keep angular rays of light from spilling over into adjacent pixel wells. (I have no way to verify this.)

 

From the Dalsa.com site, "Better angular response: DALSA sensors provide excellent angular response, a characteristic that is very important when using fast lenses and wide angles..." They go on to explain why that is so.

 

One other thing, back to retrofocus lenses. Just because Nikon's retrofocus lenses have to be far enough from the sensor to clear the mirror, doesn't mean that retrofocus lenses that would work on a FF M model would have to be so far from the sensor. (Even without special microlenses.) Thus they may be able to be made smaller than a comparable Nikon + 10mm spacing (difference between Nikon's and Leica's flange to sensor distance) would seem to imply.

 

Consider that a 24mm TSE lens works pretty well tilted and shifted on a FF Canon, so with that sensor there is a certain tolerance for angled and off axis rays. Therefore with a similar sensor there is no need for truly telecentric designs. A retrofocus Leica M lens may thus have a "fudge factor" in this regard and that would help in any lens design decisions.

 

I wonder how the overall cost/benefit of making and selling some new lenses that work with a more "standard" sensor compare with the cost of R&D and potential compromises (such as need for software correction and external IR filters) of making a special sensor for a FF M - just so it can work with all of the current w/a lenses. (If this is even possible).

 

Maybe from the user's standpoint, buying a couple of new lenses will be a better option if it provides a superior overall system sooner. And if they later find a way to make that special sensor, the old lenses can be used on it too.