Jump to content

Should Leica Abandon The M8?


barjohn

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I fail to understand Barjohn's point. I have no major issues with the M8 (and I am NOT coming from Leica film cameras and have not, formerly, been an old school Leica fanatic).

 

Barjohn's post seems to indicate that the camera, as the first of a possible digital RF product family, is fatally flawed and the whole future M8 family should be abandoned for some entirely different project. While I have no qualms with Leica bringing to market other product families, I see no reason to abandon the M8 as a design center. It isn't broken (apart from the kind of niggling issues every camera has, in this case, the IR problem). A camera that is a joy to use, produces stunning images and uses some of the finest lenses in the world... what, exactly, is the fatal flaw here? I'm mystified....

 

I have used almost every high end Canon, many points and shoots and also shoot medium format digital with a Mamiya AFD II. There is very little that I miss from those other cameras when I use the M8. For me, image quality trumps everything. dont get it. Sure, image stabilization would be nice, but this hasn't been a problem. Better high ISO sensor performance would also be nice, but that's no reason to dump the M8x family as a product design as better sensor technology as it emerges can be integrated into future M8 models.

 

Why, exactly, should Leica abandon the M8?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 403
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Ah! the good enough school of thought seems prevalent. To some of us good enough never is. Dissatisfaction is the mother of invention. I hold two patents because good enough wasn't. I spend enormous amounts of time thinking about how to make good enough better and better great. Thank goodness a few of us are never quite satisfied. That is why we went from the horse to the car, from the Model A (I once owned one) to the Porsche (one of those too).

 

I am puzzled though, since the lenses are beyond reproach and the prior Ms were fantastic cameras and film must have been good enough for many of you why in the world did you ever buy an M8? I'll bet the same arguments would have been found when the M5 was the RF and so on. :) :)

 

I really like the M8, and would very much like to see improvements at a reduced cost. Perhaps, for example, electronic framelines could look just like the current framelines, but be much more accurate, simpler to calibrate and cheaper to build. That sounds great to me.

 

Dumping the M mount, on the other hand, would hugely raise my cost (I'd need new lenses), and would provide little or no improvement. Dissatisfaction as the mother of invention shouldn't lead us to throw out the baby with the bathwater. I hope Leica concentrates on fixing things we're dissatisfied with, and avoids screwing up the things that are already done well (and there are many things on the M8 done very well). I think the M8 provides a great platform for future improved digital M cameras.

 

Later,

 

Clyde

Link to post
Share on other sites

Film is good enough for me and I haven't bought an M8.

 

Leica could always make a digital version of the M5. Surely, they could fit a full-frame sensor into one of those. :rolleyes:

 

Good for you! So why are you reading the M8 forum?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ron, it isn't a matter of being fatally flawed. I and many others would like a smaller and lighter version of the M8 with some enhancements such as the electronic frame lines and focus assist or god forbid, even auto focus with RF viewing. Today's sensor technology stands in the way when coupled with the legacy bayonet mount lenses. Auto focus is not a possible feature of manual lenses. Therefore, the design decision to stay with legacy lenses may preclude achieving the other desirable goals. IQ demands will increase over time as sensors improve and pixel capabilities increase. Most of us don't buy or even want a 1 MPIXEL camera anymore but at one time it was thought to be a fantastic achievement. Only a couple of years ago 8 M pixels was very good and 10 M pixels was the cat's meow. Today, 12 M pixels and 14 m pixels and 22 M Pixels all the way up to 50 M Pixels are the goals. The same kind of thing has happened in displays and TV sets with the move to HDTV. What I am suggesting is that at some point if your legacy technology becomes the road block to the future it may be time to abandon it. Is that time now? I don't know. The market will dictate the answer in the end. My hope was to encourage Leica to see the signposts before it became too late. Would a change of direction anger many loyal users? You bet! That's why they pay the executives the big bucks to make the tough decisions and to know when to make them. Today I use a 24" monitor with a resolution that would have been unthinkable 5 years ago. If vendors had decided that all I needed was a 15" monitor with 640 x 480 resolution I would not have the ability to see and enjoy images the way I do today. Think about it, what technology from 5 years ago are you happy with using today? The M8 is at least 2 years old but probably 4 years old from start of design.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good for you! So why are you reading the M8 forum?

 

You're implying that I shouldn't be reading it or have an opinion just because I haven't bought an M8.

 

Just because I haven't bought one doesn't mean I wouldn't consider one or have no interest in the technology.

 

Reading between the lines would make that much obvious, or so I thought.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

When Leica went digital, with the M8, it was like Dylan going electric. He was branded a traitor, booed and catcalled. Many of his die hard fans abandoned him, but there were those who stuck around and appreciated that his music was the same, just played differently.

 

The analogy is off the mark IMHO. Before the M8 people were clamouring for a digital M and leaving the M for other digital cameras.

 

Many, maybe most, of the complaints about the M8 have come from people who don't use the camera. That's their right of course.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope not. It is my all time favorite camera. I have owned and used Hasselbland, 4x5, SLRs, DSLRs (currently using a D3) and a variety of rangefinders. I would rather pick up and shoot my M8 than any other camera, and I prefer working on an M8 file over scanned film or other digital images.

 

Leica isn't in business to please me in particular. . . but they have done so, and clearly I am not alone. Playing "me too" with their competitors won't improve their camers. Smile shutter, anyone?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I like this thread. It is discussing that Mercedes should abandon the "S-class".

Excellent:) ! I like that one...In German we would say "köstlich"........

 

It is a thread full of philosophy and we will still read much more about philosophy...

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's worth remembering that the M8 was developed on a shoe string - Leica was close to broke for most of the development and if you look at the accounts, they spent less on R&D in the period than Canon spent on their (6 day?) Photokina 2006 presence, £15m. It's not surprising then that the M8 is really an M7 with a digital back; they could do no more with the resources available.

 

There isn't an engineer anywhere who wouldn't like to repeat a project with the benefit of knowledge gained the first time. The only sacred cow to my mind is the M mount and bayonet flange to sensor distance. Everything else could change in a series of radical departures from the M format we know and love.

 

You could think of a new traditional body, like the M8 but a bit slimmer please - go back to a film M and the M8 is a bit of a porker. You could think of a camera along the lines of the Sigma DP-1 taking M lenses, more of a point and shoot variant; finally you could think of a technological tour de force containing the innovations we have talked about while retaining the essential simplicity of an M - full frame, electronic framelines, focus confirmation and the rest.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The only sacred cow to my mind is the M mount and bayonet flange to sensor distance.

 

I agree and assume that Leica are aware of the areas in which the M9 should depart from the M8. I remember mentioning electronic frame lines before the M8 was announced. Perhaps they'll become a reality in the M9. With the M6 - and to an extent the M7 - and earlier there was always the argument that the camera could work without batteries, so electronics should be kept to the meter and no more. With a digital camera that argument obviously doesn't hold any more.

 

Another requirement would be to keep the body reasonably small. An M8 may be a 'porker' compared to an M6, but compared to most DSLRs is anorexic.

 

Assuming that the announcement of the M9 is 12-18 months off, I wonder how far down the line the M9 design is? Would you by this stage expect Leica to have a least a functional specification of the camera with perhaps an idea of how it would look and hang together - prior to the making of a prototype, or would it be too early for that?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Many, maybe most, of the complaints about the M8 have come from people who don't use the camera.

 

Hi Steve - this statement is oft-repeated, but I honestly don't think repetition makes it true - I hope I don't need to trawl through previous threads and other blogs to prove the point(?)

 

Anyway, the point that's often misunderstood is that there's a reason some of us don't own the M8, but still want to participate in hopefully pushing Leica towards a more successful M9 - I'm enthusiastic that it may sometime happen, and I'll finally be able to combine my lenses with a digital camera that's worthy of them.

 

It's great that many people who own the camera are happy with it - wonderful!

 

However, some seem to think this gives them right of veto over any future improvements.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ron, it isn't a matter of being fatally flawed. I and many others would like a smaller and lighter version of the M8 with some enhancements such as the electronic frame lines and focus assist or god forbid, even auto focus with RF viewing. Today's sensor technology stands in the way when coupled with the legacy bayonet mount lenses..... Today, 12 M pixels and 14 m pixels and 22 M Pixels all the way up to 50 M Pixels are the goals. The same kind of thing has happened in displays and TV sets with the move to HDTV. What I am suggesting is that at some point if your legacy technology becomes the road block to the future it may be time to abandon it. Is that time now? I don't know. The market will dictate the answer in the end. My hope was to encourage Leica to see the signposts before it became too late. Would a change of direction anger many loyal users? You bet! That's why they pay the executives the big bucks to make the tough decisions and to know when to make them. Today I use a 24" monitor with a resolution that would have been unthinkable 5 years ago. If vendors had decided that all I needed was a 15" monitor with 640 x 480 resolution I would not have the ability to see and enjoy images the way I do today. Think about it, what technology from 5 years ago are you happy with using today? The M8 is at least 2 years old but probably 4 years old from start of design.

 

Assuming that, like many of us, you are printing at A4, A3 or even A2 size, what is it about the picture quality and resolution you are getting at the moment that you are unhappy about, and think could be improved? Is 22mp going to give you appreciably better results at these sizes? If you are going significantly bigger than this, then sure, you may be dissatisfied. As regards bringing in a new mount and lenses for the M, then that would be a sure fire way of destroying the customer base. The biggest deal with the M8 is its backwards compatibility for some of the greatest lenses ever made.

Link to post
Share on other sites

... Auto focus is not a possible feature of manual lenses. Therefore, the design decision to stay with legacy lenses may preclude achieving the other desirable goals. ...

 

... As regards bringing in a new mount and lenses for the M, then that would be a sure fire way of destroying the customer base. The biggest deal with the M8 is its backwards compatibility for some of the greatest lenses ever made.

 

History doesn't teach much apparently. When Nikon decided to add AF to their cameras first, and AF-S later, and VR later, they didn't drop the F mount. They added a AF screw first, then they added electric contacts for all the other functions, all this WITHOUT changing the F bayonet, thus allowing backwards compatibility as well as making it possible to have all these new functions that especially John seems to crave :D why couldn't Leica do the same, pray tell, and why would it be necessary to abandon the M mount and backwards compatibility to have new features added to the M line? Well, Canon did, when they changed their mount, and scre.ed all their user base forcing them to buy a complete new set of lenses to be able to use their newer cameras: well done, I definitely hope that Leica will NOT be listening to those wanting it to drop the M mount, and would rather use their brain and intelligence and provide us with a solution that would ensure backward compatibility. Which, by the way, is a trademark of Leica and one of the reason for their success.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ariston, MP are not the be-all-and-end-all of image quality. My main concerns about the M8 image quality are noise (the Nikon D3 spoils you) and the problems focussing, especially long, wide open and close up. I have 3 M8s and 17 M lenses which leads to a nightmarish matrix of what works with what. The best thing Leica could do (IMHO) is sense actual focus at the sensor, not rely on the rangefinder to do it for you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the idea of a hybrid microfocusing classic RF patch mechanism, that will compensate for the loss of accuracy in the tele lens, say from 90-135mm, because as it seems all the rest focus fine. But would it be possible to drive the sensor like that, without introducing further problems? Would that be compatible with current mount/lens?

But I dont like the idea of a fully autofocus mechanism ala dSLR. If we want that we can always choose a dSLR. There are a bunch of them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...