A new sensor that can be upgraded is now an obligation

[tobey bilek]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have used an M8 and the newest 35,50, and 75 mm lenses and it far exceedes what I could do with my Nikon D200 and is about the same with the D700 at 5.6 and smaller.

At low light and iso 400 and 1.4, to 4.0, the images are far sharper than what I can get with my Nikon. The D700 has less noise and can go to a higher ISO, but the lenses do not hold a candle to Leica optics.

 

I don`t care what the sensor size is, all things considered the M8 will give you a better image. Sure a bigger sensor would be better, but it not known how to make it work in a RF camera at the present time.

[luigi bertolotti]

The lenses were not designed for just any imager that happened to measure 36 mm by 24 mm. They were designed for 35 mm film. A sensor of any size behaves quite differently than film does, which is why those lenses wouldn’t perform all that well on a digital M with a state-of-the-art 36 mm x 24 mm sensor. On the other hand, Leica managed to build the M8 with its somewhat smaller sensor, so that’s what we have. Everything else is pie in the sky at the moment, and another exclamation of “But I want a pony!” won’t change that. If you think you can help Leica designing the M9, then by all means do so. Everything else is just a waste of time.

 

Perfectly said, agree at all : many things can be improved on tha M8 and future models of the M line, but the dimensions of the sensor in itself is simply not an issue: M8 is my first digital camera, and within the many problems I had in understanding what it means to go digital, the less important was to get accustomed to the fact that "now, 50 is 35 etc..."

[Advertisement]

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

[bertraaphorst]

I have used an M8 and the newest 35,50, and 75 mm lenses and it far exceedes what I could do with my Nikon D200 and is about the same with the D700 at 5.6 and smaller.

At low light and iso 400 and 1.4, to 4.0, the images are far sharper than what I can get with my Nikon. The D700 has less noise and can go to a higher ISO, but the lenses do not hold a candle to Leica optics.

 

I don`t care what the sensor size is, all things considered the M8 will give you a better image. Sure a bigger sensor would be better, but it not known how to make it work in a RF camera at the present time.

 

Hi Tobey,

 

I agree with you. I use the M8 for three months now and I'm very satisfied with the image quality of this Kodak senor. The M8 is a great camera. Although it has some quirks, it's such a joy to use.

 

A few days ago I read a Photo.net review that could be interesting for you (and for more of us). It's a " Leica M8 and Summarit-M Lenses Review A working photographer's review by Kirck Tuck". He is not only testing the M8 and the new Summarits, but he also compares the M8 with his D700 and in his comments there is someone who compares it with his Nikon D3 ...

 

Here is the url:

 

Leica M8 and Summarit-M Lenses Review - photo.net

 

Enjoy your M8 and take as many (good) pictures with it as you can ..

 

Albert

 

 

 

Aruba Photos - Aruba PhotoRefresh

Flickr: bert.raaphorst's Photostream

[jaapv]

I have no doubt Leica's #1 priority in the M system is developing a 24x36mm sensor body. Dr. Kaufmann has said as much. I'm sure he knows it will fly off the shelves to current owners of the M8 and 8.2. There are a lot of people who are defending the cropped sensor, but that is in reaction to feelings of, or taunts of, inadequacy versus Canon and Nikon FF DSLRs. The moment there is a FF Leica M9, those people will drop their contrived arguments like hot potatos, and bolt for the nearest Leica dealer with their credit cards melting in their hot hands. But Dr. Kaufmann isn't stupid. He wants to prevent a repeat of the same expensive, embarrassing fiasco of the M8's initial launch. If there are any issues I'm sure he wants them either worked out ahead of time, or at least, to have the PR/marketing department ready with a bullet-proof spin, not piss into the wind way they fluffed the IR filter issue.

`

Speak for yourself. All other things being equal, I would not even consider upgrading to a 24x36 M9.

[yanidel]

I personally have not experienced 24x36 nor in film (except maybe for a disposable camera ... ) nor in digital.

So I have no past reference to how it felt to use a 28mm as a real 28mm and not a 37mm. It is participating to forums that made me think about it actually ...

So really full frame or not does not really matter. What does matter to me is high ISO performance which is behind compared to today's best and puts some restrictions on shooting at night, especially when doing street.

So buying a M9 with only full frame as major improvement would be pure GAS or leicamania for me. Which might happen in the end, but I am not going to worry now about the money I might not have in a couple of years ... I find the current M8 very enjoyable and its quircks don't impact a lot my picture taking, so meanwhile I am a happy camper.

[andybarton]

So buying a M9 with only full frame as major improvement would be pure GAS or leicamania for me. Which might happen in the end,

 

No "might" about it.

 

The amount of Leica stuff that I have that I was "never going to buy"

 

A Leicameter for the M2

A grip for the M7

The M7!

A Leicavit

A 35 ASPH

 

The list goes on, and on...

 

That's why my local dealer is known as the "crack dealer" in our house. They entice you in with a cheap 40+ old M2, and after a few years, you have a shelf groaning with kit

[Guest bwcolor]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I am totally with Roel. His observations were reasonalbe and to the point about Leica and its current digital camera. Leica rangefinder fans are being short changed. A bigger sensor is necessary now, and preferably as an upgrade to the M8/8.2. The main reason, for me, is not the high ISO (I don't use it since I have fast Leica lenses), but the ability to use my wide angle lenses at the angle of coverage for which they were designed. I didn't buy a 35mm lens to have it runed into a nearly-50. Leica has make a desperate move to be in the digital market, a toe hold, and should now get on with a true full frame, full angle of view digital camera. If I knew it was coming in one year, even two, I would buy an M8.2 right now and be willing to pay for an upgraded sensor. As it is, I cancelled an order M8.2 yesterday, having lost faith in just what Leica is going to do. Disclosure on this point would sell more of the present models than the present mystery.

 

And again, I am appalled at the rude, savage, gratuitous posings of some of the users of this forum. Crude people I'm sure have no place on a forum of ideas.

[jaapv]

Hmm.. I guess you did not see the new lens developments the advent of the M8 initiated? And if you complain about rude, savage and gratuitous, you must certainly include yourself for the use of terms like "short-changed" when we are adressing very real limitations of engineering and laws of physics. And what changed between the day before yesterday, when you ordered the M8.2 well knowing its specifications, and the day after when you cancelled it for those same specifications? And what mystery? Leica clearly stated: Not possible at the present state of technology, we are looking at making a larger sensor available in the future, if/when it is possible.

[yanidel]

I didn't buy a 35mm lens to have it runed into a nearly-50. .

This reasoning can be used both way. I could argue that when the M9 comes out I will have to buy a 50mm lens to match the 35mm I am currently using on the M8 ...

What is Leica's future ? The aging population of ex-film users or younger generations that have always shot digital ? I have no answer but arguments pro or con full frame cannot be based only on "how it was like during the film years".

[Isabelle Lenatio]

Define Full Format?

 

is this 35mm film size, or 6x6 or plate camera size?

 

Why would most current M8(.2) users need it anyway, and with "need" I do mean "need" and not want for the sake of wanting.

 

Ans why would Leica be obliged to provide Full-Format digital M's. For the all the people that "want" and the very few that "need" there will be the S2 .... perfect solution I would say.

 

And IQ at 320 or more will/might eventually be solved bit by bit by means of firmware, and then only when the time is ripe. Look at C5d and N700 images at 3200 closely, not very pretty... no noise indeed, very little "honest" detail either.

 

If all your shots are printed to 180cm ... granted their might be better tools than the M8, until then I don't really see the issue..... other than the "want" one

And I know about "wanting" as opposed to "needing"

 

I repeat myself by stating "don't get me started on handbags and shoes"

 

:-) I

[lct]

...Why would most current M8(.2) users need it anyway, and with "need" I do mean "need" and not want for the sake of wanting...

Why would any one want 24x36 instead of crop? Because of DoF no? And/or to get true wides.

[Isabelle Lenatio]

Why would any one want 24x36 instead of crop? Because of DoF no? And/or to get true wides.

 

I don't disagree with this, but this is hardly a "need" My DOF is great with my 35Lux. As for wides there are a number of current (non-Leica) solutions available, and being a non-wide shootster I am perfectly happy with the price and focal range of Zeiss 15mm 2.8 for the times that I want to use a wide angle lens, this comes to somewhere around 20mm ....

 

I think VC even has a wider range no?

 

FF would obviously be nice to have.

[lct]

OK Isabelle but you asked the question did not you

Also you may well like the DoF of your 35 but you know that you cannot get the same DoF with a 35 on a crop body as with a 50 on a FF camera and your Zeiss 15/2.8 lens is somewhat a monster lens with all due respect.

Don't get me wrong, i use crop cameras myself and like them a lot but i've just acquired an FF DSLR and it's quite a pleasure to use a 28 like a 28 you can trust me.

[erl]

Isabelle & LCT, you both put very reasonable POV's (Lct's is recycled many times ) but can I suggest that simply treating what is available to be the the only tools you can have and use them as best you can. I don't suggest using a hammer as a screwdriver, but you know what I mean. Think afresh and accept what is possible and do your best with that without comparing what 'was' or what 'might' be one day.

 

By doing just that I have become satisfied with my gear and focus on what I can change, which is my skill level.

[lct]

Isabelle & LCT, you both put very reasonable POV's (Lct's is recycled many times) ...

Really? I can't seem to recall having repeated this that often, Erl. The crop R-D1 has been my favourite camera for 3 years. Now that i use a 5D, the former is still my favourite rangefinder. Both with Leica lenses of course. But i still use a crop D70 for telephoto and i like it much as well as i still like my old super crop Digilux 1 and Sony V1.

[ChrisC]

..... you cannot get the same DoF with a 35 on a crop body as with a 50 on a FF....

 

Because you get a better depth of field.

 

i use crop cameras myself and like them a lot but i've just acquired an FF DSLR and it's quite a pleasure to use a 28 like a 28 you can trust me.

 

I don't. There is no such thing as a crop camera [unless you mean a camera for photographing crops]. There is no such thing as 'FF', unless all digital cameras are 'Full Frame'; being that their sensors are the full-frame size they are.

 

Film formats were the size they were for very good reasons; each had benefits. Sensor size formats are the same, singling out one legacy legacy film size to be titled Full Frame seems as arbitrarily daft as picking 5"x4".

 

When Canon Marketing divisively appropriated the wretched Full Frame term the photographic community allowed their presumption to go unchallenged. I don't believe that Michael Jackson is the King of Pop or that things Go Better with Coke, and I don't believe that our understanding of photography is enhanced by slavishly following the whims of camera marketeers, regardless of how dark it is when wool is pulled over our eyes.

 

............ Chris

[jaapv]

Also you may well like the DoF of your 35 but you know that you cannot get the same DoF with a 35 on a crop body .......

 

I find this argument a bit spurious. The loss of DOF on a 1.25 sensor is about 2/3rds of a stop. So the Noctilux .95 is about similar to the Noctilux 1.0, the Nokton 1.2 to the Summilux 1.4, the Summarits 2.5 to 2.8 etc.

In practical use the difference is marginal.

The thing that amazes me most is that some users will go out and buy a FF 5D based on this idea and fit a 4.0-5.6 zoom on it.......

If you really want to have extremely shallow DOF you must go to medium format, or the S2.

It is also worth bearing in mind that the character of DOF on a sensor is different from film. It is more steep, so it appears more shallow. That means that the DOF of the M8 does not appear to be more wide than the DOF of a full-frame film shot, rather the opposite, in fact.

[lct]

Because you get a better depth of field...

I beg to disagree. There is not such thing as 'better', 'good' or 'bad' depth of field. There are more or less wide or shallow DoFs. FF DoF is simply shallower than crop ones that's all.

 

...There is no such thing as a crop camera [unless you mean a camera for photographing crops]. There is no such thing as 'FF'...

You're playing with words with all due respect. Among smaller than medium format, FF means 135 or 24x36 and crop means smaller ones like APS-H, APS-C, 4/3 and so on. In this (widely spread) sense a D3 or a 5D are FF cameras and a M8 or a R-D1 are crop ones. Nothing to be ashamed about. Simply facts.

[lct]

...In practical use the difference is marginal....

Not my experience as far as APS-C and FF are concerned. When i need a more or less 28mm FoV, fos instance, i use a 20mm or 21mm lens with my APS-C cameras. Not the same DoF as 28mm lenses at same apertures, looks obvious to me. Same for 35mm lenses on APS-C compared to 50mm on FF. Quite obvious again. At same apertures needless to say.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[jaapv]

1.25 crop is not the same as APS-C (1.6 crop) To pin esthetic differences in DOF solely on the crop factor when sizes are as close as 1.25 to 1.0 is an extreme oversimplification of the highly complex concept of DOF.