A new sensor that can be upgraded is now an obligation

[dynax9]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Wouldn't it be simpler if Leica had chose to include an alternative version of the raw file which uses a CMOS-like noisy-shaping algorithm performed by the build-in processor?

[fotografr]

Frankly much of this argument seems to me to miss the point. ISO above 800 has always been and remains a luxury, and people who want to turn the darkness into day are IMO missing the point of the darkness - and missing the beauty.

 

Would I love it if the M8's ISO 1250 and 2500 were beautiful? Sure. Can I live without that? Yeah, I can.

 

In case anyone missed it, Leica announced a 21/1.4 and 24/1.4 lens this week. These are MUCH harder design problems than a faster sensor, and they work on your full-frame film Ms. They're expensive. I have no doubt that they're worth the money, and I have no doubt that they're better than anything two stops slower offered by any other vendor.

 

Will this help Leica survive in today's market? I don't know. But I hope so.

 

Precisely. That's the point I was also making. I don't feel the need to keep up with the high ISO race.

[Advertisement]

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

[fotografr]

The original post is about Leica staying around to produce cameras ,,,,,,,,,,,,people ( with lots to spend) demand high iso and the makers will oblige as they want to sell, they couldn't give a toss about one's photographic abilities or whether they can or can't shoot at 25 iso.

 

Sure leica takes a slightly different stance for now...what will happen if Kaufman drops dead tomorrow, I doubt if his heirs hold the same connection and admiration for Leica as a camera as he does

 

Baloney. The only people demanding the high ISO are sports shooters who need to be able to work in dark venues and use 1/4000 shutter speeds. For the vast majority of shooters, pro and am, being able to work at 640 is quite sufficient.

[gravastar]

Baloney. The only people demanding the high ISO are sports shooters who need to be able to work in dark venues and use 1/4000 shutter speeds. For the vast majority of shooters, pro and am, being able to work at 640 is quite sufficient.

 

The lighting at some convention and conference venues I've photgraphed at has been appalling, 1/45 sec at f2.8 ISO 1600. Not easy when someone hyped up by the audience is running around the stage.

 

Bob.

[Guest DuquesneG]

Hi Roel, I think we've got to the point where you should point us at all those books you've written, and let us know your rates as you mentioned earlier. At the moment you are coming across as a troll who is talking the talk, but not walking the walk - horrible cliche I know. Time to put up or shut up - another horrible cliche.

 

You know, I'm generally against the "show us your pictures" callout, because as any intelligent person knows, being a good photographer is not a necessary condition for having knowledge and reason and a valid opinion when it comes to camera gear (we trust Dr. Kaufmann and Herr Daniel and others to decide what specifications our Leicas will have, and we don't ask to see their photos, now do we? )

 

However, when someone claims he's a published photographer and he himself claims that gives him the creds to assert his opinions over others', in that case I think it's only fitting that he show us proof of his veracity. He opened the door. No doubt since he is clearly anti-Leica, some will brand his work as crap no matter what...but that's not the point.

[charlesphoto99]

Baloney. The only people demanding the high ISO are sports shooters who need to be able to work in dark venues and use 1/4000 shutter speeds. For the vast majority of shooters, pro and am, being able to work at 640 is quite sufficient.

 

Baloney. What about performance shooters, wedding shooters who want a more naturalistic look, journalists who shoot in touchy situations where a flash would be intrusive, and so on.

 

I shot a friend's wedding last night with my D3. The M8 stayed at home. While the M8 would produce better files at low iso, the D3 ran itself nicely, all the way up to 6400. Such a breeze, esp with the ZF 35 attached.

 

Leica do need to step up. I would rather have a body with super reliable electronics, better controls, and better high iso than 1.4 and .95 lenses that are way out of my afford zone.

[andybarton]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I would rather have a body with super reliable electronics, better controls, and better high iso than 1.4 and .95 lenses that are way out of my afford zone.

 

How much would you be willing to pay for such a body?

[charlesphoto99]

How much would you be willing to pay for such a body?

 

$6-7K

[thompsonkirk]

Though I'm one of the people who gets by just fine with 640, nevertheless I think Charles is 100% right: $6K lenses are an utterly loony solution to a sensor/ISO problem!

 

Kirk

[paga]

Though I'm one of the people who gets by just fine with 640, nevertheless I think Charles is 100% right: $6K lenses are an utterly loony solution to a sensor/ISO problem!

 

Kirk

 

Well, not if that lens lasts 50 years and is still among the best in 50 years... that makes it a rather cheap solution when you compare with upgrading your C or N equipment every 2 years It's like wether you pay $750 for a top pair of english shoes which will last 10 years or you roll your composite latest technology material super duper $100 shoes every 6 months, can you guess which one costs more? This debate is kind of silly anyway, we all have different needs and objectives (literally and figuratively), for proof why so many guys here are happy shooting MP and stay with film. These guys don't complain their Tmax100 does not shoot well at 3200 ISO once loaded in the camera, do they!? OK OK I am going back in my corner over there...

[martinb]

Have you seen the samples from the A900? Not very impressive! Canon is way ahead already with the 1Ds Mark III and probably even more so with the 5D Mark II..

If you don't need over 20mp of so so resolution the D700 impresses with amazing image quality and the probably the best dynamic range out there..

 

Jaap, as usual from you, a smart spot on commet. I may second every single word.

I just add (as a punctualization) that Sony's taking almost the same Leica's decision, put the research on the best image quality rather than containing the High Iso. The New Alpha 900 gives us a clear show of that.

[andym911]

I suppose what Roel is saying in general terms is not so wrong.

 

If the M8 users are offered a 'camera for a lifetime', which is upgradeable then its not only the hardware but also the sensor/electronics.

Then and only then does it make sense in the digital world to build a camera with such robust materials as in the M8 and upgrade it over time.

 

Pouring money into upgrading the hardware whilst the guts don't change and develop over time is indeed a little flawed.Sure thats personal choice though.

 

For me the sensor is ok...needs lower noise in color at high ISO but basically its fine for my needs...

 

Now a more ergonomic body, smaller and lighter....that would do it for me.

 

andy

[sean_reid]

my thoughts are that the latest sensors actually have a much better signal to noise ratio than sensors engineered more than two years ago. So it is not simply noise reduction.

Jeff

 

With respect to some recent cameras, that's my sense as well.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[jaapv]

Jaap I disagree, my thoughts are that the latest sensors actually have a much better signal to noise ratio than sensors engineered more than two years ago. So it is not simply noise reduction.

 

I am not sure if you own a recent Canon or Nikon DSLR, if you dont why are your opinions on them anymore valid than those non-M8 owner's opinions of the M8?

.

 

Jeff

 

 

Jeff, my text was : not *just* sensor technology... I don't see where our opinions differ.

And what negative did I say about Canon/Nikon? Terms like "better and better" and "very sophisticated" can hardly be construed as dismissive...

[lxlim]

Though I'm one of the people who gets by just fine with 640, nevertheless I think Charles is 100% right: $6K lenses are an utterly loony solution to a sensor/ISO problem!

 

Kirk

 

Just a thought.

 

Optics is the core competency of Leica and resulted in fast optics to deal with the deficiencies of the M8(21f1.4 & 24f1.4). Lenses also tend to have better ROI and usability beyond low light conditions.

 

And another thought.

 

Which sensor maker is making a sensor (no AA filter) that has high ISO capabilities and making it available so that Ieica could buy it. As far as I can tell, Canon is keeping technologically ahead with proprietary CMOS sensors that they use for themselves and Nikon's (Sony built) sensors are also not commercially available to their competitors.

 

The question is not whether Leica should offer the M8.2 with a better low light sensor but rather such sensors is commercially available to Leica?

[jackal]

leica doing what they do best... fast lenses

 

 

great, i'm all for it

 

 

just as long as they make some other stuff to make sure they don't go bust within the next 24 months (because the very best leica-whores can worship all they like..... 21 lux is not gonna turn their profit around)

[lxlim]

..... 21 lux is not gonna turn their profit around)

 

I am not terribly concerned about their survival nor my investment into leica equipment goes down the tubes. I'm not in the business of predicting the future and even the best companies fail, so no point worrying about it

 

Even markets fail when they cannot offer the rates to sustain a pro.

 

I will just move on when the equipment fails or the market fails. Change is a fact of life. Entropy is a law.

[lxlim]

What is the track record of camera manufacturers offering sensor upgrades for their cameras? Wondering about the OP's premise that centred on sensor upgrades being an obligation.

[delander †]

Jeff, my text was : not *just* sensor technology... I don't see where our opinions differ.

And what negative did I say about Canon/Nikon? Terms like "better and better" and "very sophisticated" can hardly be construed as dismissive...

 

No Jaap our opinions dont really differ and I was wrong if I implied that you were dismissive.

Leica has now the problem that Nikon had 2-3 years back when compared to Canon, the company that recognised early on how important it was to keep sensor technology in house and put a lot of R&D resources into that area.

 

Leica has to look elsewhere for improved sensors and because of Leica's small sales numbers that is going to be expensive. Very fast and difficult to make lenses make headlines but I am not convinced they add to Leica's sales numbers (of camera bodies).

 

I think many of those who come onto this forum and complain about the M8 would really love to have the camera if only Leica could price it more competitively and make it more reliable. They are simply expressing their frustration here. We 'strike back' by talking about DSLR bricks, plastic looking images etc.

 

I still feel that there are a lot of photographers seriously interested in an affordable DRF system who cant or wont stump up the money to buy a very expensive 10mp noisy camera, whatever the warm glow one gets from using it.

 

Jeff

 

Actually I think there is also a market for a simple classic DSLR but that is something else.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[jackal]

Change is a fact of life. Entropy is a law.

 

 

 

and any body fully or partially submerged in a fluid is buoyed up by a force equal to the weight of the fluid displaced.