A new sensor that can be upgraded is now an obligation

[delander †]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

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.

 

Not good. I think Kodak did it once. Where did they go?

 

It could be that in their initial enthusiasm that the M8 was the dawn of a new age for Leica, that they got a little carried away and made some naive statements. On the other hand they could still mean to honour those statements. They did eventually with the SDHC issue.

 

Jeff

[Guest stnami]

High iso opens up a wealth of new photographic situations............ Vincent Laforet’s Blog

[Advertisement]

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

[peterv]

High iso opens up a wealth of new photographic situations............ Vincent Laforet’s Blog

 

 

Don't know Imants,

 

sure doesn't look like 'available light'...

 

As for working fast while shooting video, money in the bank for producers...

[pklein]

I doubt the compution power would even fit into an M8 at this point of time. In-camera noise processing would take wholly new, more miniaturized electronics. I don't quite see how that could be done without redesigning the whole camera, including the internal layout of the bodyshell. Wishing for a sensor upgrade? Wolkenkuckucksland. An untranslatable German engineering term.

 

Actually, "Wolkenkuckucksland" is quite translatable. It means "Cloud-Cukoo Land." It's a reference to a classical Greek comedy, "The Birds," by Aristophanes, written 2500 years ago. "Cloud-Cukoo Land" was a utopian city in the clouds that a couple of the bird-characters in the play wished to create. It means an impractical, utopian dream, or the place where someone who has that dream resides. It's been used in a number of popular culture references in the recent past.

 

Hmmm. I wonder what Aristophanes would have to say about the M8. Or the level of discourse on Internet fora.

 

I don't know if expecting Leica to acheive D3-level noise reduction is practical. But if we could get a bit less shadow noise at 640 and less noise in general at 1250, I'd be happier. 1.5-2 stops lower light at the same level of detail, etc. And I agree, we should be able to turn the noise reduction down or off if we want.

 

--Peter

[fotografr]

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.

 

 

So, back in the film days, you were unable to shoot these events satisfactorily?

[fotografr]

Baloney. What about performance shooters...

 

I can speak directly to that issue because in the last 20 years I've shot nearly 400 full theatrical productions--it's one of the mainstays of my business. This is not an area where anyone who knows what they're doing would venture with an M system, because to be successful it is necessary to use long, fast zooms. For that reason, I use Canon 5Ds for performances. I would hasten to add, however, that I have never shot a performance that couldn't be adequately covered using a top ISO of 800.

 

As for wedding photography, I know several photographers who are considered among the best in the business who shot for years with film Ms, and who now shoot with M8s and I've not heard any of them whine about the need for high ISO sensors.

 

What you fail to consider is that there are trade-offs for noise free high ISO. The M8 images have a unique appearance among digital camera systems, in part because the files aren't overworked by the processing engine. If you want noiseless images in the M8 at 6400 ISO, you likely are going to end up with images that look like everyone else's. Personally, I don't want a digital M system that produces the slick, razor sharp, overly smooth files that characterize the rest of the digital field.

[Mauribix]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Actually, "Wolkenkuckucksland" is quite translatable. It means "Cloud-Cukoo Land." It's a reference to a classical Greek comedy, "The Birds," by Aristophanes, written 2500 years ago. "Cloud-Cukoo Land" was a utopian city in the clouds that a couple of the bird-characters in the play wished to create. It means an impractical, utopian dream, or the place where someone who has that dream resides. It's been used in a number of popular culture references in the recent past.

 

Hmmm. I wonder what Aristophanes would have to say about the M8. Or the level of discourse on Internet fora. ...

 

 

Wow! Always something to learn...

And then you used the plural form for the latin "forum", as you wrote "fora"! That's amazing, and you made mine and maybe som other guy's day(with the right latin word)!

[sean_reid]

So, back in the film days, you were unable to shoot these events satisfactorily?

 

Hi Brent,

 

You're right (your implication that is) that all of us who do this professionally try to make the best of whatever we have to work with. We didn't always have fast lenses, roll film or compact camera bodies either. But Imants is right that strong high ISO performance opens up more options for our work. I often want a bit of DOF and that means more ISO instead of more lens opening. We don't all have to use this stuff in the same way but a camera that does well at, say, ISO 3200 does indeed give us additional flexibility that some photographers put to excellent use. I regularly shoot at ISO 1600 and above for client work and I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[sean_reid]

As for wedding photography, I know several photographers who are considered among the best in the business who shot for years with film Ms, and who now shoot with M8s and I've not heard any of them whine about the need for high ISO sensors.

 

Interesting choice of verb in that last sentence. I know a lot of superb wedding photographers who routinely use high ISO. We simply don't all go about this in the same way.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[KM-25]

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.

 

I don't really think that Leica made these lenses just for the M8, given it is a crop sensor camera, this would be foolish. Sure, they will help, but at 1.4 they are no faster than a 35 1.4 so I don't buy this as a low light solution nearly as much as faster ISO.

 

And wow the comments on not needing high ISO...? Are you kidding me? If someone gives me a tool like clean high ISO, I let my imagination take over, I don't balk at is and say I don't need it.

 

I think the M8 is great at ISO 640 and lower, but if it could get the same image quality at 3,200, there is no way in heck I would not use that.

[caparobertsan]

I agree, as it make perfect sense for Leica to try to give incentive to go to the latest instead of keeping the upgrading costs below full replacement, it's basic marketing, applies to any consumer goods, especially those with fast technology curves such as computers and electronics. So it's tempting to blame the sensors from 3 years ago for a bad picture because there are out there Hasselbald bodies shooting at 50Mpixel or some Nikon ones shooting full frame at 4K ISO... not quite I think, because it's not enough to take a good picture.

 

One major difference here with our cameras: the body is by far NOT the only reason we love this gear, it's the lens that make Leica so special. So as long as I can preserve my lens investment and it's the top of the line, I can live with a body that may look like 3 years behind the japanese brands on the spec sheet, but if I can still maximize the use of my perfect lenses, I don't see the need to feel frustrated for upgrades of the body every 6 months IMHO Digital photography or film, it's still the same photons that we are trying to capture

 

Personally I have tried the Nikon D3, the Canon XYZ, etc... my M lenses don't fit on them, I could not find where to set aperture and speed without playing with 20 menus and buttons, and worse I could not carry such large gear around, call me lazy, so I could not care less if these guys can shoot at 10,000 ISO, it's not for moi. These are excellent cameras no contest, but for a different public

 

[/QU

 

AGREE 100% I LIKE LEICA WAY- SLOW. I do`nt want change body evry 6mth!!! or go through stpid menues to change some functions(Nikon menue is hopeless!) Canon ok. but still too many set up.

[sean_reid]

[quote name=KM-25;662992

I think the M8 is great at ISO 640 and lower' date=' but if it could get the same image quality at 3,200, there is no way in heck I would not use that.[/quote]

 

Absolutely...

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[lxlim]

I don't really think that Leica made these lenses just for the M8, given it is a crop sensor camera, this would be foolish. Sure, they will help, but at 1.4 they are no faster than a 35 1.4 so I don't buy this as a low light solution nearly as much as faster ISO.

 

And wow the comments on not needing high ISO...? Are you kidding me? If someone gives me a tool like clean high ISO, I let my imagination take over, I don't balk at is and say I don't need it.

 

I think the M8 is great at ISO 640 and lower, but if it could get the same image quality at 3,200, there is no way in heck I would not use that.

 

Not in disagreement. Its just that optics is where leica is best at.

 

Over 90% of my jobs is in the ISO 1600 - 3200 region, so better image noise quality is always good. I think I mentioned in another post that I actually would like a sensor in the 800 ~ 6400 capabilities as I rarely shoot below ISO 400.

 

And as you say f1.4 is f1.4, having good quality ISO 3200 makes a difference in many situations.

[lxlim]

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

 

Can't deny you know your science.

[rob_x2004]

Cant deny the inertia either. There just isnt an accelerating mass great enough. This place is like the great wall of china.

[Guest Roel]

If this thread continues with it's name calling and back-biting, I will have no hesitation in closing it.[/quote

 

 

 

Indeed. What am I doing in this forum. It is namely more a fan club than a society of critical customers, besides a couple of members. And fans can be compared to people who are in love. Often blinded, and if they see they prefer to shut their eyes. If someone else points out some critical things, irritation is mostly the result. Others begin to defend their beloved ‘object’ with irrational arguments that miss the point completely.

Now we have someone writing about a photographer who made pictures in low light conditions on Velvia 25. Is it really? What has that to do with the necessity of using 1600 ISO in certain circumstances? Something others also called in question with nonsense arguments. I’m sorry, but most of you don’t know what they are talking about when it comes to the point of professional photojournalism.

As I wrote earlier I worked for 25 years with Leica M. Even in the time of the overruling by SRDL’s , I was happy with the system, like some other professionals. We had speed, accuracy, reliability, great possibilities in low light conditions, although Leitz was to slow in developing some wished parts. ( A built in light meter). And we had and have of course great lenses, but that not the issue here. Than the digital era arrived. Leitz was as usual slow and late. But when the M8 came out, our expectations were high. And we all got disappointed. First there was the IR problem, that Leitz (typical) denied until they had to admit it. Further we noticed that the camera was pretty slow, that ISO above already 640 was bad, that the frame lines were inaccurate, that the settings could easily change when the camera touched your body, that the sound of the shutter was compared to the old M’s pretty loud, and so on. The speed and ISO are the worst things. And speed and high ISO’s are now and than necessities in photojournalism. Sure, it is true that only the expensive camera’s of other trade marks offer much more. But what does a Leica cost? Sure, a digital Hasselblad is also bad in high ISO’s, but that’s no compare. Leica M was and should be a quick report camera. And such is not the case any longer, in the market of these days.

A couple of days ago I worked for a big newspaper. After nine shots the red light on the back of the M began to flicker, and pictures could not longer be made. I turned of the camera, but the flickering continued. The only thing to stop it, was to open the camera, take the battery out, and put it in again. And it is not the first time it happened. So reliability is also no longer the case.

Leica should be aware of all this. Should realize that they had to build a camera too hasty, because they themselves woke up too late. And they should learn to listen to their critical customers, rather than to worshippers or fans. And if they are aware, and will come with a new, modern camera next year which I think is necessary, than the uopgrades now are a wast of money. Or the new stuff, like a sensor, can be upgraded to. Have again a nice day–Roel.

[bill]

Good grief.

 

I don't have an M8. I have chosen to remain with film Ms for now, waiting for the next iteration of the product in the hope that it will come closer to what I personally want and need in a digital M.

 

Thus, I have no axe to grind on the subject.

 

But I have to say I have seldom read such arrant drivel. You owe me a minute of my life for reading it.

 

If you don't like the M8, don't buy it.

 

If you lack the talent or the vision to work within or make the most of the limitations of the camera that is your issue, not ours.

 

If you do have special needs and other equipment suits you better, buy that instead, in good grace.

 

And please don't whine. It is not a nice trait in someone presumably old enough to know better.

 

Bill

[stunsworth]

Or to put it another way, the cameras strengths and weaknesses were discussed at length, both here and elseswhere, in the weeks following its launch. If performance at high ISOs is important to you, then you chose the wrong camera.

[Shootist]

Thank you Bill.

 

Good grief.

 

I don't have an M8. I have chosen to remain with film Ms for now, waiting for the next iteration of the product in the hope that it will come closer to what I personally want and need in a digital M.

 

Thus, I have no axe to grind on the subject.

 

But I have to say I have seldom read such arrant drivel. You owe me a minute of my life for reading it.

 

If you don't like the M8, don't buy it.

 

If you lack the talent or the vision to work within or make the most of the limitations of the camera that is your issue, not ours.

 

If you do have special needs and other equipment suits you better, buy that instead, in good grace.

 

And please don't whine. It is not a nice trait in someone presumably old enough to know better.

 

Bill

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[ChrisC]

What am I doing in this forum. It is namely more a fan club than a society of critical customers, besides a couple of members............ Have again a nice day–Roel.

 

Good grief

 

Good grief indeed Bill.

 

So I bowed out of this thread, had a great day out making pictures with my M8, and I am now amused to see the length of this thread. Roel - there are Leica-defenders here it's true, but there are many of us who have bought into the M8 and have also been very critical of aspects of Leica design, marketing, quality control, road-map, etc. etc.. Given the technology available at the launch of the M8; the chosen Kodak sensor is something that Leica did get right as it is a high performer, though not at D3 high ISOs. Since your thread is focused on sensor quality and a wish for higher ISO performance I, and many other critical members here did not support the tenor of your thread or your early assumptions and presumptions of what constitutes 'professional'.

 

This forum is actually functioning well, in this thread it has been critical of your style and your 'case'. Whilst you have some supporters who are valued posters to the forum, there are many of us who find the 'case' badly made; I am no less independently critical because I disagree with you, neither is anyone else here. The 'fan club' jibe was pathetic. It is no wonder that some of us voiced concerns about what you are

 

..... doing in this forum.....

 

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