andit Posted February 26, 2009 Share #21 Posted February 26, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) Ummm...Given that there is widespread satisfaction about the results from the M8, and that most of us think the camera is better than theythemselves are, myself included, where does this mad scramble for an opportunity to waste thousands of Euros come from? I think I would prefer to upgrade myself as a photographer by using the money to follow courses like the Leica Academy and buy books.... Hi Jaap, Well said. There is a great deal of truth in this statement. This does not only apply to Leica but also to the constant update craze with Canon/Nikon/Sony etc. I seem to recall that the Canon EOS 1N was used by pro's for almost 10 years before it was updated. You should only upgrade when you have reached the limit of the camera (i.e. once you start loosing shots because the camera is either too slow, does not have the modes you need, or you have outgrown the camera such as a point and shoot and now need the flexibility of interchangeable lenses etc). Personally, I'm still learning new uses and methods everyday with my M8 and have not reached anywhere near it's limits - and as for full frame, this does not bother me - mostly use 40 or 50mm lenses. Andreas Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted February 26, 2009 Posted February 26, 2009 Hi andit, Take a look here Sensor update possible?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
t024484 Posted February 26, 2009 Share #22 Posted February 26, 2009 Ummm...Given that there is widespread satisfaction about the results from the M8, and that most of us think the camera is better than theythemselves are, myself included, where does this mad scramble for an opportunity to waste thousands of Euros come from? I think I would prefer to upgrade myself as a photographer by using the money to follow courses like the Leica Academy and buy books.... Now that makes sense, well said. Hans Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted February 26, 2009 Share #23 Posted February 26, 2009 (edited) Why oh why are people still mentioning the possibility of Leica honoring their perpetual upgrade policy, when they already negated this by refusing to include delayed shutter cocking among the upgrade features? They already - and decisively - broke their promise. Kirk Well... to assess they have "broken a promise" at the moment is probably questionable (something minor could be indeed be made available... just to say they have "made something"...) : but I anyway think that the famed "perpetual upgrade" announcement has been a silly communication (and I remember, it was greatly discussed and criticized in the forum) : imho they would have done a much better impression simply declaring that M8 should have been "officially supported" for 12 or 15 years or so... this is a statement that most electronics manufacturers avoid to do (unless obliged for special contracts... not the case for consumer products ), and it would have given to the market a better view of Leica distinguished policy of lasting products. Edited February 26, 2009 by luigi bertolotti Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest volkerm Posted February 26, 2009 Share #24 Posted February 26, 2009 Yes naturally it is possible. Assuming one swaps both the circuit boards and the sensor at the same time. basically only the box and the external buttons will be kept in the update. Yep. And that is, more or less, what Dr. Kaufmann said in the interview from 2008, linked earlier in this thread. Q: Do you also foresee the possibility of upgrading the M8 with an improved image-capture sensor when one becomes available as has been suggested by some experts? Kaufmann: So long as the architecture of the M8 is retained in a future model, it is theoretically possible to upgrade the CCD, but that would have to include the whole sensor board and supporting electronics package, not just the sensor itself. The big question is whether it would be economically feasible to do so given our relatively low production numbers that do not permit economies of scale. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcuthbert Posted February 26, 2009 Share #25 Posted February 26, 2009 Which brings me back to the perpetual upgrade program. If he indeed thinks it might not be economically viable, then calling it a perpetual upgrade is very misleading. perpetual |pərˈpe ch oōəl| adjective 1 never ending or changing : deep caves in perpetual darkness. To quote "The development of a perpetual upgrade program makes the LEICA M8 a high-quality digital camera in which today's and tomorrow's users will always be able to incorporate the latest refinements and developments in handling ease and technology. "While other digital cameras quickly become outdated and are replaced by newer models, our new concept extends the value retention that stands for the Leica brand. Over time, we will gradually offer new product features and developments as upgrade options," declares Steven K. Lee, CEO of Leica Camera AG. "Our customers can therefore still invest in the photographic tools they need without worrying that they will miss out on improvements and technological developments along the way. We are confident that this is the right approach for ensuring customer satisfaction and allowing them to continue to sharpen their vision and refine their skills with the new digital LEICA M8. Our efforts will be focused constantly on giving them the best that the world of photography has to offer."" let me pass-phrase that key quote: 1: "..offer new product features and developments as upgrade options" I don't think there can be further advances made in the sapphire glass or buttons at the top. 2: "..Our customers can therefore still invest in the photographic tools they need without worrying that they will miss out on improvements and technological developments along the way" Not according to many on here, who question the economic viability of doing such a thing. Just buy a new one they say! hmmm. 3: "..Our efforts will be focused constantly on giving them the best that the world of photography has to offer" That simply means ensuring the range is kept modern. At the end of the day, the shell is just that, a shell. I cannot see Leica drastically changing the M9 from a design point of view, rather the sensor will be engineered to fit within the current design specifications, so therefore the above statement from Steven is inline with this way of thinking, surely? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marknorton Posted February 26, 2009 Share #26 Posted February 26, 2009 We covered this in detail last autumn in, among others, a couple of threads entitled "Hot air and broken promises" when the issue was (still is) that even if you upgrade to the new shutter, you do not get the delayed shutter wind function which is reserved exclusively for the M8.2 in a lame attempt to justify that camera's increase in price. http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m8-forum/66371-hot-air-broken-promises.html#post687081 http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m8-forum/68554-hot-air-broken-promises-2-a.html#post709289 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gfspencer Posted February 26, 2009 Share #27 Posted February 26, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) Ummm...Given that there is widespread satisfaction about the results from the M8, and that most of us think the camera is better than theythemselves are, myself included, where does this mad scramble for an opportunity to waste thousands of Euros come from? I think I would prefer to upgrade myself as a photographer by using the money to follow courses like the Leica Academy and buy books.... Ouch! That hurt. It's sad to say but all of my equipment is MUCH better than I am. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sam J. Samaha Posted March 9, 2009 Share #28 Posted March 9, 2009 Yep. And that is, more or less, what Dr. Kaufmann said in the interview from 2008, linked earlier in this thread. Q: Do you also foresee the possibility of upgrading the M8 with an improved image-capture sensor when one becomes available as has been suggested by some experts? Kaufmann: So long as the architecture of the M8 is retained in a future model, it is theoretically possible to upgrade the CCD, but that would have to include the whole sensor board and supporting electronics package, not just the sensor itself. The big question is whether it would be economically feasible to do so given our relatively low production numbers that do not permit economies of scale. Sorry to revive this thread, but now that the "broken promise" has been indeed kept, I wanted to point out that what Mr. Kaufmann, top dog at Leica says here doesn't make sense to me. I don't proclaim to be the foremost expert in production, but it would seem that if the cost of the electronic "guts" and the CCD were spread across BOTH the new M8.3 (or what ever it's called), and the upgrade option, the per unit cost would actually go down. In my estimation, even if one had to pay $2000+ for the upgrade, vs $6K or more for a whole new M8.x that would be a worth while investment as an 8.2 owner. I for one sincerely hope that IF the technology presents itself in the near term for an M8 body to house a full frame sensor, that we get that option as an upgrade. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted March 9, 2009 Share #29 Posted March 9, 2009 (edited) A few thoughts: 1) If Leica can sell $50,000 solid titanium camera/lens kits and $2,000,000 one-off APO lenses on special order, then presumably they can modify an M8 in just about any way requested - FOR A PRICE. No one may want to pay that price, just as many may not want to pay the price of the current available upgrades. But so long as Leica offer it, they have kept their promise. 2) Some kinds of sensor upgrades probably could be done fairly easily. Anything that uses the same underlying silicon CCD chip (same dimensions, same pixel count, same pin connections). E.G. if Leica and/or Kodak figure out a way to put a stronger IR filter over the sensor in the same thickness as the current filter, eliminating the need for external filters - or if they change the Bayer filtration in some way to increase light sensitivity and thus reduce noise - then the downstream electronics would still be processing basically the same volume of data. A firmware upgrade would be needed to reassign ISOs or change the correction patterns for cyan corners, presumably. Same for Mark Norton's bete noire - the green streaks from bright lights on the edge of the frame. If the masking or whatever is adjusted slightly to fix that, still on the same silicon, presumably that sensor could be swapped for the current ones. 3) There is probably an "out" for Leica, hinted at by Dr. Kaufmann in the quote above from Sam. "So long as the architecture of the M8 is retained..." If an M9 involves significant changes in the size or shape of the body, (for example, to accomodate a bigger sensor and the shutter to cover it, or to add a CF card slot in addition to the SD card) then it would be clearly physically impossible to upgrade an M8 (unless one counts swapping the RF and hot shoe/serial number to an otherwise completely new body as an "upgrade"). An M3 can have the viewfinder replaced or 'upgraded' to M4 specs, or even M6 .85x specs (minus the meter readout). It can NOT be upgraded to M7-spec AE/electronic shutter/metering or even M6ttl flash metering - the body is the wrong height. Edited March 9, 2009 by adan Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_tribble Posted March 9, 2009 Share #30 Posted March 9, 2009 I seem to recall that the Canon EOS 1N was used by pro's for almost 10 years before it was updated. You should only upgrade when you have reached the limit of the camera (i.e. once you start loosing shots because the camera is either too slow, does not have the modes you need, or you have outgrown the camera such as a point and shoot and now need the flexibility of interchangeable lenses etc). Personally, I'm still learning new uses and methods everyday with my M8 and have not reached anywhere near it's limits - and as for full frame, this does not bother me - mostly use 40 or 50mm lenses. Andreas - as someone who used film Ms and EOS bodies for 20 years, I couldn't agree more - but I think we also have to remember that film changed a lot during that period, and we could "upgrade" our full-frame cameras or switch to black and white, IR or colour sensors simply by buying different film, or the latest incarnation of Fuji / Kodak / Ilford etc. We have to replace the whole package when we "upgrade" a digital system. When I have friends on small budgets who say they're planning to switch to digital, I often will often try to dissuade them from getting onto the digital treadmill. I've got a good friend in exactly this position at the moment - she's got an M6 that I sold her some years back and a 35 Cron Asph she got second hand. She does documentary and fine-art work (mostly black and white), knows how to process and print, and does STUNNING work with this combination. She'd love an M8, but we then talk through what would be involved in upgrading her computer and monitor, buying professional image processing software, getting a new lens to give her back the FOV that she likes working with, and the outlay just doesn't feel justified. This is the dilemma that we all faced when we switched from film ... for me I'd made the transition via various generations of Nikon scanners, and was pleased to be able to speed up my work flow as clients needed digital source and needed it quickly. Upgrade the M8? I really hope I can hold off. I now have 2 M8 bodies and all the lenses I want - and agencies and clients are happy with the results. So long as the bodies are working, I'd like to hold on to them for a good long time. I know that improved high ISO and/or an full-frame DRF may come along some time (that's the nature of capitalism). Will I be able to resist if I have the financial resources? Not sure. Will it be an upgrade? Not really. Will it extend what I can do photographically. I think yes. Enough ... sorry for rambling, but you're post caught my attention (an has anyone noticed - the list has become much more interesting since the firmware upgrade / fix happened?! ) Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
M. Valdemar Posted March 9, 2009 Share #31 Posted March 9, 2009 Look at this article and test and tell me why everyone keeps insisting a full frame rangefinder is not feasible at this time? Here's a rangefinder ultra wide lens, working perfectly with a full frame camera: Voigtlander 15mm v Sigma 12-24mm: Intro Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted March 9, 2009 Share #32 Posted March 9, 2009 Here's a rangefinder ultra wide lens, working perfectly with a full frame camera Are there any photographs taken with this combination? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest volkerm Posted March 9, 2009 Share #33 Posted March 9, 2009 Are there any photographs taken with this combination? Pictures start on page 2 of that link, including crops from the corners of the image Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted March 9, 2009 Share #34 Posted March 9, 2009 Including complaints about strong vignetting, which the author blames on the lens. We, however, know that it has to do with the incidence angle. Which answers Valdemar's question. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest volkerm Posted March 9, 2009 Share #35 Posted March 9, 2009 We, however, know that it has to do with the incidence angle. That is wishful thinking. Of course, the lens does exhibit some vignetting on film, too. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted March 9, 2009 Share #36 Posted March 9, 2009 Well, if he starts using words like : "out of order at f8", where it does not really vignette on film, I think the point is made. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest volkerm Posted March 9, 2009 Share #37 Posted March 9, 2009 "unacceptable at f8", where it does not really vignette on film, I think the point is made. Do you have an f8 film shot of the 15mm for comparison? I only have the 12mm which vignettes terribly on film. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
M. Valdemar Posted March 9, 2009 Share #38 Posted March 9, 2009 I would be willing to live with the vignetting, whatever the cause. The photos in the article I posted look perfectly usable to me. I would prefer to have the full frame option available, and to make the decision about what is "acceptable" or not myself. I don't think the technical problems of vignetting are dealbreakers. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted March 9, 2009 Share #39 Posted March 9, 2009 That may be as it is, but the fact remains that Leica has always quoted "vignetting" through the limited acceptance angle as the main reason to stick to 1.33 . They have high standards regarding image quality...This article serves to confirm it. And yes, I do have film shots, and I would put the vignetting at f8.0 at about one stop. And yes, I'm too lazy to dig them out and scan them;) Vignetting in this example looks to be at least three stops, maybe more Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RSL Posted March 9, 2009 Share #40 Posted March 9, 2009 (edited) That may be as it is, but the fact remains that Leica has always quoted "vignetting" through the limited acceptance angle as the main reason to stick to 1.33 . They have high standards regarding image quality...This article serves to confirm it.And yes, I do have film shots, and I would put the vignetting at f8.0 at about one stop. And yes, I'm too lazy to dig them out and scan them;) Vignetting in this example looks to be at least three stops, maybe more Isn't anybody listening to what Jaap is saying? One detail Kaufmann left out in his response is this: A CCD has to receive light at fairly close to a 90 degree angle in order to capture it. That's not a problem with film -- or at least not as much of a problem. But in order to handle light from a lens as close to the film plane as is the case in the M8 you have to find a way to collimate the light near the outer edges so it can hit the CCDs at somewhere near a vertical angle. You can collimate with an array of nano-mirrors sitting above the sensor array but the effectiveness of the process drops as you get closer to the edges. The loss in collimating the light at the edges of a 1.33 sensor is as far as Leica was willing to go in the trade with image quality. I'd say, "Hurrah for Leica" for refusing to back away from their IQ standards. A DSLR can handle a full-frame sensor because the back of the lens isn't anywhere near as close to the film plane as the back of the lens is in the M8. Maybe someone will come up with a really good way to solve this problem, but so far no one has. As long as Leica continues to maintain its high IQ standards it's going to be a while before they'll even consider a full-frame sensor. As you all know, I can find a lot of things about Leica to complain about, but Kaufmann's refusal to sacrifice IQ for a "full frame" sensor isn't one of them. "Full-frame" is mostly in the eye of the beholder anyway. That's the other thing Japp's been trying to tell you. Edited March 9, 2009 by RSL Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.