Does a digital M have a useable life span of more than two years?

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Oh yes - let the DSLR world glory in their gimmicks

[SJP]

Technology you can bend, science is more difficult.

 

I await being shot down in flames <grin>

No flames required physics does not bend, technology does to some extend - as is the case here.

 

The Sony PR blurb refers to a comparison with a back-illuminated CMOS image sensor with the same pixel size (1.75 µm). In that case I can believe 6 dB sensitivity is achievable (6dB = factor 2, if you use 20 x log(ratio) which they appear to be doing, I would have used 3dB via 10xlog(ratio) but that is not as impressive for PR purposes).

 

Anyway this factor 2 would imply that about 50% of the active surface is lost due to the electronics blocking the light path, so a surface of about 1.24x1.24 micron is blocked. On the M8 sensor doing the same would give only about 4% more sensitivity as the bins are much bigger 6.5x6.5 micron or so (1.24/6.5)^2 = 0.036). So this technology is useful for P&S sensors and completely useless for M8 and DSLR type sensors, whether CMOS or CCD.

 

Physics does not lie, marketeers do sometimes.

[Advertisement]

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

[Nicoleica]

I'd heard a rumour that Leica will be abandoning the micro-lenses on the M9 sensor in favour of nano-scale black-holes. These will be employed to make gravitational lenses in order to direct more light into the photosites.

[ArtZ]

I'd heard a rumour that Leica will be abandoning the micro-lenses on the M9 sensor in favour of nano-scale black-holes. These will be employed to make gravitational lenses in order to direct more light into the photosites.

 

Nicole,

 

Is it Afghan, Moroccan or Dutch? Whatever... please give me the name of your dealer because it must be fun to make some cookies

 

Anyway, I do appreciate your sense of humour.

 

Regards

[adli]

I'd heard a rumour that Leica will be abandoning the micro-lenses on the M9 sensor in favour of nano-scale black-holes. These will be employed to make gravitational lenses in order to direct more light into the photosites.

 

But what to do when your sensor swallows your sensor brush?

[Nicoleica]

Nicole,

 

Is it Afghan, Moroccan or Dutch? Whatever... please give me the name of your dealer because it must be fun to make some cookies

 

Anyway, I do appreciate your sense of humour.

 

Regards

 

It's called life Artz. No additives required.

 

(Thanks for the kind words too. )

[Nicoleica]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

But what to do when your sensor swallows your sensor brush?

 

That's another advantage, you never need to clean the sensor, as all foreign particles get directed into another dimension.

[danyves]

A Quantum M9

[jaapv]

That's another advantage, you never need to clean the sensor, as all foreign particles get directed into another dimension.

What about those cosmic dust clouds?

[adli]

A Quantum M9

 

Takes your photos to the next dimension

[Nicoleica]

What about those cosmic dust clouds?

 

I rest my case. Those are caused by the fallout from the M9 users in a parallel universe where it has already been released.

[jaapv]

Does that mean the IR filter is made of antimatter? This is fun. I've just been rereading all my old SF paperbacks from the fifties and sixties. I am deep into faster-than-light drives and aliens

Edited August 13, 2009 by jaapv

[Bo_Lorentzen]

Aside from cosmic blobs... don't this perceived obsolesce apply to every manufactured product.?

 

Im guessing the F22 is technically speaking already obsolete. so is the F16, yet it is still flown on a daily basis.

 

I don't think as leica users we can worry too much about the product life-span, we have already chosen a camera off the beaten path which suits a way of seeing life. with this camera more than most it seems like the use able life is the time it satisfies the owner.

 

Chances are Leica will have a 8.3 or 9 soon enough, but that will not cause art directors around the world to toss out all the m8 files.

 

Though I do admit that in retrospect film was wonderful in this regard, as one could change cameras all day long as long as we had velvia or krome to put on the editors light table at the end of the day, nobody ever asked if that roll of K64 was high-rez. But they would dictate "get me a 120 chrome of this" before starting the job.

 

.

[john_newell]

No, a digital M camera does not have a usable lifespan of about two years so long as one can resist the implied obsolescence hamster wheel. A camera is usable for as long as it is usable. I could shoot much of my professional work right now with a seven year old Canon 1Ds.

 

Well said. If you want to get into technology and obsolesence, I am afraid that Puts has it backwards now. Film has reached the end of the road and gone through the barrier but not yet over the cliff.

 

Your hamster wheel metaphor is perfect because only something with the vision and intellect of...a hamster...will get caught going round on it.

 

As I said earlier, even the lowly D40 is going to have a very long useful life; the almost-as-lowly D60 longer still. Assuming, of course, that you are interested in taking pictures rather than comparing paper specifications or pontificating on the internet.

[fotografr]

Since I've already been using my digital M for 2 1/2 years and am still quite happy with the image quality, I guess I'd have to say "yes" to the question posed by this thread.

[Mauribix]

"A full-frame body that gets at least another stop of high-ISO performance will last me until it simply can't be repaired anymore"

 

I second Andy's words, that's enough for me too.

Then, I just need lenses.

[BerndReini]

Re: Does a digital M have a useable life span of more than two years?

 

No, absolutely not. After two years, you have to enroll it into the Leica recycling program for $700, but you'll get a $50 voucher for a lens.

Actually, I hope it lasts longer than two years since Leica only comes out with new cameras every four years.

Btw. a good friend of mine is a professional shooting celebrity portraits of Hollywood A-listers. He uses a Canon 1Ds Mark I. I always make fun of him and have him try out new models, but he keeps procrastinating and says that his camera works just fine, and guess what, nobody ever complained.

[ken_tanaka]

I disagree.

 

I don't agree Ken.

 

Peter an Sean;

You are both articulate but you both have missed, and made, my point. I'll be more explicit.

 

1: The rather contraptive rangefinder camera design has been far surpassed long ago for accuracy and versatility. This is a fact, not an argument, that the marketplace has strongly voted in favor since the 1970's.

 

2.a: That fact notwithstanding, rangefinder cameras are not intrinsically obsolete as long as they're useful tools.

 

2.b: By extension, the M8 will not become automatically obsolete by the introduction of an M9, particularly since I'd wager that nearly all M8s are used for amateur photography. This was my core reply to the original, albeit purely rhetorical, question posed in this thread.

 

It just doesn't take much kindling to ignite these rambling, manic defensive threads around here, does it?

Edited August 13, 2009 by ken_tanaka

[sean_reid]

No, absolutely not. After two years, you have to enroll it into the Leica recycling program for $700, but you'll get a $50 voucher for a lens.

Actually, I hope it lasts longer than two years since Leica only comes out with new cameras every four years.

Btw. a good friend of mine is a professional shooting celebrity portraits of Hollywood A-listers. He uses a Canon 1Ds Mark I. I always make fun of him and have him try out new models, but he keeps procrastinating and says that his camera works just fine, and guess what, nobody ever complained.

 

That specific camera is probably the best example, to date, of a digital camera that has resisted obsolescence.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[sean_reid]

Peter an Sean;

You are both articulate but you both have missed, and made, my point. I'll be more explicit.

 

1: The rather contraptive rangefinder camera design has been far surpassed long ago for accuracy and versatility. This is a fact, not an argument, that the marketplace has strongly voted in favor since the 1970's.

 

Hi Ken,

 

I won't have time to check in much on this thread but I'd suggest that "surpassed" in this case requires some definition of what one needs from a finder. I still find a RF camera finder *absolutely* unsurpassed with respect to what I need to see of the subject. In fact, for what my eyes need (and I'm fairly sure I'm not alone) nothing else even comes close.

 

You know I've discussed this all in detail going back at least as far as my Epson R-D1 review. Nothing fundamental (with respect to RF camera viewfinders relative to others) has changed since then.

 

I need a group of about 20 actors and about two hours on an outdoor "set" for an article I've long wanted to write which demonstrates just what it is that a good window finder offers to photographers who construct their pictures with varied elements across moderate or deep space. Not everyone will make use of the difference but it certainly does exist.

 

I suspect, Ken, that RF camera finders may not be right for *you* (and many others). But that experience doesn't generalize to all of us.

 

In case you've never read this Ken, it might be of interest (see the section on RF cameras, finders, etc.):

Epson R-D1 Review It encapsulates many of my own thoughts on this subject and, again, nothing has changed since that was written. We have more EVF cameras now and I personally wouldn't use any of them for my own work. Otherwise we still have SLRs, window finder cameras and cameras using a ground glass. Wire frame finder cameras seem to have died out. Aside from the new EVF/LCD (neither of which is a patch on a true optical finder) these options haven't changed in decades.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean