And now Brian is going to bore us with his story of how he called Kodak and had them make a custom run of the KAF-1600 CCD for his camera. And it only cost an extra $4,000. But that was a lot of setup cost to cover changing the steps in the manufacturing process for 50 sensors. The Army Night Vision Lab liked the idea too.
The B&W camera is likely to cost more than a standard M9. NRE for the design, and change in the steps for manufacturing.
The B&W camera is likely to cost more than a standard M9. NRE for the design, and change in the steps for manufacturing.
Roger Hicks
Mentor
Dear Brian,
Well, that certainly removes one objection. After that it's just software, cost of inventory and size of market. And Leica's stated lack of interest.
Cheers,
R.
Steve M.
Mentor
It still wouldn't give you the image quality of a $400 Leicaflex w/ an R 50 Summicron, so no. Besides, w/ film you have all those wonderful emulsions to choose from. I like digital fine for color, but B&W? It just isn't there yet. May never be. The $400 Leicaflex is right here, right now.
Software is trivial as you skip the Bayer Interpolation. Cost of inventory and size of the market is the real issue. The advantages, picking up twice the sensitivity for the sensor and eliminating any chance of Color Aliasing.
This is why the Scientific and Technical market tends do be served by specialty companies. I've dropped $25K on an off-the-self Infrared camera before, not a problem. It was cheaper than spending $1M to have one made from scratch, including custom focal plane arrays, as we did in the early 1980s.
biggambi
Vivere!
O.k. I think this now has become a different question. How much would you be willing to pay Brian to convert your M9? By the way Brian, I am expecting a cut as your self proclaimed agent. We'll talk latter.
I can't imagine there won't be a natural progression towards higher bit depth. So, in some ways this is just a matter of evolution. I certainly would love to have a system that performs as you describe. But, I do not know that I would want it to be B&W only. Although, I love B&W above all else, it does not have as strong of a market in galleries.
Also, I am wondering if this kind of detail, will soon be lost on people. As and example, if you look at music reproduction, people have gone to lower resolution in the mp3. While the critical eye and the educated critic will know the difference. Will it matter to the public?
I suspect that if one truly wanted this product, the first step would be to amass enough buyers who would be willing to approach Leica. It is possible that if you could fund it, they might build it. But, to expect them to build such a product on their own, seems to be only wishful thinking.
I can't imagine there won't be a natural progression towards higher bit depth. So, in some ways this is just a matter of evolution. I certainly would love to have a system that performs as you describe. But, I do not know that I would want it to be B&W only. Although, I love B&W above all else, it does not have as strong of a market in galleries.
Also, I am wondering if this kind of detail, will soon be lost on people. As and example, if you look at music reproduction, people have gone to lower resolution in the mp3. While the critical eye and the educated critic will know the difference. Will it matter to the public?
I suspect that if one truly wanted this product, the first step would be to amass enough buyers who would be willing to approach Leica. It is possible that if you could fund it, they might build it. But, to expect them to build such a product on their own, seems to be only wishful thinking.
gb hill
Mentor
No way! Tri-X is cheaper & much better! Besides eventually that $7000 electronic camera you have is going to bite the dust. (sure might be 25 years down the road but it's gonna happen) Electronic devices were not made for the long haul & can't be recovered like a simple CLA on a mechanical camera. If I had thousands of dollars to spend on a Leica M I would buy a MP. At least I know my grandson might enjoy it.
user237428934
User deletion pending
What do you want to tell us with that? Do you compare that to photography? Do you want to say that the quality of photography is going down in general?
The opposite is true. 15 years ago, normal P&S camera, supermarket prints compared to now, normal digital P&S camera, supermarket prints. Less wrong colours, better print quality now. For the big market share of the typical happy snapper the introduction of digital is equal to a huge increase in quality.
ferider
Mentor
Leica M4-P................................US 800
Nikon CoolScan 5000ED....................US 1000
Freezer...................................US 200
2000x Rollei Retro 100...................US 5000
-------------------------------------------------
Total....................................US 7000
Tones and Grain: price-less.
phototektour
Established
No way for b/w only. Jpg fine with b/w plus dng goes for me (to have a second choice also month later...you know, customers wishes)
gho
Well-known
Benjamin
Registered Snoozer
If they made one, I'd think about it, even at the price of the current M9.
Benjamin
Registered Snoozer
user237428934
User deletion pending
The difference in sharpness between these two pictures is enormous. And that's the problem with this comparison. In real life you don't get such dull and unsharp pictures out of a 30D. So when you have a sharp photo out of a 30D, how does the result of a modified 30D looks like? Hyper sharp? Over sharp? Even if you have slightly sharper photos, the difference might only be visible in 100%
Never trust a comparison under laboratory conditions. Remember they took a photo of a photo (=test target) under changing lighting conditions. Far from a realistic test.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
And they probably removed the AA filter too - which would make a considerable difference as well, maybe even the whole difference.
(not my image)
Last edited:
filmfan
Well-known
No but I would think about a color one... BW is for film.
gho
Well-known
I would like to have that ruled out by a "realistic" test.
Last edited:
biggambi
Vivere!
What I am saying it that the critical manner in viewing at this detail is going down in a similar manner. What is achievable and what is viewed all ready differ. At one time people looked to prints as the bench mark. This group is decreasing down to the collector, the critic, and those who make the pictures. Print sales are down, not only mine, but other people that I am friends with that sell on the international level. I would like to hear an argument that does not support that more people view their photos on the computer, phone, and digital picture frames than by attaining high quality prints. So, would my custom print shop, and other printers I have spoken to in the USA. These mediums are all inferior to the print. This has been well documented. If you see this as something other then a trend towards mediocrity. We are going to strongly disagree.
This trend could be different in other parts of the world. But, I highly doubt it is different in China and Japan as they are very much into high tech. And, they soon will eclipse the USA in being the largest consumer groups. So, now we have a substantial degree of the consumer market, that hardly takes advantage of the detail that high end digital is capable of attaining. With this comes less of a discerning eye. Do you believe that one is just born with a critical knowledge of photography? Or is it developed over time with exposure to what is truly possible? individuals that are hardly viewing in the most critical manner, are hardly going to care if this detail is lost or regained in time. What the OP has addressed as the failings of digital, certainly matter to many of us photographers. But, we are not the ones buying the prints; and, this type of critical detail does not show up on the little jpg that people are viewing on their computers.
As for the example given, it pertains as follows. Very few people listen to music at the level it is capable of being reproduced. They are happy with the convenience and a better reproduction level than they had before digital. But, they have not embraced the fact that analog reproduction is better then it has ever been, and high resolution digital is just now equalling analog, and is far better then mp3 files. The print qualities the OP has described are much like the musical qualities inferred to in this example.
My head hurts from having to go into this kind of detail to explain this simple example. I am going to go, grab my camera, and enjoy my Saturday.
Kindest regards,
Incitatus
Member
I'd buy one - but only if it was a "special" leica - maybe the King of Siam's Brother in Law's 46th birthday - with a baby seal fur cover and a limited 50mm made of titanium , plutonium, and volcanic glass - for let's say 14,500 dollars us
Benjamin
Registered Snoozer
gho
Well-known
What is the destination of ones photograph? If it is flickr, or the web, in general our communication devices are doing fine, maybe except for 'bokeh'.
Of course not. Memory is volatile. It is hard to appreciate good silver prints if one had never been exposed to something as delicate like that.
Yes, of course. I had the opportunity to see the work of Don McCullin at the C0 Berlin recently.
Personally, I am enjoying a live performance most. But I also like tube amps (for electric guitar) and skilled craftsmanship.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts.
Last edited: