markusp
markus
hi there,
i'm new to the rff but very delighted about the discussions on here...
while my mind is currently struggling to find an answer to the crucial m8 question "to buy or not to buy", i try to feead the left side of my brain with some hard facts.
here's some interesting info i've found on photographybloc.com. interesting news from an insider:
"The digital M will basically maintain the size and the weight of a classic M, consisting of the same, high-quality materials and featuring the time-honoured optical rangefinder. In other words, it will remain an M, just without film. Of course, we had to solve the problem with the traditional cloth blind practically filling the entire M body, and since we wanted the digital M to maintain the same volume, we'll provice it with a metal-blade focal plane shutter.
Beyond that the digital M will have a focal length crop factor of 1.33. This technical constraint is necessary because our top priority is to deliver the utmost picture quality. Given the optical reality of M lenses and today's state of sensor technology, the ideal solution for our customers, a full-format sensor, would not live up to our high standards. This is particularly true for aspects such as vignetting and sharpness from image centre to corner. In this respect we've already reduced the thickness of the cover glass and filters located before the sensor to an absolute minimum so that laterally impacting light rays do not cause unwanted calculations. The radius of the micro lenses and their positioning before the sensor was designed in such a way that they channel as much light onto the pixel as possible. These measures and others ensure the picture quality that one has come to expect from the M system. The crop factor was selected so that the same picture angles are maintained - all one has to do is take a different lens: a 21mm turns intoa 28mm, a 28 into a 35. Having considered our options we are convinced that this is the best solution, in terms of attainable picture quality and - since the costs of a sensor increase exponentially to their size - in terms of the price of a digital M."
not all new news but good to know.
hope my right half of the brain will buy this facts
cheers
i'm new to the rff but very delighted about the discussions on here...
while my mind is currently struggling to find an answer to the crucial m8 question "to buy or not to buy", i try to feead the left side of my brain with some hard facts.
here's some interesting info i've found on photographybloc.com. interesting news from an insider:
"The digital M will basically maintain the size and the weight of a classic M, consisting of the same, high-quality materials and featuring the time-honoured optical rangefinder. In other words, it will remain an M, just without film. Of course, we had to solve the problem with the traditional cloth blind practically filling the entire M body, and since we wanted the digital M to maintain the same volume, we'll provice it with a metal-blade focal plane shutter.
Beyond that the digital M will have a focal length crop factor of 1.33. This technical constraint is necessary because our top priority is to deliver the utmost picture quality. Given the optical reality of M lenses and today's state of sensor technology, the ideal solution for our customers, a full-format sensor, would not live up to our high standards. This is particularly true for aspects such as vignetting and sharpness from image centre to corner. In this respect we've already reduced the thickness of the cover glass and filters located before the sensor to an absolute minimum so that laterally impacting light rays do not cause unwanted calculations. The radius of the micro lenses and their positioning before the sensor was designed in such a way that they channel as much light onto the pixel as possible. These measures and others ensure the picture quality that one has come to expect from the M system. The crop factor was selected so that the same picture angles are maintained - all one has to do is take a different lens: a 21mm turns intoa 28mm, a 28 into a 35. Having considered our options we are convinced that this is the best solution, in terms of attainable picture quality and - since the costs of a sensor increase exponentially to their size - in terms of the price of a digital M."
not all new news but good to know.
hope my right half of the brain will buy this facts
cheers
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Welcome to the site and with your interest you should fit right in.
But do search the site, as I do think we are a bit beyond this part and I feel you will find a large number of tidbits to your taste.
But do search the site, as I do think we are a bit beyond this part and I feel you will find a large number of tidbits to your taste.
markusp
markus
will take your advice, master ;D
m8-m7-m8-m7... ? my mind is still unclear...
cheers
m8-m7-m8-m7... ? my mind is still unclear...
cheers
greggebhardt
Well-known
I think the M8 will make the 21mm more popular. Not cheaper but more popular!
Mark Norton
Well-known
If, as we believe, the finder supports the 24mm for the first time, I think this lens is going to be popular as well.
markusp
markus
the new m will for sure be a delight for everyone with a passion for wideangle lenses... wish my wallet was a thick as my desires.
looking forward to the new tri-elmar 16-18-21.
looking forward to the new tri-elmar 16-18-21.
S
StuartR
Guest
As much as I would have hoped for a full frame sensor, I am glad that they are not compromising on quality. I have heard many rumblings about the corner performance of wide angle lenses on the Canon full frame DSLR's, and it is even more difficult with rangefinders where the angle of incidence is so extreme. And frankly, 1.33 is not a very large crop factor. I am currently using the DMR which is 1.37, and find it excellent in use. I have the 19mm lens and have no issues with needing to go wider. In fact, I mostly shot with the 28-90 zoom this summer and found 28mm to be wide enough for almost all situations. There were times when I wanted to go wider, but very few when I needed to go wider...if that makes any sense. I think it imposed some compositional rigor. Anyway, here are two from the DMR taken at 28mm (about 38mm with the 1.37 crop):
In any case, I hope that the sensor in the M8 is as good as the DMR sensor. I only hope that the noise performance is better (the noise is not great above ISO 400, but it is usable with filtering).
In any case, I hope that the sensor in the M8 is as good as the DMR sensor. I only hope that the noise performance is better (the noise is not great above ISO 400, but it is usable with filtering).
markusp
markus
thanks for this stuart
love the pics!
i agree, 28mm on analog is covering most of my wideangle needs too. it's just that extra edge of this few mm less that give you more freedom while compsing your pic.
my worries with the m8 is that it is what it is... sensor technology is moving forward fast, very fast. you might find yourself quite quicly behind the qualitative possibilities of new sensors. you will never have this problem with the analog m's. the beauty of technological excellence and precission is beyond time.
love the pics!
i agree, 28mm on analog is covering most of my wideangle needs too. it's just that extra edge of this few mm less that give you more freedom while compsing your pic.
my worries with the m8 is that it is what it is... sensor technology is moving forward fast, very fast. you might find yourself quite quicly behind the qualitative possibilities of new sensors. you will never have this problem with the analog m's. the beauty of technological excellence and precission is beyond time.
markusp
markus
...and here's another comment about the quality of the new sensor that i've found on photographyblog.com:
[10 mp isn't as small as one might think. It's not so much the pixel count, but rather the size of the pixels and the size of the sensor. In keeping the same sensor size, to add more "megapixels" one would need to decrease the pixel size and subsequently increase pixel density. This can lead to problems. If executed properly, 10 mp can output extremely beautiful]
[10 mp isn't as small as one might think. It's not so much the pixel count, but rather the size of the pixels and the size of the sensor. In keeping the same sensor size, to add more "megapixels" one would need to decrease the pixel size and subsequently increase pixel density. This can lead to problems. If executed properly, 10 mp can output extremely beautiful]
jaap
Jaap
small sensors kill the beauty of photography and is wrong trhinking
markusp
markus
i couldn't agree more. it's like the human brain... the more connected synapses you've got the better.
leica's raison d'être is its uncompromised quality standard and that's where the challenge will be in the future. digital means hard- and software - a new frontier that needs to be mastered like an art.
leica's raison d'être is its uncompromised quality standard and that's where the challenge will be in the future. digital means hard- and software - a new frontier that needs to be mastered like an art.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
jaap said:
How so? A camera is just a tool. How can one aspect of it kill the photographer's skill and creativity?
greggebhardt
Well-known
I can only see the M8 adding a new dimension to a Leica's user tools. I plan on having both in the kit bag and use both!
S
StuartR
Guest
Photography is an interesting anomoly in some ways. It's development has gone backwards in terms of absolute quality of output. The highest quality output was the first type of output used. You are not going to match the quality of contact printing huge glass plate negatives (20x24 etc). While lenses, films and capture devices became more sophisticated, they began to decrease the quality of the output. When you go to a museum and look at photos from the 19th century, they often blow away anything people do now in terms of tonality and resolution...anyway, that's just an aside. And yes, I know that people are still doing ULF.
As for the M8 sensor, 1.33 is still fairly large as sensors go. It is larger than any Nikon sensor, about the same size as the 1d, and obviously smaller than the 1Ds and 5d. Keep in mind as well that this is a CCD, not a CMOS sensor. While CMOS sensors have advantages in system integration, power consumption and cost, they cannot match the absolute image quality of CCD's. Or at least it is very difficult for them to do so. It is why the MF digital is still all CCD, along with many other high end uses (satellites, telescopes etc). I think I am parotting Michael Reichmann here, but I am fairly certain he/I is/am right.
As for the M8 sensor, 1.33 is still fairly large as sensors go. It is larger than any Nikon sensor, about the same size as the 1d, and obviously smaller than the 1Ds and 5d. Keep in mind as well that this is a CCD, not a CMOS sensor. While CMOS sensors have advantages in system integration, power consumption and cost, they cannot match the absolute image quality of CCD's. Or at least it is very difficult for them to do so. It is why the MF digital is still all CCD, along with many other high end uses (satellites, telescopes etc). I think I am parotting Michael Reichmann here, but I am fairly certain he/I is/am right.
Last edited by a moderator:
jaap
Jaap
Within 5 yaers I think there are no profesional digital camera's anymore with so called aps size sensor. The smallest will be 24*36. Then only then we utilize the full potentail of the lenses. By the way i hope erveryone is happy with there digital camera's even if there's a aps size sensor in it.