I know any one that´s interested in Leica M photography wouldn´t ever think about digital photography; any way thank´s for reading.

This is my idea: Take an M body, without baseplate and backdoor; instead of a backdoor we put something exactly the same but with a digital sensor instead of the film preasure plate, all the conections go down to something like a motordrive that will hold all the electronics stuff and battery that may needed. Tecnology will recive our exposures from a clasic camera and will read it into the new tecnology. And I think it can handle over exposures or under quite easy, so we could use the shutterspeeds and apertures we wanted in any ligth situations; f/2 and 1/8 at sunligth or wathsoever tecnology alow us.

You may think I´m a digital tecnology freak; no way, I love the grain of my TRI-X; but I belive Leica M can make a steep into new tecnology; for me the most important thing is to have another reason for M leicas to live.

Please let me know wath you think.

RW

-- Robert Watson (mawago@prodigy.net.mx), January 02, 2001

Answers

Take an M body, keep the baseplate and backdoor, and load FILM. Expose the film, then have it developed and scanned. There, you're digital. Your Leica M has taken the step to the new technology.

Myself, I haven't done any darkroom work in 20 years. I'm sitting in front of a computer, a film scanner, an inkjet printer, and a copy of Photoshop. How digital can you get? I use an M6 for most of my photography.

-- Joe Buechler (jbuechler@toad.net), January 02, 2001.

If leica would make such a camera with a 24X36 mm sensor I would start saving right away! - Even though one can scan film from a M6 with digital one would have the opportunity to evaluate instantly. This would be a gread suplement to a Film based system.

Kaj

-- Kaj Froeling (kf@draupnir.dk), January 03, 2001.

I think you'd be better to look at a digital R camera. After extensive use of the D1 (Nikon) and rudimentary use of the D30 (Canon) I've found the big problem to be noise at low light levels. You can easily see this in newsphotos (big usere of digital technology). Photos in low light usually exhibit banding and 'sparkly colors' (there's no better way to describe it) in the shadow areas. The main reason many people buy the M series cameras is for low light work. As stated above, an M camera, a good scanner, and you're digital. Other than photojounalism and some types of commercial and art uses, I think the best way to go 'digital' is a marriage of the two technologies.

-- Bob Todrick (bobtodrick@yahoo.com), January 03, 2001.

With the current resolution of single-shot, hand-holdable digital cameras there really isn't any need for the expense and precision of the Leica or its lenses. The "Leica" digilux is not going to give a worse image quality than if it had M lenses on it. Even the resolving power of Nikkor SLR lenses is wasted on the D1. Aside from the $$$$ scanning backs for Hasselblad or large format, film + scanning would be the way to go at present. Personally, I never liked darkroom work, including scanning/Photoshop. I'll always want to be out shooting, let someone else take it from there, so all I care about is how to get the maximum sharpness and I don't care particularly what the medium is.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), January 03, 2001.

You could always get a Leica S1 with the "M" lens adapter...

-- steve (s.swinehart@worldnet.att.net), January 03, 2001.

If wer'e going to form a committee to redesign the M, let's concentrate on an LED exposure display on the top of the camera so that we can set the exposure without having to raise the camera to the eye. This will facilitate shooting candid shots without tipping the subject off by raising the camera to the eye, which tips off the subject. One could preset the exposure, then raise the camera to the eye for a split second to shoot. My Nikkormat had an auxiliary meter on the camera's top plate. I'd like something like that on my M6. If they insist on leaving that naked, blank area where it's supposed to have the scripted "Leica" then let's put something useful there.

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), January 03, 2001.

There is already a company out there working on basically the same thing you are suggesting. They used to be called Imagek, but they recently changed their name to Silicon Film. Their product is a little device that fits into the space inside the camera where you normally put your 35mm film.

Until recently many people believed this product to be vaporware, but now it looks like it may be getting close to release. The only real huge problems with it seem to be that, first, it only does 1.3 megapixel images; and second, it is only intended to work with the Nikon F, Canon EOS, etc. (whether this would actually preclude other cameras, I don't know).

Anyway, here's an article:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/9909/99090501siliconfilm.asp

Buzz

-- Buzz Andersen (landerse@du.edu), January 04, 2001.

Oh...sorry. Here's a clickable version of that link:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/9909/99090501siliconfilm. asp

-- Buzz Andersen (landerse@du.edu), January 04, 2001.

Concerning the digital film insert mentioned above: 1. It is only 1.3 megapixels, giving maybe a photoquality 4X5in print. 2. There is no preview panel. One of the beauties of digital cameras is being able to preview/review your shot to know whether you want to file it, or take it in the first place. 3. An inexpensive, feature laden digital camera with preview screen can be had for under $500.00 (CDN), leaving your expensive Leica, Nikon or Canon to do what it was designed to do, expose film.

Until these things are at least 3-4 megapixels I don't see the use.

-- Bob Todrick (bobtodrick@yahoo.com), January 04, 2001.

I agree with the others that there is no need to have a digital M. Scan the film and you are digital. However, I do fear that the success of the Nikon D1 and Fuji S1s of this world will make a digital M type of camera inevitable, so Leica better keep up. From my perspective film is still the best medium out there in terms of archivability, easy accesibility and quality - and there is no need to keep upgrading and spending money on the marketing-lead nonsense that these companies are selling us with such statements as (recently read in PC World) "the film costs nothing". As if buying a new camera and software, printer, cartridges, paper etc cost nothing!

Unless digital becomes inherently superior to film in terms of image capture I see no reason to buy a digital camera myself. Photography is enough of a money sink without having to start all over again for questionable benefits. I have a film scanner and printer so I am not a true Luddite. The relentless push of computer, digital and web stuff by clever marketeers does tend to annoy me with its hyperbolic claims though I must say.

-- Robin Smith (rsmith@springer-ny.com), January 04, 2001.

Hey, you know what? On page 118 of the current Leica catalog there appears, not a digital M7, but a digital S1. With your choice of adapters, you can use your M lenses, your R lenses, or even your Haseelblad lenses. There are 3 models, and in true Leica tradition the lesser models are upgradeable to the fancy one. The latter is capable of 5140 by 5140 pixel resolution. Leica even gives the equivalent ISO ratings, which range from 200 to 9600 ISO depending on a few things like the "dynamic" which I imagine refers to the contrast ratio of the scene. Lower dynamic allows a higher ISO.

This camera looks pretty weird, being mounted into of an oval-shaped hoop, the purpose of which is not clear from the catalog. They don't show anyone handling it.

At any rate, it looks like the future is upon us. You can go digital and keep using your favorite Leica lenses, bokeh and all! I find all this a little scary. Part of photography involves fussing over films, papers, and developers. I suppose for a while I'll be resisting, critically examining digital prints for signs of inferiority, like a lack of tonal richness in the gradation, or something. Where will get slides to put in our projectors? What will I do with my four-projector widescreen setup in my living room?

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), January 04, 2001.

The reason they don't show anyone handling the S1 is that it is really aimed at people doing copy work and studio stuff (product shots, etc.). The reason for the hoops is that it is designed to be mounted on a copy stand, not hand-held. At any rate, it is a long way from the "digital M" we have been pining for in this thread.

-- Buzz Andersen (landerse@du.edu), January 05, 2001.

The big advantage of Leica M; outstanding, fast, compact lenses, is still valid in front of a sensor. I've spent all my free time the last six months scanning the stuff I shoot in the M2 and EOS, and will not miss film when the affordable 8 megapixel full frame body comes along. Film is great for making prints or displaying slides and will always be the preferred media for some. But if you intend to digitize the image, for any reason, it is a huge time saving to shoot it digital. I look forward to not fighting dust, time and color shift by having to scan negitives.

In the meantime, get good at scanning, as the affordable full frame 8 megapixel sensor is going to take time. It's the full frame part which hurts. Consistant manufacture of flawless peices of 24x36 silicon wizardary is expensive. Olympus must be so pleased they dropped out of the SLR business, as a 8 megapixel sensor without the size requirement will be much cheaper.

When you think that you can buy two R8's for the price of a consumer grade D30, or three for the price of a D1, it is going be ages till the economics of the full frame digital SLR (or M) makes sense for the amateur. I paid 1/20 the price of the D30 for my EOS 50 in mint condition, and it would take my 880 rolls of film with development (~11 year for me) to brake even even on the D30. For Professionals it's easier, as many countries allow tools to be depeciated against tax.

-- Mark Wrathall (wrathall@laudaair.com), January 05, 2001.

Mark

I largely agree with your statements, although Olympus remain powerful contenders in the digital camera scene including excellent "point and shoot" SLRs at up to $2000. Your economic argument I also agree with which is what I was saying essentially in a different way in my earlier response. The fact is that the economy of digital products (the new economy?) is in many ways selling us stuff that we do not really need in any real sense. One can argue it is better in some ways, but equally film and a good darkroom print is still essentially the yardstick of quality (I know, LIghtjet prints may be superior), so all most of us keen amateurs are doing is paying all over again for stuff that we could do quite happily 10-20 years ago with very little real benefit. And we have to keep continually update our software and hardware at great expense to keep everything valid and running - it is the scam of the millenium! Even cameras that are 50 years old still take fine photos - what use will a scanner/computer/operating system or CD of archived Photoshop files be in fifty or five years?

-- Robin Smith (rsmith@springer-ny.com), January 05, 2001.

Good points Robin. The consumer electronic industry has done a marvelous job of getting people on an obselescence treadmill.

For me Digital is definitly "better", although my Epson 870 prints don't have the quality of the best FB prints I made before I sold the dark room. The digital selling point for me is the flexiblity to use 10 minutes or xx hours productively on printmaking. In my non- permanent darkroom (bathroom) set up, I couldn't use much under 4 hours productively. Since my daughter was born, 4 hours free time is a fading memory :) The control of digital is it's second selling point.

It is important not to get wrapped up in buying digital improvements you don't need. The best example can think of is sound cards. A friend has a $400 SB 128+++ blah blah. I use the SB 16 compatable chip on my mother board. A 16 bit sound chip is close enough to CD quality for me, and being able to play 5 different CD quality sources at the same is nothing I need.

For the same reason I bought the 870. In four 10 years of darkroom work, I think I printed 2 photos bigger than 8x10 as I don't like grain.

An 8 mega pixel EOS with the features of the EOS 3 for under $1000 will be a camera I could see using till it died. This is quite enough resolution for an 8x10. Epson is bringing out 2880 DPI printers now with the flawed 870 inkset. By the time my 870 dies, Epson's consumer photo printer will be near perfect.

The fans of chemical darkrooms sound trumpet the advantage of digital, Have you all seen the dumping prices on second quality darkroom gear? Same goes for digital. In a couple of years a used D30 will be dirt cheap just after christmas. I saw an EPSON 750 for $60 in the paper and was tempted to buy it just to experiment with MIS quad tone inks.

Back to the original thread, the Leica M is the perfect counterpoint to obselescence. At times when I just had the M2, I longed for an M7 with motor, TTL flash, Aperture priority, DX, 1/250 sync. Since I got the EOS and use it lots on manual, I realise how right Leica's philosophy is.

-- Mark Wrathall (Wrathall@aon.at), January 05, 2001.

Mark

I have an 870 too. Well, you are right in a way about the time factor. But, when all is said and done I went into the darkroom last week for 8 hours straight and printed maybe 6 "fine art" (if you know what I mean) 8 x 10 or 8 x 8 images and a further 12 5 x 7 or 6 x 6s 2 copies each. There is no question about the final quality or archivability of the result. It was pretty straight forward and actually a lot of fun. If I could have a darkroom at home at present I would. Of course you really win on the color printing with digital in that most of us cannot be bothered or do not have sufficient volume to justify color printing. I too do see that in 5 years time there will be an affordable 4000 res scanners for up to 4 x 5 and then I will become fully digital. But I resent in a way buying into all this as I know that I will not take any better or higher quality pictures because of it. I will probably still want to archive my photos as film though as I think they will last much longer.

I do completely agree with you about paper sizes. I use a Hasselbald and people obsess about huge enlargements in MF - why? As you say, I have in my life only probably printed about 50 16 x 20 photos and most of those were for competitions. Then I bring them home and I don't know what to do with them! Give me a nice 8 x 8 full frame MF shot or 8 x 6.5 full frame 35mm and you have all you need for 90% of the time.

-- Robin Smith (rsmith@springer-ny.com), January 05, 2001.

Thank´s to all of you for your opinions; I knew it could be a diferent opinions subject. My idea wasn´t change any thing from an M, but have an accesory like a visoflex could be, that could be incorporated to the back of the camera without the need of any other change. Thank´s again and my apologies for such a delayed answer.

-- R. Watson (al1231234@hotmail.com), January 11, 2001.

i suggest not to make a digital m....theres enough digital cams out there already without ruining a classic camera..

-- grant (g4lamos@yahoo.com), January 12, 2001.