M6 Classic vs. M6 TTL for rumored (imagined?) digital back

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Leica Photography : One Thread

Does the M6 classic have the same electrical contacts under the film door that the M6 TTL has? Just wondering since this may become an issue if there ever is a digital back.

Also, will the viewfinder magnification be an issue if a 35mm equivalent cmos device is not used? Don't SLR lenses used on current digital bodies essentially become "wider" than when used with film bodies? Maybe the new eyepiece magnifier is being produced with this in mind? Any thoughts?

-- Bob (robljones@home.com), September 04, 2001

Answers

To the first question the answer is yes. For the others we will have wait and see what Leica produces.

Cheers,

-- John Collier (jbcollier@powersurfr.com), September 04, 2001.


I predict that there will not be an M digital back for a long time yet, so I think worrying about it now is misplaced. You have already outlined a big issue already. I bet any new digital Leica products will be for consumers - i.e. point and shoot type.

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), September 04, 2001.

Bob:

John answered question #1.

As for #2b, SLR's lenses generally become "longer" when put on a digital body - usually you multiply by 1.5 (Nikon) or 1.6 (Canon). Hence a 24 becomes a 36, a 50 a 75, etc. This is why Nikon has produced their 14mm 17-35mm zoom lenses. 2a) Leica has admitted they are working on a digital M back, and hope to have a prototype be Photokina '02. I do not see how Leica could plan on using other than a full-frame imaging chip with a digital M back, as there would otherwise be an engineering-nightmare component to overcome as respects frameline conversion. So, as with everything else Leica, I expect the new back, when it comes out, will be quite pricey... However, Leica could also come out with a digital M body incorporating the proper framelines for the existing lenses when used on the digital M, but this would also likely be quite expensive. As a third alternative, a "digital" brightline finder could be included (or offered separately!) with the back. 2c) The eyepiecce magnifer would not solve the film-to-digital format conversion problem, because the framelines for film would still cover the same angle of view.

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), September 04, 2001.


Ah, it is to dream.........

I very very VERY much want a digital M. But I also have serious doubts that it will show up anytime soon. Photokina '02 is about a year away (if I remember right). And Leica hopes to have a "prototype" there? So even if they are on time, the camera won't be out for us to buy for another 18 months from now or so. And Leica has shown that they are nothing if not slow at inovating the M line. Seriously, Leica needs a digital M solution if they want to stay alive in the future. I would think that making a dedicated digital body would be easier (i.e. the frameline problem) and more cost effective (not having to use a full 35mm size imag chip) than a digital back solution. But with our luck, leica will come out with some half assed thing that can only use 50/75 mm lenses or something like that.

-- Josh Root (rootj@att.net), September 04, 2001.


Gosh folks, if you get a digital back, then you won't need to consider the sharpness of Leica lenses. How will the forum survive without those wonderful threads: "I do street photography with the lens always set at hyperfocal distance. Do you think I should get the Hyper-Duper-Apo-Summilux f:1.4, or the Super-Overt-Flatfield Summicron f:2.0?"

-- Bill Mitchell (bmitch@home.com), September 04, 2001.


"Gosh folks, if you get a digital back, then you won't need to consider the sharpness of Leica lenses."

Bill, why not? Surely one day the backs will equal 35mm film in resolution and then we can worry all we like just the same. I know what you mean at present, unsharp masking attempting to match what used to be good old fashioned focus in the enlarger...

I am in no hurry to go full digital anyway - it a damn rat race.

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), September 04, 2001.


yup, hyperfocal distance, f1.4, 1/60 second handheld, tri-X. man, I love those sharp Leica lenses. can't wait to get it all in digital.

the Leica is a great camera for what it is, and that's it. add a digital back, an LCD display, a host of menu buttons to control it all, and you unleash the beast.

who would want this anyway? go buy a Canon at a fourth the price, and reap the rewards of scale and the huge infusions of technology investment.

-- daniel taylor (lightsmythe@agalis.net), September 04, 2001.


It isn't for the image quality of the lenses that I want a digital M. If I want real image quality, I pull out the 4x5. 35mm can't touch it no matter who makes the lenses. And it will be a cold day in hell before 99% of us reach the limitations of a Nikon/Canon pro lens. I want a small(er), quiet, manual focus, digital camera. The "digital M", even with something the size of the old M winder on it is much less threatening than my big noisy Nikon digital SLR. Batteries will last much longer and the camera can be use as a film camera if need be (if they go the removable back route, which I don't think they should do).

Nobody is going to make you use scarey scarey technology if you don't wnat to. But some of us will want to.

-- Josh Root (rootj@att.net), September 04, 2001.


I think it was during Leica's R-system 'chat room" last winter/spring that they stated they when they added digital capabilities to the M/R lines it would be with a full 24x36 image chip, AND NOT UNTIL.

E.G.; M viewfinders will work (as well as they ever do - 8^). ) and a 28 will still be a wideangle.

Leica rep implied to me that digital M back MIGHT not be compatible with pre-M6 bodies - could be the contacts, could be other changes made when the meter was added, she didn't know the technical reason why, if at all. "18 months" was what she'd been told for timing (1 month down, 17 to go).

I don't understand the objections to a digital M back. I may never need or buy one. But if I DID need digital, I'd rather be able to use my present M lenses and bodies (even at less than optimum performance) than have to buy, carry and store a whole additional system. I'd still get functionality out of the M's compact size, silence, build quality, and non-resolution-based lens performance (color, tonality, 'bokeh', etc.)

If I can see the "Leica" difference in my 2700 dpi scans, I should be able to see it with straight digital capture, nyet?

Digital backs don't have cooties - they won't contaminate your precious "M" and make it unworthy of being used ever again for film.

BTW: The 1.25 magnifier magnifies BOTH the frame-lined area and the subject, so it doen't change the framing and wouldn't help anyway (i.e a 50mm lens and its frame lines still surround the same subject matter with or without the magnifier.)

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), September 04, 2001.


Would it really even have to be an M6? The camera's light meter wouldn't be needed, since the electronics can deal directly with light intensity issues (can't it?). And I don't think you'd need the shutter. So the M would become a lens platform, if I envision it correctly. LCD finder on the back of the electronic unit, I imagine. (Digital cameras seem ideal for candids, since you can watch the LCD screen without holding it to your eye.)

Would it make more sense to have a dedicated ME (M-electronic) with a bayonet M-mount? How about interchangeable M and R mounts? We could use whatever we've got!

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



Bob: I think your idea is a good one. Leica already has something sort of like this - the S1. Takes R lenses, presumably only needs a little machining done to take M lenses. But it's too big - maybe call the new thingy the Mini-S1 (a la Minilux).

But if its a choice between a $1500 back for my existing M and a $2800 separate dedicated body, I'd prefer the former, probably. We'll see what Solms comes up with (or not).

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), September 04, 2001.


..and Bob: if Leica does go with an all-digital body, they need an audio channel to replicate the rubbery "thuuhp" of the M-shutter so I'd know it had fired......8^)

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), September 04, 2001.

my point is that there are benefits in designing a camera for the technology. sure, you can retrofit anything, but there is certainly a point where the result and direction is divergent to the original design goals that endear us to the Leica. it's a personal assessment, and I always thought the auto-winder was divergent enough.

-- daniel taylor (lightsmythe@agalis.net), September 04, 2001.

my prediction for what it's worth is that leica will introduce a new digital M body - it will accept all current lenses but the body will feature new frame lines to show what you will get with your favorite current focal lengths - that's the most practical solution

-- mark (mramra@qwest.net), September 04, 2001.

Daniel: Fair enough. As someone who can already get digital images from his Leica (via scanner) I can probably avoid buying whatever Solms comes up with, anyway. And while I may fantasize about a pure digital back for the M (based on verbatim promises from an offical Leica rep) what with storage media and batteries, an add-on back would most likely end up being at least as bulky as a separate dedicated camera. Oh well...

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), September 05, 2001.


Lets hope that digital does not kill quality as it did in Hi-Fi...I still keep vinyl and old valve amps. 2 fingers to digital. Here are some ramblings... We are taught to think scientifically and logically in most of our education, and this amounts to measure and yes/no decision. Digital is exactly that on/off. We are in danger of loosing some of the qualities that everyone feels but few believe or consider deeply, if we continue down the digital path alone. Analogue please.

-- Richard (richard@designblue.co.uk), September 05, 2001.

" If I want real image quality, I pull out the 4x5."

I never quite understand this kind of comment which I see frequently. Try and "pull out" a 4 x 5 on a moving subject or when taking candids, or..pretty well anything that is not stock still and in front of your camera. Surely one of the points (THE point perhaps?) of a Leica is to get the best possible image quality out of 35mm. If it is not, then I think money is being wasted on buying the thing in the first place.

As to digital, many "consumer" users are regressing back to the 60s now with their homemade digital images which look much worse than any conventional minilab, but because "its digital" it has to be better. I am frequently shown dreadful prints that you would take back to a minilab and complain, but as it is now done at home on the computer, then it has to be good. I produce a few myself once in a while, but at least I chuck them out!

Sure, I would be happy to consider a digital M-camera, but if one ever appears it will no doubt cost much more than an M6, and I don't think that will make it worth it for an amateur like me. Think how much the Nikon D1 is and that is not a Leica, so does not carry Leica-inflated prices.

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), September 05, 2001.


I agree with Robin: any sense for quality seems to have left the typical amateur photographer. We've been conditioned by years of lousy lab work to accept the less-than-mediocre, and now the output from the 1.3 Mp computer accessory looks great.

IMHO a digital back for the M is absolutely feasible if the electronics, CF (or whatever) drive, etc., are placed below the camera body à la the M Winder.The shutter's already there, and with an M6, even the meter.

I'm tempted to email Leica about this thread. Having grown up with a German engineer as father, I know that German engineering never takes the straight route in its strive for perfection :-) Whatever Rube Goldberg-style digital M devices you suggested in this thread, you can be sure Leica's planning something more bizarre!

-- Oliver Schrinner (piraya@hispavista.com), September 06, 2001.

One alternative would be for Leica to use the new Kodak 16 MP chip. Reports indicate that it is 38 MM square - and could thus cover the full 24 by 36 MM image field. Seems to me that would yield an image equivalent to analog.

-- Seth Honeyman (shoneyma@nycap.rr.com), September 06, 2001.

I

can see little reason to make a good mechanical film camer a cumbersome and awkward with a digital back. It would only b e a compromise, no matter what you did. For a digital camera , y ou don't need the film transport system, the shutter mec hani sm, etc. You do need space for memory, batteries, computer s, et c. A digital back accessory would likely cost nearly as much a s the camera does since you are essentially provi ding a second camera's guts and interfacing it with the existing camera' s shell and mechan i c al comp o n ents.

To me, the right solution is to simply provid e an M6 Digi tal body which uses the same rangefinder and f ocusing mount , styling too, as we have now and is otherwis e fully electr onic ... a professional quality digital camera with a big sens or and very high resolution. Sell it for $3000 or so... I 'll buy one, or I'll buy a Nikon Dwhatever or Canon Dwhatev er eventually. I' d rather have the Leica M6 D igital as I prefer the Leica lenses.

Godfrey

-- Godfrey (ramarren@bayarea.net), September 06, 2001.


Actually... Shutter mechanisms, if not needed in digital cameras, are useful (and used) and increasingly replacing electronic shutters, especially in higher end models.

Alex.

-- Alexander Astra (timesr@hotmail.com), November 07, 2001.


It seems to be there are two primary user types for digitals, those who simply want a quick snapshot of "consumer" quality and the more serious photographers who want a higher quality level image. The former are well satisfied with the current level digital cameras. The latter lust for still higher level capabilities in digital output.

Consider further the point about digital being binary. At present, the pixels are either ON or OFF but why must it remain so? Imagine an exponential improvement in design technology where the pixels become tiny potentiometers (is that the right term?) capable of accepting a charge of varying degree. Then we could get the same gradient tonal quality from digital that we currently get from silver halide films.

My choice for a Leica digital camera would be a new light rangefinder body shell available with interchangeable lens mount-board to accept either M lenses or R lenses. LB

-- Luther Berry (lberrytx@aol.com), November 08, 2001.


I dont understand why everybody is thinking so short term. In ten years, the digital back will be similar to a small 35mm film that is loaded in to the camera or something very similar..light weight, cheap and easily replacable. ( and probably it will have 50 mp's or something unimaginable) Think about the first computers and the current handheld PDA! Rather than buy the most expensive new digital back, just have patience, enjoy your high quality film and use a scanner if you have to have digital.

-- dariush (dariush23@yahoo.com), November 08, 2001.

At present, the pixels are either ON or OFF but why must it remain so? Where do you get this nonsense? Each pixel is represented by 12 bits per color in current cameras. That's 4096 levels per color.

-- MarkC (markci@yahoo.com), March 28, 2002.

As a working photo journalist, I think it would be a great leap forward for Leica to have a digital back. Newspapers today are almost all digital, and with a 24hr newscycle it is vital to have the speed that digital cameras offer. If I shoot something at 8:00PM that is running the next day, I wouldn't want to go back to the paper to process and scan the film. As for quality digital cameras like the D1H and the D1X produce very good images. Many people these days actually prefer digital imagest due to their sharp and snapy colors. I shoot with a M6 and love it if I have time, but recently for assignments I have been grabing the D1. And don't forget those of us working at the ends of the earth trying to cover events. I wouldn't want to carry around film developer, processing equipment and a scanner. Sometimes water isn't avalible. I would happily pay a kings ransom for a M6 digital back. For me, a digital M camera would be the ultimate photojournalism tool.

-- Richard Lui (rzlui@hotmail.com), June 04, 2002.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ