Does anybody have any real info on these rumors I see around the net about a digital back being developed for use on an M camera? If something like this can be a reality without costing a million dollars, it might make digital photography a little more fun, and cause alot of people to turn their D1s into boat anchors.

-- Thomas M. Nutter (tmnphotos@erols.com), January 23, 2002

Answers

i have read about and was asked to test shoot a digital back that would fit almost any 35mm camera.A friend did use it.read more at "silicon technologies".Heard also about digital back for Leica but remember 10 yrs of rumors before Leicas 1st SLR!!!

-- jason gold (leeu72@hotmail.com), January 23, 2002.

Hello Thomas.Early this month in discussion with a local Leica dealer I was advised that on or about June this year a Leica M digital type body would be presented to the public.Only last week I found out about imminent release of the Panasonic "Leica" digital camera, which is a different animal altogether.In all probability the Leica dealer may be mixing his facts and a Leica M compatible digital body is pure conjecture however, no one can dispute the recent association between Leica and the muscle of Panasonic which has at it's disposal huge digital know how.If the association is only a branding exercise so be it. We can only wait and see.Regards.

-- Sheridan Zantis (albada60@hotmail.com), January 23, 2002.

"Presented to the public"

Sounds like ford "presenting" a concept car that is still 5 years out from being mass produced.

As anyone who has read my frequent posts on the subject knows, I would go ape-poopie over a digital M camera. But I'm not holding my breath.

-- Josh Root (rootj@att.net), January 23, 2002.

1. Leica is working on dedicated digital bodies with Panasonic. June sounds about right for the Leica version to come out. It/they will PROBABLY have dedicated zoom lens(es) instead of an M or R-mount. The P'sonics have Vario-Summicron Leicas-designed lenses. In effect a revived Digilux with a more camera-like shape.

2. In Oct. '01 the Leica rep for Denver said that M/R8 digital backs were 9/18 months away. The tough issue with digital backs is protecting the delicate surface of the imaging chip when it's off the camera and exposed - light can burn it - and get one piece of dust on it and it will show up in every exposure. Plus, if the chip isn't a full 24x36mm, the M framelines will be grossly out of whack.

A dedicated digital body (M mount with R adapter; protective 'blind' (a la the Mamiya 7) to protect the chip while changing lenses; viewfinder viewing with framelines resized to fit the actual image area/aspect ratio of the chip; plus an LCD on the back for the R lenses - is what I'd put my money on, personally. Sort of an M6/7-sized S1.

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), January 23, 2002.

Sounds like heaven is joust around the corner. But in the meantime, rather than holding my breath, I've got myself a used EOS D30 and a few Novoflex R -EOS adaptors and I'll just sit back now and let Leica do whatever it is they do.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), January 23, 2002.

Why would a digital M body need a "protective blind" to be used when changing lenses? There's already a shutter -- that seems like a pretty good blind to me.

-- John Morris (jtmorris@slb.com), January 24, 2002.

this sounds as good as the rumors i've heard of a digital photo-cell/ processor package the size of a 35mm cassette roll for use in reflex and slr type bodies with lenses intact. now that would be miraculous.

-- Andrew Meissner (meissner@predawnraid.com), January 24, 2002.

Based on what I know, previous attempts at developing a digital back for direct replacement in 35mm film cameras have been largely unsuccessful. Digital CCDs require light to hit its surface at 90 degrees while a typical 35mm camera lens directs light onto the film surface at various angles. It is because of this difference in physics that makes a direct replacement digital back mere wishful thinking for the time being.

-- Kelvin Leung (kleung@alumni.calpoly.edu), January 25, 2002.

Jay

What happened to the S1 - has that gone now or do you own two digital SLRs? Your myriad camera purchases baffle me sometimes (not that you should care!)

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), January 25, 2002.

John Morris:

1) you're right re: shutter serving as a protective cover - IF the camera we're talking about is a digital back for existing Ms or a Digital M (an existing M with dig. back permanently installed.) My point about this approach is - what protects the chip from dust/ excessive light/scratches while you are mounting/dismounting the back fromthe camera? And if the camera has a shutter, how do you also use R lenses with no focusing cams? Leica would have to build a whole different device for the R users. Not cost effective.

I was trying to save Leica some manufacturing bucks and increase the features available by presuming a separate distinct M-body-sized dedicated digital device (a hand-holdable S1, in effect, and probably related to the Panasonic bodies, since they're Leica's partner in all this) that would take BOTH M and R lenses (via adapter). Such a camera would have LCD screen viewing on the back (as well as an M-style viewfinder/rangefinder, if you like). To use the LCD for framing/ focusing with R lenses (without the bulk/shake of reflex viewing), the imaging chip needs to be 'seeing' all the time like a video camera - hence it can't be covered by a mechanical shutter before and after exposure - hence it needs a protective blind for those times when the front of the camera is open (e.g. while changing lenses.)

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), January 25, 2002.

"Digital CCDs require light to hit its surface at 90 degrees while a typical 35mm camera lens directs light onto the film surface at various angles. It is because of this difference in physics that makes a direct replacement digital back mere wishful thinking for the time being."

This is most likely true. There's another theoretical technical issue with using a digital sensor with 'traditional' lenses - resolution aliasing - which has been raised on the LUG. In a nutshell, if the spacing of the 'pixels' (lines per mm) is roughly the same as the resolution of the lens (lines per mm), the effective resolution gets cut in half, because the pixels 'see' only every 2nd or 3rd 'line' of resolution from the lens. Some of the pixels see half a line and record 'gray' instead of 'black' or 'white', so you get sort of fuzzy, 'gaussian-blurred' images of very fine, evenly-spaced patterns of lines.

The fix is that 'digital' lenses are designed with LESS resolution so the sharpest image never quite reaches the resolution of the imaging chip.

Note, however, that this only applies to fine lines spaced roughly equally to the chip resolution. If you make a habit of shooting picket fences from 500 yards away it may be a problem. But 99% of textures and patterns and other fine detail in the real world are not evenly spaced and close to the resolution limit of the chip, so it has much less impact on real-world photography than it does in theory.

Nikon and Canon and Kodak and Fuji have all produced digital cameras that accept and take pictures with 'traditional' lenses. You can mount a 1965 Nikkor 105 on a Nikon D1 and get an image to put in your computer that looks quite good. (Or as Jay does, shoot Leica-R lenses on a D30) They work. They may not be as sharp as using the same lens on film, or using a "de-res'd" 'digital' lens, but they DO take pictures.

I dunno. Jay, do you get vignetting because the light from your lenses hits the D30's sensor at an angle near the corners? Do you notice that fine repetitive details start to mush together?

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), January 25, 2002.

I know this is a LEICA forum, but for the record, sharpness is a problem with the d1 and ANY lens. Gaussian blur is a good way to describe it.

-- Tom Nutter (tmnphotos@erols.com), January 26, 2002.