Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/07/23
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]The M camera was a great camera when it was first made - 50 years ago. It was - and is - a great camera for 36x24 frames. Notwithstanding this, an M digital would just be a kludge. The problem is that with the current state of technology and batteries, an M digital would lose all of its compact charm. If you don't jam a true 36x24 CCD in it, you end up with your best lens being a short telephoto (the 50/2). Even then, unless the pixel sizes on CCDs start to shrink radically, your resolution ends up capped. You will still run through batteries like there is no tomorrow and end up with a huge "motor drive." And you'd lose most of the resolution of the lens because the CCD would be a drag on the imaging path. I don't share the view that digital as we know it will progress much. The current thinking in the industry is using a film metaphor (conventional camera with conventional lenses and shutter) and stagnating with CCDs, which unless interpolated to hell, only get higher resolution by increasing sensor size. I have seen enough disclaimers on the 6 megapixel units to understand this. Sadly, in the short run, it is still more cost (and obsolescence-) effective to store image data on film, which is lossless and lower in cost than digital systems. Consider that a roll of Gold 100 costs $4.50 processed and holds 36x144Mb of data (at 16 bits/channel and 4000dpi) - for 20 years or more. You would be lucky if your PC even reads files that are 10 years old. The real threat to 35mm film will come with the next generation of sensors. If pixel size were to, say, halve, you could halve the frame size and use much smaller cine-type lenses. Then you get into f/1.4 and f/2 zooms, things that conventional camera users dream about. (On that scale, just about every M-mount lens would be dog slow and huge). If pixel size quartered, you would have twice the resolution and half the size. The manufacturing benefit would be being able to use smaller, easier-to-make elements. That of course assumes more efficient storage. Perhaps the greatest irony is that the 120 film formats pack so much data that they will probably outlast the younger 35mm technology. Duane Birkey wrote: > The reason I want a digital M, assuming I can afford > it... is simple... one set of lenses... > > Much of my work at the moment is with a D-30... If I > also want to shoot something on film.... do you think > I want to carry another couple bodies and another set > of lenses?????? Well, actually I do sometimes carry > a M-6 with a 35 and 50 lens.... but I would prefer to > be able to shoot film and digital with one set of > lenses... > > The one drawback of a digital M vs a Digital R is the > ability to use longer lenses though... HMMMMMMMMMM > maybe I would prefer to a have digital R...... > > Duane > > ===== > HCJB World Radio > Quito Ecuador South America > Duane's Photographs of Ecuador > http://ecuadorphotos.tripod.com > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger > http://phonecard.yahoo.com/