As digital photography evolves, and I continute to rely on my Leica M6, I realize than it may be quite compatible with this new technology. Its simplicity and lens quality-- and joy to use might lend itself well to the digital application. Loyal Leica M6 users, I am not advocating your experence gets changed-- but that in a sense a few years down the road you could get a kind of "super film". It could have 1,000 exposures, expose each frame at a different ISO (and record this fact) and have virtually no grain. CCDs are not there yet, but I expect them to be. Negative scratch and fade are something I wouldn't mind abandoning- but the M6 expereince for the clumsy Coolpix I have- absolutely not. So; Do you forsee a new body- as it the trend in the SLR market? or A compact Leica, or third party CCD device that fits with battery, storage and all in the film slot? Without modification we'd still have to wind, but this might be nice or not a problem. Until then I have decided to learn more about film. Silas

-- Silas Larsen (slarsen@mail.colgate.edu), October 28, 2001

Answers

Silas:

As long as you're asking us to pull out our crystal balls, here is what I see in the digital future of Leica...

I think an M6-digital is unlikely, given the engineering required to make room for a CCD or C-MOS in th eexisting body. IMO, the easier engineering path will be to design a digital body from the ground up that has the following attributes:

1) Full-frame or at least 24mmx30mm CMOS/CCD. 2) Leica M mount compatible. 3) Enough pixel resolution to utilize the current stable of M lenses. This is important because lenses that are higher resolution than the CCD/CMOS can generate excess noise in the image. 4) Easily accessible CMOS/CCD for dust removal/cleaning. 5) Compact flash and micro-drive compatible. 6) Efficient and practical power demands.

When it becomes available, I'll try one!

7) Oh yeah - forgot to add: Reasonably priced!

Cheers,

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), October 28, 2001.

A digital conversion kit for the Leica M would be a clumsy and costly alternative to a digital body that merely accepts M lenses, which in itself would have to address the issue of the effect of light angle incidence on the CCD vs film. Nonetheless it would not surprise me entirely if the first (and least techically efficient) option--that of the conversion kit--wasn't chosen by Leica in order to satisfy the "Leica fondlers", who make up a substantial portion of their market.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), October 28, 2001.

Jay, what's that about the light angle incidence? Why would it be any different from the light on the film, if a back could be substituted that places the light-sensitive device at the film plane?

Enough room could be found for electronics by adding a baseplate unit about the size of the motor winder. The superb Leica rangefinder might be an asset in focusing critically.

From another viewpoint, it might make sense to have a dedicated electronic body, to utilize the room otherwise taken up by the shutter module.

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), October 28, 2001.

Thanks, Yes, I do agree a body built for the purpose would be better. And Leica seems to be embracing digital techonology- albeit so far only in a line of entirely new products. My other idea, and this is only an image that popped into my mind- was not a converstion kit but a little thing that you slide as you would film into the body. Silas

-- Silas Larsen (slarsen@mail.colgate.edu), October 28, 2001.

I just thought I'd mention that my initial thoughts were of stuff maybe a decade down the line- where compact flash etc will be something of the past. But I do appreciate your responses that relate to current technology. I imagine I'll be using film for about that long- after which it might become problematic like current black and white did unless you develop it yourself (although chromogenic C-41 films are changing this). What I mean is that standards labs won't develop and print it for you $10-16 equivalent. Although I am a bit young to pinpoint it- I guess this happened in the early 80s- when my parents photos all went to color. Silas

-- Silas Larsen (slarsen@mail.colgate.edu), October 28, 2001.

Re: light incidence on digital CCD's. Supposedly the nature of the current CCD's is such that to "fill" the sensor optimally the light needs to strike it at a 90-degree angle. This occurs in the center of the image circle. Current digital SLR bodies that use the same 35mm lenses have CCD's occupying only the central portion of the image circle. Of course, lenses like those for the Hasselblad XPAN, which are basically medium-format lenses, should work fine on a full 24x36mm CCD. I am very curious to see and read about the Contax digital SLR body which is supposed to have a 24x36 sensor and use the came N1 lenses.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), October 28, 2001.

My camera dealer told me within the past few days that the Contax N1 digital has been delayed 'til at least "next summmer", and that Pentax, which was also planning a 'full-format' digital body, has abandoned the idea.

The reason given is that the 'full-frame' CCD's are so expensive that any camera body using them would be $10,000+ at this time.

As with most dealer rumors, this should be taken with some grains of salt. However this is the same person who gave me advance notice of the 0-camera, 28 'cron, and .58 body - so I 'trust but verify' his info.

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), October 28, 2001.

Andy - unfortunately this week our Pentax rep confirmed the 'rumour' about the their digital SLR. A further rumour (fairly reliable - someone at Kyrocera) says that within the next week or so it will be announced that the N1 is delayed indefinitely. Sort of puts the kybosh on the rumours at this and other Leica sites that a digital M7 (full frame of course) is just around the corner.

-- Bob Todrick (bobtodrick@yahoo.com), October 28, 2001.

While I, too, suspect that a ground-up digital design approach is more likely, a digital back for the M6 would solve a huge problem for digital users. Digital technology moves so quickly that a ground-up digital camera is obsolete in 18 months or so. That means a considerable re-investment every time the technology bumps up a notch. Replacing or upgrading an M6 digital back would have considerable consumer appeal over replacing the whole camera.

-- Ralph Barker (rbarker@pacbell.net), October 29, 2001.

How 'bout digital film inserts?

I saw one the shutterbug from two months ago. It's an insert that looks like a roll of 35 mm film with an extended leader.

The premise is that you can just insert it as you would regular film.

It's still undergoing agency approvals (FCC) but it would suit M users...if it's physically compatible.

-- Will Woodford (woodford@sgi.com), October 30, 2001.

Rumors of that film insert thing have been bouncing around for years now. As far as I can tell, it's a piece of crap.

-- Josh Root (rootj@att.net), October 31, 2001.

Actually, the digital film insert (E-Film) had its financing pulled within the past couple of months - it's dead.

Main problem they couldn't overcome was venting the heat generated by the chip, so I've heard.

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), November 01, 2001.