Have you read this article?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/photo/galleries/essays/index.htm

-- Roger (roger@photo.net), March 13, 2002

Answers

jeez...if Leica ever makes MF cameras...i wonder how much the lenses would cost...Leica 35mm lens prices are already astronomical...how much more for the Leica MF which requires more glass?

-- Dexter Legaspi (dalegaspi@hotmail.com), March 13, 2002.

If Leica EVER makes a MF I must say I would really consider sell on entire Hassleblad outfit! Not that I have anything bad to say about Hassy, but I am much more stricken with my Leica.

-- schopke (schopke@attbi.com), March 13, 2002.

FWIW, this subject came up at a Photokina '00 LUG/Leica meet, as reported on the LUG by Jem Kime 10/2/00. Said Leica: - This is a myth developed after a misunderstanding by journalists after something that Herr Cohn (CEO Leica) said.

I have no idea whether this is the truth of the matter or whether it is Leica practicing damage control. At any rate, it is a public statement by Leica regarding Leica medium format production plans.

-- Paul Brodek (pcb@skyweb.net), March 13, 2002.

"Spurred in part by Swedish camera-maker Hasselblad's recent introduction of its XPan 35mm rangefinder/panorama camera - a move that threatens to cost Leica customers - the German firm is beginning to look seriously at trying to take market share away from its Swedish competitor by introducing its own high-end entry into the hot medium-format market. "

What in Gods name was the author of this smoking? The XPan threatens to cost Leica customers? The medium-format market is hot? The insustry acknowledges that ALL medium format is experiencing the worst sales ever.

Leica may be considering, even strongly considering entering the medium format market, that is its perogative.... but the story written about it is pure fluff.

-- Charles (cbarcellona@telocity.com), March 13, 2002.

Just how ancient is that article? Notice that it was about a conversation with the head of Leica before he presented someone with Leica #2,500,000. I took a look at one of the first M7s on eBay--the serial number is 2778729.

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), March 13, 2002.

I find it rather hard to believe. MF is a different animal altogether, and Leica has no experience whatsoever in that department. If it takes Leica 10 years to come up with a MF camera, it may be no use since digital may finally have won. FTM, Rollei/Hassy/Mamiya MF stuff may not even be around then. (Something like Canon FD is not around today). If Leica puts out a MF rangefinder *really soon* that is anything like the M6, it should be a winner. Unless they price it in the five-digits.

I ain't getting my hopes up just yet.

-- Vijay A. Nebhrajani (vijay_nebhrajani@yahoo.com), March 14, 2002.

Who ever said that Hasselblad and Mamiya MF may not be around due to Digital isn't keeping up. Switchable backs assures the long term viability of these systems, and the considerable investment in excellent glass. Now, if I had a Pentax 6X7 system, I'd be a little worried.

-- Marc Williams (mwilliams111313MI@comcast.com), March 14, 2002.

Marc, if you could get MF quality from digital, the next thing would be to minimize sensor area so that the chips can be made cheap. In other words, the 56mmx56mm image area is useful only for film and primitive digital sensors. The moment you have advanced sensors capable of packing the same number of pixels in a smaller area, MF equipment IS out. That interchangeable back capability will somehow save MF from obsoletion is just a dream that is being peddled by MF makers.

-- Vijay A. Nebhrajani (vijay_nebhrajani@yahoo.com), March 14, 2002.

Vigay, It seems to me to be a matter of math. Shrink down a higher meg count for use with 35mm lenses. Multiply that by 4X or so. Add a lens that can cover it = smoother tonal gradations, bigger enlargements. Medium format. Just like it's always been. Math is math.

--Marc

-- Marc Williams (mwilliams111313MI@comcast.com), March 14, 2002.

Sorry Vijay, I misspelled your name. I hate when people spell my name with a "k"---Marc

-- Marc Williams (mwilliams111313MI@comcast.com), March 14, 2002.

I agree with the math, Marc. It works fine as long as you have film. With film price increases linearly with area. This is not true with silicon; price grows exponentially with area. In other words, quadrupling the area of a sensor could increase its price a hundred fold.

The problem with silicon is yield, and at smaller feature sizes (dimensions of each element/pixel/gate/whatever) and larger areas, you have the most problems. In other words, theoretically the quality is 4x, but the sensor cost never comes down. This is because area remains constant (56x56) and more and more megapixels are being packed into it. So, an increase in the pixels offsets the "advance" in technology. The only way things get affordable is when you can make a smaller chip which packs more megapixels. Yield being higher, price comes down.

Ultimately, the day you can get MF quality with a 24x36 sensor, film will lose its point. At that point you can argue that the MF digital back provides higher quality, but if it costs 100x as much, there will be lesser demand which will lead to companies closing down those product lines or whatever.

I'm not saying that this will happen anytime soon - maybe 20 years later, but that it will happen is certain. LF is likely to live on for much longer. Approaching the amount of information on LF digitally is still a pipe dream for most silicon designers (me included).

So, getting back to the original point, if Leica is really interested in getting into the "hot" MF market, it needs to do it really soon. On the same note, Leica is already in the 35mm market, and that is shrinking too. In less than ten years, I predict that digital will have come to the point where you can get better than 35mm quality from a sensor that does not cost more than a few dollars to produce. At that point, the Digilux is not going to save Leica. So, Leica needs to do something about digital really soon. Something definitive.

-- Vijay A. Nebhrajani (vijay_nebhrajani@yahoo.com), March 14, 2002.

Vigay, This is a really interesting thread. It goes a the heart of the digital debate and its' relationship to future of Leica. From your "Silicon Designer" designation I take it you are a scientist . I am not. The question I have about the POV expressed above is: If digital capture packs more info into the same space ( as Canon seems to have done with the D60 whose CMOS chip is the same size as the D30, with 2x the D30s meg count), and as you say the cost is siginificantly reduced, which I believe will happen, ( just look at the nose dive in the price per meg of memory ), what's to prevent a 4x4 solution using the same technology? ( necessitating the need for the lens covering power of Medium Format lenses). It seems to be that way even now. Canon EOS 1-D: 4 meg at $5,000.; Kodak ProBack II, 16 meg at $20,000. Now, as to Leica's role in all this, my POV is that MF should be avoided in favor of a Joint Venture with a company that could help them develop a true Leica like capture using their wonderful optics. While I like all the bells and whistles of my digital "wallet drainers", I could live without them on a digital Leica. Maybe a preview window and that's it. Why go into MF when their 35mm lenses are already there.? All they need is a digital body with a M mount. Full 26 X 36 delivering 6 or 7 meg would do it for me. And that technology verses cost is already getting moving in the right direction. If it cost $5,000. so what? That's the price of just 2 of their fast lenses. Am I smoking the drapes here? --Marc

-- Marc Williams (mwilliams111313MI@comcast.com), March 15, 2002.

Vijay, Geeze how embarrasing. I hit the "g" instead of the "j" again. I better start proof reading my comments from now on. Sorry.

-- Marc Williams (mwilliams111313MI@comcast.com), March 15, 2002.

Marc: Well, I used the term "silicon designer" loosely - to indicate anyone who designs electronic integrated circuits. And I am no scientist either, I'm an engineer. I am not too familiar with the Kodak Proback - is it a scanning back? Because if it is, it does not fit in into the equations of a single chip sensor. And for a scanning back to cost the same (per megapixel) as a chip based sensor is quite ludicrous.

With single chip solutions, if you move to 4x4, you will need MF lenses which can generally cover a larger area (say 6x6). So you would be using lenses that are much more expensive than 35mm lenses to get a quality increase that is not proportionately greater. Any 35mm lens can cover a square of 3cmx3cm. 4x4 is about 1.77x better than 3x3; an 80mm standard lens for 6x6 that could cover 4x4 costs $1500 versus $200 (for a 50mm standard lens for 3x3 or 35mm), a 7.5x cost increase for a 1.77x quality increase. So, even if the sensor did not cost more (which it most certainly will - a 77% area increase should at least quadruple the sensor price), the limiting factor for the cost would be the lenses.

So either it is frighteningly expensive 6x6 (4x4 has no use other than an intermediate solution while 6x6 is not there yet) or sensibly priced 35mm. The situation is the same today, except that film technology applies identically across formats. In other words, any advance in 35mm film applies to MF as well. This is not true for silicon. Advances that can be made relatively inexpensively at 35mm sizes can be impossible or much more expensive for 6x6 sensors.

Besides, once digital at say 3x3 crosses the quality of film at 6x6, there is no point for MF film based cameras anymore, is there? And trust me, a 6x6 single chip sensor will bankrupt the camera companies, and us as customers before it becomes viable in price. IOW, MF is destined for a sudden death, while surprisingly, 35mm may stay on in different incarnations.

Which puts Leica in a precarious position anyway. If digital beats 35mm quality, and becomes inexpensive, Leica is dead. The digiluxes are not going to help Leica survive. If digital at 35mm beats MF quality, MF will also be dead, and if Leica is into MF at the time that happens, it will be a double whammy for Leica.

If Leica has to survive, it will have to consider being nothing but an independent lens supplier. Heck, even Zeiss is an independent lens supplier for movie cameras and for silicon manufacturing equipment. So, the really strong players will have the best sensors (sourced from elsewhere) and the best lenses (sourced from Leica).

OTOH, I agree with the converse - if Leica were to team up with say Foveon (pipe dream), and make a digital camera using Leica glass, it would be OK if it cost even $5000. Leica's strong point is its lenses, not its bodies, not even M. But if Leica continues at its glacial pace of doing things, God save Leica.

-- Vijay A. Nebhrajani (vijay_nebhrajani@yahoo.com), March 15, 2002.

Vijay, I'm not sure I made myself clear. My fault. The Kodak Proback produces an 8 bit, 48meg file or 16 bit, 96meg file as a single shot capture. MF lenses to cover this area cost me nothing ( as in $0.00 ) because I already own them. The back fits both my Hasselblad system directly, and my Mamiya RZ. The net result of the images produced are the equal to MF film. I just shot an Outdoor Billboard using models for a very skeptical Art Director... who now is a digital convert. I've now ordered Kodak's new, completely self contained ProBack for my Contax 645 system. Advances are sure to be made, but for me they can do little to make these images sharper or smoother. How many pores on a face do you need? Not the mass media, who in the end really pays for all of this. So Leica needs to take it's photographic philosophy straight into digital. Just a body please. I already have the lenses, so their free as far as I'm concerned. --Marc

-- Marc Williams (mwilliams111313MI@comcast.com), March 15, 2002.