Leica: Good News from PMA

[gyoung]

Originally Posted by flavio

Thinking Leica lovers may like to know:
snip
Of news is the release of the Leica Universal Viewfinder. It allows one to use all the wide lenses, including the wide tri-elmar, with parallax compensation and spirit level. Its a neat piece of engineering the further expands the M product capability.
snip

Whats this universal finder please? I can't find any mention on the Leica website.

Gerry

[visiondr]

Originally Posted by gyoung

Whats this universal finder please? I can't find any mention on the Leica website.

Gerry

Gerry,

Here's the item I think was referred to (from DP review)

[hamey]

Originally Posted by chrisweeks

i really wish i understood why leica continues with the R system.

nice lenses but the bodies are are, well, perhaps a bit outdated?

HAVE YOU CHECKED YOUR VISION LATELY.

If you want something outdated, buy an Leica M.

1950's Film loading system, hate to be in a hurry.
Focusing system has to be seen to be believed,
compared to my Leica R........ It's simply no contest.
I have both the M7 and R9 and the R9 simply outclasses the M buy a big margin.
Why did I buy one, (M7) I am still trying to find out.
Perhaps I wanted to look good and important with one around my neck.... LOL..
For most of my shots, 95% it's the Leica R that I will use.
And I am on the verge of adding the 100mm Macro APO ELMERIT 2.8 to my R Collection. ( have one on loan) AWASOME.

That statement from CNN about the M8, was perfectly spot on.

MY POINT OF VIEW.

Cheers.

ps.
So why do Leica continue with the R system, because deep in the hearts they know it's better.

[mgcd]

Chris - Mate I see you're still stirring the pot! Good to hear from you. On this one we'll have to disagree, however. The R8/9 is simply put, the very best SLR/DSLR out there for my purposes. The ergonomics can't be touched by anything put out by C or N, let alone M cameras. Frankly one of the reasons I use Leica because it's NOT autofocus. Just like with the Ms I use my Rs because "I" have complete control.

Cheers,

In case anyone missed it, Doug's statement was tongue firmly planted in cheek with more than a hint of sarcasm...

[leicabug]

With the introduction of M8, I think the M sytem has pulled itself ahead of The R system.

[mgcd]

Originally Posted by leicabug

With the introduction of M8, I think the M sytem has pulled itself ahead of The R system.

Don't hold your breath, it has not even caught up yet...

[rob_x2004]

Gee I dunno...theres as lot not right about the R9. I dont mean what it doesnt try to, like AF and stuff. I mean things that it does that are just wrong or lazy design solution. DMR might save it but I dont have one.

[mgcd]

Originally Posted by rob_x2004

Gee I dunno...theres as lot not right about the R9. I dont mean what it doesnt try to, like AF and stuff. I mean things that it does that are just wrong or lazy design solution. DMR might save it but I dont have one.

Well I never bothered with the R9, got three R8s. Cannot see anything wrong with them to be honest, certainly no design flaws for my purposes. DMR takes them to a much further realm that few are able to thread in (16 bits etc. for 35mm based systems).

Cheers,

[leicapages]

I don't think that what are in essence rebadged Panasonic compact digital cameras can stirr up the same emotion as with a "true" Leica camera. So, while all these digital compacts are, of course, nice they are basically needed to cater for all markets other than M and R. After the succesful M8 introduction, and the very encouraging news about increased sales of film based M cameras, it has become urgently time for Leica to make a clear statement regarding its R line, which is in decline sales-wise. Yes, I do want to see a digital R10 camera as soon as possible and, yes, it has to be full-frame to really compete with other manufacturer's high-end offerings. No, it does not have to have autofocus but, yes, it should please have focus confirmation.

[gyoung]

Originally Posted by visiondr

Gerry,

Here's the item I think was referred to (from DP review)

Thanks, what a pity they didn't extend it to 35mm, then it would have been ideal on my M3 with the newer 35mm lenses rather than the old Summicron with the specs.

Gerry

[ruiespanhol]

People,

Stop the war M and R please!!
I like R camera much more than M but I like M too because I´m one Leica lover.
It was not the system who counts both have great cameras ,both have good points and bad points but the more important bouth are LEICA!!
So if we like to see one Leica brand so much strong they nead to support both systems.

Best,

Rui

[telyt]

Originally Posted by leicapages

... digital R10 camera ... it should please have focus confirmation.

I'm curious. I'd like to know if those who wish for electronic focus confirmation have used a Leicaflex SL or SL2 in original condition with either the SL's standard microprism viewscreen or the SL2's microprism/split-image viewscreen. This has been bugging me because I can't imagine that an electronic system that can be used at only a select number of points on the viewscreen and quits at small apertures would be superior to a viewscreen that goes POP I'M IN FOCUS at every point of the viewscreen even at small apertures like f/9.5 (6.8 * 1.4).

[rsolomon]

Doug,
I want Focus confirmation, BUT have not used SL or SL2 in the field. i did try one in the store one time ...

so basically you saying the viewfiender on the SL and SL2 is better then the R9... ummm should things get better with time ? maybe the new digital R will be called SLD..and we'll be all set

rich

[telyt]

Originally Posted by rsolomon

so basically you saying the viewfinder on the SL and SL2 is better then the R9

Assuming the R9's viewfinder is like my R8's viewfinder, yes.

With the 280 f/4 APO, the 280 APO plus extender, the 90 'cron, the 60 Macro, the 100 APO, the 80-200 f/4, the old 180 f/3.4 APO and either of the f/6.8 Telyts with or without extenders, the SL is much easier to focus quickly and accurately. At full aperture with any of these lenses my focus "hit" rate with the SL is about 75% and the focus "hit" rate with the R8 is about 30% (likewise with the R4).

Fortunately with the DMR each exposure costs virtually nothing so I can make LOTS more exposures than with the SL and after deleting the ones where the focus is off I still end up with usable photos.

[rnocke]

Originally Posted by hamey

So why do Leica continue with the R system, because deep in the hearts they know it's better.

Ken, just great, this is it!

[fotografz]

Originally Posted by telyt

I'm curious. I'd like to know if those who wish for electronic focus confirmation have used a Leicaflex SL or SL2 in original condition with either the SL's standard microprism viewscreen or the SL2's microprism/split-image viewscreen. This has been bugging me because I can't imagine that an electronic system that can be used at only a select number of points on the viewscreen and quits at small apertures would be superior to a viewscreen that goes POP I'M IN FOCUS at every point of the viewscreen even at small apertures like f/9.5 (6.8 * 1.4).

Doug, I think your application, while producing excellent results, is in the minority.

In contrast, I use very fast lenses, in low light, often with wide angles that don't offer that subject separation of your long glass, and even the SL2 I once used was difficult to focus. Leica R wides offer that same excellence you love in your long lenses, and outperform anything Canon offers for example, but my hit ratio with the Canon AF lenses is about 90% compared to less than 40% with the DMR. At a wedding, that's a BIG difference.

I have used the Contax RX with focus confirmation, and found it a blessing in the conditions I face. I also have used a few select R lenses mounted on a Canon 5D with an adapter that provides focus confirmation, and it really does help.

If the next R digital camera does not offer focus confirmation, I may well take a pass on the whole R system and sell off my lenses ... which would make me sad, but life goes on and there are other priorities.

[telyt]

Originally Posted by fotografz

I use very fast lenses, in low light, often with wide angles that don't offer that subject separation of your long glass, and even the SL2 I once used was difficult to focus.

Marc, I'm not surprised at your 40% focus hit rate with the DMR (you're doing better than I am). Were you using the microprism or the split-image focussing aid of the SL2? I found it too difficult to use the split-image focussing aid on moving subjects, and with the split-image focussing aid on the screen the coarse microprism area was to small to use. I've had the split-image screens in my SL2 bodies replaced with the all-microprism screen of the SL and once I found the correct eyepiece diopter the SL2 has been as easy to focus as the SL is, even with my 35mm Elmarit-R in ordinary household lighting. Electronic focus confirmation as I've seen it implemented degrades the viewfinder quality enough that the focus confirmation becomes a nessesity. This would limit my compositional options unacceptably just as AF does now.

[Jamie Roberts]

FWIW, my hit rate on the DMR went up when I got a non-split screen microprism screen (I used the one from Brightscreen).

It's way better than stock (and stock is good, but not in the conditions Marc mentions).

And, too, my eyes are getting older; I needed to know the right diopter correction too. Sigh. Once I did that, the hit rate was much improved.

[leicar7]

How much of the R8/9 focussing is a function of the low mag factor, 0.75x, compared to the SL/SL2 with 0.86? My guess would be that it is measurable, maybe even significant. So one tradeoff would be to penalize eyeglass wearers with being able to see less of the frame edges in return for better focussing probabilities. The first time I looked through an R8, I was stunned at the apparent smallness of the image, even from the R4-7, which has 0.80x.

However, either way, a resurrection of the viewfinder engineering of the SL/SL2 would be welcome. Does anyone know if there is an engineering imperative that the quality of the viewfinder image deteriorate with electronic focussing aids? My uninformed guess would be that there is no such imperative and that N, C, and the others are simply going cheap, because FV/AF allows them to get away with it most of the time.

I am in favor of FV, but would not like to see obvious reductions in viewing quality.

It seems to me that Leica could kill the market (I don't mean making significant inroads on the numbers enjoyed by N and C) by
1. Resurrecting the engineering and overall focussing capabilities of the SL/SL2 viewing system.
2. Giving us FV, too.
3. Making their FV measurably more accurate then anyone else's FV or AV.

[telewatt]

I use both, the SL2 mot and the R8/9 and the focussing with the SL2 is easier....

..in the R8/9 I changed the sceens...

regards,
Jan