Leica R10: Any ideas?

[Riley]

Originally Posted by Bob Ross

My E-3 manual says." Field of View: Approx 100% (for field of view on recorded images) and for viewfinder magnification: Approx. 1.15x (-1 m^-1, 50mm lens, infinity)"
Bob

yes thats a clearer way of describing it, Ive been quoting some specs without thinking
better to say 100% finder and 1.15x magnification

[tgray]

Originally Posted by thrid

It probably could have been made smaller, but Canon probably made it almost identical to the1-v in an attempt lure away the last die hards still using that camera.

Thats funny. I use a 1V and would like a 5D (just to have a nice full frame camera), but it's definitely not like the 1V. I really like the 1V's focus pattern, button setup, etc. The 5D is more along the lines of the 40D/Elan 7 line than the 1V/1D line with respect to the non-digital part of the camera. Though it is roughly the same size as a 1V w/o power booster.

I don't know why Canon won't make a full frame digital with 1 series features, but without the 1D series size.

[thrid]

Originally Posted by tgray

Thats funny. I use a 1V and would like a 5D (just to have a nice full frame camera), but it's definitely not like the 1V. I really like the 1V's focus pattern, button setup, etc. The 5D is more along the lines of the 40D/Elan 7 line than the 1V/1D line with respect to the non-digital part of the camera. Though it is roughly the same size as a 1V w/o power booster.

I don't know why Canon won't make a full frame digital with 1 series features, but without the 1D series size.

I meant in terms of size (without the battery packs). AF etc is very different. I owned both cameras for a period, but ended up selling the 5D. Still got the 1-v, which is a phenomenal camera.

Supposedly the 5D mkII will be more like the 1D series, by adding features like weather sealing etc. I just hope Canon doesn't give us all the shaft and do this half heartedly, because there is a real need for a 1-v sized pro camera.

Apparently Nikon also has a compact full frame model on the drawing board to compete with the 5D. I hope this comes true, because in addition to AF lenses you could also use manual focus Nikkors and the new Zeiss glass. I would buy one in a heartbeat.

[tgray]

Originally Posted by thrid

I meant in terms of size (without the battery packs). AF etc is very different. I owned both cameras for a period, but ended up selling the 5D. Still got the 1-v, which is a phenomenal camera.

Ahh, I see. I would be ecstatic with a full frame 8-10 mpix camera in the 1V form factor, with weather sealing, 1D auto focus + viewfinder, and 1D button lay out (no mode dial). Give me 3 fps and incredible low light capability and I'd be a happy man.

[thrid]

Originally Posted by tgray

Ahh, I see. I would be ecstatic with a full frame 8-10 mpix camera in the 1V form factor, with weather sealing, 1D auto focus + viewfinder, and 1D button lay out (no mode dial). Give me 3 fps and incredible low light capability and I'd be a happy man.

Sing it, brother! Sing it!

I'm hopping that is what the smaller full frame Nikon will be.

I would like the R10, if it has a similar spec, but it will probably end up costing a lot, lot more.

[R10dreamer]

8-10 megp is not near enough. Not even close if Leica wants to stay in the digital business.

[ptomsu]

18-20MP will be the starting point for this "project"

[Triple7]

Hi all!

My first contribution to R10 theme...

I will buy one R10 if:

i) it will be capable of making high quality prints of at least 40cmx60cm printed @300dpi. this means that shouldn't have less than 30Mp.
ii) Have a good viewfinder, like the other R's
iii) It will be compatible with our actual R lenses.
iv) It will be Full Frame
v) It will have Image Stabilization in the body, like the one on the E-3 or better.
vi) It will have lineview.

With the specs above I will buy a R10 otherwise I still prefer my velvias scanned @6400dpi that gives me around 55MP or my EOS 1ds MarkIII with the R lenses... or for playing a bit and make small prints till 20cmx30cm... my new E-3...

Best wishes to all
EM

[ptomsu]

Originally Posted by Triple7

. or for playing a bit and make small prints till 20cmx30cm... my new E-3...
EM

You are seriously limiting yourself and the possibilities of the E-3.

Have seen prints in 50x70cm and even larger in superb quality :-))

[andybarton]

Originally Posted by Triple7

i) it will be capable of making high quality prints of at least 40cmx60cm printed @300dpi. this means that shouldn't have less than 30Mp.

I regularly have my DMR shots printed at 20 x 30 inches (that's 50 x 75 cm) and they look terrific.

[dfarkas]

Originally Posted by andybarton

I regularly have my DMR shots printed at 20 x 30 inches (that's 50 x 75 cm) and they look terrific.

Me too. All the sample prints in our store are 20" x 30" (with no uprezing, PS actions, plug-ins, etc.). The 10MP DMR and M8 shots look just as good as the 22MP Mamiya 645ZD ones at this size.

Also, Nikon is doing very well with the 12MP D3. So, MP isn't everything.

That said, I wouldn't mind maybe 18-22 MP from the R10....30 might be pushing the limits of 35mm CCD tech. Photokina is only 9 monhts away!

David

[ptomsu]

I think 18 - 22 MP is what we cn expect, maybe slightly more if the sensor is really becoming bigger.

I share the opinion that already 10-12 MP are more than enough for 50x70cm. Most of us will not need more, rather less :-))

[Triple7]

Don't want to be pretentious... but pictures "looking terrific" or with "superb quality" is rather subjective...

It depends of how do you look to the photos. For myself, I'm that type of person who likes to see a picture 30cm just in front of my nose and doesn't want to see any pixel in front of me. I hate pixels! I love to see every little detail

I already tested lot's of cameras... printed in some laboratories @ different resolutions... and from my experience less than 300dpi printings it's not acceptable for me... although @400dpi was the best I could find here in Portugal but it's rare, difficult and expensive... and the difference of quality to 300dpi exists but it's not so notorious....

(Lot's of people I showed pictures printed @200dpi told were terrific and superb.... That's an example of subjectivity... For me was rubbish... some seemed out of focus...)

But, let's assume the 300dpi.

For a picture of 40cmx60cm we should have:
40cm x 300dpi x 60cm x 300dpi / (2,54cm x 2,54cm x 1.000.000) = 33,5MP.

Let's say 33,5MP is the number of pixels I need to have superb picture of 40cm x 60cm! (without any resampling!)
For the moment I only get this result with a Phase One P30+ or P45+.

Assuming a 4/3 ratio and for prints @300dpi we should have:

For 18MP: 31cm x 300dpi x 41cm x 300dpi / (2,54cm x 2,54cm x 1.000.000) = 17,9MP

and

For 22MP: 35cm x 300dpi x 47cm x 300dpi / (2,54cm x 2,54cm x 1.000.000) = 22,8MP


This is just my opinion about the new digital R10.
Since the new R10 will not be cheap (like any other Leica is...) if it comes only with 18 or 22MP, I will wait for the R11 or R12 ... for the quality and detail I need my Film Leicas and scanned velvias and my EOS 1dsMIII are for the moment still the best!

But I'll wait to see our so desired R10...

Best wishes to all and happy new year!
EM

[sdai]

If you take the viewing distance into consideration, you probably don't need 300 dpi when you print at 40x60cm.

Print resolution has nothing to do with image resolution. The print resolution tells you how many dots per inch the printer delivers onto the paper to reproduce the digital image. The optimal print resolution depends on the media you use and the the detail and gradation of your image.

[lct]

135 is not MF folks and a digi Leica is not a digi Hasselblad or do you want to pay the price of the latter?

[andybarton]

Originally Posted by Triple7

Don't want to be pretentious... but pictures "looking terrific" or with "superb quality" is rather subjective...

And wishing to look at a print at 300dpi right in front of your nose isn't a bit obtuse?

It's a pity that you can't see some of mine, so that you can rubbish them in person.

[Triple7]

Originally Posted by sdai

If you take the viewing distance into consideration, you probably don't need 300 dpi when you print at 40x60cm...

If you view at 30cm to 40cm distance really makes the difference... I can see a lot of difference...

Originally Posted by sdai

Print resolution has nothing to do with image resolution. The print resolution tells you how many dots per inch the printer delivers onto the paper to reproduce the digital image. The optimal print resolution depends on the media you use and the the detail and gradation of your image.

Of course it has to do... experience tells... to get the best sharpness in the the maximum format (printed picture) you can make... the number of printed dots should correspond to the same number of image pixels...

Originally Posted by lct

135 is not MF folks and a digi Leica is not a digi Hasselblad or do you want to pay the price of the latter?

Leica is not the price of "135"...

Any ideas of how much €€€ will be R10?

Cheers

[dfarkas]

There are other factors in print quality....

We print 20x30's using a Durst Theta 51, which uses a 400ppi laser imager. The prints from our machine look way better and sharper vs. ones from the Durst Theta 76 (formerly Epsilon 30), which uses a 254ppi LED imager. There is a HUGE difference in print quality, which is why we spent more than $100K more for the Theta. Other printers like the ZBE Chromira also use LED. To reiterate the point made above, output resolution and native image resolution are not to be confused. You do not need to upres to 20x30 @ 400ppi. This is just a waste of time, bandwidth and hard drive space.

And, no, good quality lab prints at this size don't have to cost a fortune. We charge $20 for an individually color corrected (and 8x10 test printed) 20x30 on Kodak Endura paper.

Being in the pro lab business and the camera retail business affords us a certain amount of experience in judging final print quality. I see big prints from almost every camera we sell (Nikon, Canon, Leica, Mamiya). I do inspect prints at nose length as well as standard viewing distance. I get a good laugh when I look back at old Photoshop books (you remember the 90's...). They show that with a 6MP image, you can only make a good quality 8x10 and no larger because 8x10 is 300dpi. These books also encouraged applying a strong USM to every image before printing, which is also unecessary.

Another thing to keep in mind is that Leica is the only company in the 35mm digital arena not using an AA filter. This is a huge advantage. The 10MP DMR/M8 sensors are capable of outresolving the 12.8MP 5D and equals the 1DsII at 16.7. Simple MP to MP comparisons don't apply. Don't take my word for it either. Just ask ex-1DsII owners who switched to DMRs. So, if we can imagine an R10 with no AA and ~20MP, this will blow away anything in the 35mm category (and give MF a run for the money). Combine this with excecllent Leica glass and it becomes the one to beat for IQ.

Enough soap box wisdom. I trust Leica to do their thing with the R10.

David

[tummydoc]

Originally Posted by dfarkas

I trust Leica to do their thing with the R10.

David

So do I, unfortunately

Everything you say rings true David, but there are other issues at play. One is that not everyone defines "great photography" as exhibiting the highest technical IQ. Another is that not everyone defines a "great photographer" as the one whose camera is "the one to beat for IQ". I'm sure that ex-1DsII owners who switched to DMRs would make convincing arguments but I wonder exactly how many there are, compared to total sales of the 1DsII, and that will be Leica's major hurdle.

If anything, the notoriety Leica achieved as a result of issues plaguing M8 will serve to dissuade owners of other high-end DSLRs from switching. Leica is still in the same position they've been for many years, in that they can only truly count on brand-loyalists to step up. And the R-series has far less of them than the M-series. Furthermore, the R loyalists are a polarised lot, with part desirous of autofocus and image stabilisation and other 20th-century features, whilst the other part soundly denounces them. Leica is in a position of damned if they do and damned if they don't vis a vis the R10. It will be very interesting to see what they offer, and how successful it is.

[thrid]

A 135 size sensor putting out 35MP would have some pretty small receptors, which could mean more noise and worse dynamic range.

Leica would be much better off producing something in the range of 16-22MP with no AA filter or a very weak one. The 5D has a pretty strong AA filter. If you compare it's 12.7MP files to those coming out of the M8 at 10MP, you will see that pixel for pixel the Leica files are much crisper, have better micro contrast and produce better results when scaled up. Megapixel count alone is a poor yardstick to measure image quality.