Leica future DSLR

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have a strong suspicion that it is not that simple. The resulting R10 would have the same relationship to the R9 as the M9 has to the M7. Only the mirror box and maybe the shutter would be shared.

[adan]

I don't think Leica will ever again build a camera based on the R lens-to-body interface (cams/feelers for transmitting aperture info, and mated levers for stopping the lens down).

 

It is a fiddly, expensive mid-20th-century way to build a lens interface, that has been abandoned in favor of purely electrical contacts by Canon (since 1988), Minolta/Sony, and in the Leica S2, and is likely going to fade away in the Nikon line at least for entry-level SLRs within a couple of years.

 

Therefore, while Leica almost certainly will eventually build a camera on which existing R lenses can be mounted, the "R System" - which includes the interface used since the Leicaflex - is dead. The new camera will not be substantially different from using R lenses on a Canon body or a Digilux 3 or a m4/3rds body - stopped-down metering and focusing.

 

This will be true regardless of whether the new camera is a mini-S2, or an "interchangeable-lens X1" or an EVIL.

 

It may- may - make use of ROM contacts on any R lens that has them, for info (but not aperture actuation) - if using the legacy ROM system is compatable with whatever new interface is used for a new lens line.

[GreyCoupe]

I gave up!

 

I hope several of you are right, and that Leica does make a new digital SLR. I hope they understand that if they do, and the new body is not made to be compatible with R lenses there will be angry villageRs at their lobby the morning after the announcement of the new camera, torches in hand.

 

But I gave up. Panasonic G1+adapter and I am back in the R lens photo making bidness. A basket full of Leica glass back in the game! 19/24/50/100APO/280APO/400/560+35-70 and 80-200, along with various and sundry filters and the like. Compromise, you bet! Less than FF, by a long shot? Not what I'd hoped for, to say the least, Leica, you left all the R users up the cReek without a body.

 

At least they will no longer be in a box in the dark recesses of my closet!

[lct]

...The new camera will not be substantially different from using R lenses on a Canon body or a Digilux 3 or a m4/3rds body - stopped-down metering and focusing...

Sure but there is a substantial difference between an optical VF a la Canon and an EVF a la Panasonic in that the latter does not darken like the former when stopping down. Opens new perspective for R users IMHO.

[adan]

Quite true for framing - I think trying to focus on an EVIL screen at f/11 will be very tricky (or at least very slow). My GH-1 definitely is bright, but difficult to focus precisely without pausing to use the electronic focus magnifier, even with a 75 f/2 lens, let alone a 35 @ f/8.

 

Ever since the focus-aid in the Digilux 2, I have wondered if it would be possible to simulate a split-image circle in EVFs. Sort of a picture-in-picture with the two halves offset based on the sensor contrast to act as a virtual split-image focus confirmation.

[mjh]

Ever since the focus-aid in the Digilux 2, I have wondered if it would be possible to simulate a split-image circle in EVFs. Sort of a picture-in-picture with the two halves offset based on the sensor contrast to act as a virtual split-image focus confirmation.

The simulation part would be easy; the tough part is to provide the measurements to drive the simulation.

 

A single contrast measurement doesn’t tell whether the image is in focus. It doesn’t even tell you in what direction or how far off the focus is to be found if it is not. Two contrast measurements could tell you in which direction optimum focus might be found, but it might also lead you up a garden-path when the higher contrast measurement just represents a local maximum. So you would need lots of measurements to decide how far off you are from the point of perfect focus, and you would need to repeat these measurements over and over again whenever something changes.

[AlanG]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Quite true for framing - I think trying to focus on an EVIL screen at f/11 will be very tricky (or at least very slow). My GH-1 definitely is bright, but difficult to focus precisely without pausing to use the electronic focus magnifier, even with a 75 f/2 lens, let alone a 35 @ f/8.

 

 

It all depends on how bright the scene is. In any case, working stopped down is for compatibility purposes for legacy lenses and may not always be optimal.

 

If the idea is to use R lenses on an EVIL body, Leica could make an adapter that includes a solenoid, controlled by the body, to work the aperture.

 

M lenses, will need a big motor and gearing system that attaches to the outside to spin the aperture real quickly. AF could work the same way.

[adan]

Alan - I'm thinking more of the increase in depth of field that one has to focus "through" rather than brightness, at least with a compensating EVIL. The whole point of depth of field is that it is the range where everything looks sharp - and if everything looks sharp due to a small aperture (or short focal length, or both) there is no way to tell where one is actually focused - regardless of how bright the scene is.

 

Unfortunately, what looks sharp in a viewfinder is not necessarily what looks sharp in a 10 x 15" print.

 

Anyway - yes, I have thought about how one could produce an adapter that adapts stop-down lever movement, as well as the basic mount, from one camera interface to another. Bellcranks and such. After all, every teleconvertor ever made usually transmits the stop-down lever movement from camera to lens. A solenoid would work if one designed for it from scratch (as with the hypothetical new Leica body).

 

Tthe original Canon F-1 of the 70's had an "Servo EE" prism with a long arm that reached down the side of the camera and in through a slot in the side of the mirror box to automatically set aperture based on the meter.

 

Canon F1 - Servo EE Finder Index Page

 

Nikon followed up with its own servo: DS-2 EE Aperture Control Attachment F2SB

 

 

BTW - if one is a fan of EVIL (electronic viewfinder, interchangeable lens) - here is an early Canon attempt I stumbled across in researching the previous info: http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/canonf1/html/motordrive/tv.htm

[AlanG]

Alan - I'm thinking more of the increase in depth of field that one has to focus "through" rather than brightness, at least with a compensating EVIL.

 

Yes. The same with short lenses wide open.

 

Current high res cameras require very critical focusing to get the most out of them. I even use magnified live view to focus my 17mm TSE. Without magnification, everything looks pretty sharp even through the optical viewfinder. AF focus confirm works too. In the old days, getting the focus "almost right" would have been good enough as depth of field would have covered it for the way we typically viewed out images. But for very critical work, I'll study the image on the computer and make sure I have my focus point and depth of field exactly how I want it.

 

I guess what I'm saying is that we magnify our images on our computers much more now and the old ways of focusing don't always cut it. That's why I love using magnified live view when I can. (I'll even use it to check focus on people if they are not moving much, and then go back to using the optical finder for more rapid shooting.)

 

No knock on the Ms and some AF systems, but I feel that critical focus can only be 100% guaranteed via live view or tethered shooting.

[redbaron]

No knock on the Ms and some AF systems, but I feel that critical focus can only be 100% guaranteed via live view or tethered shooting.

 

Bugger! Now I have to carry a computer or get a camera with live view, or can I get live view on my MP?

[wildlightphoto]

No knock on the Ms and some AF systems, but I feel that critical focus can only be 100% guaranteed via live view or tethered shooting.

 

Apparently you haven't used a Leicaflex SL.

[AlanG]

Apparently you haven't used a Leicaflex SL.

 

Please give up on using this flippant mantra. You love challenging things, especially out of context, but this doesn't add to the discussion. I was commenting on the difficulty of judging focus when there is a lot of depth of field and/or the image on the screen was dark. Magnified live view and tethered shooting are solutions for this. An SL is not.

 

And I'm not going to get into this same old tired arguments again. Technology has moved on and gives us tools way beyond a relatively unmagnified view of a groundglass and manual focusing. I believe you generally shoot with longish and long lenses mostly wide open. That is much easier to judge and I don't have any problem doing that either. If you had static subjects, you'd have the option to take the time to work a different way. But for your subjects, you've found an approach that works for you and perhaps you don't feel you have a reason to try something else. At some point, live view may also be quicker to use for your subjects.

 

I owned an SL and many other SLRs. There is no way I can use an SL and stop down a wide angle lens and see precisely where the focus I want starts and stops... so that it will end up exactly the way I want it on a 20x30 inch print. Maybe get it close, maybe most of the time, but not get it exactly right nearly 100% of the time. And in low light, I might not see much of anything once I stop down on any SLR.

 

If you think you can eyeball the focus and still achieve the accuracy of focus that I feel I need in order to produce the images to my standards, then you have far better vision than I have and you can stick to the SL. But it wouldn't work for me and Leica isn't going back to that anyway so users will have to see if what they do produce will work for them.

[lct]

...At some point, live view may also be quicker to use for your subjects...

Could you elaborate on this point?

[stunsworth]

I was commenting on the difficulty of judging focus when there is a lot of depth of field and/or the image on the screen was dark.

 

So are we now at the stage where live view is capable of matching the smoothness and resolution of an SLR - when moving the camera around for example, or is that still "Just around the corner" as it was a couple of years ago?

[bill]

No knock on the Ms and some AF systems, but I feel that critical focus can only be 100% guaranteed via live view or tethered shooting.

 

Ah. Y'know, I was actually starting to see some sense in your arguments up to that point...

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[wildlightphoto]

Please give up on using this flippant mantra. You love challenging things, especially out of context, but this doesn't add to the discussion. I was commenting on the difficulty of judging focus when there is a lot of depth of field and/or the image on the screen was dark. Magnified live view and tethered shooting are solutions for this. An SL is not.

 

And I'm not going to get into this same old tired arguments again. Technology has moved on and gives us tools way beyond a relatively unmagnified view of a groundglass and manual focusing. I believe you generally shoot with longish and long lenses mostly wide open. That is much easier to judge and I don't have any problem doing that either. If you had static subjects, you'd have the option to take the time to work a different way. But for your subjects, you've found an approach that works for you and perhaps you don't feel you have a reason to try something else. At some point, live view may also be quicker to use for your subjects.

 

I owned an SL and many other SLRs. There is no way I can use an SL and stop down a wide angle lens and see precisely where the focus I want starts and stops... so that it will end up exactly the way I want it on a 20x30 inch print. Maybe get it close, maybe most of the time, but not get it exactly right nearly 100% of the time. And in low light, I might not see much of anything once I stop down on any SLR.

 

If you think you can eyeball the focus and still achieve the accuracy of focus that I feel I need in order to produce the images to my standards, then you have far better vision than I have and you can stick to the SL. But it wouldn't work for me and Leica isn't going back to that anyway so users will have to see if what they do produce will work for them.

 

Alan you've thrown a lot of garbage into this one post including several unfounded assumptions about how I feel or think or believe and what my standards are. How about you unload your frustrations elsewhere and come back here when you can be rational?

[Paolo.Battista]

Please give up on using this flippant mantra. You love challenging things, especially out of context, but this doesn't add to the discussion. I was commenting on the difficulty of judging focus when there is a lot of depth of field and/or the image on the screen was dark. Magnified live view and tethered shooting are solutions for this. An SL is not.

 

And I'm not going to get into this same old tired arguments again. Technology has moved on and gives us tools way beyond a relatively unmagnified view of a groundglass and manual focusing. I believe you generally shoot with longish and long lenses mostly wide open. That is much easier to judge and I don't have any problem doing that either. If you had static subjects, you'd have the option to take the time to work a different way. But for your subjects, you've found an approach that works for you and perhaps you don't feel you have a reason to try something else. At some point, live view may also be quicker to use for your subjects.

 

I owned an SL and many other SLRs. There is no way I can use an SL and stop down a wide angle lens and see precisely where the focus I want starts and stops... so that it will end up exactly the way I want it on a 20x30 inch print. Maybe get it close, maybe most of the time, but not get it exactly right nearly 100% of the time. And in low light, I might not see much of anything once I stop down on any SLR.

 

If you think you can eyeball the focus and still achieve the accuracy of focus that I feel I need in order to produce the images to my standards, then you have far better vision than I have and you can stick to the SL. But it wouldn't work for me and Leica isn't going back to that anyway so users will have to see if what they do produce will work for them.

 

I never owned an SL, but I think that Doug was saying that, with the right discipline, with the focusing system of the SL you can be pretty sure that yout subject is focused correctly. And, I beg you pardon if I'm saying this, I think that your answer is a little harsh for a talk on a forum.

 

Anyway, I'm using my R-lenses with Nikon and Olympus bodies.

Focusing the image correctly is not so simple on the stardard DSLRs' screens, especially with shorter focal lengths....well, I know that you can do zone focusing with those lenses, but for shorter distances you must be really confident in the exactness of the focus scale printed on your lens...

So effectively I use liveview whenever possible (macro and landscape work mainly) to be quite sure of the focus accuracy. With the Olympus bodies it works quite well if you have time and a static subject.

But when the instant in which you shoot is essential, maybe today the liveview system is not the ideal one. Maybe a good old SL body lets you get a better combination of "focus accuracy/time to take the picture" pair. Maybe an evolution of the manual focusing mode of the Digilux 2, combined with next generation's EVFs, could be a future answer to this problem.

 

My best regards.

 

Paolo

[AlanG]

I'll leave you guys to argue amongst yourseves. If you can't follow what I said, that isn't something I'm going to try to change. Obviously people can get sharp photos with all kinds of focusing systems. But there certainly is no other system that can give us the precise feedback one can get with magnified live view or tethered shooting - where you can zoom in and examine the finest details in an image and study them.

 

At some point live view will have the ability to very precisely lock on to a subject and follow it even if it is moving fast. Should Leica ever make an EVIL system, each one of us will have to decide if its capabilities meet our needs. Maybe you'll like it and maybe you'll want to pick up an old SL. I really don't care what you do.

[bill]

...I really don't care what you do.

 

I think that's a key point, Alan, and thank you for making it. There are far too many around here who blur debate with a dose of intolerance. What gets my goat is those who demand change because they want it and who cannot or will not accept the validity of any viewpoint other than their own. It is no more valid than the argument that Leica should still be making Barnacks with 5cm Elmars. It leads to frustrations on all sides and the sort of sniping that devalues any reasonable point that might otherwise be made.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[sdai]

Leica really should just do one thing well, that is to stay close to their root and build a genuine M.

 

If you want to use a M or R, perhaps S lens (in the future) on a live view camera, they are many ways doing it already. Why should they waste time and money reinventing the wheel?

 

DSLR is not Leica's game IMHO ...