New EVIL Body for R lenses?

[Riley]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

yes theyve been quite consistent in disconnecting with anything 4/3rds or mFT

[lieberdavid]

Thanks, Doug.

 

Cheers!

David

[zapp]

Funny discussion.

All you need is a camera to mount R glass in some way. A full frame M camera with live view is all you would need. A distance adapter would allow R glass on the M camera and focussing can be done on- screen. The same camera would also allow mounting M glass without a distance adapter. What Leica needs is a faster sensor for live view and put it in an M body. No new camera system, but new perspectives for M cameras as well as R glass.

[andybarton]

The "Live View on an M" discussion has taken place lots of times here.

 

IMO, what you describe is, in no way, an acceptable solution for R users. How would you use it for longer lenses, hand-held, for example? How would you use it in bright sunlight - with a black cloth over your head?

 

To my mind, the only acceptable solution will be a proper optical viewfinder with a full frame sensor of at least 18 mpx with 16 bit files.

[mhoersch]

To my mind, the only acceptable solution will be a proper optical viewfinder with a full frame sensor of at least 18 mpx with 16 bit files.

 

That sums it up nicely!

[lct]

...To my mind, the only acceptable solution will be a proper optical viewfinder...

We'll have one when pigs can fly i'm afraid. TV cameras' EVFs are not bad i've been told so i'm open to check this out on an EVIL platform if any. W/o enthusiasm needless to say.

[rob_x2004]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Again, the EVF on the sub 500 buck pana FZ is brilliant.

[wildlightphoto]

All you need is a camera to mount R glass in some way.

 

IMHO, an 'adequate solution' would need to be at least as responsive as the R8/DMR. Live View - looking at the LCD on the camera's back - as a solution isn't adequate.

[jankap]

Funny discussion.

A full frame M camera with live view is all you would need. A distance adapter would allow R glass on the M camera and focussing can be done on- screen. The same camera would also allow mounting M glass without a distance adapter. What Leica needs is a faster sensor for live view and put it in an M body. No new camera system, but new perspectives for M cameras as well as R glass.

Quite right. But this should be taken as one idea in this brainstorming.

The LCD screen together with a kind of a Hoodman lens would solve the parallax problem and the different lenses. But an automatic diaphragm should be possible. A faster sensor for this?

But the form of the M-digital could be thought over too. The room at the left side for fresh film and the one at the right side for the exposed film are not necessary any more.

Would a form like a monocular or a video camera be thinkable?

Jan

[adan]

Jan: well, there was the Rollei 3003: Rollei: Rolleiflex 3003 Camera Price Guide: estimate your camera value

 

Designed along video-camera lines (for 35mm film) right down to the padded side strap. Sold 2800 - half as many as Leica's DMR - not a resounding success.

 

Leica is perfectly happy to build a traditional mirror/ground-glass SLR. They charge $24,000 for it and call it the S2. Even if one figures the oversize sensor adds $10,000 all by itself, that still means a "35mm" version would be $14,000. And that's with simple electrical contacts for aperture signalling and activation, an approach not compatable with R lenses (unless one accepts it would be equivalent to just putting R lenses on a Canon - stopped-down focusing and metering).

 

Even if one takes Stephan Daniels' own - lower - estimate of what a digital R would have cost ($7,000, from that same June 2009 meeting where "No R10" was announced), there are two curves involved in figuring whether a given R solution is viable.

 

One is: how much must we charge per camera to make a profit at different levels of production? The other is, how many sales can we actually expect at a given price?

 

If those two curves never meet - i.e. if a profitable price is too high to generate significant sales, and any price that will deliver sales will mean a loss on every camera, then there is not a real market for the camera.

 

This is the "Leicaflex SL2 - 35-70 f/2.8 - 35mm Summilux Aspherical" dilemma. Those technically excellent products failed because Leica could find no price at which the sales would cover the costs.

 

A rhetorical question (but feel free to answer anyway): "Does Leica owe R-system users a digital solution even if they cannot make money producing it?"

[andybarton]

"Does Leica owe R-system users a digital solution even if they cannot make money producing it?"

 

Of course not. They are a business, not a charity. Leica owe R users nothing. R cameras haven't suddenly stopped working and will continue to work as designed for many years to come.

[Riley]

Ive been wondering for some time, what would have been wrong with a redesigned, redeployed DMR produced by a third party manufacturer. Just as some auto manufacturers are basically design houses and their manufacturing business is conducted elsewhere.

 

Sure it wouldnt be FF, but it does seem to me it would be a popular answer if it took care of some of the concerns with the original DMR, yet introduced a new sensor and electronics while taking advantage of cheaper construction costs.

[andybarton]

Lack of demand?

 

If R users didn't all rush out and demand 10s of thousands of DMRs, where is the demand for a third party solution going to come from?

[jankap]

Of course not. They are a business, not a charity. Leica owe R users nothing. R cameras haven't suddenly stopped working and will continue to work as designed for many years to come.

Exactly. Apple cut overnight the SCSI-interface for the lower lines. Expensive scanners, monitors, printers had no future anymore. Similar the firewire concept.

A company must gain profit, otherwise all is lost. By the way, do you all have Leica shares already?

Jan

[chris_tribble]

Has anyone else said this? Why not an M format camera with a CMOS sensor. That way you can use the rangefinder for the M series of lenses + you can have live-view + an R adaptor + clip on EVF that you would have to use with the non M lenses (+ maybe with 90/135 for ease of precise focus). Wouldn't that do the business for all concerned? A conventional high performance full frame RF in the M tradition + for when you needed one an EVIL to use with long R glass (or why not long anyone's glass with the right adaptor)?

 

Apologies if this duplicates someone elses contribution, but it just crossed my mind...

 

I'd be tempted...

[lct]

How fast can one focus with an EVIL at f/2.8?

Same question at f/11.

w/o auto diaphragm i mean.

Just curious.

[Riley]

apart from being more accurate, due to magnification

why would an EVF be different?

 

I think this is the problem, most people dont know

[lct]

Slow? Noisy? Can auto brightening do miracles like fast focusing at f/11?

[rsh]

Even though I currently own two R9/DMRs, I am anxious to see what Leica introduces.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Riley]

Slow? Noisy? Can auto brightening do miracles like fast focusing at f/11?

 

well, do you stop down meter, or do you focus at F11?

if you have the benefit of auto aperture (and one would hope they would do this) you would simply compose and focus at widest aperture, check DoF if necessary

 

but ok if you dont stop down meter

in dark conditions on mFT the EVF has auto gain, so it brightens in dark exposure conditions, enabling you to see things you wouldnt see with an OVF. But at worst it gets grainy and the colour goes off, sorta like the D2 EVF is in its lesser moments but less grainy due to the higher available pixels, and the method they use to display them which interpolates pixels that holds off grain.

 

At its very worst here you cant focus properly without some luck in very dark conditions due to the grain and 'picture corruption'. Goes without saying i hope that using an OVF in these same conditions is exactly a ray of sunshine either, you know those moments where you might use a flashlight to help out, or zone focus..

 

things EVF dont do so well, 'very fast action', certainly action within a planned frame like trap focussing is fine, but panning flying ducks is a bit beyond it, it smears in very fast panning. I think therye maybe 2 yrs away from having 'cost effective' EVF that work in all conditions but they will come. They need more resolution, and faster refresh rate. Being an Olympus user (and it seems we are slated to go 100% mirrorless) Im not exactly thrilled to the idea but its warming on me because there are pluses and minuses, and I dont really shoot much full on action.

 

Street shooting and weddings, where mostly you know what you can expect seem to me to be a non issue.

 

If you wanted to try one and wanted to see what at present is the best available, the Pen EVF is said to be the best, but I would look at G1 as well. But be advised, other Panny models are less than G1 GH1.