raizans Posted January 22, 2011 Share #41 Posted January 22, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) the idea's plausibility depends on what other manufacturers do. will canon merge the 1ds and 1d? will they go into medium format, or will they stay with full frame, perhaps going mirrorless and/or modular? will sony's a900 replacement have a pellicle mirror? will nikon's mirrorless system be aps-c or smaller? will the rumored olympus super4/3 standard turn into reality, and will it be mirrorless or an slr? leica's new mandate is to produce uncompromising products whose high price tag is justified by unique features and advanced technology. it's difficult to say what niches lie in the future, but i'm sure leica is going to exploit new markets, such as video (something along the lines of red, only smaller and with zooms, maybe less expensive, etc.). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 22, 2011 Posted January 22, 2011 Hi raizans, Take a look here The R solution - more details. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
lct Posted January 22, 2011 Share #42 Posted January 22, 2011 Will EVILs, REDs or whatever new cams do better pics with R lenses than current Canikon DSLRs? Even at f/2.8 or f/4 (below with pre-apo 90/2), focussing my old 5D1 with Brightscreen screen is quite easy in good light to be honest. More difficult in poor light for sure but are EVILs or REDs more competent with manual lenses, i don't know. Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/142032-the-r-solution-more-details/?do=findComment&comment=1566087'>More sharing options...
Riley Posted January 23, 2011 Share #43 Posted January 23, 2011 Will EVILs, REDs or whatever new cams do better pics with R lenses than current Canikon DSLRs? Even at f/2.8 or f/4 (below with pre-apo 90/2), focussing my old 5D1 with Brightscreen screen is quite easy in good light to be honest. More difficult in poor light for sure but are EVILs or REDs more competent with manual lenses, i don't know. absolutely, half press the release and you get instant 10x critical focus you wish to move that AF square from the centre? touch the rear screen and budge it along. Manual focus in one of the things EVFs do better. Indeed you can do many more things better with an EVF than you can with an OVF, but it has 2 major failings. in very low light it pixelates with noise following action is laggy to a point will they get on top of it, yes they will. Remember our experience with EVF's is generally 2x Olympus and Panasonic mFT, the larger frame of FF instantly gives 4x the light for the EVF, you are now 2 stops better off with a massive 5.3Mp screen (that can be any size or format that you need). As to following action well, its not something that seems to unduly trouble video operators for TV broadcast of sports etc., the real problem IMO is what they will cost. These things are no longer D2 with a FF mount, they are sophisticated serious kit and they get better year on year (you cant say that about OVFs) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riley Posted January 23, 2011 Share #44 Posted January 23, 2011 A DSLR camera with manual focus, in a bunch of seasoned competitors, makes sense just to nostalgics IMHO. and a fine point that is too, but need it be so? Thinking outside the box, just how necessary is it to have AF lenses. Lets make the aperture operate just as it did on an R body, set the R lens at infinity, and make the sensor do all the moving. The requirements are: a specious capacity for fine tolerances and excellent mechanical engineering CDAF with phasing taken straight off the sensor now you have the capacity to run any MF lens on AF, add to that telescope and microscope. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pop Posted January 23, 2011 Share #45 Posted January 23, 2011 now you have the capacity to run any MF lens on AF unless the lens has floating elements, as has been pointed out before. How far will the sensor move within the camera? How will the body of the camera accommodate that extra depth? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted January 23, 2011 Share #46 Posted January 23, 2011 ...As to following action well, its not something that seems to unduly trouble video operators for TV broadcast of sports etc... Sure but they don't do stop down focussing / metering do they? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted January 23, 2011 Share #47 Posted January 23, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) Lets make the aperture operate just as it did on an R body, set the R lens at infinity, and make the sensor do all the moving Contax tried something similar. I expect the engineering issues are pretty daunting. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riley Posted January 23, 2011 Share #48 Posted January 23, 2011 unless the lens has floating elements, as has been pointed out before. dont see the problem perhaps someone can explain floating elements are not the same as internal focusing BTW yes close focussing may be MF, with focus confirmation How far will the sensor move within the camera? How will the body of the camera accommodate that extra depth? there isnt any 'extra' depth, it would have what it would need, the Contax AX had a range of 10mm back, If what you are thinking is that would need to be reflected in the depth of the entire camera, well, the camera is a lot narrower than an R body Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riley Posted January 23, 2011 Share #49 Posted January 23, 2011 Contax tried something similar. I expect the engineering issues are pretty daunting. "a specious capacity for fine tolerances and excellent mechanical engineering" Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pop Posted January 23, 2011 Share #50 Posted January 23, 2011 dont see the problem perhaps someone can explain As far as I understand the concept, a floating element lens contains elements which change their position with respect to the other elements in the lens according to the distance the lens is focused at. When you keep the lens stationary and move the sensor instead, the purpose of the floating element would be defeated, unless you supplied the means to move those elements within the lens when moving the sensor. there isnt any 'extra' depth, it would have what it would need, .. If what you are thinking is that would need to be reflected in the depth of the entire camera, well, the (contax) is a lot narrower than an R body That can't be true. If the camera with the moving sensor has to accommodate lenses built for the Leica R, the mininum distance from - say - the back of the lens to the sensor must be exactly the same as in the R camera. If during focusing the lens isn't moved forward, then the sensor must be moved backwards. The moving sensor with all the apparatus to move it might well be thicker than the R's back. The girth of a contax or an M camera can not be compared with the girth of an SLR camera. Lenses of the same focal length are longer on an SLR than on a camera which does not have a mirror box. 10mm might be fine for short lenses. The 90mm lens will focus to a bit over a meter with 10mm of added image distance, I believe. With longer lenses it will be worse. That's a relevant issue because many people bought into the R system on account of the longer lenses which can not be reasonably used on an M camera. I don't think there's a huge market for a camera whose autofocus will only work for distance >> 1m for long lenses. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marknorton Posted January 23, 2011 Share #51 Posted January 23, 2011 We can be certain there's significant development effort going into the improvement of EVFs with the anticipated growth of mirrorless cameras. This contrasts with Leica's pitiful development of the M viewfinder which, aside from stuffing a few red LEDs into it for the M9 Tit, has been precisely zero over recent years. Preserving this anachronistic design might be fine for traditionalists; for those of use who want to see improvement, it's just short-sighted and tedious. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pop Posted January 23, 2011 Share #52 Posted January 23, 2011 ... fine for traditionalists; for those of use who want to see improvement, it's just short-sighted and tedious. Not so very many posts ago, some contributors flagellated Leica for being unable to meet the unexpectedly large demands for the M product line, cameras and lenses. Yet Leica is called utterly short-sighted and tedious for continuing to produce their apparent cash cow, the obviously obsolete Rangefinder cameras. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted January 23, 2011 Share #53 Posted January 23, 2011 ...Preserving this anachronistic design might be fine for traditionalists; for those of use who want to see improvement, it's just short-sighted and tedious. On the other hand, nobody's offering to make better optical rangefinders than anachronic Zeiss' and Leica's so far. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosuna Posted January 23, 2011 Share #54 Posted January 23, 2011 Not at all. A short flange distance doesn’t imply a short distance between lens and sensor or between exit pupil and sensor. A short flange distance isn’t limiting at all, only a long flange distance is. I was thinking on the out of axis angle of incidence problem, considering also the constraints of a small size system with small AF lenses. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riley Posted January 23, 2011 Share #55 Posted January 23, 2011 As far as I understand the concept, a floating element lens contains elements which change their position with respect to the other elements in the lens according to the distance the lens is focused at. When you keep the lens stationary and move the sensor instead, the purpose of the floating element would be defeated, unless you supplied the means to move those elements within the lens when moving the sensor. i think thats why they have to be moved to the infinity position, this was the case with the Contax That can't be true. If the camera with the moving sensor has to accommodate lenses built for the Leica R, the mininum distance from - say - the back of the lens to the sensor must be exactly the same as in the R camera. If during focusing the lens isn't moved forward, then the sensor must be moved backwards. The moving sensor with all the apparatus to move it might well be thicker than the R's back. The girth of a contax or an M camera can not be compared with the girth of an SLR camera. Lenses of the same focal length are longer on an SLR than on a camera which does not have a mirror box. 10mm might be fine for short lenses. The 90mm lens will focus to a bit over a meter with 10mm of added image distance, I believe. With longer lenses it will be worse. That's a relevant issue because many people bought into the R system on account of the longer lenses which can not be reasonably used on an M camera. I don't think there's a huge market for a camera whose autofocus will only work for distance >> 1m for long lenses. As I understand it the sensor movement is different to moving lens elements to achieve focus and requires less room, but ultimately that might be right. I think the Contax was limited to 180mm lenses (does anyone remember). But hey if it needs more, give it more, unlike the Contax it isnt burdened by the need to feed film. From where I sit the aspect of long lenses on an 'R' solution is vital Finally (I dont want to hog the thread) I think the idea that a MF camera can cut it in todays market is somewhat unique to the M. There simply isnt a reason to make another MF body. I could easily be mistaken but thats how I read the world in 2011. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjh Posted January 23, 2011 Share #56 Posted January 23, 2011 I was thinking on the out of axis angle of incidence problem, considering also the constraints of a small size system with small AF lenses. The angle of incidence doesn’t depend on the flange distance. This confusion stems from the fact that camera systems with a short flange distance will often feature lenses with a short distance between exit pupil and image plane, and with those lenses, incident angles near the edges of the sensor can be quite large indeed. But flange distance and angle of incidence are in no way intrinsically related. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjh Posted January 23, 2011 Share #57 Posted January 23, 2011 As I understand it the sensor movement is different to moving lens elements to achieve focus and requires less room Focus depends on the distance between sensor and lens; it doesn’t depend on which of those components you move to achieve the desired distance. For a ball-park figure, assume you have got a 400 mm lens you would like to focus from 2 m to infinity: the sensor (or the lens) would have to travel 100 mm. Now that would be some camera! And some people are agonizing about the M9’s depth … Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry_R Posted January 23, 2011 Share #58 Posted January 23, 2011 All is matter of time. And we are getting closer, than further. We have EVILs from Olympus, Panasonic already. We have mirrorless camera from Sony (without EVF, that is to appear this year). This year Pentax, Nikon will join mirrorless family. Sigma is expeted to join too. It is only question of time - when that family will expand to Full Frame. FF EVIL in G2 or NEX + EVF shape would be great. With mirrorless you are not limited to one lens family. You are open to M, R, OM, FD, MD, etc., etc. Focusing manually with magnified any part of frame after one finger touch is excelent. Weak eyes - forget. Focus shift - forget. Need of re-composing - forget. Only what I would expect LEICA does what competition not necessarily - is quality of sensor without AA and microlenses for wide rangefinder lenses. So far when I attach M lenses to NEX and u43 - quality is below M9. NEX doesn't give you details, it has too strong AA, u43 won't give you wide angle, as crop is 2x. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riley Posted January 24, 2011 Share #59 Posted January 24, 2011 The angle of incidence doesn’t depend on the flange distance. This confusion stems from the fact that camera systems with a short flange distance will often feature lenses with a short distance between exit pupil and image plane, and with those lenses, incident angles near the edges of the sensor can be quite large indeed. But flange distance and angle of incidence are in no way intrinsically related. I guess theres a problem there with the angle of acceptance of microlenses, with the difference between incident light from say M mount VL UWA and long R lenses, I would think something would have to give there Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riley Posted January 24, 2011 Share #60 Posted January 24, 2011 Focus depends on the distance between sensor and lens; it doesn’t depend on which of those components you move to achieve the desired distance. For a ball-park figure, assume you have got a 400 mm lens you would like to focus from 2 m to infinity: the sensor (or the lens) would have to travel 100 mm. Now that would be some camera! And some people are agonizing about the M9’s depth … hmmm thats a problem!...... would it be helped by focussing somewhere near the intended focus zone? just in other things, the flexibility of CDAF can certainly be a help in weird situations. This is an 800x600 corner crop wall shot taken with a Zuiko 7-14/4 on E5. The point of focus was in the corner, (possibly the lower rh corner of the crop) in an effort to see how solid the corners were wide open. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.