Leica R line future

[carstenw]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Charles, where did you hear that?

[arpey]

So ... PMA has come and gone ... anybody have any new or updated information on the prospects for a new digital body for the R?

[jbstitt]

As a disgruntled past DMR owner with considerable glass, I have to say that the interim solution while waiting for the R10, for me, has been the Canon 5D with Leica glass via adapters. Sharp, yes. As automated as the DMR was. It works for me until something better comes along. I have to agree, even the L Canon glass is far behind the R glass, even my old R glass, with a few exceptions.

[peter55]

I read here from time to time, but with some disputes, that Leica "R" glass is better than Canons "L" glass. Now you are saying that "R" lenses leave the "L" glass far behind, with few exceptions.

 

I have my own M5 and Summilux and a D-Lux 2. Leica's timing with the M8 did not work out for me as I am now heavily invested with Canon gear. Four Canon DSLR's and 10 "L" lenses and 3 non "L" Canon lenses as well as 2 Tamron lenses in Canon mount and also including the 800 f/5.6 and 500 f/4.5 Sigma lenses in Canon mount.

 

My question is this. Am I blind?

 

How can any lens leave my "L" glass "far behind" without me seeing this? It's possible for cost reasons that Canon makes lenses to a price point. But they have a regular line and then the "L" line. Perhaps because of the price point, even "L" lenses are not the last 2-3% as good optically and perhaps even the coatings may not be as good as Leica Leitz lenses. I say perhaps because I'm not at all convinced. The 2-3% optical difference may not even exists. The colors, tone and sharpness of my Canon "L" glass is excellent. How can anything leave them as you wrote - "far behind".

 

Am I blind?

[telyt]

Am I blind?

 

 

You won't know until you try R lenses. My experience with Canon L was underwhelming: weak color quality, more flare, poor ergonomic design, had to be stopped down a few stops to be competetive with R lenses wide open. I was convinced that Leica lens superiority was all owners' rationalizing their expensive purchases until I actually tried them.

[sdai]

You won't know until you try R lenses. My experience with Canon L was underwhelming: weak color quality, more flare, poor ergonomic design, had to be stopped down a few stops to be competetive with R lenses wide open. I was convinced that Leica lens superiority was all owners' rationalizing their expensive purchases until I actually tried them.

 

I absolutely agree with Doug on this ... seeing is believing, now that's after I've tried almost every single EF lens except the 1200/5.6 and the 400 DO ... may be another couple of beer cans.

 

Put it this way, your EOS cameras will get a second life when mounted with the R lenses, and I'm not even talking about the latest ROM versions, some older 3 cam or even 2 cam Rs can beat their Canon peers easily.

 

There're also reputable lab tests to confirm these ... on a 100 points scale, Leica Rs will probably score a 85-90 easily, most Canons can only fare about 75-80.

 

Now if you need AF, that'll be a different story but that's ONLY because Leica doesn't build any AF lens - YET!

[hamey]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hello Gentleman.

 

Got some more information on the R10 today.

And it's so good, I can finally say I was prepered to put a deposit on one.

But the store would not except it as yet.

 

It's time for us R lovers to start Saving.

 

Ken.

[Guest stnami]

,,,, and spray it out!!!!!!!!!! whatwhowherewhysobutthenagaindunno?????????

[jbstitt]

Peter,

 

I agree with the detail mentioned on comparing the L glass and even older R/3 cam/2cam glass. Hard evidence is how much sharpening the L glass takes in PS versus the Leica glass, Much more. Then there is the color snap! The Canon L glass looks to me like it was designed for portraits, It has a sharpness and warmth (yes adjustable in PS)inherently not as good. How do I describe it better? The Canon is good stuff and I agree, even L is half the price of the Leica. And also, the size of L versus Leica. Yes the L is autofocus and that makes it bigger, but the fact is it is big stuff. And I agree witht he stop down on Canon versus Leica. Canon needs 1 to 2 stops down, while at 60 years old and shooting Leica for 42 of those years, Leica wide open still blows me away with the picture quality. I sold the DMR because for me it was just not a workable tool. Too big, no practical JPEG function that did not take tons of post processing, and lack of support by Leica. The 5D even with Canon glass is a good working camera, and for critical quality I can put on the Leica glass for "that look" of quality.or for low light work. 1600 ei with a fast lens just is unbelievable.

 

If the R10 is all that the rumors have it being I will be in the market. I returned a Digilux 3 early on because I saw it as a step back from the D2 - not the leica way but just about the equivilant of really cheaper SLRs and not in the "Leica Way" of shooting that the D2 fills so well. It tried to be all things to all people and excellent at none. The D2 fit my needs better. Hopefully the R10 will really target a shooting style segment. I am waiting on the edge of my chair. At worst, the value of my R glass will be supported, at best I will have one in my greedy anxious hands.

[hamey]

,,,, and spray it out!!!!!!!!!! whatwhowherewhysobutthenagaindunno?????????

 

He was right about the DMR, Leica M8 and other items.

And I am not going to challange his integrity.

If he is wrong, so what, I don't care if Leica released a Digital R model or not.

It's not the END OF THE WORLD.

 

To what he has told me, it's very promising, and should be a very nice Digicam.

...........................So will I buy one, who knows?..................................

 

In the mean time, I will continue to shoot with my Leica Film Cameras.

My client... (ME)..... DEMANDS IT.

 

Oh yes the deposit was a Joke.

 

Cheers.

[jeffwros]

Am I saving for this year or next?

 

[jlancasterd]

As a disgruntled past DMR owner with considerable glass, I have to say that the interim solution while waiting for the R10, for me, has been the Canon 5D with Leica glass via adapters. Sharp, yes. As automated as the DMR was. It works for me until something better comes along. I have to agree, even the L Canon glass is far behind the R glass, even my old R glass, with a few exceptions.

 

My 'interim solution' whilst waiting for the R10 is the DMR (on a 10-year old R8 body) and I'm at a loss to understand why any owner of R lenses would want the inconvenience of using a 5D instead. The DMRs 1.34 reduction factor is slightly annoying - turning the 21-35 zoom into a rather ordinary 28-50, but I have an M8 and a CV15 for the really wide stuff and am contemplating the CV12 now that John Milich has produced his filter adapter.

 

My great hope for the R10 is that it will be full-frame - and that Leica will announce a trade-up concession for DMR owners. I sincerely hope that they DON'T go down the autofocus route - I sold my Fuji-Nikons (S1, S3) because the hang-fires caused by dithering autofocus were so annoying.

[ptomsu]

My 'interim solution' whilst waiting for the R10 is the DMR (on a 10-year old R8 body) and I'm at a loss to understand why any owner of R lenses would want the inconvenience of using a 5D instead. The DMRs 1.34 reduction factor is slightly annoying - turning the 21-35 zoom into a rather ordinary 28-50, but I have an M8 and a CV15 for the really wide stuff and am contemplating the CV12 now that John Milich has produced his filter adapter.

 

My great hope for the R10 is that it will be full-frame - and that Leica will announce a trade-up concession for DMR owners. I sincerely hope that they DON'T go down the autofocus route - I sold my Fuji-Nikons (S1, S3) because the hang-fires caused by dithering autofocus were so annoying.

 

Same from my side, I really hope the R10 to be FF and take at least ALL the existing R glass, even if it will be supporting new AF glass.

[stunsworth]

My 'interim solution' whilst waiting for the R10 is the DMR (on a 10-year old R8 body) and I'm at a loss to understand why any owner of R lenses would want the inconvenience of using a 5D instead.

 

Cost <grin>. When I bought my 5D I didn't have an R8, so I would have had to pay (£3000?) for the DMR and say £700 for an R8.

 

Of course after buying the 5D I bought an R8 at a very good price. If I'd already had the R8 I would probably have paid the extra for the DMR rather than buy the 5D.