Future of the "R" series

[stunsworth]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Simon, I can't see how that would work. There's no linkage between the camera lens and body to say what distance the lens is focussed at, and without such a linkage I can't see how the system would work - the IR might determine the distance, but the lens can't say what distance it's set to.

 

As far as I'm aware most AF system look for maxinum contrast to determine focus, but this is by no means my area of expertise :-)

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[sdai]

Steve, Leica adds those ROM contacts for the linkage with the camera, so the lens can tell the camera what distance scale it is set at, then the camera will match it with its own measurement, am I not right? ... for the pre-ROM lenses, if "happypagehk" on eBay knows how to enable focus confirmation for them on a EOS camera, there's no reason why Leica can't do it.

[S. Wong]

well, so we have a triangulation through infa-red, telling the camera what its pointing at (directly, offset from the lens), and how far away it is.

The lens tells the camera how far away it is from what the lens is focused at.

to me, this is just confirming what the distance scale is telling me, that they are aligned.

this would give the same effect (kind of) as focus confirmation (FC) using spot metering, right?

the question I have is more of the user-interface side of things. I've never used any SLR w/ AF or FC.

-Steven

[stunsworth]

Hi Simon, all the system on an EOS for determining focus is inside the camera All those adaptors with focus confirmation do is fool the camera into thinking there is a lens attached.

 

The other problem I can see with using an IR method is one of distance. The system might work for near distance focusing, but what about at 20 or 30 metres, the IR source would have to be both very powerful - and therefore a battery drain, and a very tight spot - to prevent multiple reflections from objects at diffrent distances. Plus it would only be able to give a reading for one focusing 'spot', and that focussing area would change position in the frame as the distance to subject changes.

[sdai]

Chill out, folks ... the engineers at Leica should outsmart me. LOL

[hektor]

Could you be specific about which article and/or lens to which you are referring?

 

Follow the link:

 

http://www.imx.nl/photosite/comments/c034.html

[zapp]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I am reliably informed the R10 will not be an autofocus camera. One will still focus manually, but lights will flash and the camera will beep when the lens is in focus. Lets hope we can download "ring-tones" to select the beep!

White Shark tone:

d a n g d a n g da n g da ng da ng dangdangdangdang

 

I really like the two good news:

 

1st R system with manual R lenses would survive and hopefully prosper. 2nd Leica will be the last system to offer the quality of manual focus mecahnics - AiS is dying out and Zeiss is a third party manufacterer now. AF lenses tend to be very wobbely, which most often you may not see in the images (often you do), but you can fell it and for me it does show up in results for some people.

Well, please add no vibration reduction to the system and I will be extremely happy.

[leicar7]

According to Stefan Daniels at the 2006 LHSA meeting in Wetzlar, there have been developments in glass, mechanical, electrical, and electronic technologies that make AF lenses more feasible for Leica to contemplate. One that he cited is using significantly thinner glass elements that reduce mechanical inertia and that can reduce the mechanical slop in lens components with AF. He said that AF lenses need not be less mechanically robust and need not lose imaging quality compared to the best existing R lenses.

 

All well and good. But my main concern with AF lenses is the greatly increased demands on reliability. N and C lenses have plenty of history of the electrical and electronic systems failing. No matter how one does it, having electrical and electronic components and motors in a lens makes reliability ever so much more difficult to achieve and maintain. Thus the REQUIREMENT that MF continue to be a fully functional possibility in the event of AF failure, and the REQUIREMENT that the viewfinder/visual focussing system be OUTSTANDING.

[xray]

N and C lenses have plenty of history of the electrical and electronic systems failing.

 

Certainly anything electrical or mechanical can fail. I owned leica reflex equipment in the 70's and went back to M's after a long run of serious problems with my 2 SL's and SL mot. I've used Canon and Nikon AF both film and digital for about 18 years. I've shot hunderds of thousands of digital frames and many thousands of rolls and never had the AF fail on any lens or body and never heard of one failing although I would guess some have. Reliability seems to be very high with both companies AF systems and both have been proven under the toughest of conditions particularly under combat conditions.

[leicar7]

Mr Dudenbostel,

 

Your experience has been good with AF. However, on several now quite old (as in last year) threads on R equipment, there were a number of contributors who had experienced serious, sometimes recurring, reliability issues with AF lenses from N and C. One, in fact, claimed that he had to replace N 80-200/2.8 lenses almost once a year, for at least three times, as the mechanics just wore out and got too sloppy. Granted the total number is probably microscopic compared to the total number of C and N users, even restricted to professionals. But several of these contributors cited their experiences with reliability as among the major reasons why they migrated to the R8/9 with DMR when it finally became reliable enough.

 

Many pros also have access to very good professional support services from N and C or from their organizations that can repair, loan, or replace equipment quickly. Such services can cover for a lot of sins of reliability. Unfortunately, L has lacked such support for many decades.

 

The photo staff at Charleston Post & Courier dumped all their N gear and went C after a spate of problems with some cameras about two years ago.

 

So I stand by my assertion that AF adds lenses to the reliability concerns, not just primarily camera bodies.

 

I wish AF users well, but I'm clenching my teeth a bit. Leica still has a way to go to convince me that they can introduce major new systems that are up to snuff without having to wait about two years for them to get through the bugs (R4, R8). Their intros of the DMR and M8 seem to have gone rather better and been more quickly resolved than some earlier introductions, but AF, involving the body AND all the new lenses, is a large stretch for them.

[xray]

Many pros also have access to very good professional support services from N and C or from their organizations that can repair, loan, or replace equipment quickly. Such services can cover for a lot of sins of reliability. Unfortunately, L has lacked such support for many decades.

 

I wish AF users well, but I'm clenching my teeth a bit. Leica still has a way to go to convince me that they can introduce major new systems that are up to snuff without having to wait about two years for them to get through the bugs (R4, R8). Their intros of the DMR and M8 seem to have gone rather better and been more quickly resolved than some earlier introductions, but AF, involving the body AND all the new lenses, is a large stretch for them.

 

Unfortunately you're correct that leica has lost sight of professional service and how important this is in keeping a professioanl market. You're also correct that leica doesn't execute new concepts very well. The early Flex and SL were good examples as well as the M8.

[hektor]

To me 35mm photography is discreet and hand-held. In 1954 the growth of the Leica was acceptable in providing an in built variable focal length viewfinder. In 1964 a similar increase was required for the single-lens-reflex however I was delighted with the introduction of the R4 in that it was no bigger than the M series with the addition of the pentaprism housing, my only complaint being the reduced brilliance of the viewfinder. With the introduction of the R8 I lost interest; the R7 does everything I require.

[mgcd]

I have absolutely NO interest whatsoever in AF for Leica R lenses. There is in fact no need for AF, anyone care to try the 180mm f/2 Apo-Summicron-R or the 280mm f/4 Apo-Telyt-R for example? BTW, focus confirmation is already built-in, just check your focusing screens...

 

Cheers,

[rob_x2004]

Well you cant AF the R Leica lens components. It is pretty simple really.

Probably get focus confirmation if you are prepared to pay for it.

[dhsimmonds]

Perhaps most of the answers to this thread, albeit in "code" are in the interview with Leica Camera AG CEO Steven K. Lee published in the current may/june issue of LFI.

 

He considers that R users are the most loyal (and emotional) of Leica's customers. He hints towards a new smaller R with autofocus lenses and perhaps some new, yet to be "invented" or at least announced features. Apparently we can't know what we really want until it has been invented...which kind of makes sense!

 

My only hope is that he will maintain Leica's great loyalty advantage by ensuring backwards compatibility of lens systems. If we need to change systems completely, I am sure many loyal Leica R users will reluctantly change brands to C or N. Their lenses are not that bad!

[sdai]

My take on this matter is slightly different from yours, Dave ... if a ground-up AF system cab be introduced at a cost level comparable to that of the now defunct Contax N and the new ZF, ZM, ZA offerings, then Leica shouldn't have a lot of problems selling it at all.

 

How they could achieve this ... I don't know. Moving production to Japan, acquiring parts from China ... not many stuff inside the M8 is made in Germany, right? a lot of them can be ordered from the catalogues, all they need to do is putting stuff together and get it to work.

[Olsen]

Where did you get this from, Ruben? Sigma, Tamron, Tokina never asked Canon for a permission.

 

I do agree with Marc ... there're great chances that Leica will cripple the backward compatibility with R lenses due to a mount change to accomodate added electronics and ultrasonic motors etc, if that happens, it's undoubtedly going to piss off a lot of people. And historically, the R lenses never had a decent tracking record on retaining their resale value.

 

Rosuna is right. I sent an e-mail to Carl Zeiss. Also they were turned down by Canon who allow no others to use their EOS bayonette, they confirmed.

[rsolomon]

the future is NOW.

 

lets see the firmware update for the DMR, so much "focus" on 2 years out, lets "focus" on todays current offerings

 

for me talk is easy, delivering is where its at....i have been waiting for V1.3 of the firmware for months ....actually over a year. so before leica commits to the future they need to commit to the contemporary times

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[bono0272]

.....i have been waiting for V1.3 of the firmware for months ....actually over a year. so before leica commits to the future they need to commit to the contemporary times

 

I wish Leica can release the DMR update firmware before my coming trip by mid June 07, but it seems that is impossible.

[wattsy]

He considers that R users are the most loyal (and emotional) of Leica's customers.

 

Interesting. I know that the M system probably has a much greater share of dilettantes but I've always thought that the M was the line to which users are most emotionally attached (witness the fuss created when the M5 came out or when the M6TTL introduced a larger shutter speed wheel).

 

My only hope is that he will maintain Leica's great loyalty advantage by ensuring backwards compatibility of lens systems.

 

I think it is essential. Canon got away with it 20 years ago because they did it at the right time. Contax showed just what happens when a niche player introduces a brand new mount at the wrong time.