Future of the "R" series

[hankg]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

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.

 

If they plan on a new mount they could design an adapter together with the mount that preserves the full functionality of R lenses. If they plan on producing a really competitive 'mainstream' (in the realm of top pro cameras) DSLR they can't afford the to be hobbled in digital development by legacy technology optimized for film. Having said that, they would have to have an adapter ready and available at launch (perhaps sold at cost if you purchase an R10) that ensures their customer base is not penalized for their loyalty to Leica.

 

Having to make the M8 backwards compatible forced all kinds of compromises and costs with the digital M. I realize that there was no other option but a small company like Leica trying to produce products competitive with Canon is already at a huge disadvantage in resources, fortunately Canon does not produce a digital rangefinder. In the DSLR world however, Leica has lots of competition.

[wattsy]

If they plan on a new mount they could design an adapter together with the mount that preserves the full functionality of R lenses. If they plan on producing a really competitive 'mainstream' (in the realm of top pro cameras) DSLR they can't afford the to be hobbled in digital development by legacy technology optimized for film.

 

You might be right. Hasselblad essentially ditched the Zeiss 'V' heritage when it introduced the H system and the latter is doing rather well. Having said that, Hasselblad was/is a major force in the medium format marketplace and I'm not sure Leica's R system (as part of the "35mm" marketplace) is anything like comparable. Leica need to be very careful if they decide to sink lots of money into a new SLR system (or even the existing R system). If the market isn't there to profitably support such a system, Leica might as well start as they mean to go on and apply for charitable status.

[hankg]

You might be right. Hasselblad essentially ditched the Zeiss 'V' heritage when it introduced the H system and the latter is doing rather well. Having said that, Hasselblad was/is a major force in the medium format marketplace and I'm not sure Leica's R system (as part of the "35mm" marketplace) is anything like comparable. Leica need to be very careful if they decide to sink lots of money into a new SLR system (or even the existing R system). If the market isn't there to profitably support such a system, Leica might as well start as they mean to go on and apply for charitable status.

 

Leica can not do what Hasselblad did as they do not have the market position of Hasselblad. But if the adapter made the transition seamless for the existing base and it was ready in sufficient numbers at launch then, no problem.

 

Leica's new management seems determined to as they stated return Leica to the mainstream of photography. If there is to be an R10 and they are determined that it should be a competitive pro product then they have to be willing to risk the resources to make it viable.

 

Of course as it is going to be at the top of the price/quality range they might target narrower niches. Maybe it won't compete as a PJ/sports photography camera with weather sealing and industry leading autofocus but it could be an ideal studio, portrait, lifestyle stock, corporate photography camera delivering medium format quality in a 135 sized package that provides an alternative to the video game interface, crappy viewfinders and poor manual focus options of modern DSLR's.

[martinb]

I think that Leica should stick to what they do best, but they have to do it extremely well this time. Way better than the DMR and R9.

Even though the viewfinder in R9 was pretty nice it wasn't 100% and I've tried better finders. If it's a manual camera the viewfinder is extremely important.

So FF, weather sealing, amazing 100% viewfinder and amazing build of course.

[kinofistimages]

"... inviting me to purchase new R lenses at reduced prices. He also suggested that Leica UK were reducing stocks, possibly prior to introducing a new reflex camera with auto focus.......shock horror. I wonder if he really meant auto focus confirm?

 

What does this mean for our DMR firmware update?

 

If this proves to be true, then Leica is truly testing the loyality of long time R users. I'm sitting here with a DMR and no firmware in sight, and not a peep from them about it.

 

If they design a digital camera that makes all my R glass obsolete that'll be the last straw.

 

However, if they bring out a R digital with AF lenses that still allows use of my existing lenses with focus confirmation, then we'll have something. If Nikon can do it, why not them?

I am inclined to agree. I have invested quite a bit of money in my Leica system - DMR, R9, R8, 28-90, 70-180/2.8, 16/2.8, 35/1.4, 50/1.4, 80/1.4, 100/2.8 and a some accessories of course however if the R10 happens to "get it right" yet not support the equipment I already own with focus conf. then I don't think I can support the company any longer.

[FastFashnReloaded]

I am inclined to agree. I have invested quite a bit of money in my Leica system - DMR, R9, R8, 28-90, 70-180/2.8, 16/2.8, 35/1.4, 50/1.4, 80/1.4, 100/2.8 and a some accessories of course however if the R10 happens to "get it right" yet not support the equipment I already own with focus conf. then I don't think I can support the company any longer.

 

Oh please... So, you buy a fifty thousand dollar car, put new wheels on it, a supercharger, etc and you like the car so much that you buy a full duplicate set of the same mod parts intending to buy another car just like it!

 

And... Porsche goes and switches to water cooled flat sixes and none of your parts will work on the next car. The new cars are better, faster, less polluting and get better mileage, but you had your heart set on something like you already owned. So, you swear off Porsches forever and ever.

 

LOL.

[FastFashnReloaded]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I am inclined to agree. I have invested quite a bit of money in my Leica system - DMR, R9, R8, 28-90, 70-180/2.8, 16/2.8, 35/1.4, 50/1.4, 80/1.4, 100/2.8 and a some accessories of course however if the R10 happens to "get it right" yet not support the equipment I already own with focus conf. then I don't think I can support the company any longer.

 

The point is ol' son, that the world has moved on. Personally, I think the four thirds standard DSLRs make me quite happy, and there are some quite nice lenses on them at the moment. If Leica decided to stick with that format I wouldn't care.

 

If they put something together for their R series, that's kewl too, but I'd perfect the M if I were them before they worry about new Rs. The M is Leica.

[sdai]

I personally don't believe that Leica would be so dumb to cripple the "R10" with the lack of backward compatibility.

 

But, if you really feel embarrassed knowing your R lenses aren't the latest and greatest anymore because there'll be some auto focus monsters ... NOW, I mean NOW, is the greatest time to get rid of them on eBay ... and I've already seen some forum members started doing so. LOL

[leicar7]

I have a problem with the 4/3rds aspect ratio. The "vertical" does not feel enough like a vertical to make much difference and solve the problems for which I need vertical. It almost feels square.

 

There needs to be enough in the longer dimension to make "vertical" feel like it.

 

Granted in large format, entire careers have been made with 4x5. In MF, square or 6x7, or 6x4.5 (another 4/3rds format).

 

But my time has been with a format that has a pronounced vertical that I have learned how to use. And I want to keep that.

[hektor]

"I have a problem with the 4/3rds aspect ratio."

 

Some years ago I read a book on visual aesthetics in which the author described the impression and perception viewers experience. The essential point was that a vertical picture appears vertically compressed; in other words a vertical picture from a 35mm film does not appear 1.5:1 but more 1.33:1. Likewise with an horizonatal picture whereby it is perceived as "stretched" by more than 1:1.5.

With this in mind I mounted a series of horizontal slides in 24x32 mounts and projected them with vertical 24x36 shots. The effect was most pleasing and harmonious.

As an amusing aside, try explaining the above theory to a Customs Officer who wants to know why I am importing 24x32 slide mounts from Sweden rather than buying 24x36 mounts here.

[leicar7]

Harald Mante in "Das Foto" makes the same point with the 3:2 rectangle. That effect, though, is more pronounced with an empty rectangle than one filled with elements, be they portrait, street, or landscape. While 4:3 may come off as more harmonious, the more stretched space has an inherent visual stress that requires reconciliation from what goes inside. Achieving that reconciliation to make a good image is part of the fun of the 35mm format, IMHO. 4:3 just doesn't do enough when I want a vertical.

 

5:7 is not half bad and has a very pleasing feel as an empty vertical. I would be quite willing to adjust to such a format in a smaller image: that would be about 25:35 mm, not awfully different from the classic.

 

Another problem with the current 4:3 is that the small size of the chip almost eliminates an important compositional device: shallow DOF with selective focus using large apertures. To achieve the same effects as are possible with 24x36, one would need lens apertures at or exceeding f/1.0, which would negate the small size reason for much of 4:3 photographing and be rather severe engineering challenges to preserve image quality.

[thrid]

You might be right. Hasselblad essentially ditched the Zeiss 'V' heritage when it introduced the H system and the latter is doing rather well. .

 

 

You can use V-series lenses on the H with an adapter.

[thrid]

The point is ol' son, that the world has moved on. Personally, I think the four thirds standard DSLRs make me quite happy, and there are some quite nice lenses on them at the moment. If Leica decided to stick with that format I wouldn't care.

 

If they put something together for their R series, that's kewl too, but I'd perfect the M if I were them before they worry about new Rs. The M is Leica.

 

 

4/3rds is a disaster in the making for Leica, if they decide to use it for anything but their low end cameras. The 4/3rd format does not have enough surface area to allow receptors large enough to deliver noise free high iso performance and DR is also limited. It's as bad an idea as APS was for for film cameras.

 

Nikon and everyone else has hig the ceiling in what they will be able to squeeze out of the slightly larger APS format sensors and I would bet anything we see a full frame or APS-H camera from Nikon in the near future.

 

The future is ASP-H (x1.3 like the M8) or full frame (x1). Going 4/3rd would be suicide for Leica.

[hektor]

Gentlemen,

I suspect all this speculation is pointless.

The most reliable information I have (from Solms) is that the new digital reflex will be full frame (24x36) with a body about the same size as the R9. It will most likely be released at PMA early next year with production starting after the summer vacation.

My source is not so confident about the focusing method but suspects it will be focus confirmation enabling the use of all existing lenses. LC AG cannot afford the development costs of converting the whole system to auto-focus particuarly as their customers are not that keen on it in any case.

Right now the factory cannot cope with the demand for the M8 with the commensurate increase in sale of rangefinder lenses. Commercially and logistically there is no hurry in bringing the R10 to market other than missing the market as they did with the Leicaflex.

Keep pondering.

Justin

[Angora]

Oh please... So, you buy a fifty thousand dollar car, put new wheels on it, a supercharger, etc and you like the car so much that you buy a full duplicate set of the same mod parts intending to buy another car just like it!

 

And... Porsche goes and switches to water cooled flat sixes and none of your parts will work on the next car. The new cars are better, faster, less polluting and get better mileage, but you had your heart set on something like you already owned. So, you swear off Porsches forever and ever.

 

LOL.

 

No trolling please.

It's all about feeling and philosophy of using its material to produce pictures.

 

If you feel comfortable with your current equipment it's normal to want it working with an updated body. If it's not the case then you don't want to follow the trend.

Do you ask rangefinder users to use AF ? Do you tell large format users « Hey wake up dudes ! Throw away your medieval cameras and look at cell phone cameras ! They're tiny, they got Zeiss lenses too and they're the fruits of modernity ! »

 

State of the art statements.

[glenerrolrd]

If we are speculating..we might learn something from "R" history. The original SL was nothing short of a tank followed by IMHO a much sleeker SL2. But of course all manual..the the R3 brought auto exposure functions to the R. Another "Clunker" . Find an old R4 ...I have one here..its about 80% of the volumn of the R9 body without the DMR ..maybe 120% of the M8. If they can make a digital M then its possible to create a digital R the size of the R4..with focus confirmation ..all the existing glass works.

[telyt]

If they can make a digital M then its possible to create a digital R the size of the R4..with focus confirmation ..all the existing glass works.

 

There's the question of how reliable you want it to be, and how good a viewfinder you want to make. The SL and the R4 are at the far extremes of the spectrum. Having dissected both and used and abused both the SL is what I'm hoping the R10's designers aim for, not the R4. And *@&! electronic focus confirmation, the SL's viewfinder provides all the confirmation one could wish for, and over the entire surface not just in a few spots.

[mgcd]

There's the question of how reliable you want it to be, and how good a viewfinder you want to make. The SL and the R4 are at the far extremes of the spectrum. Having dissected both and used and abused both the SL is what I'm hoping the R10's designers aim for, not the R4. And *@&! electronic focus confirmation, the SL's viewfinder provides all the confirmation one could wish for, and over the entire surface not just in a few spots.

 

I could not agree more, although frankly keeping the very same R8/R9 body combined with the winder would make it ideal for me.

 

Cheers,

[Canfred]

Gentlemen,

I suspect all this speculation is pointless.

The most reliable information I have (from Solms) is that the new digital reflex will be full frame (24x36) with a body about the same size as the R9. It will most likely be released at PMA early next year with production starting after the summer vacation.

My source is not so confident about the focusing method but suspects it will be focus confirmation enabling the use of all existing lenses. LC AG cannot afford the development costs of converting the whole system to auto-focus particuarly as their customers are not that keen on it in any case.

Right now the factory cannot cope with the demand for the M8 with the commensurate increase in sale of rangefinder lenses. Commercially and logistically there is no hurry in bringing the R10 to market other than missing the market as they did with the Leicaflex.

Keep pondering.

Justin

Hi Hector , I for one hope your info is correct and I think this would give Leica the boost it needs. Certainly my order is assured.

Manfred

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[thrid]

Speaking of the R- series, I recently bought a used R8 with Winder and have been putting some film through it.

 

This past weekend I was on my feet, shooting for about 6 hours straight and burned about 8-10 rolls of film.

 

The R8 is by far the most ergonomic SLR I've ever used. It was incredibly comfortable to hold for hours on end and my hands never felt fatigued. Everything is in just the right place.

 

My only complaint is that I would prefer a round eyepiece, instead if the square.

Nikon got that right years ago. The viewfinder on my F3-P is like a porthole on an ocean liner.

 

In any case I hope that Leica sticks with the R8/R9 body for their big DSLR.