Is R10 or a brand new Digital-R coming ?

[wattsy]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

would you not expect the hardware spec. to be basically decided by now?

 

Indeed. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the R10 is simply an incremental 'improvement' on the technical spec of the DMR - 10-12MP, 1.3x sensor, etc. The main significance of the new body would be simply that it is a conventional integrated DSLR body. R system sales are far too low for Leica to justify spending the kind of money needed to develop something truly cutting edge. The bean counters at Solms may have changed with the new ownership but they will still be fully aware of the financial damage that the development of the film R8 caused in the late 1990s (they will also be aware of what happened to Contax and what is happening to Pentax and Mamiya). The modest success of the DMR and the more recent 'triumph' of the M8 tells us very little about the sales potential of the R10.

[Advertisement]

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

[carstenw]

An announcement at Photokina is not the same as a full release. They just need to set an availability date not too far in the future at Photokina, so there is still time. The last time I heard anything from Leica on this, the basic spec was still undecided. I am sure that they are getting close though. The sensor would be the sticking point. Kodak makes great colour, but they have never had a large sensor with clean high ISO, so there is lots to discuss. I am beginning to wonder if Kodak is the company to pull this off. Nikon and Canon seem to have left them behind a long time ago, with respect to high ISO performance...

 

Ian, I am not sure that I would call the DMR a modest success. As far as I understand, it was made in a single run, more or less, and was meant to last a certain number of years, to cover the gap to the next camera. They sold out too soon, and are now in a position where they don't have any to sell, have no new camera, and have customers pressuring them. I would call that a success, plain and simple. Above expectations.

 

I think the whole involvement with Panasonic, and the Digilux 3 and so on are all ways of spreading the risk while they learn about digital. I would say that it is working, except that sales of the Digilux 3 are perhaps a bit disappointing. The recent R lens + adapter push might help here.

[Guest guy_mancuso]

Carsten i think will will see a change in regards to a announcement and a release. I think that gap will be very narrow and follow more in the path of Nikon and Canon 1 or 2 months after they announce.

[ayham]

Carsten,

Regarding noise level with kodak sensor, what about the new Colour Filter Array (CFA) that Kodak announced last June, do you think this will help them to make bigger sensor like 18 MP full frame with noise levels less than or at least at the same levels as M8? and can like benefit of that for R10? . This is an extract of the release notes:

[initially, Kodak expects to develop CMOS sensors using this new technology consumer markets such as digital still cameras and camera phones. As the technology is appropriate for use with both CCD and CMOS image sensors, however, its use can be expanded across Kodak’s full portfolio of image sensors, including products targeted to applied imaging markets such as industrial and scientific imaging. The first Kodak sensor to use this technology is expected to be available for sampling in the first quarter of 2008.]

 

Thanks.

[carstenw]

I am no sensor expert, but do know a little about image processing. It sounds promising, since the clear pixels © can be used to get clean images and sharp definition, and the coloured ones to fill in the colour info. Still, it means that there will now be at least 8 subpixels per pixel, and perhaps even 16, instead of 4 (RGBG), if I recall correctly, and it is not clear what the effective resolution will be like.

 

My feeling is that the net cleanliness of the higher ISO will improve, but at a slight cost in colour resolution (the images will be sharp, but the colours will bleed a little). Besides, they claim a 2x to 4x increase in high ISO sensitivity, which is only 1-2 stops. More is needed to catch up with the 1D3 (and possibly D3), which has a relatively clean ISO 3200, whereas the M8 tops out around ISO 800. How Kodak will improve ISO and resolution in one swell foop is not clear at this point, although the technology sounds interesting.

[Likaleica]

Another thought: We all seem to like the R8/R9 platform, and the ability to switch between film and digital with one camera, wouldn't it seem likely that Leica would improve the DMR, rather than coming up with an entirely new camera? Lighter, more compact, either full-frame sensor or more MP?

[carstenw]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I find this quite unlikely. Many like the ability, but few use it, that I have heard of. The complication of an extra place where you need a perfect fit, every time, combined with the fact that the user will fit it, not the factory, and it becomes too complicated and too expensive. They want a compact camera, and tight control over tolerances, and this is much easier with a single unit. Sadly.

[mjh]

Another thought: We all seem to like the R8/R9 platform, and the ability to switch between film and digital with one camera, wouldn't it seem likely that Leica would improve the DMR, rather than coming up with an entirely new camera? Lighter, more compact, either full-frame sensor or more MP?

Not likely at all. For one thing, going full-frame and at the same time keeping the film compatibility is simply impossible, as the sensor won’t fit. Furthermore, the key to a lighter and more compact (and more affordable) camera is an integrated DSLR, rather than building another analog SLR plus a digital back.

[hankg]

Not likely at all. For one thing, going full-frame and at the same time keeping the film compatibility is simply impossible, as the sensor won’t fit. Furthermore, the key to a lighter and more compact (and more affordable) camera is an integrated DSLR, rather than building another analog SLR plus a digital back.

 

In addition used film R bodies can be had for a very reasonable price. Pick the model you like for film 8/9 or 6/7 and let Leica make the most compact and tightly integrated DSLR possible.

[telyt]

Another thought: We all seem to like the R8/R9 platform, and the ability to switch between film and digital with one camera, wouldn't it seem likely that Leica would improve the DMR, rather than coming up with an entirely new camera? Lighter, more compact, either full-frame sensor or more MP?

 

The R8 is digital-only for me. When I use film I'll take advantage of the SL's superior viewfinder. If there were a DMR-quality digital back for the SL or SL2 (I know it will never happen) I'd sell the R8 and DMR with no hesitation. Or, if the R8 had an SL-quality viewfinder I'd consider it a film-or-digital camera.

[Likaleica]

GREAT photos, Doug. I have seen your work before, but never visited your website. There's a lot of love in those photographs.

[telyt]

GREAT photos, Doug. I have seen your work before, but never visited your website. There's a lot of love in those photographs.

 

Thanks Tim. I just got back from Lassen Volcanic National Park, I'll be posting more photos in the next few days.

[rosuna]

The new FF CMOS sensor from Nikon has microlenses that fill the 100% of the sensor surface. CMOS technology has improved very fast. Power consumption is comparatively low, and "in pixel" noise treatment is possible.

 

Kodak co-developed FF CMOS sensors for the 14n and SRL/n and SRL/c cameras. They did it, and now Kodak may develop new solutions, more refined. Digital backs manufacturers are using CCD sensors only because 1) these devices are mostly employed in studio, at low ISOs 2) there aren't alternatives (from Kodak or Dalsa) at the level of Canon, Nikon, Sony or even Panasonic's CMOS sensors. I would like to see comparative reviews of the 1Ds Mark III and 22MP digital backs.

 

The two key problems in getting good performance into a wide range of ISOs are 1) how to get a state-of-the-art CMOS sensor and 2) how to get a state-of-the-art processor and software algorithms.

 

If Leica doesn't find a solution to those two points, the R10 can be an improved version of the DMR, this is, a scaled-down medium format digital back. That isn't bad, but this camera wouldn't be very versatile. Noise at high ISOs and power consumption would make this hypothetical R10 camera a weak alternative for already existing DSRLs. The only selling point would be the Leica R lenses, but these lenses are super-expensive, and other brands also have superb lenses (even manual focus Zeiss lenses for their mounts). You can argue that the image quality at low ISOs would be great for studio work, but it is also great in cameras like the Nikon D3 (likely), Canon 5D or 1Ds Mark III (using CMOS sensors). Nothing extraordinary here.

 

It is a serious problem for Leica. I love the M8, but the true is that battery capacity and noise question the "reportage camera" concept, compared to several small DSRLs in the market. Anyway, a rangefinder is a "different thing". A 35mm format reflex camera (bigger sensor, more competition) make these problems even worse. It is just another réflex camera. What will be the "concept" or "target" of the R10 camera? A "reportage DSRL camera", "studio medium-format-like camera" or what?

[mjh]

The new FF CMOS sensor from Nikon has microlenses that fill the 100% of the sensor surface. CMOS technology has improved very fast. Power consumption is comparatively low, and "in pixel" noise treatment is possible.

It has to be said, though, that CMOS sensors are inherently more noisy than CCDs, so “in pixel” noise reduction – employed by Canon for years now – is necessary even to bring CMOS technology up to the standard set by CCD sensor technology. CCDs are rather simple devices devoting most of the available space for catching photons and storing electrons, whereas with CMOS, the fill-factor is more of an issue – all the additional circuitry on the sensor comes at a cost.

 

Power consumption is only a minor issue. DSLRs are very efficient to begin with, consuming less power than compact digicams. The current live-view craze may change that, but generally, power consumption is nothing one would worry about.

 

Kodak co-developed FF CMOS sensors for the 14n and SRL/n and SRL/c cameras.

Those sensors were developed by Fill Factory in Belgium, and they did suffer from quite a few problems. Eventually, Kodak gave up on this line of cameras.

 

Digital backs manufacturers are using CCD sensors only because 1) these devices are mostly employed in studio, at low ISOs 2) there aren't alternatives (from Kodak or Dalsa) at the level of Canon, Nikon, Sony or even Panasonic's CMOS sensors.

Medium format photographers are more concerned about dynamic range (and that’s where those CCD sensors excel) than about high ISO, but certainly, ISO 1600 is quite possible to achieve. It is merely a question of what compromises one accepts – compact digicams with tiny CCDs reach ISO 6400 now, and if there was sufficient demand, medium format vendors could easily give you the same. By the way, most medium format digital backs don’t even use microlenses, thus quite deliberately foregoing about one EV worth of sensitivity.

[rosuna]

Power consumption is not "a minor issue". Compare battery capacity of CCD based cameras and similar CMOS based cameras. The difference is substantial. We are talking of differences of x5 or even x10. The bigger the sensor is, the worse is the problem. The Mamiya ZD, for instance, is a power hungry camera, to say the least. It limits seriously its versatility.

 

The problem of medium format backs is not to reach ISO 1600, but to give ISO 400 noise free images. I don't know if the problem is in the processor or the sensor. In theory, the CCD of the DMR is a better "photon capturer" device than the CMOS of the 1D Mark III, but please, compare pictures from both cameras. The difference is obvious.

[MP3]

It is very interesting to see the dslr war with D3, and 1DsIII keep raising the bar.

If Leica is really launching R10 as an AF/MF dslr with new AF R-lenses, Solms should now be closely examining on these latest beast from N and C.

 

I would really doubt the success of R10 if it is indeed AF but not to be co-developed with electronic giants like Panasonic, Fuji or ...

 

If the launch is slated for Fotokina'08. Why not just build a niche manual focus digital R10 and another AF lens lines for N and C? Of course, these strategy will need to have agreement with N or C, and these giants will naturally do not want Leica glasses to enter their mount officially. Business is business.

 

The outlook is difficult for R10... a small company not good at micro-electronics aiming to challenge those big giants at top end dslr market...

[mjh]

Power consumption is not "a minor issue". Compare battery capacity of CCD based cameras and similar CMOS based cameras. The difference is substantial.

In my experience it isn’t. I see no difference between comparable cameras, let alone a substantial one. In a DSLR, the sensor is only active for a relatively short time, so how can this affect the total power consumption of the camera in a significant way? Obviously, this might change with live-view becoming more popular.

 

The Mamiya ZD, for instance, is a power hungry camera, to say the least.

That may very well be the case, but where is the CMOS-based camera to compare it to?

 

The problem of medium format backs is not to reach ISO 1600, but to give ISO 400 noise free images. I don't know if the problem is in the processor or the sensor. In theory, the CCD of the DMR is a better "photon capturer" device than the CMOS of the 1D Mark III, but please, compare pictures from both cameras. The difference is obvious.

Let’s leave out the DMR for the moment, as it isn’t a medium format back – far from it.

 

For one thing, there is the issue of microlenses, or rather their absence in most medium format cameras. ISO 400 with a H3D-39, for example, should properly be compared to ISO 800 with a camera with microlenses. And then there are different goals for optimization at work: medium format vendors often strive for the best colour rendition, and there is a trade-off between perfect colour and low noise. Canon doesn’t deny that they would sacrifice some colour fidelity for lower noise, whereas, for example, Hasselblad says they go for the best colour rendition, even if that implies a bit more noise. Also, the high pixel count of medium format cameras alone means that some residual noise, especially noise with a high spatial frequency, isn’t worth bothering about as it won’t be visible in print anyway. Vendors such as Canon or Nikon, on the other hand, place more importance on noise reduction. Noise reduction makes a big difference, as becomes obvious when you compare cameras with essentially the same sensor – for example, the Sony Alpha100 shows much more noise than the Nikon D80. But if you compare cameras with different sensors, but from the same sensor, their noise performance exhibits some similarities – the Nikon D2Xs (CMOS) and D200 (CCD) are a case in point.

 

BTW, the Kodak DCS SLR/n was the noisiest DSLR introduced in 2004. Simply using CMOS rather than CCD doesn’t magically reduce noise.

[mjh]

I would really doubt the success of R10 if it is indeed AF but not to be co-developed with electronic giants like Panasonic, Fuji or ...

Neither Panasonic nor Fuji could offer much help here – Fuji is relying on Nikon (the S5 Pro shares its AF module with the Nikon D200), while Panasonic uses Olympus’ AF technology – and Olympus itself is struggling to catch up with Canon, Nikon, or even Pentax.

 

On the other hand, Panasonic could offer useful advice in the area of in-camera processing, auto white-balance – that sort of thing. Previously, Leica had chosen partners with a weakness in exactly that area – Imacon/Hasselblad doesn’t care about in-camera processing, and neither does Jenoptik. That’s the problem with partners from the high-end of the market – they couldn’t care less about JPEG quality out of the camera.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[andybarton]

That’s the problem with partners from the high-end of the market – they couldn’t care less about JPEG quality.

 

Maybe Leica shouldn't be caring about JPEG quality either... maybe Leica should be positioning themselves in a different place from the crowd?

 

No compromises.

[mjh]

Maybe Leica shouldn't be caring about JPEG quality either... maybe Leica should be positioning themselves in a different place from the crowd?

Quite probably (I don’t care about JPEG quality either), but some of their customers beg to differ.