Jump to content

Is R10 or a brand new Digital-R coming ?


MP3

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

What does the juvenile sparring between sdai and Carsten add to this valuable source of information?

 

These were really friendly chatters, doc. Exactly how we've learned from each other ... you know what - You can turn yourself into a Leica expert in 10 days spending on this board. :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 463
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Simon, the last year a lens is released (or when it receives a new body) doesn't have anything to do with a design. The optical design of the Lux pre-Asph was unchanged from '62 until the introduction of the Asph. It was possibly the longest run of any lens design ever.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Carsten, the E46 started from 1995 is a redesign which kept the same optical "layout" but adopted a helical focusing mount allowing 0.7m close focusing so they are not the same as the E43. I believe glass, coating etc. were all vastly improved after almost 40 years in production.

 

To quote Erwin Puts from his Compendium book ... on page 128 regarding the 1.4/50 Summilux-R (II), 1998:

 

This eight-element design shows a significant improvement over all previous 1.4 designs. The performance in the field is quite visibly enhanced and this is the first 1.4 Leica lens to deliver outstanding image quality when stopped down. In this respect it is better than the current Summilux-M version and even brings current Summicron quality and more to a 1.4 design.

 

Peace. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Today i visited Leica NJ,

i had 2 concerns ...

 

1.My DMR shots were a bit off focus as compared to film back

2. I wanted to check out why i needed to reset the date/time each time i recharge the DMR battery - i figured it was the internal battery but my user profiles hold over the recharge...

 

While there i ran into Christian - The marketing man ! i had a bunch of questions to ask him, overall, nothing really new but more confirmation of what has been discussed here on the forum. Specifically on the R10 he mentioned that a new body is easier to design, cheaper to build, and a better platform to incorporate new features - producing a "DMR II" (would be my choice) just doesn't make business sense. nothing specfic on R10 debut dates...

 

Btw: on my issues.....

#1: turns out my DMR and R9 are working to spec, however a few of my lenses need to be "tuned" they are focusing short and what i expereinced was lens related- which makes perfect sense based on my usage

 

#2: despite that user profiles are holding across battery charges the internal battery in my DMR needs to be changed .... i still am not sure i completely beleive that since it happened when going to V1.3...... In V1.1 i would loose user profiles and keep the date/time but since going to V1.3 i now keep user profiles and loose date/time....... perhaps leica is right and the battery can only power one of those settings and not both and the firmware has something to do with which one the battery powers ? Anyway the batteries are on order so i can't tell you the outcome.

 

 

am i the only one switching between film and digital ?

 

Rich

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Rich, in the R10, did you ask if they were going to try to keep the system somewhat modular, with the sensor removable and replaceable, but the battery, mirror, and primary parts as the R10, thus enabling R10.2.12 (R10 body, sensor 2, firmware 1.2)

 

I think the idea of replaceable backs would be really beneficial, both financially and personally, but I understand they don't want to be stuck again with an issue with the supplier

-Steven

Link to post
Share on other sites

So you're asking for facts, Carsten ... I've done some homework on your behalf. :)

 

The last M version of 50/1.4 (E46) was introduced in 1995, not the one E43 you said was from 1962 ... which isn't correct actually, the last E43 was introduced in 1966.

 

You've probably search inside Erwin Puts' pdf file, which wasn't up to date ... there he only mentioned 1.4/50 Summilux (I) - from 1959-1965 and the 1.4/50 Summilux (II) - from 1966-1995. :)

 

I have that PDF, "The Leica Lens Compendium", "The Leica Pocket Guide", and Gunter Osterloh's excellent book, as well as some other minor ones. Everywhere I have read the same thing, namely that the 50 Lux Asph replaced the 40+ year-old previous version, which was changed only in the mount and not in the optics, through time. If you read my posts again, you will see that I am not arguing about you saying that the '98 R lens is better than the '61 M lens, but that you call them contemporaries, and use that as a basis for saying that the R lenses are "at least as good as" the contemporary M lenses. The 50 Lux Asph M is even better than the R lens, and has by Puts been called the best standard lens ever.

 

My point in this whole pseudo-discussion is only that you chose the words "at least as good", heavily implying, as one always does with this word-choice, that they are sometimes better. This is not currently the case. I was until recently a 5D owner, with Leica R lenses, and looked into the truth of this for the same reason: I wanted it to be true. However, I had to realise that it was not, at least at this point in time. It was the case with the 50s before the Lux Asph was released, but at the moment, I don't think there is a single lens which appears in both lineups where the R version is better, and the M lens is often better. This may change in the near future, as Leica gears up and freshens up the R line again.

 

By the way, the observation that you post opinion as fact, and that the facts are wrong, wasn't mine. Someone else posted that a little while ago, and I was puzzled, and filed it in my brain to check if it was really true. You do have a strong tendency to do this, I have meanwhile concluded, which I don't understand. It doesn't get you anything.

 

Anyway, this is a silly discussion about almost nothing. Let's stop.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello,

 

a DMRII won't be a solution because the R9 runs off.

Because off a european law (lead-free soldering) is a redesign of the whole camera electronic necessary.

This doesn't make sense, so the only solution will be a new designed R10 or nothing.

 

Kind regards,

Bernd.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would be more than happy with that.

 

A new real R-digital, that can use all my R glass.

 

I full agree whit you Andy.

For me I only need one R digital whit FF digital sensor whit 16Mpx and body whit the size and shape of my R8 whitout winder.

AF is not nead.

 

Best,

Link to post
Share on other sites

Steven,

we did discuss that a modular system is much more expensive (read: time consuming) to design and build - tolerences for example must be very small . i got the feeling that he was saying the "just build the whole thing as one unit" business model was prefered for hitting cost and quality objectives.

 

However i agree with you that "plug n play" electronic components would be ideal - but is that real ? For example as modular as computers are today hardly no-one replaces a mother board....

Link to post
Share on other sites

A modular system will always sound quite fancy but in real "digital" world it's not feasible. I agree with Rich's example on the computer ... 'a DSLR is basically a computer running a low level operating system anyways. Think about this ...

 

You upgrade your sensor, neat ... from 16MP to 22MP;

Now you'll need to upgrade the CPU to handle 22MP;

Then you'll need more memory to handle 22MP,

But hang on a second ... the new CPU and memory chips probably won't even plug into the sockets on the old motherboard so you'll have to throw away the motherboard. LOL

 

What's left then? A R10 clamshell, a metal mount ... how much would that cost? almost nothing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A modular system will always sound quite fancy but in real "digital" world it's not feasible.

It does work for Hasselblad, though – the H3D is a modular DSLR with interchangable lenses, viewfinders, and backs.

 

What's left then? A R10 clamshell, a metal mount ... how much would that cost? almost nothing.

A bit more than almost nothing if you get it from Hasselblad …

Link to post
Share on other sites

i think the point is that a modular system would not meet leica's objectives of cost & quality - NOT that it could not be acheived

 

Doesn't the Hassy H3D cost quite a bit more then the going rate for leica's either M or R bodies ?

 

BTW: my post should not be interperted to mean lenses and viewfinders would not be interchngeable on the R10.....i was referencing " digital backs"

Link to post
Share on other sites

It does work for Hasselblad, though – the H3D is a modular DSLR with interchangable lenses, viewfinders, and backs.

 

A bit more than almost nothing if you get it from Hasselblad …

 

But, Michael ... the H3D is still basically a digital back plugged into its host body with a closed up interface which prohibits the adaptation to a competitor's digital back. I agree Leica could also add a detachable AE finder to the R10 or waist level finder etc ...

 

I do have a humble request to you, if you talk to the Solms guys again, could you ask if this is doable on the R10 ... or maybe they're already trying it?

 

You know how Mamiya opens a slot at the bottom of the ZD so you can insert the optional IR cut filter and AA filter so they're directly place in front of the sensor?

 

Can Leica do this on the R10? if so, that would be super fantastic ... thanks!

Link to post
Share on other sites

But, Michael ... the H3D is still basically a digital back plugged into its host body with a closed up interface which prohibits the adaptation to a competitor's digital back.

Yep, but the point is that you can swap backs with the H3D – a 22 MP back for a 39 MP back, or the 31 MP back if you need to double the sensitivity. You are limited to those three digital backs and one film back, but they are certainly interchangable. And you can detach the back for cleaning the sensor.

 

Now whether this is possible to achieve with R-system quality at an R-system price tag, I don’t know, but the DMR seems to suggest that it isn’t impossible.

 

On the other hand, a somewhat less modular solution would certainly be less costly and also be more compact.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know the vast majority do not touch their computers for fear of breaking something... for good reason

I've fried one computer because I was stupid, but I learned from it, and it was a really old computer

 

I build my own systems, and have for nearly 7 years, but I don't try to mess with laptops, too many proprietary parts, and far to constrained to really fix anything (and the parts are really, really expensive by design)

 

I think some parts being modular, like the old Slot-A or Slot 1 processors, which included the heatsync on the processor, and was expensive, but very robust, is a reasonable compromise. I liken this to the sensor/processor/ram, all of which could be placed on the hinged back (or however they design it)

 

Honestly, I envisioned this as a chip/board inside the camera, with the screen, buttons, metal, mounts, and prism all static. If you pushed this into the camera, and then shut the back, that should set the board with the precision that users would not provide

 

If this was implemented as a slot, it could be a very simple process, similar to inserting sheet film, but stiffer, smaller, and higher resolution (I can dream, can't I :D)

 

I also acknowledge the issue of cost. I feel that if you were to design this as a modular part, with only the electronics and sensor needed, several companies could crank this out. Surface mounting parts is reasonably cheap, and the real cost becomes the sensor. All the normal camera parts stay with you, in hand, avoiding the very high costs of machining all those parts again, and the prism could be really expensive, because you only buy it once

 

This would also help with the low volume high costs problem that Leica is plagued with. Even a short run of 2000, outsourced to PCB printer would be reasonably cheap per unit... well, at least under $3000/unit, less if in asia

 

-Steven

Link to post
Share on other sites

I chatted with someone from Leica today, and his personal opinion (not the company line; apparently the R10/whatever project is top secret, even within Leica) was that the camera would support auto-focus and that there would be new lenses with this. Some kind of USM. The old lenses would be supported in aperture-priority mode, as well as manual, and there would be a focus confirmation light with manual lenses. It ought to be no larger than the R9. None of this is gospel, but it does show that people within Leica are aware of these issues, even if they aren't saying anything. I stressed to him that the ROM should be supported at least for EXIF purposes, but here he was less certain.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...