Is R10 or a brand new Digital-R coming ?

[sdai]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Gee, I don't want to get roped into a discussion of what I think Leica _ought_ to do, when I'm sure their plans are already firm in the first place.

 

No catch here, Howard. I've carefully said that's what I guess Leica will do ...

 

As you've mentioned, I'm one of those who will gladly take whatever they deliver ...

 

On a side note, I've just ordered a book for my son and it's called 211 Things a Bright Boy Can Do. The book description on Amazon.com says:If you've reached adulthood without knowing how to spin a rope like a cowboy, cure a hangover, or make a citizen's arrest, this is the book you've been waiting for.

 

Now I want to add my own twist ... if you've reached adulthood without shooting with a Leica, this is the camera you've been waiting for. LOL

[ho_co]

Gee, my dad could spin a rope like a cowboy. Funny, but today I wish I'd asked him to teach me.

 

Citizen's arrest? Hit him over the head with your camera and hope he doesn't sue!

 

--HC

[hamey]

Ken, as I recall, it's in the Kaufmann interview. I don't understand exactly what you want done. I don't think they're going to send out a letter to owners saying it's out of production. My car company doesn't do that, nor the manufacturer of my computers.

 

It's not really a case of Leica 'confirming' the information; the chairman and owner is the one who released the information in the first place.

 

--HC

 

Howard,

 

when production of the R6.2 was ceased this was announced in LFI.

(no Leica Forum in those days)

Reason, because their Japanese supplier (Seiko) wasn't making anymore

Mechanical Shutters as the market wasn't big enough to warrant their manufacture.

 

If termanation of the R9 is correct, then Leica should state otherwise.

If a replacement for the R9 was due with another Film model then thats understandable.

But to leave this void in my view is simply poor public relations.

I have several R models to keep me going till my life expires, hoping Film will do likewise.

So it's not that much of a concern to me but it might be to others.

 

Ken.

[telyt]

I actually think that Leica could keep MF and AF two lines in production as long as they see there's a demand.

 

Manual focus isn't just about the lens. The viewfinder has to be optimized for manual focus too, which I have yet to see in an AF camera. Using manual focus lenses on an AF camera doesn't make the camera manual focus, it makes it crippled.

[sdai]

Manual focus isn't just about the lens. The viewfinder has to be optimized for manual focus too, which I have yet to see in an AF camera. Using manual focus lenses on an AF camera doesn't make the camera manual focus, it makes it crippled.

 

I absolutely agree with you, Doug ... that's why I repeatedly fancied a detachable viewfinder and precision focusing screen set, adding an electronic rangefinder, some work needs to be done with the mirror perhaps? or may be something else much better and they've already started working on it.

[ho_co]

...If a replacement for the R9 was due with another Film model then thats understandable....

Ken, see the Kaufmann interview Quo vadis, Leica? (in German).

 

He says Leica will continue to develop analog cameras as long as there's a demand for them, but that it would still be at minimum a couple years before another film camera arrives.

 

That leaves the issue open. R9 is out of production, future film camera production isn't ruled out.

 

Kaufmann and Lee do seem pretty open to talking at least vaguely about future products, so I think we've seen a pretty fair indication of where the matter stands

 

Might be nice to see a confirmation in some particular place like LFI, but this forum has enough people watching news sources that I think we can say we've been informed.

 

--HC

[rosuna]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

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.

 

Much lower power consumption is a well known feature of CMOS sensors:

 

Kodak: A Thousand Nerds - Image Sensors 101: CMOS vs CCD

 

R.

[mjh]

Much lower power consumption is a well known feature of CMOS sensors

Of course it is, but given that in a DSLR, the sensor is inactive for most of the time, this isn’t much of an issue. And as I mentioned, this might change with live-view becoming more popular. Generally, DSLRs consume less power than compact digicams, despite their much bigger CCDs, and I am not aware of any statistics about DSLRs with CMOS sensors consuming less power overall than those equipped with CCDs. For example, the Canon EOS 400D has a 5.3 Wh battery, one charge being good for up to 360 shots, according to the CIPA standard. The Nikon D40x has a 7,4 Wh battery good for up to 520 shots. That translates to 68 shots per Wh for the CMOS model vs. 70 shots per Wh for the CCD camera. Obviously, factors other than the sensor’s power requirements have a much larger influence on the total power consumption of a camera.

[rosuna]

CMOS sensors perform much of the operations than, in the case of CCDs, are made on the logic board. There are other factors too, of course, but power consumption and voltage of operation are two key advantages of CMOS sensors vs CCDs, and CMOS sensors allow for different designs of the electronic components of a camera. The smaller the sensor is, the narrower is the difference, I suppose.

 

The DMR and M8 are just acceptable in terms of battery consumption, but we have in the market much more powerful cameras with more battery life per charge. The problem is how to get a new R10 camera with an even bigger CCD sensor (24x36mm) and improved battery consumption. It is a key problem, and it isn't easy to solve.

[sdai]

Obviously, factors other than the sensor’s power requirements have a much larger influence on the total power consumption of a camera.

 

I agree with Michael on this matter, I've used Nikon's D200 and D80 as examples before, these two cameras use two almost identical CCD sensors, only (major) difference is the D200 model has a 4 channel readout architecture and the D80 has only 2, however, the D80 has almost triple the battery life of the D200.

 

I haven't done any test myself but according to Nikon's white paper for the D80, one single charge of the EN-EL3e battery could last 2700 shots with the D80, the capacity of the battery is 11.1 Wh so that's more than 240 shots per Wh.

 

Now let's look at this the other way, full frame camera doesn't necessarily consume more power than an APS-C or APS-H size camera.

 

Canon's 1D2 and 1Ds2 all share the same NP-E3 battery pack.

 

According to Canon's white paper, both models have the same battery life spec. 1200 at 20 Celsius degrees and 800 shots at 0 Celsius degrees.

 

The capacity of NP-E3 is 19.8Wh so that's a pathetic 60.6 shots per Wh.

[EH21]

Good battery life is so far down on my list of wants. I hope that most people considering a leica R will have image quality and ease of use first on their lists. Remember film? You'd get 35 shots and have to change the roll. What's the big deal to change a battery after 200-300 shots? As far as I know the best sensors are still CCD.

[bono0272]

Any hints if the R10 will use CCD or CMOS sensor? The new Nikon DSLR's are using CMOS since CMOS can provide a better noise reduction at high iso?

[Riley]

Any hints if the R10 will use CCD or CMOS sensor? The new Nikon DSLR's are using CMOS since CMOS can provide a better noise reduction at high iso?

 

actually CCD's are better at high iso low noise

Nikon went to CMOS because of LiveView i think

[rosuna]

actually CCD's are better at high iso low noise

 

I don't think so. I guess last generation CMOS designs allow for lower noise. Reset noise, thermal noise and other sources of noise can be lower in CMOS designs (lower voltage, lower power consumption, in pixel treatment of noise, etc. CCDs have more signal, just because the photosites are bigger. When you reduce the signal increasing the ISO, the signal-to-noise deteriorates fast. The signal-to-noise (SNR) the key variable, and signal depends on a series of variables, and noise depends on a different set of variables. The market is going for CMOS sensors for high end cameras with big sensors (Nikon, Canon, Sony...).

[mjh]

Any hints if the R10 will use CCD or CMOS sensor?

No. If it is to be a 36 x 24 mm sensor, it will probably be CMOS, as that is pretty much the only game in town at the moment (Kodak offers CCDs, but those require active cooling).

 

The new Nikon DSLR's are using CMOS since CMOS can provide a better noise reduction at high iso?

CMOS technology doesn’t provide better noise reduction. As a matter of fact, CMOS sensors are inherently more noisy than their CCD counterparts. This doesn’t imply that you couldn’t get low-noise images from CMOS sensors, only that you need a more efficient noise-reduction, and CMOS technology allows you to integrate parts of the noise-suppression circuitry on the sensor. This is actually a mixed blessing, as any additional circuitry is both a factor contributing to the overall noise as it can be a means of suppressing noise. Furthermore, any additional circuitry on the sensor tends to limit the ability of the sensor cells to store electric charge, thus limiting the sensor’s dynamic range.

[mjh]

CCDs have more signal, just because the photosites are bigger.

Bigger photosites just increase the native ISO value, thus allowing for higher shutter speeds for an optimal exposure. If CCDs deliver “more signal”, that’s because their full-well capacity is bigger as well, which is directly relevant to both the dynamic range and the signal-to-noise ratio.

 

The market is going for CMOS sensors for high end cameras with big sensors (Nikon, Canon, Sony...).

Except that the biggest sensors (39 MP, 48 x 36 mm) of the true high-end cameras are still CCDs.

[sdai]

Nikon goes for CMOS because Sony goes for CMOS. And the reason Sony goes for CMOS is partly because they don't want to pay royalty to Kodak.

 

On the technical side, based on a CIPA report I've seen in 2003 or maybe 2004 ... the Japanese fabs favored CMOS because they can integrate more supporting electronics on board, for example, Sony now isn't only doing NR on board but also moving A/D on board as well ... so they can build a "camera-on-one-chip" and massively reduce the production costs.

 

It doesn't really matter whether the R10 goes after CCD or CMOS although I personally prefer CCD a lot more ... Canon, Sony or maybe a couple of European, Israeli fabs can also provide 36x24mm size CMOS chips.

 

Nikon owns the exclusive right to use the Sony/Nikon co-developed FF sensor for a certain period before Sony puts their own version (with less read out channels) into their own model and open access to third parties

 

The 5D upgrade coming soon (at a stunning price) is probably the last run of Canon's current generation of CMOS fab technology, once the next generation fab in Kawasaki is ready for production, we shall see some real ground breaking cameras.

[Guest guy_mancuso]

I still think we will see CCD's in future product coming from Leica. For me i just like CCD's better, always have.

[sdai]

I still think we will see CCD's in future product coming from Leica. For me i just like CCD's better, always have.

 

I absolutely agree with you, Guy ... and that's just ONE MORE GREAT REASON to buy a Leica.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Guest guy_mancuso]

The best tonal ranges i have seen over the years comes from MF backs and they all use CCD sensors. Besides the science of it all which i know nothing about i just always loved what CCD sensors do for a image in many ways. They may not have the noise supression that CMOS can do but im happier than a duck with a limit at ISO 800 although a sweet 1250 would be better