zapp Posted September 10, 2007 Share #281 Posted September 10, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) These R10 threads can drive you nuts - no news. Let's add some innovation. Give me a decent live view feature inside a viewfinder chamber, get rid of the mirror and show me a mount that accepts M and R lenses. A stepping ring should do to step from M to R mount including contacts. It would be nice to see this in the R10. We will see such a camera - live view no retro focus lenses in a couple years anyways. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted September 10, 2007 Posted September 10, 2007 Hi zapp, Take a look here Is R10 or a brand new Digital-R coming ?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
rosuna Posted September 12, 2007 Share #282 Posted September 12, 2007 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. CMOS-based designs incorporate in the sensor some functions that CCD-based designs locate on the surrounding circuitry. It is difficult to compare two designs in practice, but look at the recent evolution of image quality and, particularly, noise output at high ISOs of cameras with big sensors. Digital backs can't even get clean images at moderate ISOs, and the are power hungry. CCD-based designs are able to capture more signal per pixel, caeteris paribus, but they aren't so effiient at reducing noise. They provide better image quality at low ISO values, and in small sensor cameras. The trend is clear to me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
EH21 Posted September 12, 2007 Share #283 Posted September 12, 2007 I'm happy to use my canon or maybe a new nikon for times when I need to shoot high ISO or with sports, and take my leica to the studio and outdoors in good weather. I always prefer the higher quality images that my DMR's CCD produces over the 5D. I was asked about this just earlier today. I can make better looking larger prints from the 10mpix DMR than the 16mp canon 1DS or 13mpix 5D unless iso is 800 or higher. So I guess what I am saying is why not assume Leica does not need to compete with Canon/Nikon in all categories such as AF, high ISO. They only need to be able to produce a better file under some conditions for me to want to use it along side my other gear. Who here has more than one camera? I also have a MF Rollei. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrc Posted September 13, 2007 Share #284 Posted September 13, 2007 The people who think Leica should offer a simple R10 with total backward-compatibility are suggesting a sure way for Leica to fail, IMHO. A few old traditionalists (who seem to be dying out, based on the old traditional Leica sales) might like that, but to compete in the real world, Leica needs to offer auto-focus (with auto confirm for legacy lenses), IS (Pentax has a system that offers both lens-based IS and sensor-based IS simultaneously, which would be a great technology for Leica to emulate because it would work to both new and old lenses), a FF sensor, perhaps some kind of dust reduction technology and so on. I'd say no less than 17mp, or it will seem to be a full two generations behind the Canon. You have to ask yourself this: if Leica is basically a glass-maker, why should they risk losing their shirts to build a camera which will not, by-and-large, require users to buy any new glass? They'd be a heck of a lot better off to offer whatever backward compatibility seems reasonable, but then offer some huge new measure of workability with a line of new modern lenses. Once they start selling those, and get enough of them out there,they could just drop the backward compability with the R11 etc. JC Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ho_co Posted September 13, 2007 Share #285 Posted September 13, 2007 ...They'd be a heck of a lot better off to offer whatever backward compatibility seems reasonable, but then offer some huge new measure of workability with a line of new modern lenses. Once they start selling those, and get enough of them out there,they could just drop the backward compability with the R11 etc. John-- Good point. That's in fact just what they did with the screw-mount cameras. First came the M3, then the IIIg if I'm not in error, as a kind of farewell to the old and maybe to boost sales of the remaining screw-mount stock. The screw-to-bayonet adapters stayed in the catalog a long time, but I doubt there were any more screw-mount lenses designed after the M3 introduction. --HC Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
telyt Posted September 13, 2007 Share #286 Posted September 13, 2007 You have to ask yourself this: if Leica is basically a glass-maker, why should they risk losing their shirts to build a camera which will not, by-and-large, require users to buy any new glass? They'd be a heck of a lot better off to offer whatever backward compatibility seems reasonable, but then offer some huge new measure of workability with a line of new modern lenses. Once they start selling those, and get enough of them out there,they could just drop the backward compability with the R11 etc. One reason people are willing to spend large gobs of money on Leica lenses is the assurance that the lenses will be fully usable or can be adapted to full usability on whatever body Leica comes up with in the future. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdai Posted September 13, 2007 Share #287 Posted September 13, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) Backward compatibility is a none issue for Leica R ... ROM lenses are already chipped so necessary info can always be communicated to the body. Great thing is ... Leica's legacy lenses are all MANUAL driven so they can run away with AF - just to retain the mechanical mount specification. Unlike Nikon ... who dare not to remove the in body AF motor. LOL Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdai Posted September 13, 2007 Share #288 Posted September 13, 2007 Another great thing is ... many other camera companies don't seem to care about base and/or lower ISO settings anymore in favor of extreme high ISO performance. Now Nikon doesn't even care to show a proper sample at base ISO setting for their flagship camera ... I believe that's exactly where the new Leica will shine. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
EH21 Posted September 13, 2007 Share #289 Posted September 13, 2007 A few old traditionalists (who seem to be dying out, based on the old traditional Leica sales) might like that, but to compete in the real world, Leica needs to offer auto-focus (with auto confirm for legacy lenses), JC JRC - I'm not old and I'm not dying out (as far as I know) and I have had a bunch of crap features in cameras like the direct to print on the Canons that I really don't need and don't want to pay for. I WILL pay for good image quality, meaning high dynamic range and high bit color with a full frame sensor to use the great Leica glass. AF is nice but it doesn't work as well as a really nice big bright viewfinder since AF often pics the wrong spot, ie nose instead of eyes. If I had a choice between the two, I'd rather take the viewfinder - something not found in most of the DSLR's today. As far as your comment about this is a sure way to fail, time has proven otherwise. Leica has always been about quality not features. Sony is about features and most is crap that breaks in two years. Why don't they not care? Because the same fools are rushing to buy the next thing instead of learning how to get good results from what they have. If you can make a good image, meaning you know how to do so, then you can do it without AF or sensor cleaning or a direct to print feature, but you can't do it without a good sensor and good lenses. I realize there are a lot of well off amateurs using leica but also some very crafty pros. Anyhow, I doubt very much that Leica can beat Canon and nikon with a copy cat camera. They can beat them with quality body to match their current lenses. Don't ask Leica to toss that out and put their R&D efforts towards non critical features. Eric Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosuna Posted September 13, 2007 Share #290 Posted September 13, 2007 So I guess what I am saying is why not assume Leica does not need to compete with Canon/Nikon in all categories such as AF, high ISO. I don't agree. Leicas were able to use the same films than Canons and Nikons. I don't say Leica needs clean ISO 3200 files, as the Nikon D3 does, but they cannot ship a camera with noisy ISO 640/800. That is technology from the jurasic age. Focus confirmation would be a good new feature, for fast focusing with superfast lenses. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mgcd Posted September 13, 2007 Share #291 Posted September 13, 2007 I don't agree. Leicas were able to use the same films than Canons and Nikons. I don't say Leica needs clean ISO 3200 files, as the Nikon D3 does, but they cannot ship a camera with noisy ISO 640/800. That is technology from the jurasic age. Focus confirmation would be a good new feature, for fast focusing with superfast lenses. Focus confirmation is already built in, read microprism, matte screen and split image. It's really tiring to see the lowest common denominator offered all the time, this general lazy attitude is what turns me off these silly features. As for a clean 800 ISO, the DMR firmware v. 1.3 makes me happy. There's nothing Jurassic about it. Cheers, Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosuna Posted September 13, 2007 Share #292 Posted September 13, 2007 It's really tiring to see the lowest common denominator offered all the time, this general lazy attitude is what turns me off these silly features. Sometimes my tired eyes don't allow me a perfect focus using Summiluxes. I find the ISO 640 of the M8 just acceptable. Actually, with the last generation cameras, it is easy to get clean (enough) images at ISO 1600, 3200... It is not determinant for all possible buyers of a M8 or future R10, but is a very strong competitive feature. You don't need to be as good as Nikon or Canon, but you cannot be too far from them. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrc Posted September 13, 2007 Share #293 Posted September 13, 2007 I find the ISO 640 of the M8 just acceptable. Actually, with the last generation cameras, it is easy to get clean (enough) images at ISO 1600, 3200... It is not determinant for all possible buyers of a M8 or future R10, but is a very strong competitive feature. You don't need to be as good as Nikon or Canon, but you cannot be too far from them. Absolutely. My argument basically is that the R10 can't become some kind of weird art form, an archaic camera sold on the basis of its machine beauty. A few people will buy them, but most, if they're paying $8,000 plus the cost of R lenses, most want something that will in some way compete with Canon/Nikon. If Leica could say, 'We admit we have less absolute resolution than Canon/Nikon, and we're not a high-frame rate sports shooter or a high ISO camera, but neither of those cameras can touch us in DR or color rendition at ISO 100-1200," then they'd have a really good argument for landscape, fashion, catalog and art shooters, who need perfect color but don't have to worry so much about high ISO or frame-rate. They'd have something that the others wouldn't have, and that you really can't easily adjust in post-production. But Leica also needs the typical modern photo things that you find now even in P&S: autofocus, image stabilization, etc. That gets them in the game. I don''t know much about mechanics or optics, but I know somethings about sales, and one thing I know is that to sell something, you need a story that appeals to the buyer. Leica's story has always been, "We're expensive, but we're the best." Lately, it's just been, "We're expensive," and they tried to sell Leicas like they sold Hermes scarves, as luxury items. That didn't work so well. The M8 changed the story: "We expensive, but we're unique, and we offer the only choice for people who prefer a light, discreet, fast-handling street shooter with great competitive image qualilty." The R has to be, "We're expensive, but we offer qualities that you can't get with Nikon/Canon," whatever those qualities may be. JC Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosuna Posted September 13, 2007 Share #294 Posted September 13, 2007 Film manufacturers never were competitors of Leica, and Leicas accepted any film in the market. However, in the digital age, Leica must be competitive in sensor and electronics design, and mechanics and optics. You must be very good in three different areas. It is hard and difficult, but there aren't alternatives. I am sure Leica will do a great camera, but it isn't a easy task. The DMR wasn't either, but the basic technology of the DMR (or the M8) was enough for 2004, but not for 2008 standards. The Leica M8 (a 2006 machine) has better noise performance at high ISOs than the DMR, but only because its base ISO is 160 (200) instead of 100. I don't know if a CMOS sensor could help here, but the DMR/M8 standard must be substantially improved in many ways. Very good image quality only at low ISOs will not be enough next year (and I doubt it will be enough for medium format back manufacturers much longer, but they have at least bigger sensors...). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted September 13, 2007 Share #295 Posted September 13, 2007 I don't need another nikanopus reflex personally. There are plenty of them in photo shops already. What i need is a small discrete camera a la R4-R7 with a big bright viewfinder a la Leicaflex to be able to focus manually great lenses like Leica's or Zeiss. But i want to do AE metering wide open without being forced to chimp during shootings. Am i alone to want this? Is there a market for people like me? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wlaidlaw Posted September 13, 2007 Share #296 Posted September 13, 2007 Focus confirmation is already built in, read microprism, matte screen and split image. It's really tiring to see the lowest common denominator offered all the time, this general lazy attitude is what turns me off these silly features. As for a clean 800 ISO, the DMR firmware v. 1.3 makes me happy. There's nothing Jurassic about it. Cheers, Conrad, Old age will happen to you as well, so don't be so smug about not needing focus confirmation. Even when my eye-sight was considerably better than it is now, I would have struggled to get accurate focus in low light with the 85/f1.2 Planar wide open on my Contax RX. DOF was the thickness of a cigarette paper. Focus confirmation was a great help and if AF is not a feature on any R10, then I would suggest that focus confirmation would a good idea on that too. You don't stop taking photographs when you get over 60! Wilson Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mgcd Posted September 13, 2007 Share #297 Posted September 13, 2007 Conrad, Old age will happen to you as well, so don't be so smug about not needing focus confirmation. Even when my eye-sight was considerably better than it is now, I would have struggled to get accurate focus in low light with the 85/f1.2 Planar wide open on my Contax RX. DOF was the thickness of a cigarette paper. Focus confirmation was a great help and if AF is not a feature on any R10, then I would suggest that focus confirmation would a good idea on that too. You don't stop taking photographs when you get over 60! Wilson I'm not being smug Wilson, I am just pointing out that focus confirmation is already built-in. I can undestand that tired eyes may need help at times. After 14 hours of shooting, I can barely focus on anything. BTW, if I'm lucky (keeping my fingers crossed), in the business I'm in, then old age will catch up with me. Cheers, Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Roberts Posted September 13, 2007 Share #298 Posted September 13, 2007 I'm not being smug Wilson, I am just pointing out that focus confirmation is already built-in. I can undestand that tired eyes may need help at times. After 14 hours of shooting, I can barely focus on anything. BTW, if I'm lucky (keeping my fingers crossed), in the business I'm in, then old age will catch up with me. Cheers, Conrad, you're right--focus confirmation is built in. But some of us can't see it very well anymore, is all. Heck, I've noticed a big difference in the last 3 years. This sucks; my vision was always excellent. Now getting "tired" in terms of seeing fine details takes way less than 14 hours; more like 4. Soon it will be 3... So gimme an LED already Though if they make the ground glass / screen / visual focus indicators MORE visible, then I'm all for that too Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosuna Posted September 13, 2007 Share #299 Posted September 13, 2007 I have myopia, astigmatism and I start suffering from tired vision (I don't know how it is in English)... go figure... ... and my nose is too big for a reflex camera with centered prism... Rangerfinders are for me. . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
telyt Posted September 14, 2007 Share #300 Posted September 14, 2007 So gimme an LED already Though if they make the ground glass / screen / visual focus indicators MORE visible, then I'm all for that too SL or SL2, they have all the focus confirmation I need. Age 55. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.