Is R10 or a brand new Digital-R coming ?

[sdai]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I think a square or close to square format makes better use of the existing lenses. If you are tossing out film then you also toss out the format. Basically you can use any sensor shape that fits in the image circle of the lens.

 

I agree with you that Leica can go for a square format sensor while retaining the mount and keep the register distance, however ... that's not going to gain much. Let's do some simple math ...

 

With 24x36mm rectangle frame the image circle diameter is 43.27mm ... now if you do square format within the same circle, then the frame changes to 30.59x30.59mm. How much do you gain?

 

(30.59x30.59)-(24x36)=71.75 mm2

 

But then,

 

To crop a maximum 2:3 out of the square format sensor you lose 30.59x(30.59/3)=311 mm2

 

To crop a maximum 4:5 out of the square format sensor you lose 30.59x(30.59/5)=187.15 mm2

 

So the square format sensor is actually creating more waste when cropping/printing. Unless Leica enlarges the mount size to accommodate a much bigger image circle and extend the register distance for this, a square format sensor inside existing mount will only result in more waste in end results.

[Advertisement]

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

[EH21]

Yeah well I always crop the 3::2 format. In fact if you want to print an 8x10 you have to crop a lot. If you want to frame your images in standard frame sizes you end up cropping a lot. So while your argument might be valid for someone that prefers to crop to 2::3 it isn't for me. I never suggested square sensor anyhow - I have that in my phase p20 digital back.

[wlaidlaw]

This doesn't make sense ... Eric. Then I'd rather go for a H3D II 22MP version (heck, the 31MP isn't much more expensive), same first class glass, auto focus, 645, 22 MP Kodak sensor ... in the mean time I can keep my R lenses for a 1Ds.

 

Actually, I don't even believe larger than 24x36mm sensor will happen ... then the mount size and register distance will all change, no way to fit into a 5D size body ... probably hard to fit into a R9 size body too. All these R lenses become paperweight ... why call it R10 then? get a fancy new name ... something like F1.

 

I picked up an HD3-39 with the zoom lens (50-110?) last year at Photokina. My back should be recovering soon. In the green colour it looks like a tank, is built like a tank but weighs slightly more. If the R10 weighs anything near this, I would not be buying one. I looked at buying a used R9 plus a new DMR last year but after handling the combo for about 10 minutes decided it was far too big and heavy for an AAA (aging arthritic amateur) like me. I am hoping that any new R10 would be not much bigger and heavier than an R9 without the DMR.

 

Wilson

[Riley]

what i dont see being addressed are the incompatible strategies for either of:

• high Mp 35mm chip at around 20+Mp, which makes use of Leica R high end resolution
  
• or high iso capable hence low noise at around 12Mp 35mm chip
  

[wlaidlaw]

what i dont see being addressed are the incompatible strategies for either of:

• high Mp 35mm chip at around 20+Mp, which makes use of Leica R high end resolution
  
• or high iso capable hence low noise at around 12Mp 35mm chip
  

 

I agree with you Riley - they are incompatible. It would be difficult to make one camera which would satisfy the needs of both amateurs and professionals. I would guess (and I may be wrong) that most keen amateurs would rather have the lower noise/higher ISO/lower pixel rather than the opposite. Having just got back a professionally done print from an M8 image at a size of 60cm x 90cm and been blown away by the detail, I question how many more pixels I would ever need. What I would like is quieter high ISO files. I accept that professionals often need to crop images heavily and in that instance, high pixel files are a must. I question however how many pro's are going to use an R10 - some but not a huge number. They already have the 1Ds Mk3 and various MF digitals/digital backs to choose from, that might suit their needs better than an R10. The really keen and it has to be said, relatively affluent amateur, would be a far larger market for Leica. I wonder if Leica are doing any market research into what potential customers really want and or need.

 

Wilson

[rosuna]

6,8 microns of pixel spacing leads to 18,6 millions of pixels on a 24x26mm sensor. The M8 and DMR have 6,8 microns pixels. In theory, it is possible to have 18,6 millions of total pixels (not effective pixels) and very low noise on a 35mm full size sensor.

 

Canon will do this with 6,4 microns (and a CMOS sensor instead of CCD) in the 1Ds Mark III (22MP), and the 1D Mark III (6,8 microns, 10MP, crop x1.3, like the M8 and DMR) performs incredibly well at high ISOs.

[leicar7]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Any speculation about a sensor larger than 24x36 mm needs to account for the requirement for an increased mirror size if the sensor is longer in the 24mm direction. That would mean a larger mirror box and a larger lens flange to sensor distance, and, therefore, issues with current R lenses.

 

I believe that one of the features of the V-Lux1 is selectability of formats. This on a 4/3 chip. So if there are to be selectable formats on an R10, I would wager and hope that they would be accommodated within the 24x36 chip.

[telyt]

Any speculation about a sensor larger than 24x36 mm needs to account for the requirement for an increased mirror size if the sensor is longer in the 24mm direction. That would mean a larger mirror box and a larger lens flange to sensor distance, and, therefore, issues with current R lenses.

 

Thomas makes a good point, assuming a traditional SLR mirror box is retained. BTW the rumor originally posted on the LUG is BS, confirmed to me privately by its originator.

[Riley]

6,8 microns of pixel spacing leads to 18,6 millions of pixels on a 24x26mm sensor. The M8 and DMR have 6,8 microns pixels. In theory, it is possible to have 18,6 millions of total pixels (not effective pixels) and very low noise on a 35mm full size sensor.

 

Canon will do this with 6,4 microns (and a CMOS sensor instead of CCD) in the 1Ds Mark III (22MP), and the 1D Mark III (6,8 microns, 10MP, crop x1.3, like the M8 and DMR) performs incredibly well at high ISOs.

 

Fuji'sP&S CCD technology could see a whopping 45Mp (3.8 x 12Mp) on a 35mm chip, but with iso performance contained to 800iso and below. Since there is debate over L glass not making the grade at 22Mp, 45Mp is a resolution that probably no other glass could attain.

[telyt]

45Mp is a resolution that probably no other glass could attain.

 

An APO-Telyt.

[sdai]

Fuji is shutting down all their digital camera business in Japan early next year and completely move their operation to China.

 

Their CCD business is outsourced to another company in Japan ... if you want to know the company's name, send me 10 dollars via PayPal.

[sdai]

An APO-Telyt.

 

Exactly, Doug ... and that should be 45 million serious high quality pixels ... not the one found in F50fd.

[EH21]

Well if anything this thread shows there is significant interest in a new R camera. Maybe at least 10 buyers here. J/K !

 

All jokes aside, I am keeping my 35-70 f/2.8 elmarit in the hopes that Leica will introduce a R digital that can use it to full advantage. I sure hope its full frame too. I'd like to see more pixels but don't really care about the framing.

 

For myself only, I'd rather see a bigger brighter viewfinder than AF. And if they are going to introduce some new lenses, I'd rather see a tilt/shift lens than an AF lens. But that's just me.

[Likaleica]

A lot of people seem to be interested in a high MP count sensor. But, look what Nikon just did with the D3. Rather than a large number of small pixels, they went for a moderate number of large pixels, which effectively increases picture quality. As an example, the Phase One P25 back has larger pixels and a much better image quality but less pixels than the P30 (22MP vs 31MP).

 

If the R10 if full frame, I'd rather see larger absolute pixel size, not higher pixel density.

[Riley]

the thing is, every man and his dog will produce high iso capable cameras now

well that is if you believe iso1600 is high, but certainly the sensor performance beyond iso1600 has ramped up a bit of late in pro quality cameras.

 

what the others cant do however, is maintain image quality particularly wide open, where Leica glass will score a few stops there, perhaps then equaling the iso1600 performance but a few stops down. And what others most certainly cannot do, is to fully resolve a high Mp count sensor, where high is in the high 20's Mp zone.

 

The competitive advantage then would be in resolution, a strategy that has seen the Mp race since digital imaging began. And one that is guaranteed that others cannot compete with. So do you want to be an also-ran iso performer camera, or have something worth developing?

 

and Simon, Im sure my office can accept Fuji's calls

[sdai]

..

 

and Simon, Im sure my office can accept Fuji's calls

 

You'd have to hire someone who speaks Chinese then ...

 

Fuji's CCD supplier is Toshiba ... surprise, right?

[Riley]

You'd have to hire someone who speaks Chinese then ...

 

Fuji's CCD supplier is Toshiba ... surprise, right?

 

there goes your ten bucks sport

[mgcd]

An APO-Telyt.

 

Exactly.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[jrc]

I'd like seeing an R10 in a squarer format (but not square) like 3:4 or 4:5. But maybe some of you technologically advanced people can answer a question I've had for a long time, and about which I've never gotten a satisfactory answer.

 

I've been told that you couldn't go to a squarer format because when companies manufacture high-quality lenses, they will accept a lens if it has a flaw in the area of the glass that is never used; that is, the area of the image circle that would project an image above the short side of the 3:2 format -- and if the sensor were change to 4:5, the flaw might come into play. I've also read that some lenses do not project a perfect round image circle, because the mount itself may chop off bits of the circle that are not projected onto a 3:2 image, but might be on a 4:5. In other words, that a design may intrude into the image circle in the unused area.

 

Is this true, or is this just more internet b.s.?

 

JC

[Riley]

I'd like seeing an R10 in a squarer format (but not square) like 3:4 or 4:5. But maybe some of you technologically advanced people can answer a question I've had for a long time, and about which I've never gotten a satisfactory answer.

 

the problem for a dSLR is that the mirror then needs to be square also. This creates the combined problem of greater mirror slap noise, larger mass momentum of the mirror (hence slower to operate) and potentially a space issue within the mirrorbox, and perhaps disabling the use of retrofocus lenses.

 

I've been told that you couldn't go to a squarer format because when companies manufacture high-quality lenses, they will accept a lens if it has a flaw in the area of the glass that is never used; that is, the area of the image circle that would project an image above the short side of the 3:2 format -- and if the sensor were change to 4:5, the flaw might come into play. I've also read that some lenses do not project a perfect round image circle, because the mount itself may chop off bits of the circle that are not projected onto a 3:2 image, but might be on a 4:5. In other words, that a design may intrude into the image circle in the unused area.

 

Is this true, or is this just more internet b.s.?

 

JC

 

digital lenses are normally baffled to increase contrast, such baffles would be 3x2 or 4x3 format therefore not suitable for another format. However legacy glass probably doesnt have any.

 

In any event, digital sensors do not operate as film does, being less tollerant of less than perpendicular light. This will be an issue for R10 with UWA lenses without some irregular technological fix such as lens coding or offset micromirrors. The following corner crops from the Olympus 7-14 (14mm EFL) and the Canon 10-22 (16mm EFL) highlight the soft edges/corners with the lens wide open, characteristic of a lack of attention to optically refined system features thus losing some available speed by needing to stop down.

 

Olympus 7-14, at 7mm (14mm EFL) F4 (wide open) corner crop 100%

 

Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5, at 10mm (16mm EFL) F3.5 (wide open) corner crop 100%