Is R10 or a brand new Digital-R coming ?

[rosuna]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

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

 

You need a minium pixel density because you need a minimum sampling frequency in order to resolve without moiree a particular level of detail. Leica don't use AA filters, and therefore they shouldn't reduce the density too much. My point is that keeping the density of the M8/DMR you can have 18MP in a full frame sensor, increasing it just a bit (6.8 microns vs 6.4) you have 22MP.

 

In my opinion, Leica should offer 18Mp (aprox) in a future R10 FF camera and work on better noise reduction algoritms and dedicated components on the logic board. 12MP with better high noise performace could be a good idea for a reportage camera like a future M9 camera.

[Advertisement]

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

[ho_co]

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 doubt it. That would mean taking more time to inspect a lens, and to line up less-than-best performance areas out of picture area. And with spherical optics at any rate, how could you get a 'bad' section without chipping or scratching the glass?

 

When Zeiss built the Contaflex series of 35mm cameras with Compur shutters, they offered front component interchangeability: 32mm, 50mm, 85mm and 115mm lenses as I recall. The shutter and the lens elements behind it stayed put. The 50mm had only a single element that came off to accept the other front components. The 115 was very large and heavy. Zeiss then built a proof of concept lens for the Contaflex, chopping off the top and bottom parts of that lens after mounting. In other words, you still had a fully functional picture-taker since the lens could only be mounted one way, and the parts of the lens that were never used had been lopped off. The lens was only about half the weight, but would have cost more than twice as much to produce. Demonstration only, but it began with a fully functional lens.

 

Same thing with the Super Angulon f/3.4 for the original Leicaflex: It was the same design as the 21 M and required mirror lockup, but it also had the top part of the rear end chopped off to keep it from fouling the mirror box.

 

I don't see any reasonable way that only one part of a lens would be off. If it's decentered, it's decentered all over. If it shows coma, it will be the same in the parts you don't see as in the edges that you do. Etc

 

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.

For some zoom lenses in the past, that was definitely true. I've seen lenses with a baffle designed to do just that. I don't recall whether any Leica lenses were built that way, but if I'm not mistaken, it's still relatively common with long zoom lenses for the movie industry.

 

--HC

[masjah]

FWIW, my recently acquired 28-90 zoom has got a rectangular mask at the very back, and a couple of baffles masking the top and bottom (the bits of the image circle not needed in 3:2 format) just behind the front element. So presumably there may well be problems using this lens in other aspect ratios, even within the image circle.

[mjh]

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

It’s just that they are closing down a factory in Japan and relocating production to their already existing factory in China. That’s not “shutting down all their digital camera business in Japan”. Development will continue to be based in Japan.

 

Their CCD business is outsourced to another company in Japan

It is just the wafer production that is outsourced to Toshiba. The sensors as such will still be made by Fuji.

 

And then, what do you think is the overall significance of this move, other than that some Japanese will lose their jobs and production cost will go down?

[mjh]

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.

Fuji’s (or anyone’s) P&S cameras have a pixel pitch of 2 µm or less these days. A 36 x 24 mm sensor with the same density would have 216 MP or even more.

[jimowers]

Is that red dot a Leica patent? if yes, then Canon and Olympus could be in big trouble. LOL

It would not be a patent but could possibly be a trademark - you would need to see if it had been registered as such. However, I doubt that something as basic as a coloured dot could be.

[sdai]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

It’s just that they are closing down a factory in Japan and relocating production to their already existing factory in China. That’s not “shutting down all their digital camera business in Japan”. Development will continue to be based in Japan.

 

It is just the wafer production that is outsourced to Toshiba. The sensors as such will still be made by Fuji.

 

And then, what do you think is the overall significance of this move, other than that some Japanese will lose their jobs and production cost will go down?

 

Actually, they're not just shutting down ONE factory in Japan ... putting it this way, Fuji will no longer make one single digital camera (this include DSLR, and I suspect the S5 will be the last one in Fuji history) in Japan when the transition period ends in next August.

 

Fuji doesn't make sensors ... they only put the "sensor assembly" together to say exactly, and that's a new line of business they're going to spin off as well, so out of core businesses, they won't even touch the digital camera parts after all.

 

The announcement they made publicly also says they're going to "rethink" about their development system of Finepix cameras, various facilities spreading across the country will be moved to one place.

 

In fact, Fuji has started investing heavily in pharmaceutical and cosmetics industries ... perhaps in 10 years they'll be known as "Japanese Pfizer" or "Japanese Johnson and Johnson".

 

And if they like ... the unit in China could be sold to anyone in the future.

[tllabron]

Well, there was an article about the woman who is designing it at some point, IIRC. Of course, designing and building are two different things, but keep in mind that Steven K. Lee is a big R fan. There have been many rumours, but a few things remain likely:

 

- resolution greater than 10MP

- body size similar to R7 or R8/9

- will be able to use all or nearly all R lenses

- may add some kind of autofocus or focus assist, but may continue to be aimed at the manual focus crowd.

- will have a red dot somewhere

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Carsten,

 

I would hope that the MP would be greater than 10MP since Kodak already has 18MP in its high end camera, and Canon is already sporting 22MP and for the price paid for a digital Leica with the Modul-R they should be able to at least match it or beat it. The ability to use a 4 or 8 gig thumbdrive was always be nice, although 8gig SD cards are already available.

 

Although there was a effort by Leica a number of years ago to dip there toes in the autofocus arena, this would be bad for them, I would think, and us the consumer, since this would mean a whole new set of lenses needed for an autofocus camera and I am sure a much higher price tag. Leica had a couple of prototypes cameras but they were the size of an SL2-Mot with the motor attached to it and in the end all it did was tell you that the picture in the frame was in focus, but they never went all the way like Minolta did, with whom they collaborated on this project. I have used Leicaflex and R models for 35 years and have never seen a need for autofocus. The lenses are so quick and smooth acting, and when I have used an autofocus camera it seemed more to get in the way. Of course, this may because I am not used to having everything done for me.

 

I certainly hope they continue with the R-line. I have big hands, and my biggest problem with digital cameras is that they are meant to be used by people with very tiny hands, plus I like the idea of interchangeable lenses.

 

Tom L.L.

[mjh]

Actually, they're not just shutting down ONE factory in Japan ... putting it this way, Fuji will no longer make one single digital camera (this include DSLR, and I suspect the S5 will be the last one in Fuji history) in Japan when the transition period ends in next August.

Most of the FinePix models are manufactured in China even now; the S5 Pro and the S9600 being the only exceptions I am aware of (and most parts of the S5 Pro are from Nikon anyway). What’s so unusual about this move? Most Nikon DSLRs are from Thailand, Sony DSLRs from Malaysia, Pentax DSLRs from the Philippines …

 

Fuji doesn't make sensors ... they only put the "sensor assembly" together to say exactly, and that's a new line of business they're going to spin off as well, so out of core businesses, they won't even touch the digital camera parts after all.

According to their recent press release, “A preliminary agreement has been reached to subcontract the CCD’s pre-process production (wafer process) to Toshiba Corporation, which has a broad semiconductor production technology.” They are outsourcing the “pre-process production“, nothing else. SuperCCDs will continue to be manufactured by Fuji.

 

By the way, Fuji are also still manufacturing the lenses for Hasselblad’s H system.

 

In fact, Fuji has started investing heavily in pharmaceutical and cosmetics industries ... perhaps in 10 years they'll be known as "Japanese Pfizer" or "Japanese Johnson and Johnson".

Fuji is active in a lot of markets, cameras being only a small part of their business and source of revenue. Nothing new here.

[kdemas]

Actually the FF sensor in the N Digital (Contax) wasn't awful, it had higher ISO noise problems but the dynamic range was, and still is, one of the best performers ever.

 

Kent

[mjh]

You need a minium pixel density because you need a minimum sampling frequency in order to resolve without moiree a particular level of detail. Leica don't use AA filters, and therefore they shouldn't reduce the density too much.

For avoiding moiré just by outresolving the lens, you would need a much higher pixel density. 18 or 22 MP wouldn’t do. On the other hand, if the sensor is not outresolving the lens, it doesn’t matter by how much the resolution of lens and sensor differ – moiré wouldn’t get any worse with a 12 MP sensor than with a 16, 18, or 22 MP one.

[tllabron]

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

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Maybe Leica should step out in front and go with the JPEG2000 format standard, which would be no problem at all since they are running with Adobe Photoshop any way. JPEG2000 is starting to be accepted and probably within a couple of years will replace JPEG itself and the differences would definitely be welcomed..

 

Tom L.L.

[wlaidlaw]

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Carsten,

 

I would hope that the MP would be greater than 10MP since Kodak already has 18MP in its high end camera,

 

Tom L.L.

 

Tom,

 

I have just been looking at Kodak's website and can find nothing above 12MP. Their P&S cameras, sadly, although seeming innovative and high pixel, have always scored pretty low in comparative consumer tests. Don't know why - we know they can make good sensors and the cameras usually use Schneider-Kreuznach glass but it just does not seem to jell. The images are often described as artificial and over sharpened and with JPEG artifacts. The only one that has got a reasonable write up recently was the twin lens.

 

Wilson

[sdai]

They are outsourcing the “pre-process production“, nothing else. SuperCCDs will continue to be manufactured by Fuji.

 

Depends on how you define pre and post process, Michael, but Fuji only does the final assembly and test of their SuperCCD sensor units.

 

Even this ... they're going to spin it off as an independent business and no longer stays as part of their core business.

 

Leica may still have some sort of contact with Fuji considering their historical relationship ... and this could be confirmed easily.

[rosuna]

For avoiding moiré just by outresolving the lens, you would need a much higher pixel density. 18 or 22 MP wouldn’t do. On the other hand, if the sensor is not outresolving the lens, it doesn’t matter by how much the resolution of lens and sensor differ – moiré wouldn’t get any worse with a 12 MP sensor than with a 16, 18, or 22 MP one.

 

The moiré appears due to a difference between the detail to be resolved (transmited by the lens) and the ability of the sensor for resolving it. You can avoid moiré for a particular level of detail increasing the sampling frequency of the sensor. Of course, in order to avoid it in any possible case you need at least a sampling frequency equal to the double of the maximum detail transmited by the lens.

 

This is an interesting reference:

 

Optics for Digital Photography

 

R.

[sdai]

Most of the FinePix models are manufactured in China even now; the S5 Pro and the S9600 being the only exceptions I am aware of (and most parts of the S5 Pro are from Nikon anyway). What’s so unusual about this move? Most Nikon DSLRs are from Thailand, Sony DSLRs from Malaysia, Pentax DSLRs from the Philippines …

 

Ok, I just realized there are two versions of the press release. If you're reading the English one, you "may" have not realized that one of the factories they're shutting down is the one in Sendai where the S5, super CCD sensor assemblies and many optical products were built.

[carstenw]

The moiré appears due to a difference between the detail to be resolved (transmited by the lens) and the ability of the sensor for resolving it. You can avoid moiré for a particular level of detail increasing the sampling frequency of the sensor. Of course, in order to avoid it in any possible case you need at least a sampling frequency equal to the double of the maximum detail transmited by the lens.

 

This is an interesting reference:

 

Optics for Digital Photography

 

R.

Sure, this is the Nyquist limit which states that you need to sample at twice the frequency of the highest-frequency signal you want to resolve. Still, this is a theoretical result, and doesn't apply well to the real world. For example, a simple edge has infinite frequency... Also, what is the sampling density of a Bayer pattern, especially since the green is represented twice as often as blue or red and they are not regularly spaced wrt. each other? It would be difficult to make exact numerical statements about the needed pixel density of a camera, but suffice it to say, the Canon 1Ds3 is pushing the limit of most of Canon's own lenses very hard, even the L lenses. It will be interesting to see how much more resolution the 1Ds3 gets than the 1Ds2 with, say, the 300/2.8.

 

In a different example, the Canon G7 was examined for resolution, and it was found that the lens hit its diffraction limit already wide open. In other words, you would never see the expected resolution in its 10MP images, and it was observed to yield barely better results than the 7MP G6 (the practical limit for chips this size hits at about 8MP). The results even showed some noise at ISO 80! Now Canon has released the G9 with 12MP... Canon apparently plays the numbers game in advertising and specification design, with little thought to logic or theory, which exactly matches my feelings for them. It increases processing requirements and disk space, for no gain in resolution (and increases noise!). Thanks, Canon.

 

With the G9 they can get away with it, but the people who buy the 1Ds3 will be more discriminating, and if the reviews see only minimal improvements over the 1Ds3, the customers will be up in arms (at least the more knowledgeable and critical of them will). And even in theory, the gains from 16MP to 22MP are rather minimal, in linear terms, ie. your enlargements will only be able to be ever so slightly larger: 1Ds2: 4992 x 3328; 1Ds3: 5616 x 3744. A net improvement of 624 in one dimension and 416 in the other. Whoopdedoo, a 12% increase. And over this 12%, some Leica customers are saying that they will ditch their R system if Leica doesn't pass the 1Ds2 in resolution?

 

If the R10 gets anywhere near 16-18MP, I will consider Leica to have done its job. There just is no point in pushing that limit very hard any more, because the improvements are so marginal. If someone really needs resolution, they really need medium format. Time to focus on something other than resolution, like the ISO range, colour fidelity and dynamic range.

[jaa]

With the G9 they can get away with it, but the people who buy the 1Ds3 will be more discriminating, and if the reviews see only minimal improvements over the 1Ds3, the customers will be up in arms (at least the more knowledgeable and critical of them will). And even in theory, the gains from 16MP to 22MP are rather minimal, in linear terms, ie. your enlargements will only be able to be ever so slightly larger: 1Ds2: 4992 x 3328; 1Ds3: 5616 x 3744. A net improvement of 624 in one dimension and 416 in the other. Whoopdedoo, a 12% increase. And over this 12%, some Leica customers are saying that they will ditch their R system if Leica doesn't pass the 1Ds2 in resolution?

 

If the R10 gets anywhere near 16-18MP, I will consider Leica to have done its job. There just is no point in pushing that limit very hard any more, because the improvements are so marginal. If someone really needs resolution, they really need medium format. Time to focus on something other than resolution, like the ISO range, colour fidelity and dynamic range.

 

Allow me an advice: don't fight perception with reality. You're being way too sensible for these times we live in...

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[wlaidlaw]

Allow me an advice: don't fight perception with reality. You're being way too sensible for these times we live in...

 

José,

 

I hope you are being too pessimistic about Leica. On the M8, I am sure they could have pushed Kodak into doing a 12 or 14 MP sensor for them, with the attendant downside of higher noise etc but a bigger headline figure - thank goodness they did not. I hope again they will do or will have done an analysis of the optimal pixel count - definition against noise and come to the correct and sensible compromise. Of course it depends on whether they decide/have decided to go full frame/ near full frame or APS-C or H. If it is APS, I would guess they would need to have 12 MP or above to get people to buy it. If it is full or near full frame, it would need probably 14 to 15MP+ to sell. As Nikon found out a few years ago, they could have excellent DSLR's but with low pixel figures and people would not buy them. I am guessing the D300 will outsell the 40D, to a considerable extent because it is 12MP against 10. The first question nearly everybody asks me on the M8 is "how many megapixels has it got?" I usually reply " why on earth would you need to know?"

 

Wilson

[mjh]

Maybe Leica should step out in front and go with the JPEG2000 format standard, which would be no problem at all since they are running with Adobe Photoshop any way. JPEG2000 is starting to be accepted and probably within a couple of years will replace JPEG itself and the differences would definitely be welcomed..

Many years ago, when JPEG2000 was big news, I was convinced the new standard would be embraced by camera vendors in due time, but I was mistaken. JPEG2000 takes more processing power and offers little benefit – you get vastly better results at high compression ratios, but those aren’t used in cameras anyway. With a compression ratio of 1:5 or 1:10, there isn’t much incentive in replacing JPEG by JPEG2000. JPEG2000 has found some niche markets, but as far as digital cameras are concerned, I don’t think any vendor is seriously considering switching to JPEG2000.