Is R10 or a brand new Digital-R coming ?

[telyt]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

This logic would open the *utopian* way to a "unified back for R & M cameras", providing that the "joint back pack" (sensor + cpu + buffer mem on the mobo) would'nt exceed the dimensions of the M8

 

Works for me. Both product lines would benefit from economies of scale.

[rick_dykstra]

There ought to be be some adjustment screws for the viewscreen under the pentaprism, just like on the Leicaflex and SL. Shims not needed.

 

I agree - there ought to be. But are they there? I'm off to look at my R8.

 

Another reason for me to go looking for an SL2!

 

Have you ever adjusted those SL screws Doug?

[Advertisement]

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

[telyt]

Have you ever adjusted those SL screws Doug?

 

Yup. As it turned out the camera needed more than viewscreen adjustment, starting with mirror angle adjustment. I suspect a qualified repair tech with the right equipment could do a better job. ;-)

 

With the DMR it should be easier to adjust the viewscreen because of the DMR's instant feedback.

[rick_dykstra]

I agree - there ought to be. But are they there? I'm off to look at my R8.

 

I'm back. I saw no screws there for the adjusting of my R8, not that I need to do so (being sans DMR).

[telyt]

I'm back. I saw no screws there for the adjusting of my R8, not that I need to do so (being sans DMR).

 

I don't see the SL's adjustment screws until I remove the top cover.

[adan]

Just for the record, a full 24 x 36 sensor with 37.5 Mpixels (5000 x 7500 image) would have pixels about 4.8 microns across. A bit small, but 'way above the size of P&S pixels (the Digilux 2, which had pretty big P&S pixels, weighed in at about 3 microns, and the Sony 828 was already down to 2.5 microns).

 

BTW - some of the MF digital backs, with 48 x 36 sensors, seem to run into noise problems even at ISO 400. So sensor size per se is not everything.

 

Seems like the R9 has way more ROM contacts than are needed just for transmitting lens focal length/aperture, so I expect some of those are "reserved" for future functions - such as driving AF lenses with their own built-in (silent wave type, as already mentioned) motors. The Nikon D40x for example, no longer has an AF motor in the camera (or the drive shaft in the lens mount it requires).

 

So leaving the sensor size debate aside for the moment, it would be relatively trivial to add an AF sensor to an R body and produce a small range of AF zooms with the light-weight internal focusing needed IN ADDITION to the line of heavier manual (and mostly prime) lenses. Roughly speaking (without knowing the final crop factor) something like a 21-35, 28-90, 75-280 set. Or even just a 24-75 and a 75-280, for starters.

 

If AF actually proves to be a popular feature for R owners (about which this deponent knoweth not), then some primes could start showing up in the AF line - hopefully faster than Olympus has introduced them to the 4/3rds line.

 

So long as Leica provides the option of manual-only focus screens (with split prisms and no silly little flashing red AF markers) and analog controls for shutter/aperture/focus, it seems like they should be able to keep both markets happy

[telyt]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

So long as Leica provides the option of manual-only focus screens (with split prisms and no silly little flashing red AF markers) and analog controls for shutter/aperture/focus, it seems like they should be able to keep both markets happy

 

There is much much more to MF joy than split-image focussing prisms.

[dhsimmonds]

There is much much more to MF joy than split-image focussing prisms.

 

A plain glass screen with or without grid lines works well with long focus lenses on the R9/DMR, easier in my view to focus.

[adan]

gee, Doug. I just KNEW you'd jump me for that - OK, I revise that to "manual-only focus screens (with split screens or plain ground glass, but no silly little flashing red AF markers)..."

[marknorton]

Sorry Andy, I don't regard the flashing AF sensor indicators on my D2X as "silly". They tell me after the fact what the camera chose to focus on which is useful in a fast moving AF situation.

[sdai]

Remember the 8 different types of viewfinders Pentax made for the LX?

 

 

This should be easy if Leica makes the viewfinder a detachable option. I'm going to pick the one for AF anyways.

[mgcd]

Seems like the R9 has way more ROM contacts than are needed just for transmitting lens focal length/aperture, so I expect some of those are "reserved" for future functions...

 

This was stated back when the R8 first came out. They did spend over $16M on R & D for the R8 if memory serves me well...

 

So long as Leica provides the option of manual-only focus screens (with split prisms and no silly little flashing red AF markers) and analog controls for shutter/aperture/focus, it seems like they should be able to keep both markets happy

 

I agree, that would be an interesting scenario...

 

Cheers,

[telyt]

A plain glass screen with or without grid lines works well with long focus lenses on the R9/DMR, easier in my view to focus.

 

The SL's viewfinder is much easier to focus. With the R8/DMR and plain matte screen I get about a 25-30% focus 'hit' rate with the 560 f/6.8. With the SL and 560 plus 1.4x extender the focus 'hit' rate is more like 90%, and that's for any point of my choosing anywhere on the viewscreen, not just the camera maker's chosen sensor points.

 

With the DMR I rely on lots of exposures and the extremely low cost of missed focus. With the SL I rely on accurate focus and far fewer total exposures. The SL's viewscreen is neither split-image nor plain matte; it's a complete viewfinder system optimized from the mirror through the screen and pentaprism and eyepiece for quick, accurate manual focus over the entire viewscreen area.

[rsolomon]

When Doug or anyone talks about the SL's viewfinder, the brightness of the screen, the ease of focus i wonder why given the advances in technology the R9 can't replicate that screen from the 70's....

 

i understand that light is now refelcted for complex metering but still you would think it could be done.....perhaps it can be done but chosen not to ?

[telyt]

i understand that light is now refelcted for complex metering but still you would think it could be done.....perhaps it can be done but chosen not to ?

 

The semi-silvered mirror is an important factor - also the SL's extremely fine microprisms (instead of inexpensive matte plastic) and the condensing lens incorporated into the SL's (expensive) pentaprism instead of a fresnel lens moulded into the R8/R9 viewscreen. The SL's viewing system is more expensive, but you'd think that the expense could be justified in a premium camera. The expense is justified only if the camera's buyers know the difference and are willing to pay for the difference. I'll gladly pay for a viewing system that allows me, like the SL does, to focus quickly and accurately anywhere in the picture area even with the long slow lenses that cause AF systems to give up.

[psquared]

With the R8/DMR and plain matte screen I get about a 25-30% focus 'hit' rate with the 560 f/6.8.

 

Thank you for the huge boost in confidence, Doug. I feel much less incompetent now.

[adan]

Hi mark - The red squares or other marks are fine in AF mode - I just want to be sure they go away - completely, totally, absolutely, and invisibly - when the camera, lenses and focusing screen are set up for manual focus.

 

About 10 years ago I bought a Nikon F100, figuring it offered backwards compatability so I could get the advantages of motorized advance, etc. but stick with my old manual metal AIS Nikkors. After two days of having little red boxes flash at me even with everything set to MF, I returned it, sold my Nikon lenses, and bought Contax (first step on the way to Leica).

 

Nothing wrong with Leica adding AF to the R line, so long as it has zero impact on how the camera operates for us manual-focus types.

 

It shouldn't really be that hard - just a bit of extra code or circuitry to shut off those red LEDs when the other AF circuits are turned off - can't figure out why Nikon has never done it (to my knowledge).

[krabat]

Nothing wrong with Leica adding AF to the R line, so long as it has zero impact on how the camera operates for us manual-focus types.

 

Completely agree. Really "ZERO" impact!

 

Regards, Peter.

[marknorton]

Hi mark - The red squares or other marks are fine in AF mode - I just want to be sure they go away - completely, totally, absolutely, and invisibly - when the camera, lenses and focusing screen are set up for manual focus.

 

About 10 years ago I bought a Nikon F100, figuring it offered backwards compatability so I could get the advantages of motorized advance, etc. but stick with my old manual metal AIS Nikkors. After two days of having little red boxes flash at me even with everything set to MF, I returned it, sold my Nikon lenses, and bought Contax (first step on the way to Leica).

 

Nothing wrong with Leica adding AF to the R line, so long as it has zero impact on how the camera operates for us manual-focus types.

 

It shouldn't really be that hard - just a bit of extra code or circuitry to shut off those red LEDs when the other AF circuits are turned off - can't figure out why Nikon has never done it (to my knowledge).

 

Andy, they must have listened to you! On the D2x, you can switch off the autofocus area illumination if you want to when using manual focus. The marks are still there though unless you change the focussing screen.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Likaleica]

Ditto, Laurence. Some decorum, please!