sdai Posted August 27, 2007 Share #161 Posted August 27, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) Low battery life is more of a problem due to inefficient power management inside the camera IMO, the D80 and the D200 share the same CCD sensor and battery but the D80 has triple the battery life. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted August 27, 2007 Posted August 27, 2007 Hi sdai, Take a look here Is R10 or a brand new Digital-R coming ?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Jamie Roberts Posted August 27, 2007 Share #162 Posted August 27, 2007 {snipped}The problem of medium format backs is not to reach ISO 1600, but to give ISO 400 noise free images. I don't know if the problem is in the processor or the sensor. In theory, the CCD of the DMR is a better "photon capturer" device than the CMOS of the 1D Mark III, but please, compare pictures from both cameras. The difference is obvious. Yes, the difference is obvious, but it's comparing apples and oranges. The 1d3 is about 2 generations newer than the DMR (3 if you count planning stages and the necessary backwards compatibility with a film body). It's like comparing a computer designed in 2006 to one designed in 2003, IMO. So, more fairly, I'll definitely put the DMR quality up against a 1ds or even a 1d2 (and except for higher ISO, I like it better than my 5d or 1ds2. So there you go). Those are much fairer comparisons. The DMR, BTW, has plenty of stuff at ISO 400. So that's a non-issue too... ** and yes, it's not a medium format back anyway** Anyway--I don't want a 1d3 from Leica. I want a digital R with the same design principles, colour handling and file strength. ISO 1600 (with room in the shadows) would be fine, so a usable push ISO of 3200 is all that I'd ever need (though of course more room there usually means better DR at lower amplifications). Yes, I'd like better battery life. It's true I go through two M8 batteries for a single 5d battery (same number of shots). Practically all this means is I need one more M8 battery on a day-long shoot. That's not a big deal either to me... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted August 27, 2007 Share #163 Posted August 27, 2007 I am not a business expert nor do I have any inside information about Leica or the cost of developing a "competitive" high end DSLR... But I think Leica would have to sell a lot of cameras or charge a very high price to make any profit out of this camera let alone a new system. It is my understanding that Leica only produced 5,000 DMRs in total. I think they'd have to sell a lot more than 5,000 per year to justify the R&D, manufacturing setup, and marketing costs. (They can only charge so much for a DSLR no matter how good it is.) I just saw this post on the Galbraith web site: ----------- ... D3 bodies are currently being made at a rate of about 400 per day in Sendai, but this will grow to about 600 per day in September for a planned ongoing production of 12,000 units per month. Assembly of the D300, which takes place at Nikon's factory in Thailand, will also be in full swing in September, at which time 60,000 units of the midrange digital SLR will emerge each month... ------------ And keep in mind that Nikon sells still more lower end DSLRs that help spread the R&D and marketing load. It is very hard for me to picture how there can be significant shortcuts in development costs that can be a result of low production. And I doubt if most of the necessary technology to produce a truly competitive camera can be bought off the shelf. So I wonder if more basic questions need to be answered before one starts specifying features: Do you think Leica has the resources, capacity and will to develop this camera or system? If a partner is to get involved with Leica, what exactly is in it for them? Could they develop a camera or range of cameras that can sell in higher quantities? I'm sure there are a lot more questions that we can speculate about. However, it is my opinion that if Leica isn't already fairly far along in the development of this camera then it may be quite a while before we are likely to see it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ptomsu Posted August 27, 2007 Share #164 Posted August 27, 2007 I am not a business expert nor do I have any inside information about Leica or the cost of developing a "competitive" high end DSLR... But I think Leica would have to sell a lot of cameras or charge a very high price to make any profit out of this camera let alone a new system. It is my understanding that Leica only produced 5,000 DMRs in total. I think they'd have to sell a lot more than 5,000 per year to justify the R&D, manufacturing setup, and marketing costs. (They can only charge so much for a DSLR no matter how good it is.) I just saw this post on the Galbraith web site: ----------- ... D3 bodies are currently being made at a rate of about 400 per day in Sendai, but this will grow to about 600 per day in September for a planned ongoing production of 12,000 units per month. Assembly of the D300, which takes place at Nikon's factory in Thailand, will also be in full swing in September, at which time 60,000 units of the midrange digital SLR will emerge each month... ------------ And keep in mind that Nikon sells still more lower end DSLRs that help spread the R&D and marketing load. It is very hard for me to picture how there can be significant shortcuts in development costs that can be a result of low production. And I doubt if most of the necessary technology to produce a truly competitive camera can be bought off the shelf. So I wonder if more basic questions need to be answered before one starts specifying features: Do you think Leica has the resources, capacity and will to develop this camera or system? If a partner is to get involved with Leica, what exactly is in it for them? Could they develop a camera or range of cameras that can sell in higher quantities? I'm sure there are a lot more questions that we can speculate about. However, it is my opinion that if Leica isn't already fairly far along in the development of this camera then it may be quite a while before we are likely to see it. As Nikon user I would like to belief the numbers you mention about D3 and D300 - but I cannot think that these ae per month. 12000 D3's per month means 144,000 units per year - how many professionals do you think are there to buy them over a lifetime span of say 3 years (around 500k units then)? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdai Posted August 27, 2007 Share #165 Posted August 27, 2007 I think Franke & Heidecke is even smaller than Leica and they're able to pull a Hy6 together, that darned camera probably will have a much less sales volume than 5000 under the labels of Leaf, Sinar and Rollei all combined ... so if such a supposed-to-be high expenditure low yield project is bound to be box office poison, 4 companies will die. Please don't get me wrong, Alan ... I think all your questions are perfectly valid but, I also believe that Leica surely knows what they're doing. Remember that they're a private company now, it's not like those Silicon Valley venture capitalists betting on dot com projects. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdai Posted August 27, 2007 Share #166 Posted August 27, 2007 12000 D3's per month means 144,000 units per year - how many professionals do you think are there to buy them over a lifetime span of say 3 years (around 500k units then)? Have you heard of Cameta Auctions on eBay? that's one of those places where the pro cameras are bound to sold as DEMO units. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ptomsu Posted August 27, 2007 Share #167 Posted August 27, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) Yes, the difference is obvious, but it's comparing apples and oranges. The 1d3 is about 2 generations newer than the DMR (3 if you count planning stages and the necessary backwards compatibility with a film body). It's like comparing a computer designed in 2006 to one designed in 2003, IMO. So, more fairly, I'll definitely put the DMR quality up against a 1ds or even a 1d2 (and except for higher ISO, I like it better than my 5d or 1ds2. So there you go). Those are much fairer comparisons. The DMR, BTW, has plenty of stuff at ISO 400. So that's a non-issue too... ** and yes, it's not a medium format back anyway** Anyway--I don't want a 1d3 from Leica. I want a digital R with the same design principles, colour handling and file strength. ISO 1600 (with room in the shadows) would be fine, so a usable push ISO of 3200 is all that I'd ever need (though of course more room there usually means better DR at lower amplifications). Yes, I'd like better battery life. It's true I go through two M8 batteries for a single 5d battery (same number of shots). Practically all this means is I need one more M8 battery on a day-long shoot. That's not a big deal either to me... Nice Jamie that you say what you like. And I must say that I also do not see much need for ISO in the 20k range :-) BUT - are we few not just the dying dinosaurs who will dissappear soon? And the masses are looking for these "high end" numbers, no matter if they really need them! On the other hand I do see a need for >20MP in order to take away some of the MF market share with FF 35mm formats. So hopefully the R10 will have this. Plus a fasta nd accurate AF with at least 5 AF points which can be selected intuitively and fast. Otherwise it will stay a very NICHE product IMHO. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angora Posted August 27, 2007 Share #168 Posted August 27, 2007 It seems everyone here wants a simple design (both hardware and software). To get more value-added from this philosophy, I think too that battery life is crucial. As the R10's motto could be something like simple yet efficient, the concept would loose credibility if the new tool from Leica could last only half the time its challengers do... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajthornbury Posted August 27, 2007 Share #169 Posted August 27, 2007 Why do we need 40 Mp,? most of them would be redundant any way. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
carstenw Posted August 27, 2007 Share #170 Posted August 27, 2007 They could make the framelines even less accurate on the M9 and we would still have lots left after cropping Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted August 27, 2007 Share #171 Posted August 27, 2007 I think Franke & Heidecke is even smaller than Leica and they're able to pull a Hy6 together, that darned camera probably will have a much less sales volume than 5000 under the labels of Leaf, Sinar and Rollei all combined ... so if such a supposed-to-be high expenditure low yield project is bound to be box office poison, 4 companies will die. I don't think the Hy6 makes a good comparison. Rollei already had the 6008AF system and simply had to modify the body to remove the film drive and integrate existing digital technology. This really isn't that different than a 6008AF with a Leaf back added on. Yet it has taken some time to get to market. (I first heard about it more than a year ago. And I handled one at the PhotoPlus Expo last October.) The autofocus technology and AF lenses were already there. The MF back technology was already there from Leaf. I have no idea what Sinar's role is in this but maybe it will be marketing. And it lists for upwards of $30,500 per body. Those three companies may have had no other choice but to pool their resources into this camera. There is no guarantee it will be financially successful and best I can tell, it still isn't available. $30,500 only gets you a 22 megapixel body and $32,500 gets you a 33 megapixel one. The lenses are very expensive and quite limited on the wide angle end. (Hasselblad has a 28 whereas the widest AF for the Hy6 is only a 50. I guess you can use the non-AF Rollei 40 and 30 fisheye.) It is a pretty big and heavy camera as it is based on 6x6 not 6x4.5 or even 36mm x 48mm. The big rumor is that they'll have a large back for it some day. (When?) Considering it has to compete both against the Hasselblad H3, and the Canon 1DsIII, it could be tough going for them and they may have to lower the price. (Although I like that it has a removable back.) The 39 megapixel H3 lists for about $32,000 and sells for around $29000. The 31 megapixel H3 can be had for around $22500 Plus it has Phase One backs to contend with. Don't think I'm biased, I'm a long time Rollei user and still have some of my old 6006 gear. I never said anything about box office poison and I know nothing about the financial state or position of the various companies. (Three companies by my count.) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted August 27, 2007 Share #172 Posted August 27, 2007 As Nikon user I would like to belief the numbers you mention about D3 and D300 - but I cannot think that these ae per month. 12000 D3's per month means 144,000 units per year - how many professionals do you think are there to buy them over a lifetime span of say 3 years (around 500k units then)? The numbers I listed were provided by Nikon. The world is a big place and there are a lot of professionals in it. Plus a lot of hobbyists will buy a D3. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosuna Posted August 27, 2007 Share #173 Posted August 27, 2007 Yes, the difference is obvious, but it's comparing apples and oranges. The 1d3 is about 2 generations newer than the DMR (3 if you count planning stages and the necessary backwards compatibility with a film body). It's like comparing a computer designed in 2006 to one designed in 2003, IMO. So, more fairly, I'll definitely put the DMR quality up against a 1ds or even a 1d2 (and except for higher ISO, I like it better than my 5d or 1ds2. So there you go). Those are much fairer comparisons. The DMR, BTW, has plenty of stuff at ISO 400. So that's a non-issue too... ** and yes, it's not a medium format back anyway** Anyway--I don't want a 1d3 from Leica. I want a digital R with the same design principles, colour handling and file strength. ISO 1600 (with room in the shadows) would be fine, so a usable push ISO of 3200 is all that I'd ever need (though of course more room there usually means better DR at lower amplifications). Yes, I'd like better battery life. It's true I go through two M8 batteries for a single 5d battery (same number of shots). Practically all this means is I need one more M8 battery on a day-long shoot. That's not a big deal either to me... I want (for a R10 or future M9) a full frame sensor, small overall size for the body, better battery life, and much, much better (lower) high ISO noise. Simplicity would be welcomed. I find the M8 a not-so-good low light instrument, even using Summiluxes. The M8 is a 2006 camera, isn't? Well, this x1,33 crop 10MP sensor cannot compete against the 1D Mark III in terms of noise either. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riley Posted August 27, 2007 Share #174 Posted August 27, 2007 The numbers I listed were provided by Nikon. The world is a big place and there are a lot of professionals in it. Plus a lot of hobbyists will buy a D3. something awry there Nikon's annual production 2006: 1,740,169 dSLR's 144,000 would be about 8.3% FF and 1.3x crop account for 2-3% of global dSLR sales Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdai Posted August 27, 2007 Share #175 Posted August 27, 2007 Thanks a lot for pointing out the counting error, Alan, and that's because I've counted Rollei as a separate entity. LOL Ok, back on topic ... you've pointed out several facts which also apply to Leica's situation as well. 1. They don't have to reinvent AF though they have invented AF. There're already companies who can supply AF sensors and accept custom orders to build AF lenses, all Leica has to do is to provide them a set of design drawings and make sure their manufacturing standard and QC standard are guaranteed ... even if they want to start from scratch in house, this is not too hard. 2. On the digital side, now Leica already has knowledge gathered from the experience with DMR and M8, that can be the foundation of an upgrade project. The R10/M9 might "seem to be" very different from the DMR and M8 but down into the kernel they may be natural evolution based on the DMR/M8 - and I'll have absolutely no problem with that. In fact, I think the AF-R system is quite doable even at the price level of a 1Ds3, and with a profit quite enjoyable. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjh Posted August 27, 2007 Share #176 Posted August 27, 2007 And I must say that I also do not see much need for ISO in the 20k range :-). The normal ISO range ends at ISO 6400; the extended ISO range offers two stops more. These ASA figures get unwieldy pretty soon, but 25,600 ASA equals 45° DIN. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjh Posted August 27, 2007 Share #177 Posted August 27, 2007 something awry thereNikon's annual production 2006: 1,740,169 dSLR's 144,000 would be about 8.3% FF and 1.3x crop account for 2-3% of global dSLR sales Why not? It is the entry-level and mid-range models that earn money, not the high-end stuff. People may dream about a FF camera, but in the end they buy a D80 or D40x, EOS 40D or 400D. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdai Posted August 27, 2007 Share #178 Posted August 27, 2007 Off topic here ... I've posted a link to the Chinese web site Xitek in the ball game thread so you could take a look at the D3 images shot by a staff reporter of China's Xinhua News Agency at the IAAF games in Osaka. Even judged from those downsized samples, the CAM 3500 doesn't seem to be that fancy as some might have imagined, but it may also be because of the ultra soft image processing or pilot errors. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted August 27, 2007 Share #179 Posted August 27, 2007 something awry thereNikon's annual production 2006: 1,740,169 dSLR's 144,000 would be about 8.3% FF and 1.3x crop account for 2-3% of global dSLR sales Nikon couldn't sell too many full frame cameras in 2006 as they didn't make any. Your example shows a really peculiar way to apply one statistic as a projection for another statistic. So what if FF and 1.3 crop cameras only account for for 2-3 percent of global SLR sales? That total figure includes many manufacturers whereas only Canon made FF and 1.3x crop DSLR cameras last year. (Plus a few DMRs.) For all I know maybe full frame and 1.3x cameras accounted for 8.3% of Canon's overall dSLR sales figures in 2006. There is a lot of pent up demand for a full frame Nikon and the $5,000 range will make this camera quite attractive. Thus even accurate past statistics from Canon would be pretty meaningless when applied to Nikon customers. If they don't sell 144,000 D3s next year they'll be wrong and you'll be right. So??? In any case, according to your statistics, Nikon can sperad its dSLR R&D and many other costs across sales of 1,740,169 dSLR's in a year. Not too shabby. Isn't this the heart of the issue? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riley Posted August 27, 2007 Share #180 Posted August 27, 2007 Why not? It is the entry-level and mid-range models that earn money, not the high-end stuff. People may dream about a FF camera, but in the end they buy a D80 or D40x, EOS 40D or 400D. indeed, but he appears to be quoting production facility for FF camera exceeding 8% when the existing global market judges FF WITH 1.3x crop to be just 2-3%, so theres a 5% excess gap Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.