New Leica DSLR System?

[stunsworth]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Who says that the new mount will not take R lenses via an adapter, but only deliver a crop on the new sensor?

 

If it is a larger sensor that will mean a larger mirror. The Canon 5D - a full frame sensor - already has problems with some R lenses because its mirror fouls the rear of the lens. This will be even more of a problem with a larger mirror.

[carstenw]

You forget that the new Leica DSLR will have a sensor which is bigger than 24x36 - at least this is what is coming out from meanwhile quite a lot of sources.

 

I am only aware of the single quote from some Leica employee which is being repeated again and again. Anyway, a sensor larger than 24x36mm does not mean a new set of lenses. A 4:3 aspect ratio sensor which fits within the existing lens system would still be larger than the 3:2 sensor, for example.

 

And BTW - the 4/3 is not a mistake and especially in the wide angle - there is a 7-14 zoom, which is equivalent to a 14-28 in FF. What are you missing? Some more wide angle? I do not :-)

 

It was a mistake. As the megapixel race settles down, the 4/3 system never reached the counts of the larger sensors, yet their cameras are as large. The noise is also greater due to the smaller pixels. Where is the advantage?

[lct]

Rumors like that are great to make drop second hand prices.

Don't quit spreading it folks my shopping is not yet over.

[mjh]

Who says that the new mount will not take R lenses via an adapter, but only deliver a crop on the new sensor?

Logic and physics. Bigger sensor -> bigger mirror -> longer flange distance -> no compatibility with R lenses.

 

Who does not understand that moving into this high end niche (larger format) would open complete new markets for Leica? While keeping their old R customers with giving them at least MF and crop on their new flagship?

A bigger sensor translates to a much (i.e. not proportionally) higher price and to an even smaller market. Not a smart move.

[hankg]

Logic and physics. Bigger sensor -> bigger mirror -> longer flange distance -> no compatibility with R lenses.

 

 

A bigger sensor translates to a much (i.e. not proportionally) higher price and to an even smaller market. Not a smart move.

 

 

Yes, even if the sensor fits within in the image circle of the R lenses the mirror would have to be bigger if the sensor was taller as would be the case for a 4:5 aspect ratio or square sensor. I can't see the benefit unless they plan to bring out a new medium format camera like the Mamiya DSLR. But that's a small market with to many players already.

 

If the M8 is the reportage/available light camera it might make sense for the R to be the Leica equivelent of the 1Ds -a camera at home in the studio or on location for high resolution applications and like the 1Ds be a 35mm alternative to MF -compatible with R lenses.

[Riley]

It was a mistake. As the megapixel race settles down, the 4/3 system never reached the counts of the larger sensors, yet their cameras are as large. The noise is also greater due to the smaller pixels. Where is the advantage?

 

in the bracket the dSLRs are in which is 10Mp they are the same

also the E-410 is the smallest dSLR, its hard to see how a smaller dSLR would be of advantage

 

noise is greater ? depends on what you do, in support of fast shutter broad daylight it isnt

in low light circumstances it may be, depending on what you shoot

from PopPhoto reviews:

Noise (low numbers best score)

ISO-------100----200----400----800----1600

K10D-----1.15----1.15----1.4----1.7----1.95

E-510----1.18----1.1------1.13---1.3---1.45

D40-------xx.x-----.93------.98---1.0---1.0

XTi -------1.15----1.4-----1.7----2.2----2.35

 

what is the advantage ?

510 probably has the best feature suite of any dSLR in the 4/3rds APS C bracket, and its an optically superior system compared with other APS C dSLRs, edge to edge performance particularly in UWA is far better and the lenses are better anyway. I can do as well at F2.8 22mm EFL as APS C at F5.6 because APS C needs to stop down due to vignetting and soft edges. While I 'might' lose a stop or less in noise performance at high iso, i get it back in wide open performance that I can use anytime.

 

In tele-lens performance the approximate 2x crop aids in further reach, giving a lens a stop better on similar FL.

 

So the contestable ground is both outside tele and UWA performance, the middle of the FL spectrum. If you are a follower of the 'noise is everything' club then sure look someplace else. If features or UWA are your main game there are few better choices.

[ptomsu]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Yes, even if the sensor fits within in the image circle of the R lenses the mirror would have to be bigger if the sensor was taller as would be the case for a 4:5 aspect ratio or square sensor. I can't see the benefit unless they plan to bring out a new medium format camera like the Mamiya DSLR. But that's a small market with to many players already.

 

If the M8 is the reportage/available light camera it might make sense for the R to be the Leica equivelent of the 1Ds -a camera at home in the studio or on location for high resolution applications and like the 1Ds be a 35mm alternative to MF -compatible with R lenses.

 

See, you are getting the story This would be a scenario they are looking for because it would make perfect sense from their complete product line.

[ptomsu]

Logic and physics. Bigger sensor -> bigger mirror -> longer flange distance -> no compatibility with R lenses.

 

 

A bigger sensor translates to a much (i.e. not proportionally) higher price and to an even smaller market. Not a smart move.

 

I would just wait and see - nobody needs to belief in this today if they do not like the idea.

[ptomsu]

in the bracket the dSLRs are in which is 10Mp they are the same

also the E-410 is the smallest dSLR, its hard to see how a smaller dSLR would be of advantage

 

noise is greater ? depends on what you do, in support of fast shutter broad daylight it isnt

in low light circumstances it may be, depending on what you shoot

from PopPhoto reviews:

Noise (low numbers best score)

ISO-------100----200----400----800----1600

K10D-----1.15----1.15----1.4----1.7----1.95

E-510----1.18----1.1------1.13---1.3---1.45

D40-------xx.x-----.93------.98---1.0---1.0

XTi -------1.15----1.4-----1.7----2.2----2.35

 

what is the advantage ?

510 probably has the best feature suite of any dSLR in the 4/3rds APS C bracket, and its an optically superior system compared with other APS C dSLRs, edge to edge performance particularly in UWA is far better and the lenses are better anyway. I can do as well at F2.8 22mm EFL as APS C at F5.6 because APS C needs to stop down due to vignetting and soft edges. While I 'might' lose a stop or less in noise performance at high iso, i get it back in wide open performance that I can use anytime.

 

In tele-lens performance the approximate 2x crop aids in further reach, giving a lens a stop better on similar FL.

 

So the contestable ground is both outside tele and UWA performance, the middle of the FL spectrum. If you are a follower of the 'noise is everything' club then sure look someplace else. If features or UWA are your main game there are few better choices.

 

Rob,

 

I completely agree!

 

But I have learned over the past it is complete waste of time to argue with some people who are completely against this system and are fighting it like a bad disease. They even get kind of militant meanwhile to argue against it.

 

So my advice, just let these people sabber around and do not care, they do not want to see the advantages and they will not be able to use these for their benefit - this is their problem :-)))

[carstenw]

Rob, if I don't forget anything, you are taking what is essentially the only 4/3 camera with good noise performance made (the E510) and using it to represent the entire platform. It will be interesting to see where the E3 goes, but so far the system seems held back by its design parameters more than gaining advantages from it. And yes, Olympus knows how to make good lenses. At those prices, they'd better. My point was that the two items Olympus attacked with the original design were IQ and system size. Neither has ended up being worth talking about, leaving you with a system which at best pulls equal with APS-C systems, and at worst can attain the same IQ at higher MP counts. I still don't see the point. And those little dark viewfinders are awful. I am curious to see the E3 though.

[rick_dykstra]

Why can't people here not think just a bit out of the box?

 

I'd have no problem with a larger than full frame sensor. My film is 36mm in the long direction, so why not a 36 x 36 mm sensor? The corners would be soft with many lenses, as the new corners would be even further from the centre, but with most of my shots its OOF background there anyway, so no problem. A square 'full frame +' format would make shooting a dream in many situations. This would be an absolute bonus for me.

 

Is that positive enough Peter?

[ptomsu]

I'd have no problem with a larger than full frame sensor. My film is 36mm in the long direction, so why not a 36 x 36 mm sensor? The corners would be soft with many lenses, as the new corners would be even further from the centre, but with most of my shots its OOF background there anyway, so no problem. A square 'full frame +' format would make shooting a dream in many situations. This would be an absolute bonus for me.

 

Is that positive enough Peter?

 

Sure :-))

 

I am very open to any changes in the R system, because I think it's time is over in it's old fashion in the future digital age of photography. Trying too hard to keep compatibility is too much burden and would really limit lot of potentially exciting new possibilities.

 

I even think that the way Canon and Nikon with their 24x36 FF versions are following is wrong in the long term. I feel that a smaller sensor like 4/3 is great on one side, because it gives lot of freedom in unique lens designs and lighter camera bodies, and on the other side a system which would fit inbetween 24x36 and MF is great too, because it gives much more possibilities in terms of higher resolution combined with low noise and is not as big as MF systems (see H3D).

 

So lets really hope for some new ideas and designs and not too much sticking with the "old" stuff.

[stunsworth]

I'd have no problem with a larger than full frame sensor. My film is 36mm in the long direction, so why not a 36 x 36 mm sensor?

 

Because the image circle may not be great enough to support a 36x36 sensor.

[hankg]

Rob, if I don't forget anything, you are taking what is essentially the only 4/3 camera with good noise performance made (the E510) and using it to represent the entire platform. It will be interesting to see where the E3 goes

 

Well the entire 4/3 platform right now is dependent on what Olympus does so it makes perfect sense to use the E510 as your point of comparison. If the E3 is a credible pro camera 4/3 could have a future and eventually start to fulfill it's original promise.

 

If you are using an M for everything below the 75 focal length and an SLR is strictly for tele and macro work then 4/3 becomes a more attractive choice. If Leica could make a D based on the E3 it could be a very viable alternative (depending on the E3's final spec). Especially if you had a couple of very fast, small Leica tele's to go with it.

 

The Leica R 180/2 is fantastic but huge and hugely expensive. A 90/2 with a 4/3 image circle could be 1/2 the size and less then 1/2 the price. A 50/2 Apo-macro and 45/1.2 portrait lens would be nice to. While not Leica M small it would be tiny compared to Canon/Nikon pro 1D or D3 body+fast tele.

[carstenw]

Hank, don't forget to convert the aperture too when converting specs to 4/3. A 90/2 would be equivalent to a 180/4, depth-of-field-wise, IIRC. Or is it f/2.8? Anyway, not f/2. We already see on the M8 that lenses like the Noctilux lose some of their specialness with the 1.3x crop factor. The 4/3 system has a much bigger problem there, with super-narrow depth of field being much harder to attain.

[mjh]

Because the image circle may not be great enough to support a 36x36 sensor.

Extending the short side to 36 mm may seem harmless enough, but the diagonal grows from 43.3 mm to 50.9 mm – that’s halfway towards the 60 mm diagonal of a typical medium format sensor (48 x 36 mm).

[Riley]

Rob, if I don't forget anything, you are taking what is essentially the only 4/3 camera with good noise performance made (the E510) and using it to represent the entire platform.

 

which is fair considering E-410/E-510/L-10 share essentially the same sensor, with differing firmware for each and different coverglass brew for Panasonic's of any ilk.

 

It will be interesting to see where the E3 goes, but so far the system seems held back by its design parameters more than gaining advantages from it. And yes, Olympus knows how to make good lenses. At those prices, they'd better.

 

Id contend they exceed that of L glass at similar prices, but there are some cheaper lenses to be had within the system

11-22/2.8-3.5 $675, 12-60/2.8-4 $900, 14-54/2.8-3.5 $430, 18-180/3.5-6.3 $450, 35/3.5 $200, 40-150/3.5-4.5 $230, 50/2 $425, 50-200/2.8-3.5 $850, 70-300/4-5.6 $400. Its possible to get fairly wide coverage from just a few lenses, for instance what would be wrong with 14-54 and 70-300, thats 28-600mm for $830. Or 14-54 and 40-150, 28-300mm EFL for $660. Calling these lenses expensive on this particular forum is well...

 

My point was that the two items Olympus attacked with the original design were IQ and system size. Neither has ended up being worth talking about, leaving you with a system which at best pulls equal with APS-C systems, and at worst can attain the same IQ at higher MP counts.

 

well as i have already said, perhaps unheard optically it produces better results wide open, is vastly superior in UWA (where incidentally a greater DoF is a virtue), and at the same sensor count as 400D while exceeding 40D.

 

I still don't see the point. And those little dark viewfinders are awful. I am curious to see the E3 though.

 

the older poro mirror finders were dark, just as dark as 350D Canon, the newer finders are much brighter. E3 finder will be a whole new version. Now i better shut-up, its getting a bit OT

[hankg]

Hank, don't forget to convert the aperture too when converting specs to 4/3. A 90/2 would be equivalent to a 180/4, depth-of-field-wise, IIRC. Or is it f/2.8? Anyway, not f/2. We already see on the M8 that lenses like the Noctilux lose some of their specialness with the 1.3x crop factor. The 4/3 system has a much bigger problem there, with super-narrow depth of field being much harder to attain.

 

I was thinking more of light gathering ability then DOF, but yes that is a consideration. I suppose a 50 or 60/1.0 with the much smaller image circle of 4/3 could provide shallow enough DOF. It works in your favor when you need a bit more DOF and faster shutter speed in low light situations like wildlife or sports.

 

if The R comes in at 1Ds price levels it would be good if the D could provide a credible lower priced option. Especially if an E3 based D had features like weather sealing making it a more portable all conditions type camera.

[carstenw]

First of all, to put some background into all this, I am a large Olympus fan. My first camera was an OM2n and I was very interested to hear their 4/3 announcements back in the day. The logic seemed good at the time...

 

Still, the peak of their achievements at the moment seem to be the E510. Although the noise is good on this camera, it doesn't approach the better APS-C and FF cameras, such as the 5D. Smaller pixels at the same resolution will always be a disadvantage.

 

The UWA field is one where I am less familiar with 4/3. Canon's UWA isn't anything to admire, and Nikon's is only moderately better, but there isn't anything inherently better in the 4/3 design wrt. lenses. The situation could change once the new Canon 14mm and new Nikon 14-24mm zoom are out. Only the 11-22mm on your list could be called UWA. Olympus' fancier lenses are very expensive, and yes, I am not comparing to Leica here, but to Canon and Nikon. The 7-14mm costs about €1600 and the 300/2.8 is €6800. That is Leica territory on that latter lens, and the former price is equivalent to both the new Canon and Nikon lenses. No 4/3 advantage, unless both new lenses turn out to be disappointments.

 

The 4/3 flange distance is 38.67mm and the EOS is 44mm. Compared to the Leica M 28.8mm it is easily seen that the minor improvement in the 4/3 size is not enough to offset other disadvantages. The newer finder may be brighter than the old ones, but nothing so far has compared to a good APS-C or FF viewfinder.

 

As I already mentioned, I look forward to seeing the E3. I am still hoping for some kind of victory for Olympus and friends, but I am not so hopeful.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[ptomsu]

I am very happy for the positive move in discussion in this thread, thanks to all of you who made that happen!

 

I am back to 4/3 now with my Digilux3 (which I use in parallel to my M8) and I am really looking forward to the E3. If it can fullfill 80% what is discussed (I do not dare to say promised) it will be a major step for the 4/3 system and a very serios choice for a lot of photographers looking for a high quality tool, which has the nice feature of measuring and weighing only 1/3 or 1/2 of most of other semi pro and pro cameras.

 

So I really hope to see the E3 soon.