dfarkas Posted December 10, 2007 Share #101 Posted December 10, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) The larger-than-full-frame R10 info came from two palces: My blog from Photokina 2006. I spoke directly with Maike Harberts, the R system product manager, who said that larger-than-full-frame was a definite possibility in the R10. I was/am under NDA with Leica, so I asked if this was for public knowledge. I was told then that this information could be shared online freely. Dr. Andreas Kaufman at the LHSA Annual Meeting in Rochester, NY in October 2007. I attended this meeting where Dr. Kaufman, the sole owner of Leica, gave the keynote address. He restated the larger-than-full-frame spec of the next R camera. So, I'm thinking that Leica wants everyone to know the story. This is not a rumor started on the forums. It is an official position by the company. David Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted December 10, 2007 Posted December 10, 2007 Hi dfarkas, Take a look here leica r10 digital *** mount change ***. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
sdai Posted December 10, 2007 Share #102 Posted December 10, 2007 I think it's time for Leica to say something ... aloud. Making a development announcement is nothing unusual in today's standard business practice. What is Leica waiting for? PMA? ... please let us have a very happy Christmas. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted December 10, 2007 Share #103 Posted December 10, 2007 The larger-than-full-frame R10... is not a rumor started on the forums. It is an official position by the company. OK thanks so what's Leica's official position about backward compatibility if any? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfarkas Posted December 10, 2007 Share #104 Posted December 10, 2007 The truth is: I don't know. Personally, I would like the current R lenses to be 100% compatible. I like my collection of R glass. I'm sure the new lenses will be spectacular, but I'd still like to have the option of using my existing lenses. Given Leica's track record of backwards compatibility I'd assume that this won't be a problem. Dr. Kaufman said that compatibility would be a prioirty for Leica. Whether that means an adapter for a new mount or simply using the new mount, I can't say because I don't know. Regarding why Leica doesn't have some big product announcement.... They tried this approach with the DMR. There were articles and photos of the DMR prototypes. They promised release dates and missed the mark by about 6 months. After that episode, Leica said that they would only announce products when they were ready to ship. I doubt there will be any meaningful announcements at PMA. Photokina 2008 is the show you won't want to miss. David Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dhsimmonds Posted December 10, 2007 Share #105 Posted December 10, 2007 Hank makes some very good points here. The leap to 19.7Mb DNG files on the DMR (nearly 58Mb when converted to Tiff's) after the modest D2 size files meant much larger storage facilties (and computer ram). Moving up the Mpx scale will substantially increase this again. This is fine for full time pro's who can get a payback on their investment, although even they might wonder if going the full hog to M/F might be preferable. For the keen amateur's and semi-pro's it might make a few sit back and think do I really need all this Mpx. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdai Posted December 10, 2007 Share #106 Posted December 10, 2007 Medium format lenses can be adapted to 35mm cameras easily ... the reverse will only spell impossible. I can't imagine Leica taking the risk at this level ... Contax changed mount and we don't need to mention the result. I think my guess is pretty close if not spot on ... they've just given too many hints if not just teasing and smoke. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjh Posted December 10, 2007 Share #107 Posted December 10, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) But I recall PhaseOne CEO has said the next round of medium format backs in their plan is targeting at 50 to 80 megapixels, I'm sure Hasselblad has similar plans too ... so it makes absolutely no sense to play with 20-30 MP in 2008. It’s certainly possible that there will be backs with much more than the currently popular 39 MP, but the number of photographers eager to deal with the huge raw files written by such backs will be limited. 80 MP will be for a minority within the already small MF market, and the market for 20 to 39 MP cameras will still be bigger. So, yes, 20 to 30 MP would still make a lot of sense. It doesn’t make much sense for Leica trying to distinguish themselves by using the highest resolution sensor (or the biggest sensor, for that matter). Anyone can play the high MP game once the sensor is available; it’s nothing special. It’s like the 39 MP Kodak CCD in the Hasselblad H3DII-39 – anyone can buy that sensor (and Phase One does), so Hasselblad needs something else to distinguish their cameras from the competition. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hankg Posted December 10, 2007 Share #108 Posted December 10, 2007 I think most R owners would be happy with an incremental advance on the DMR at a 'reasonable' price. Maybe Leica ran the numbers and decided they just would not get a return on such a project with the size of the current R user base. The SLR market dwarfs the rangefinder market but if Leica wants a piece of it especially at Leica prices perhaps they figured they would have to do better then a me to product. There is no shortage of choice with DSLR's. So if they had plans to be able to expand the R base they may be planning something daring (unfortunately it probably also means expensive) that will grab the markets attention. I assumed they evaluated the various market segments and targeted the segment where they could be most competitive. Let's see... not price sensitive, still likely to use prime lenses, willing to pay a hefty premium for quality glass, demands the best in IQ, doesn't like to much gimmicky automation. What market segment does that describe? We'll see. The little they have let out are certainly raising expectations. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjh Posted December 10, 2007 Share #109 Posted December 10, 2007 I can't imagine Leica taking the risk at this level ... Well, that’s precisely the point: Why take the risk? A 36 x 24 mm sensor is already pushing the envelope for a 35 mm system, as sensors generally require a larger mount diameter than film does. Squeezing out just a few more square millimeters and a few more pixels isn’t worth taking any risks. That’s not to say that Leica wouldn’t do it; they aren’t telling anyone, so I have no idea. The “larger than full-frame” statement may have been intended as a hint at the real R10 specs, or it may have just been smoke and mirrors. All I can say ist that if I were Leica, I would keep the mount and stay within the 36 x 24 mm frame. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdai Posted December 10, 2007 Share #110 Posted December 10, 2007 I'm tired of this speculation game, folks ... it's gym time again and I need a recharge before signing on the next time. Keep the thread going and let the rumors spread ... I need a 280/4 APO and have let at least 4 of them slipped from my fingers on eBay, 2500-3000 is too expensive IMO, if you see one somewhere (at what Doug paid for his), please let me know. I'm sure some impatient folks will dump this thing and I'm here taking the risk of a mount change to help you out. LOL Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
R10dreamer Posted December 10, 2007 Share #111 Posted December 10, 2007 $2,500 for the 280 f4 is cheap in my book. I had one and traded it in for the 280 modular. I still regret that trade. Should have kept that 280. Light and fantastically sharp. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thrid Posted December 11, 2007 Share #112 Posted December 11, 2007 It’s certainly possible that there will be backs with much more than the currently popular 39 MP, but the number of photographers eager to deal with the huge raw files written by such backs will be limited. 80 MP will be for a minority within the already small MF market, and the market for 20 to 39 MP cameras will still be bigger. So, yes, 20 to 30 MP would still make a lot of sense. Agreed. A 20-25MP camera is also a lot, lot cheaper than a 39MP model, not to mention anything approaching 80MP. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thrid Posted December 11, 2007 Share #113 Posted December 11, 2007 The truth is: I don't know.Given Leica's track record of backwards compatibility I'd assume that this won't be a problem. Dr. Kaufman said that compatibility would be a prioirty for Leica. Whether that means an adapter for a new mount or simply using the new mount, I can't say because I don't know. I can't imagine that the R10 wouldn't be backwards compatible, if there was a change. Leica glass isn't exactly cheap and they would very quickly be confronted by an angry mob with torches and pitchforks at their front gate, if they screwed everyone over. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riley Posted December 11, 2007 Share #114 Posted December 11, 2007 prime reasons to stay with conventional 36x24 as a 3x2 relationship is component compatibility saving on new fabrications for mirror, mirror assy, mirrorbox, shutter, and prism. And the inescapable print sizes that no-one can control. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
carstenw Posted December 11, 2007 Share #115 Posted December 11, 2007 Well, that’s precisely the point: Why take the risk? A 36 x 24 mm sensor is already pushing the envelope for a 35 mm system, as sensors generally require a larger mount diameter than film does. Squeezing out just a few more square millimeters and a few more pixels isn’t worth taking any risks. That’s not to say that Leica wouldn’t do it; they aren’t telling anyone, so I have no idea. The “larger than full-frame” statement may have been intended as a hint at the real R10 specs, or it may have just been smoke and mirrors. All I can say ist that if I were Leica, I would keep the mount and stay within the 36 x 24 mm frame. I can only imagine two meanings to the "larger than full frame" comment at this point: - A 4:3 or 5:4 dimension sensor which fits within the image circle of 24x36. Cropping would again give 3:2. - An oversized 16:9 sensor which by cropping horizontally would become 3:2 and fit within the FF image circle. The full 16:9 would be serviced by a larger-diameter bayonet sitting closer to the sensor, and adapters would give full backwards compatibility. New wide-angle lenses would give the full 16:9 for landscapes, mainly. Neither would require major modifications to most components. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjh Posted December 11, 2007 Share #116 Posted December 11, 2007 I can only imagine two meanings to the "larger than full frame" comment at this point: - A 4:3 or 5:4 dimension sensor which fits within the image circle of 24x36. Cropping would again give 3:2. A 5:4 sensor with the same diagonal as the traditional 36 x 24 mm format would measure 33.8 x 27 mm, 5.6 % more. A sensor with a similar pixel pitch as the one in the DMR would have 19.6 MP (compared to 18.6 MP for a 36 x 24 mm sensor). Cropping to 3:2 would reduce the image size to 33.8 x 22.5 mm, i.e. 11.8 % percent less than 36 x 24 mm. - An oversized 16:9 sensor which by cropping horizontally would become 3:2 and fit within the FF image circle. The full 16:9 would be serviced by a larger-diameter bayonet sitting closer to the sensor, and adapters would give full backwards compatibility. New wide-angle lenses would give the full 16:9 for landscapes, mainly. That would be 42.6 x 24 mm, 18.5 % more than 36 x 24 mm (or 40.5 percent more compared to 36 x 24 mm when cropped to 16:9). A bigger throat size and a slightly shorter flange distance would certainly be possible; after all, Canon makes do with 44 mm instead of the R system’s 47 mm. Compared to the DMR, one could fit 22 million pixels on the sensor without sacrificing dynamic range or signal-to-noise ratio. So by taking the DMRs pixel pitch as the reference, we arrive at the following ball park figures: 36 x 24 mm (3:2): 18.6 MP 33.8 x 27 mm (5:4): 19.6 MP 42.6 x 24 mm (16:9): 22.0 MP Now of course, Canon can fit 21 MP on 36 x 24 mm while Nikon optimizes the signal-to-noise-ratio and makes do with 12 MP, so the actual MP figures for the R10 might be quite different. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdai Posted December 11, 2007 Share #117 Posted December 11, 2007 Now of course, Canon can fit 21 MP on 36 x 24 mm while Nikon optimizes the signal-to-noise-ratio and makes do with 12 MP, so the actual MP figures for the R10 might be quite different. Kodak currently has two pixel pitch options 6.8 and 9 micron for larger format sensors, so it's either 10MP or 18.7 MP on 24x36mm. I guess if they want to do something fancier they'll probably need to upgrade their stepper and peripheral processes as well. Canon has a completely new fab with the next generation process under construction near Yokohama once it's complete they'll leap over competition again. The Nikon stepper Sony uses can't expose higher density full frame sensors in less steps at a reasonable success rate, I'd rather call it a compromise than optimize ... the way they find to increase success rate is to make each single step bigger. ... but it's good for Nikon aficionados to keep hoping. Canon needs some competition, otherwise the web forums will be very boring. LOL Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thrid Posted December 11, 2007 Share #118 Posted December 11, 2007 Personally I'll take 12-16MP, but with12-14 stops of true dynamic range (at least 16bit color) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjh Posted December 11, 2007 Share #119 Posted December 11, 2007 Canon needs some competition, otherwise the web forums will be very boring. LOL Just squeezing more and more pixels into the same space is always boring, regardless of who’s doing it (or how many are doing it). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
carstenw Posted December 11, 2007 Share #120 Posted December 11, 2007 A 5:4 sensor with the same diagonal as the traditional 36 x 24 mm format would measure 33.8 x 27 mm, 5.6 % more. A sensor with a similar pixel pitch as the one in the DMR would have 19.6 MP (compared to 18.6 MP for a 36 x 24 mm sensor). Cropping to 3:2 would reduce the image size to 33.8 x 22.5 mm, i.e. 11.8 % percent less than 36 x 24 mm. Yeah, for that choice the 4:3 might make more sense for this reason. Keep in mind that the R10 would have more megapixels, so there still might be a net gain over the DMR in resolution, even cropped. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.