leica r10 digital *** mount change ***

[sdai]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Simplifying a bit (but not much): cheap bodies create a market for cheap lenses, expensive bodies create a market for expensive lenses.

 

It's hard to disagree with you on this and I figure it's better to keep my response as short as possible just to avoid any political incorrectness. LOL

 

But hey, if I could only afford one new R lens at the beginning then they better start with the one I "need" the most first.

 

A brand new AF Summicron-R 2/50 ... shall I add MACRO?

 

This has to be the cheapest one in the future lineup that I can think of now and performance wise, it's going to beat the crap out of all competitors - even just on the resolution chart.

[Advertisement]

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

[rsolomon]

i was referring to are s/h 3-cam Summicrons (35, 50 & 90), Telyt (180) and Elmarits (24 & 28) plus a super-cheap Elmar 35-70.

 

okay im ready to buy......I'm looking for a "cheap" 19mm Elmarit-R,

 

Ebay prices didn't seem to be "cheap", the buy-sell on the forum wasn't "cheap" , Keh didn't have one listed...and a search or google didn't turn up anything special....

 

am i looking in the right places.... thanks

[rsolomon]

To me as well. AFAIC the cheap lenses i was referring to are s/h 3-cam Summicrons (35, 50 & 90), Telyt (180) and Elmarits (24 & 28) plus a super-cheap Elmar 35-70. Despite their affordable price, i do expect that they'll give me the best image quality.

 

for my message above

[lct]

...okay im ready to buy......I'm looking for a "cheap" 19mm Elmarit-R, Ebay prices didn't seem to be "cheap"...

Don't know for the 19 but see below the prices i've got last month on eBay.

All in minty/exc shape save for the 35-70 which seems to have been used more than randomly.

 

[giordano]

the entry-level models D40 and D40x cannot use older lenses

 

Up to a point, Lord Copper. Basically they can use all F-mount lenses, but you only get auto-focus if the lens has its own motor, and the exposure meter only works if the lens has a microchip and contacts to provide information to the body. And there are a few very old or specialised lenses that won't fit or won't work properly.

[zapp]

These shouldn't cause significant issue, John ... Nidec Copal can do many customized shutter units on spec. and they can handle much bigger shutter mechanisms ... 24x36 or 28x35 should be peanuts.

Talking numbers here. If you P-off all current R users to make a marginal format change from 24x36 to 28x35, well, I would call it stupid. A real change in format and size should be closer to 30x40 plus. Otherwise you may want to change again in two years.

Still I predict the MR10 within 4 years time making the R line obsolete.

[sdai]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

If you P-off all current R users to make a marginal format change from 24x36 to 28x35, well, I would call it stupid.

 

Depends on your standard, I certainly won't call it a marginal format change ... 28x35 offers 13.43% more space for effective pixels and if Leica adopts the common pixel pitch you can find in current Kodak process, you're going to get a 4120x5150 ... 21MP sensor.

 

It's already in the digital MF territory.

 

All this can be fitted into a slightly larger than R9 (alone) clamshell.

[sdai]

If Kodak can handle 5.5 µm pixel pitch as Sony can do with the D2x then the 28x35mm sensor for R10 can be boosted to 5090x6360 pixel .... that's 32.4 MP.

 

[mjh]

Depends on your standard, I certainly won't call it a marginal format change ... 28x35 offers 13.43% more space for effective pixels and if Leica adopts the common pixel pitch you can find in current Kodak process, you're going to get a 4120x5150 ... 21MP sensor.

 

It's already in the digital MF territory.

 

All this can be fitted into a slightly larger than R9 (alone) clamshell.

The point is that a negligible increase in the number or size of pixels (by 13.4 %) would render existing lenses 100.0 % incompatible because of the necessary mount change. That’s a bad deal, at least in my book.

[sdai]

The point is that a negligible increase in the number or size of pixels (by 13.4 %) would render existing lenses 100.0 % incompatible because of the necessary mount change. That’s a bad deal, at least in my book.

 

Do you see a mount change? I think the current mirror size, ground glass et al are already big enough to do 28x35, it also fits the 45mm image circle ... we only need a taller prism, "marginally" wider shutter blades, a bigger coverage and higher magnification viewfinder.

 

Vignetting is a none issue because Kodak now figures out these offset microlens thing and Leica already knows how to cut the mustard with in camera correction, no?

 

Unless you've seen the prototype and knows it's sticking to 24x36, Michael ... I have absolutely ZERO problem with that.

 

Just for the record, I'm not the one who started the bigger than 24x36 rumor ... though I've contributed a lot.

[lct]

The point is that a negligible increase in the number or size of pixels (by 13.4 %) would render existing lenses 100.0 % incompatible because of the necessary mount change....

Do you see a mount change? ... we only need a taller prism, "marginally" wider shutter blades, a bigger coverage and higher magnification viewfinder....

This 'negligible increase' could be important from a commercial standpoint but to which extent would it be compatible with the existing mount?

Any engineer to enlighten the matter here?

[mjh]

Do you see a mount change? I think the current mirror size, ground glass et al are already big enough to do 28x35, it also fits the 45mm image circle ... we only need a taller prism, "marginally" wider shutter blades, a bigger coverage and higher magnification viewfinder.

 

Vignetting is a none issue because Kodak now figures out these offset microlens thing and Leica already knows how to cut the mustard with in camera correction, no?

Everone does microlens shifting nowadays, and still full-frame DSLRs show vignetting. In-camera correction works to some extent, but creates noise issues, especially at higher ISO settings. Leica might change the mount, but if they do that, they should do right – not for a meagre 13 percent more. Medium format means 48 x 36 mm these days, and that’s a whopping 100 percent more.

[hankg]

Everone does microlens shifting nowadays, and still full-frame DSLRs show vignetting. In-camera correction works to some extent, but creates noise issues, especially at higher ISO settings. Leica might change the mount, but if they do that, they should do right – not for a meagre 13 percent more. Medium format means 48 x 36 mm these days, and that’s a whopping 100 percent more.

 

In reality it will be more then 13% when you consider you must crop a 2x3 image to fit a magazine ad page format. Maybe Leica has identified an opportunity as MF and 35mm DSLR's grow closer together in form and function. Perhaps a new format that hits the sweet spot in a balance between the formats would have a market.

 

A studio camera would not require the weather sealing in lens and body, frame rate or autofocus speed of a sports or press camera and is tilted more to image quality and more manual control making it more suited to Leica's strengths.

[sdai]

Leica might change the mount, but if they do that, they should do right – not for a meagre 13 percent more. Medium format means 48 x 36 mm these days, and that’s a whopping 100 percent more.

 

Although anything could happen in theory, I don't believe (at all) that Leica will change the mount.

 

By doing so, all R lenses will become paper weight. Any increase in mirror size, flange distance will completely ruin backward compatibility - no adapter will make the R lenses work.

 

But if Mr Steven K Lee is ok with it then I won't lose sleep too. Because I'm already using the R lenses on Canons Used or even "DEMO" R lenses price will drop like a HARD ROCK and I probably will buy a couple of them more.

 

Medium format? now it's anyone's guess ... I've no idea how many of these can be sold per year. LOL

[hankg]

Although anything could happen in theory, I don't believe (at all) that Leica will change the mount.

 

By doing so, all R lenses will become paper weight. Any increase in mirror size, flange distance will completely ruin backward compatibility - no adapter will make the R lenses work.

 

But if Mr Steven K Lee is ok with it then I won't lose sleep too. Because I'm already using the R lenses on Canons Used or even "DEMO" R lenses price will drop like a HARD ROCK and I probably will buy a couple of them more.

 

Medium format? now it's anyone's guess ... I've no idea how many of these can be sold per year. LOL

 

If this is done I'm sure the register won't change. The point of keeping it within the R image circle would be for backward compatibility. They could come up with some mechanism to keep the mirror from hitting the lens so even if the mount changes an adapter that kept full functionality for R lenses would be possible.

 

Otherwise they could have just produced an MF camera. That's assuming the rumours of a larger format are true.

[sdai]

If this is done I'm sure the register won't change. The point of keeping it within the R image circle would be for backward compatibility. They could come up with some mechanism to keep the mirror from hitting the lens so even if the mount changes an adapter that kept full functionality for R lenses would be possible.

 

Otherwise they could have just produced an MF camera. That's assuming the rumours of a larger format are true.

 

Hank, if they go beyond 28x35 ... then the image circle and mount size would be increased significantly.

 

What happens then?

 

You build an adapter like a cradle holding the R lens so they won't drive into the hole like a stud bolt?

 

I have no problem with Leica building a medium format but this is not the point.

 

Actually, I'm now starting to think that R10 could be something very normal, very average ... frankly, if Leica could do a 24x36 FF between 18-19MP flawlessly that's a huge success.

 

The larger than 35 FF thing could be only smoke to tease us all ... who started it actually? not me.

[hankg]

Hank, if they go beyond 28x35 ... then the image circle and mount size would be increased significantly.

 

What happens then?

 

You build an adapter like a cradle holding the R lens so they won't drive into the hole like a stud bolt?

 

I have no problem with Leica building a medium format but this is not the point.

 

Actually, I'm now starting to think that R10 could be something very normal, very average ... frankly, if Leica could do a 24x36 FF between 18-19MP flawlessly that's a huge success.

 

The larger than 35 FF thing could be only smoke to tease us all ... who started it actually? not me.

 

Well all this is based on pure speculation. I'd rather have a 24x36 16MP R mount camera at 16MP for $5500 USD then a 28x35 22MP camera for $10,000 USD. However if Leica thinks they could really shake up the sector of the market where 35mm and MF meet (Mamiya ZD, Canon 1Ds MKIII, 16 to 22MP MF backs) maybe they feel they can create some real excitement and not just among R owners but in a much larger though still select market. I think they really want to break out of the narrow and aging collector, brand fetishist box they had fallen into and get back into the mainstream of at least some segments of photography.

 

Whatever they do I'm pretty sure they won't throw the R owners overboard, it gives them a base to expand from rather then starting from scratch. A 28x35 camera or something along those lines could be designed to be completely R compatible.

[sdai]

Well all this is based on pure speculation. I'd rather have a 24x36 16MP R mount camera at 16MP for $5500 USD then a 28x35 22MP camera for $10,000 USD. However if Leica thinks they could really shake up the sector of the market where 35mm and MF meet (Mamiya ZD, Canon 1Ds MKIII, 16 to 22MP MF backs) maybe they feel they can create some real excitement and not just among R owners but in a much larger though still select market. I think they really want to break out of the narrow and aging collector, brand fetishist box they had fallen into and get back into the mainstream of at least some segments of photography.

 

Whatever they do I'm pretty sure they won't throw the R owners overboard, it gives them a base to expand from rather then starting from scratch. A 28x35 camera or something along those lines could be designed to be completely R compatible.

 

I've forgotten where I've read it ... too much stuff here on my desk and in computer. 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.

 

Frankly, none of these market segments is fun to play with ... I had a hard time to think of a strange thing which nobody has ever done.

 

So eventually ... yes, the best thing is to do all existing R owners a huge favor ... make it as simple and average as possible, everybody will be happy.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[stevelap]

I posted this in the Canon 1Ds mkIII v Nikon D3 thread but I think it's relevant here:

 

 

It's been reported in the photo press and on photo blog sites (rumour and speculation, I know), that (a) Canon have a prototype 'larger than full frame' dslr in development and ( Nikon's D3 is just that, ie a D3 and not a 'D3H', so that their replacement for the D2x might be a different model when it eventually arrives ('larger than full frame' D4 anyone?, lol).

 

Now, if these industry rumours have any truth in them whatsoever then I'm sure Leica are aware of them. In that case perhaps their reasoning behind making any future R10 'larger than full frame' becomes clearer. After all, if the high end dslr game is moving on they wouldn't want their new flagship model to be left behind at the starting gate.

 

Of course Leica might not really care about what the others are doing, being content to go their own way, or perhaps Canon and Nikon have got wind of what Leica are up to!

Either way there are, perhaps, interesting times ahead for all concerned.

 

 

As for the 'larger than full frame' R10, I think that the most recent round of speculation was started by a post on this forum from a member of the LHSA. He said that someone very senior at Leica had mentioned it during a presentation to them.

 

Steve

[hankg]

I'm thinking that we are approaching the point where photographers will start choosing the camera with less MP but some other compelling features. 50 to 80 MP backs -youd better have terrabytes of fast storage, the latest multiprocessor computers with 16G of RAM. I wouldn't want to have to handle thousands of files that size.

 

The first 11MP Canon 1Ds cleared the bar for minimum quality needed for magazine sized ads. How many really need more then 16MP who where shooting 35mm? Even for MF shooters 22MP fills the bill for 90% of applications. I think what will happen is these 80 MP backs will hit the market and the majority of shooters using 30MP backs will say I don't need to spend any more because what I've got is enough. Unless you have something more interesting then more MP there is no value added.

 

Maybe these oversized 35mm chips are well above 21MP. The engineering feet I want to see is a reliable MORE AFFORDABLE digital camera not the size of a Sherman tank with great dynamic range and high ISO performance. I don't much care how many MP it's got. Any thing 12 or over would do. Maybe the next 5D will come closest? It's come closest up until now.