Second member of LHSA the R10 is confirmed

[telyt]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The IS element is actually a floating lens element moving orthogonally to the optical axis, driven by electro magnets ... I've owned and used many Canon's IS lenses and their non-IS predecessors such as the 400/2.8 Mk 2 and 400/2.8 IS, 500/4.5, 500/4L IS... and never found flare control, color rendition to be of any concern, there're many cases that preferences are given to non IS models though ... especially when you talk to folks who shoot sports, you may hear some say that the old 70-200/2.8, 400/2.8 are sharper than their IS cousins ... etc, they don't need IS anyways.

 

The IS unit is actually a group of lens elements and in backlit situations the increased flare is very evident. Typically when Canon adds IS to a lens the number of air/glass surfaces doubles vs. the non-IS predecessor. And I was disappointed with the color rendtion of the old 400mm f/2.8 L I used for a while, it was as though I'd gone back to a 1970-model single-coated Nikkor.

[Guest guy_mancuso]

I never want to see IS in a Leica lens. Just won't be leica anymore in my book. I did not need it when i shot the DMR and don't need it now . Get a monopod, tripod or pour concrete on it but no IS for me.

[jrc]

I don't see image-stabilized lenses coming -- they'd be absurdly expensive and heavy and somehow, non-Leica. I could see in-body stabilization, which would add further value to heritage lenses, and that *would* be Leica-like.

 

As for the larger sensor -- from the reports, it seems like there might be something going on there. Michael has concerns about image-circle, but I suspect if there is a larger sensor, it will not be square (which would be too much of a break in tradition) but might well be a different aspect ratio that both falls within the diagonal distance needed to keep it with the image circle, and would be larger in area. Maths is not my strongest suit, that's for sure, but I believe there are a number of possible sizes in which the sensor would be taller, but narrower, and with more area ("larger sensor.")

 

If they were to come up with this new aspect ratio -- moving more toward a MF idea -- with more pixels than the Nikon, and perhaps fewer but much larger pixels than the new Canon, and with better lenses, I think Leica would have some strong selling points. It would essentially be a compact MF camera, but with great ISO ranges and more than enough resolution for even the best magazines.

 

JC

[telyt]

Let's not get stuck on the idea that R lenses' image circles are strictly limited to the 24x36mm diagonal. Some of the old Telyts would cover 6x6, for example.

[sdai]

I had to step away for awhile ... so now let's get back on topic. LOL

 

Anyway, I just spent about 10 minutes quickly scanned my hard drive but just couldn't find anything with flare! Perhaps my lenses are all too good? LOL

 

Jokes aside, here's some crap I shot with a D2x ... I already forgot which lens was used, exif shows 200mm, perhaps it's the 70-200VR I once had. VR is Nikon's IS anyways ... where can I see some flare?

 

Just to make things clear ... and I've mentioned more than once in this thread already, I've never expected nor wanted Leica to add any type of IS in the R10 ... in fact, I'm strongly against the idea.

 

I'm on your side, Doug ... just want to add Canon's IS and NIkon's VR are harmless (in most cases) either.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[Riley]

Not at all sure you can have IS on a FF35mm sensor anyway. The sensor mass would be 8x that of 4/3rds E-3, so E-3's 5 stop IS is unlikely to be topped. Moreover, as mass momentum is ^5, putting it in the 50x or so bracket there is no hope of an effective IS system for FF35mm, you just cannot make the sensor move quickly enough, especially for 5 stops.

[EH21]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'll add my 2 cents....

I shoot both canon, Leica and MF. Looking at my best images, most are from lenses/cameras without IS, so I'll have to say it isn't necessary, especially if it means another element in the lens taking away contrast.

 

But I sure would like a few stops more in the ISO department. If I could shoot at ISO 1600 even perhaps pushing to 3200, I'd be very happy. Right now I get some great images on my DMR with ISO 800 and some that just plain stink. I do not know why some are good and some are not, but I do know I'd like better performance in this area.

[rosuna]

Right now I get some great images on my DMR with ISO 800 and some that just plain stink. I do not know why some are good and some are not, but I do know I'd like better performance in this area.

 

The same goes for the M8 and ISO 640.

[mjh]

I suspect if there is a larger sensor, it will not be square (which would be too much of a break in tradition) but might well be a different aspect ratio that both falls within the diagonal distance needed to keep it with the image circle, and would be larger in area. Maths is not my strongest suit, that's for sure, but I believe there are a number of possible sizes in which the sensor would be taller, but narrower, and with more area ("larger sensor.")

For any given image circle, a square sensor would be optimal in that it covers a larger area than any rectangular sensor fitting within the same image circle. Of course, if you crop the image to 3:2 or 4:2 anyway, a rectangular sensor would have been a better choice.

 

But the biggest problem with a larger sensor probably isn’t the image circle (und thus vignetting), but the bigger mirror and longer flange distance. Leica might choose to call such a camera the “R10”, but for all intents and purposes it wouldn’t be an R system camera anymore.

[mjh]

The sensor in the M8 is approximately two 4/3rds sensors joined along the long side.

You cannot take two sensors and put them side to side to make a bigger sensor. The sensor in the M8 is a single chip with two output channels. Two channels are more or less standard, but there are also sensors with 4, 8, or 12 output channels – would you say that these are really 4, 8, or 12 sensors?

 

If you could just join two sensors to create a bigger sensor, this bigger sensor would only cost twice as much. But as this is impossible, you have to manufacture a chip of twice the size, at production costs much higher than twice as much .

[mjh]

One major caveat with in camera stabilization via sensor movement is that the viewfinder image doesn't get stabilized so you don't know what's actually going on ... when you press the shutter, you don't get the feeling it's only a hit or miss!

Yes, but since any kind of image stabilization is considerably more effective if it only gets activated for the actual shot, that’s the setting you want to choose anyway, even if you have the choice – i.e. with movable-lens-based stabilizers or movable-sensor-based systems with live view.

[ruiespanhol]

Who was the first member to confirm it?

 

It was the guy who wrote the latter called David young if was not wrong.

 

Best,

[thrid]

Could some of the 24 lenses in development be for cinema use?

Most cine lens lineups consist of something like 18, 20, 25, 35,50, 75, 100mm primes. Also some variable primes and of course zooms.

 

Leica glass is highly respected in the movie biz. Back at my old job we used Leica-R glass for shooting Vista Vision plates. Previously we used Nikon. The first time we saw our Leica dailies, the jump in quality was blatantly obvious.

 

Looks like Leica is taking a page out of the Zeiss playbook.

 

 

The only other explanation I can think of is that Leica is standardizing mounts across the line up, as they did with the new Summarits. Right now every lens body is a custom one off, which obviously is very expensive to do.

 

 

But whatever they are doing, the R10 or what ever they are going to call it, better be fully weather sealed.

[carstenw]

The Leica Cinema move is a great one, and another place where Zeiss could use some competition. It simply extends the applicable market for Leica's optical competence.

 

The 36 lenses in development are way too many to all be new for as small a company as Leica. I am certain that most of those will be R lenses which are getting AF.

 

The larger-than-FF rumour is interesting. I still think that it will simply be slightly larger to allow for FF 3:2 or 4:3, within the current image circle, an interesting aspect ratio choice. Perhaps even 16:9, but not 1:1.

 

The M rumour is shocking. The M9 will come so soon??? I will of course try to buy one, but the outlay has been so heavy that I had expected a longer usable period. On the other hand, the whole IR problem has hurt Leica, so maybe they will at the same time announce an affordable upgrade program for existing owners. It wouldn't hurt to make the shutter more silent either.

[telyt]

... where can I see some flare?

 

Not much color either. Flare doesn't nessesarily take the form of the blobs or ghosts scattered across the diagonal of the photo, it's also a general reduction in contrast that washes out colors and reduces highlight & shadow details.

[ptomsu]

Hmmm. If you wanted a 16:9 within the same image circle as the existing R lenses, then you would need a sensor approx 21.2mm x 37.7mm (38mm would work OK in practice). So you could have a 24x38 sensor to have a choice of 3:2 or 16:9 formats. But that's hardly gaining very much over simply letter-box cropping a standard 24x36 frame yourself!

 

John,

 

I am surprised to see you back on such a thread! I remember in one of the last threads dealing with new R camera, larger sensor etc. you had only bad and unqualified comments to add.

 

So did there happen some mind shift ???? I cannot believe :-))))))

[sdai]

Not much color either.

 

How much color are you expecting when directly shooting into the sun, Doug?

 

Anyway, I'm not comparing Canon nor Nikon to Leica but just to show you IS doesn't necessarily hurt contrast ... here are two MTF chart I scrapped off Canon's web site, the one on top is the 70-200/2.8 non IS ver. and the bottom one is the IS ver.

 

At the 70mm end when wide open, the non IS version only has slight advantage at the center close to 0.8, at the 200mm end when wide open, the IS version is doing obviously better by maintaining the contrast till the edge of the image circle.

 

At f/8, you don't really see much difference.

 

The IS version seems to have better corner sharpness at the tele end as well.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[masjah]

John,

 

I am surprised to see you back on such a thread! I remember in one of the last threads dealing with new R camera, larger sensor etc. you had only bad and unqualified comments to add.

 

So did there happen some mind shift ???? I cannot believe :-))))))

 

 

Peter, please could you point me to my "bad and unqualified comments"? As I recall, my previous comments in this area were along the lines that I didn't see the need for a new lens mount, and I tried to explain why. My post above was also in the context of a configuration consistent with the existing R lens mount. So you are correct, no mind shift. I hope I try to comment constructively; I'm very pleased in return to be put right when I am factually in error.

[sdai]

Adding AF function to existing mount doesn't qualify as a mount change, Nikon, Pentax have done this many years ago.

 

Who knows exactly what are those ROM contacts for? 9 contacts altogether ... are there spare ones reserved for sending AF signals suppose the drive motor is planned to be in the lens instead of in camera?

 

Even if the sensor size grows slightly larger, I suspect the current image circle and mirror box is sufficient to accommodate the change.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Guest tummydoc]

Hr. Kauffmann had better step wisely, as I have said before. He has two choices: incorporate some mainstream features and reduce the objections a larger market perceives in the R system to two, cost and reliability, both of which could be dealt with. That would force loyalists to lose face given their staunch and often ludicrously arrogant expressions of contempt for auto-focus and stabilisation. Or, his second choice would be to pander to the reactionaries and hold steady to the status-quo, thereby assuring sales to die-hard R-system followers but inhibiting further market expansion. It is not an easy decision and I do not envy his or Mr. Lee's position. However as the R market is ageing at the same rate as that of the M, but additionally is so very much smaller, it seems almost inevitable that they will have to shift their focus toward more mainstream thinking in the photographic world.