A Very Smart Move for Leica ? or ! ... :)

[agfa100]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Steve,

 

I see the time frame as a big problem for them, I think they are going to have to use somebody else for the basic starting point, and then build on it from there. I have been using M cameras since 71 so I have seen them really have problems a couple of times now. Don't get me wrong I don't think if they do come out with a 4/3 system that it's going to be cheap. I would say the body is going to be in the 4-5000 usa price range, I just don't see them being able to design, build and trouble shoot a new dslr in that short a time all on there own. But if I am that smart why am I not rich and famous.

 

Time to crawl back in my hole and see what happens in 12 months......

[Advertisement]

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

[stunsworth]

Bill, I'd image that the design is by now largely complete. On paper and maybe in some prototypes.

 

I'm guessing that the 4/3 system has been a disappointment to them. If they were flying off the shelves they wouldn't be offering a £550 discount on new models in the UK.

[agfa100]

Yes, they would need to have a number of prototypes in final testing by this time. If what has been said on this list that they have learned their lesson about not having enough product or lenses on hand when they introduce a new camera. But look at how much time we have to spend on guessing what they are going to come out with. What fun!!!!!

[AlanG]

Alan, for folks like you who do serious stuff with your gears ... you should look up from the top tiers, clients pay the bill anyways, right? If I were doing landscape and architecture stuff, and get paid on the job ... I would not hesitate a lot in getting a XY with the Leaf back, and several Digitar or Rodenstock lenses.

 

 

I have seriously checked out the MF offerings and without going into a long list of details, I can only say that for me, there are a lot more cons than pros in going that route. I would have already bought a digital MF system if 35mm FF gear wasn't so good and versatile.

 

As for some of your other thoughts about MF, even the H3 back can be removed and used on other cameras. This is certainly a selling point to MF buyers who may need to solve a variety of imaging probelms - tilt and shift, extreme wide angle, fashion, etc. At the PhotoExpo a week, ago, I looked at a lot of these specilazed MF cameras - Sinar, Linhof, Alpa and others. And considering that most MF shooters won't be buying two or more digital MF cameras, they at least want to be able to remove the back and put it on another body if one body fails.

 

As for finding a partner, maybe, but I think it is a bigger deal than you may think. The prototype of the new Rollei Hy6 was demoed about 2 years ago and is only now very very close to market they say. It uses existing Rollei AF lenses from the 6008AF so no lenses needed to be developed. But this camera was a co-operative effort by Franke & Heidecke (Rollei), Jenoptik (Sinar), and Kodak (Leaf). Each company will be selling its own version. Considering that the camera uses existing digital backs, that is a pretty long time and a lot of resources needed to develop and market a body and some accesories. (Interesting observation - Kodak has owned Leaf for about 2 years, yet Leaf backs still use Dalsa sensors.)

 

Also, one can buy a Hasselblad 503CWD with a 16 megapixel back and 80mm lens for $12995 today. (1.5x factor) This isn't going to be much of a solution if you need wide angle but considering the number of inexpensive used Hassy lenses out there it could be attractive. Plus there is an adapter that lets you mount old Hassy lenses onto the New H3. I bet 16 megapixel or even higher megapixel count MF backs will be pretty "reasonably" priced by a year from now and can be used on existing cameras.

 

I guess this is my long way of saying that I think the market for larger than 35mm digital is already covered and would be a tough place for a new entrant.

[sdai]

I guess this is my long way of saying that I think the market for larger than 35mm digital is already covered and would be a tough place for a new entrant.

 

I absolutely agree with your analysis but, perhaps the R mount's full potential hasn't yet been tapped? It would be great to see the combination of 35mm system's portability with close to medium format's image quality (if not matching) ... some sort of work within the boundary but aiming for the goal beyond the boundary?

[lct]

...It would be great to see the combination of 35mm system's portability with close to medium format's image quality (if not matching) ...

We're not far from this with the DMR already so what would be the actual pros of such a big camera? IMHO what most R users want is using their lenses at their full potential without being bothered by crop factor. The R4 to R7 were small bodies actually and i hardly see why we would have to carry a Gross Berta to get the same results in digital.

[sdai]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The R4 to R7 were small bodies actually and i hardly see why we would have to carry a Gross Berta to get the same results in digital.

 

The DMR isn't really a good example, LCT ... now imagine that, the DMR is built into the body ... the motor drive is removed, then you'll get the proper idea of a R10.

 

 

 

My question is ... is Leica going to stuff a 1.0x sensor inside? or goes bigger with 0.95x or 0.9x? what do they mean by hinting a larger than 35mm full frame sensor?

[lct]

The DMR isn't really a good example...

Didn't refer to the DMR for the size, Simon. I just responded to your post saying that "It would be great to see the combination of 35mm system's portability with close to medium format's image quality". I meant that the DMR is close to having a MF quality yet so we can guess that a full frame R10 would be more than adequate from this standpoint.

 

...My question is ... is Leica going to stuff a 1.0x sensor inside? or goes bigger with 0.95x or 0.9x? what do they mean by hinting a larger than 35mm full frame sensor?

Image stabilization? Vibration reduction? Sensor cleaning? Leica know the response i guess but going larger than FF would request a larger camera and i doubt that many Leica users like that.

[jrc]

I think the 4/3 system is essentially gone, trapped between the need for larger pixels and more pixels, and between entry-level DSLRs and the fully professional cameras. I see it as an idea that that might have seemed good at the time, but simply didn't look far enough into the future. An IBM PC Jr., for those who member that machine.

 

An R10 with a larger-than 24x36 sensor might be quite likely -- it could gain the extra real estate by shortening one side and lengthening the other, to get an aspect ratio more like some of the MF systems -- do this (get extra area) and stay within the current lens circles.

 

The real visible-in-the-print benefit of this might be marginal, but the PR effect would be electrifying, I think; Leica could advertise it as a compact MF system with all the advantages of a traditional DSLR. If they could go with a CCD and perhaps a user-installable/removable-or-not anti-aliasing filter, and then could argue that in certain conditions that the camera actual *does" match some DSLRs...and run comparisons with, say, a 22mp Hassy back.

 

It would also set the Leica apart from the Canon/Nikon, and leave open the question from art directors, "Why aren't you shooting with a Leica?" (In fact, I can see that ad in my mind's eye -- some hapless fool with a loose shoestring and a white lens in a studio with some hot-looking model and a rep-tied creative director, asking that question...)

 

JC

[sdai]

It would also set the Leica apart from the Canon/Nikon, and leave open the question from art directors, "Why aren't you shooting with a Leica?"

 

That's exactly what I thought as well, John.

 

Leica doesn't need to change the mount at all, all they need is a 4:5 aspect ratio, then it will become a 27cm x 34cm new concept full frame sensor, is it slightly larger than 24cm x 36 cm full frame? you bet ... it is. 918 sq. cm > 864 sq. cm

[sdai]

Image stabilization? Vibration reduction? Sensor cleaning? Leica know the response i guess but going larger than FF would request a larger camera and i doubt that many Leica users like that.

 

IS and ultrasonic sensor cleaning can all be accommodated in existing form factor, in fact, IS should be put in lens as we've discussed already. What else would require a larger camera body? ... a slightly larger sensor probably will not ... depends on Leica's engineers and the potential of the R mount, like I've said, many 4/3 lenses are able to cover the DX format sensor area.

[sdai]

Sorry ... a big mistake ... all measurement in post #30 should be "mm" or "sq. mm", now you see that I'm already getting too excited.

 

The only problem I see with a 27x34mm sensor is a slightly larger mirror hitting the butt of some wide angle lenses, does anybody know if the current mirror is big enough for such a sensor size?

[AlanG]

An R10 with a larger-than 24x36 sensor might be quite likely -- it could gain the extra real estate by shortening one side and lengthening the other, to get an aspect ratio more like some of the MF systems -- do this (get extra area) and stay within the current lens circles.

 

...conditions that the camera actual *does" match some DSLRs...and run comparisons with, say, a 22mp Hassy back.

 

 

If you increase the short side of the format from 24mm just to 27 mm you will need a larger mirror, larger shutter, larger groundglass, and larger prism. This affects the height and depth of the camera. I think the mirror swing could be a problem too. (Perhaps the mirror could just slide sideways rather than flip up. Of course something will have to cover the bottom of the groundglass too.) How do you increase the short side size of the ground glass and the depth of the mirror and not push the lenses further from the sensor? That will keep all current lenses from focusing to infinity. And the real estate for this will have to come from somewhere. Shortening the long side from 36 to 34mm won't save much space in comparison.

 

Phase One sent me sample images comparing subjects shot on their various backs with the same subjects shot on a Canon 1DsII. (They've been trying hard to sell me a system for a couple of years.) The differences were there but not so amazing or compelling to me. And I think better processing of the Canon files in DXO might have even closed the gap a little bit. And these were static subjects shot under studio conditions. In more fluid shooting, one might get better results more consistently with the smaller camera.

 

Now Canon has the 1DsIII. If anyone is trying to get significantly better images than they can get with the 1DsIII, they probably will need to go to a top end MF system with the 39 megapixel back or the quality "improvement" may not be worth the expense, hassles, and limitations of using an MF system. I can't see how anything Leica could do in 35mm format (or slight variations thereof) that could be a major jump up in image quality from the 1DsIII.

 

Considering that the Canon 5D and the Nikon D3 are only 12 megapixel cameras and still appeal to many photographers, I think all Leica really has to do is get in the game with a modern DSLR system that will do a really good job at a price that will attract enough users for them to make a reasonable profit. Trying to make it much better than what Canon and Nikon offer could be beyond available technology and might be a case of diminishing returns.

[sdai]

If you increase the short side of the format from 24mm just to 27 mm you will need a larger mirror, larger shutter, larger groundglass, and larger prism. This affects the height and depth of the camera. I think the mirror swing could be a problem too.

 

What's the exact image circle size of R mount? I read a lot of people saying 45mm, that's slightly longer than the 24x36 frame coverage's diameter 43.27mm, which is also the diameter of a 27x34 coverage image circle. If 45mm is about right, then maybe the current mirror is already big enough and there's no need to make it bigger.

 

Phase One sent me sample images comparing subjects shot on their various backs with the same subjects shot on a Canon 1DsII. (They've been trying hard to sell me a system for a couple of years.) The differences were there but not so amazing or compelling to me. And I think better processing of the Canon files in DXO might have even closed the gap a little bit.

 

I agree with you that under many shooting conditions, the gain in image quality by going to MF back from the 1Ds3 may not be proportional to the price jump. The real advantage of MF backs is when being adapted to many specialized cameras such as the 12 XY ... that are simply too many things the 1Ds3 can't do, plus, the quality of most Canon lenses can't justify the full potential of its camera ... I believe there'll be more folks trying R lenses on the 1Ds3 than those doing this with a 1Ds2.

[sdai]

If the image circle size of R mount is indeed 45mm, then it should accommodate a 4:5 sensor size of 28mm x 35mm. Given the 6.8 µm pixel pitch of the Kodak sensor, it's going to have 21.2 megapixels (4118x5147).

[marknorton]

The difference between the R10 and the M8 is that virtually all potential R10 users will already have an SLR system, most probably a DSLR system, and they will likely have invested heavily in it which will influence their willingness to invest in an R10. With the M8, they have been able to attract new users with no such baggage.

 

I'm not as heavily invested with Nikon as I am with Leica-M, but the R10 is going to have to be pretty special to get me to change from Nikon D2x (and by Photokina next year, I hope D3x).

 

I do not see how Leica can get away with the camera not being full frame; even a 1.1 crop factor would show them up as being "a day late and a dollar short".

[AlanG]

What's the exact image circle size of R mount? I read a lot of people saying 45mm, that's slightly longer than the 24x36 frame coverage's diameter 43.27mm, which is also the diameter of a 27x34 coverage image circle. If 45mm is about right, then maybe the current mirror is already big enough and there's no need to make it bigger.

 

The image circle does not provide the answer. There is no easy answer to your question because longer lenses will need a bigger mirror than do shorter lenses. This is why longer lenses used to vignette on the bottom of the mirror (top of the image) with the old Nikon F.

 

But even if you keep the mirror the same size, the rest of the items I mentioned will have to be enlarged.

[thrid]

Ok, how about Leica fully put their experience behind 4/3rds and come out with a system that would blow Olympus out of the water quality wise. (I deliberately ignore Panasonic ...)? A 4/3rds true digital R vs the mid-level Panaleica's that we've seen while Leica worked on the lifeboat strategy to keep alive.

 

It doesn't do much for established R shooters, although there is a legacy support adapter, but it would do wonders for the 4/3rds community and possibly open up a larger market for Leica glass.

 

4/3rds will robably be dead in a few years or only show up in low end DSLR or P&S cameras. High image quality depends to a large part on the size of the receptor wells of the sensor and 4/3rds has the smallest on the market, (short of the tiny chips used in point and shoot bodies.)

 

For good dynamic range and low noise performance you need big receptors. That why almost all of the high-end bodies are at least APS-H (x1.3) or full frame. APS (x1.5) is being abandoned for these type of cameras, because it appears that 12-14MP is the maximum you can get out of them and still deliver pro level IQ.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[hankg]

Phase One has dominated the market for MF backs but the move to integrated closed systems a la 35mm DSLR's has left them without a camera platform. They could see their preeminent position evaporate with the next round of back upgrades. The future of their once promising software division is facing some serious competition from Adobe, Apple and DXO.

 

Leica is looking to make a real splash with the next R expanding it's potential market beyond the current tiny base but going head to head with the top of the line NiCanons isn't really an option.

 

Where could Phase One find a platform and line of lenses to compete with Hasselblad and HY6? Maybe at a lower price point in a 35mm DSLR package that delivered medium format quality? Best of both worlds with lenses to rival Zeiss, Fuji, Schneider?

 

Where could Leica find a digital solution that is recognized as best in a market that is used to paying prices that makes Leica prices look like a Walmart fire sale?

 

Just a thought.

[FastFashnReloaded]

I doubt if there will be significant demand for a "brand new marketing segment."

 

Just recently a sales rep from a company that sells MF backs and cameras called and was trying to get me to buy one of their systems. I told him that even though I was a long time LF and MF shooter, I was quite happy with the results I was getting with 35mm digital. So I wasn't interested in buying MF and told him I had sold almost all of my Rollei MF system 4 years ago. The sales rep told me that a lot of photographers had said the same thing to him. We had a very long discussion about high end equipment and the photo business in general.

 

I think you should keep in mind that the business really has changed. ...

 

Just because the industry seems to be dominated by hacks that shoot weddings and basketball games doesn't mean that there isn't a market for people who actually like to do other things with cameras.