Iron Flatline Posted February 3, 2008 Share #41 Â Posted February 3, 2008 Advertisement (gone after registration) I hope Leica includes LiveView. Those who don't need it don't need to use it, and those who want it can look to Leica as yet another brand that enables it. Â LiveView is very useful for landscape and architectural photography, as well as macro. Â Leica has one shot at getting this right - I hope they are highly responsive to the marketplace, and ignore peanut gallery of old schoolers who think everything new is crap. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted February 3, 2008 Posted February 3, 2008 Hi Iron Flatline, Take a look here R10 and Full-Frame Sensor. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
haroldp Posted February 4, 2008 Share #42 Â Posted February 4, 2008 Nikon might use the Sony FF sensor in the D3x. They may well have participated in the design, and have had developmental copies long before the public announcement. Â I agree that Nikon will not likely retreat from 14 bit, but that is primarily firmware, and remember that Nikon uses the Sony DX size 12.4 mp in the D300, at 14 bit, while Sony uses the same sensor at 12 bit in the A700. Â Nikon are recently brilliant in design, but as a company they do not even come close to having the scale to manufacture semiconductors, and must ally with someone like Sony to compete with the Canon R&d / Manufacturing Gorilla. Â Sony needs a partner like Nikon, so that their camera's do not devolve into walkmen with lenses. Â Nikon also sells many more DSLR's than Sony, most of whose sensor's come from Sony, so they will have a lot of influence on Sony's direction. Â Leica would need some extension of the offset microlens design in an FF sensor that they could use in an 'M', and it does not appear that Sony is working in that direction, not that Leica has the volume to compel them. Â I of course have a vested interest in all of this., .Happy to stir this pot ...... Harold Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pierovitch Posted February 4, 2008 Share #43 Â Posted February 4, 2008 Something off the shelf from Dalsa should do the trick. Â DALSA FTF5033C Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterGA Posted February 7, 2008 Share #44 Â Posted February 7, 2008 Regarding Manual versus automatic gearboxes - my tractor diesels all have manual boxes because auto boxes that can handle big tractor torque dont exist. My Turbo Porsche has an auto box as does my commuter M3 - only because I prefer the superior performance of modern auto transmissions, I guess if auto is good enough for F1 cars it is probably good enough for commuters and weekend enthusiasts... Â I am looking forward to the R10 - if I can get DMR/M8 quality files in a full frame I will be very happy. If I can get auto focus introduced as well as focus confirmation for my existing lenses I will be happier. If I can get a battery that is as good as Canon I will be happier again. I could care less about live view - but would like a large LCD. Also If i could use the latest SD cards and preferably SD and CF I would be happy. Â make the sensor easy to clean please because I know there is no such thing as sealed therefore no need to clean - and it is more important to have a very bright contrast viewfinder than anything else. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted February 7, 2008 Share #45 Â Posted February 7, 2008 ...I guess if auto is good enough for F1 cars it is probably good enough for commuters and weekend enthusiasts... Â I thought F1 was semi-automatic with those paddle things on the steering wheel? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevelap Posted February 7, 2008 Share #46 Â Posted February 7, 2008 I thought F1 was semi-automatic with those paddle things on the steering wheel? They also had full auto modes, with programmed upshift and downshift options through several of their gears. Â Some of those electronic gizmo's have recently been banned of course, with traction control and more also now illegal for the coming season. The engineers will soon find a way to claw back the lost performance though, as they always do. Â I agree that in virtually every respect a modern auto gearbox, with a good manual overide capability, is the way to go. Â Does a similar argument now work for modern cameras, even Leica's, I wonder? Â Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevelap Posted February 7, 2008 Share #47  Posted February 7, 2008 Advertisement (gone after registration) They also had full auto modes, with programmed upshift and downshift options through several of their gears.  Some of those electronic gizmo's have recently been banned of course, with traction control and more also now illegal for the coming season. The engineers will soon find a way to claw back the lost performance though, as they always do.  I agree that in virtually every respect a modern auto gearbox, with a good manual overide capability, is the way to go.  Does a similar argument now work for modern cameras, even Leica's, I wonder?  Steve In a camera the analogy would be:  Full Auto = Program AE with Continuous AF Semi-Auto = AP or SP AE with manual selection of the AF points Manual = full user control of aperture, shutter speed, WB, ISO and focus  Watching tv news footage of last night's soccer international, England v Switzerland, it was possible to see banks of DSLR's set up behind the goal posts, being controlled wirelessly by the photographer from further behind. Now it's entirely possible of course that he/she didn't need to be out in the cold at all, but instead could have been up in a nice, cosy press box controlling the whole shebang from their laptop.  Such is the pace of technology that the average pro spec Canikon will soon be able to order NORAD to DEFCON 3, remote command the launch of a space shuttle and simultaneously upload photo's of the lift-off shot at 50fps!  Now I'm not suggesting that Leica could, or should, go there, and even if they wanted to they probably don't have the necessary resources to achieve it in one step. But if they were able to offer a suitable auto/manual capability within a reasonably sized R10 body, for example AF with some new lenses and MF (+ focus confirmation) with legacy lenses, they should be able to move forward significantly enough to attract new customers whilst at the same time providing backwards compatibility for existing 'R' owners.  The digital 'M' probably shouldn't ,and wouldn't, go quite as far. But it could still be upgraded with modern technology, for example electronics in the rangefinder and frame lines with focus confirmation perhaps, whilst still remaining a manual focus, rangefinder camera with a traditional body form-factor that stayed loyal to Leica's heritage.  Oh well, let's hope that we'll see a good deal of the master plan revealed at photokina.  Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicapages Posted February 7, 2008 Share #48 Â Posted February 7, 2008 I hope you all realize that you are in the realm of speculation here :-) Â For starters, I would already be happy if there was an R10 at all, a digital body with a full-frame sensor, automatic focus-aid with existing R lenses, and further on all the bells and whistles from the R9. That would do it for me :-) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lordkacy Posted February 9, 2008 Share #49  Posted February 9, 2008 I hope that they just put a sensor into the 6.2 body with the shutter of r9 and that's it.... everything remain manual...  and hopefully come out a 50mm f1 for R series...  regards, KC Eng  KC Eng Photography Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ptomsu Posted February 9, 2008 Share #50 Â Posted February 9, 2008 My 5c for the R10 success: Â FF Sensor with M8 quality and ISO 6400 low noise AWB as good as with latest M8 FW 14 Bit color depth DNG and TIFF out of camera Lossless JPEG out of camera AF with new glass and focus confirmation with old glass Bright State of the State of the Art viewfinder - comparable to SL2 3" LCD screen - same as in Nikon D3 IS in camera would be great - although I doubt this will be so easy Life View - I do not need, but would not mind Battery as good as with Nikon D3 Camera Size possibly smaller than Nikon D3 - but at least not larger Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ptomsu Posted February 9, 2008 Share #51  Posted February 9, 2008 I hope that they just put a sensor into the 6.2 body with the shutter of r9 and that's it.... everything remain manual...  and hopefully come out a 50mm f1 for R series...  regards, KC Eng  KC Eng Photography  Well, with the 50/F1 for R you have then the weight in the lens which you gain by the body you like to see Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildlightphoto Posted February 9, 2008 Share #52 Â Posted February 9, 2008 My 5c for the R10 success:Â ...14 Bit color depth... Â curious, why 14 bit? Why not the 16 bit color depth of the DMR? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosuna Posted February 9, 2008 Share #53  Posted February 9, 2008 Ni I agree that Nikon will not likely retreat from 14 bit, but that is primarily firmware, and remember that Nikon uses the Sony DX size 12.4 mp in the D300, at 14 bit, while Sony uses the same sensor at 12 bit in the A700.   I think it has to do with the A/D conversor (hardware), and the Sony sensor has A/D conversors (one in every row) integrated into the chip, for better noise handling.   curious, why 14 bit? Why not the 16 bit color depth of the DMR?   I am not against tonal compression schemes. But I hope Leica will avoid the radical compression from 14 to 8 bits of the M8. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted February 9, 2008 Share #54  Posted February 9, 2008 My 5c for the R10 success: FF Sensor with M8 quality  14 Bit color depth  That would kill sales stone dead, before they have even started, IMHO. I am not interested in an R10 that has a smaller Bit depth than the camera I already have, and I see no reason at all why it should be 14 Bit, just because that's what they have put into the M8. I am also not interested in an R10 that has M8 quality, thanks very much. Why should R users compromise quality, like that, when they haven't had to in the past?  I also don't see any point in tiffs from the camera these days, either.  Might be good news for the value of used DMRs, though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
carstenw Posted February 9, 2008 Share #55  Posted February 9, 2008 My 5c for the R10 success: FF Sensor with M8 quality and ISO 6400 low noise AWB as good as with latest M8 FW 14 Bit color depth DNG and TIFF out of camera Lossless JPEG out of camera AF with new glass and focus confirmation with old glass Bright State of the State of the Art viewfinder - comparable to SL2 3" LCD screen - same as in Nikon D3 IS in camera would be great - although I doubt this will be so easy Life View - I do not need, but would not mind Battery as good as with Nikon D3 Camera Size possibly smaller than Nikon D3 - but at least not larger  Given that everything else seems like improvements, I suppose you added the 14-bit because you thought it would be an improvement too. The DMR has 16-bit. Did you add it just because Canon and Nikon are currently getting around to increasing their bit-depth? Can you personally see the difference? D300 owners are apparently having trouble seeing any difference between 12-bit and 14-bit files (it can do both), so I am curious if this is just a marketing checklist you are presenting, or a list of wishes based on personal work and observations.  Although there are now standards for lossless JPG, I am not sure why you want it. High quality JPG is presumably enough for those who don't want to deal with the higher potential of RAW. The new JPG formats are having a lot of trouble getting established, so I don't even know if you could find the right software to deal with it. I presume CS3 will do it though.  I don't think that clean ISO 6400 is realistic. Only the D3 can currently do that, and it has less MP than you would presumably want from the R10. I think that a clean 1600 with a workable 3200 would be fine. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ptomsu Posted February 9, 2008 Share #56 Â Posted February 9, 2008 Sorry folks, did not want to confuse anything, but obviously I succeeded. Â Of course 16 Bit! Â Sorry again Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ptomsu Posted February 9, 2008 Share #57  Posted February 9, 2008 That would kill sales stone dead, before they have even started, IMHO. I am not interested in an R10 that has a smaller Bit depth than the camera I already have, and I see no reason at all why it should be 14 Bit, just because that's what they have put into the M8. I am also not interested in an R10 that has M8 quality, thanks very much. Why should R users compromise quality, like that, when they haven't had to in the past? I also don't see any point in tiffs from the camera these days, either.  Might be good news for the value of used DMRs, though.  I do not understand why you say the M8 files are less quality than the DMR files. I had a DMR and used it for almost 2 years, I use my M8 now since 9 months - always only DMR - and I like the output of the M8 much more than the DMR files. Maybe this is only my personal feeling? Not sure...  So obviously no matter if the color depth is 16 bit or compressed 8 bit (like M8) the M8 files look better to me  I would want a lossless file format besides RAW, so I could think about TIFF. JPEG has always compression issues even in highest quality. I personally only use RAW (DNG) but I found there are users asking for some other file formats without any compression or conversion issues. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ptomsu Posted February 9, 2008 Share #58  Posted February 9, 2008 Given that everything else seems like improvements, I suppose you added the 14-bit because you thought it would be an improvement too. The DMR has 16-bit. Did you add it just because Canon and Nikon are currently getting around to increasing their bit-depth? Can you personally see the difference? D300 owners are apparently having trouble seeing any difference between 12-bit and 14-bit files (it can do both), so I am curious if this is just a marketing checklist you are presenting, or a list of wishes based on personal work and observations. Although there are now standards for lossless JPG, I am not sure why you want it. High quality JPG is presumably enough for those who don't want to deal with the higher potential of RAW. The new JPG formats are having a lot of trouble getting established, so I don't even know if you could find the right software to deal with it. I presume CS3 will do it though.  I don't think that clean ISO 6400 is realistic. Only the D3 can currently do that, and it has less MP than you would presumably want from the R10. I think that a clean 1600 with a workable 3200 would be fine.  A clean 1600 would not be enough. At least a clean 3200. You should also think about a potential improvement compared to the state of the art today, which the D3 seems to be, so for me this could be 18MP and clean ISO 6400.  We will see if this can be achieved. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mgcd Posted February 10, 2008 Share #59  Posted February 10, 2008 I do not understand why you say the M8 files are less quality than the DMR files. I had a DMR and used it for almost 2 years, I use my M8 now since 9 months - always only DMR - and I like the output of the M8 much more than the DMR files. Maybe this is only my personal feeling? Not sure... So obviously no matter if the color depth is 16 bit or compressed 8 bit (like M8) the M8 files look better to me  I would want a lossless file format besides RAW, so I could think about TIFF. JPEG has always compression issues even in highest quality. I personally only use RAW (DNG) but I found there are users asking for some other file formats without any compression or conversion issues.  Sorry Peter but that is truly hilarious! Did you really have a DMR? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajthornbury Posted February 13, 2008 Share #60 Â Posted February 13, 2008 Oly used a beam splitter in their E10/E20 models. Seemed to work all right. Also gave simultaneous view finder and live view. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.