Some News (or Rumor) About R10

[mjh]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Apples should be compared to apples. Remember the DMR has a 1.33x cropping factor. When its Kodak sensor is cut into 36x24 full format, it's gonna be 17.6MP.

 

Put it this way, the DMR's pixel density is about 2.1MP per square centimeter, the 5D's pixel density is only 1.5MP per square centimeter. Mathematically, the DMR should have close to 40% more resolution than the 5D so what's the surprise?

If that’s the way you want the cameras to be compared, you would have to crop the image from the 5D to be equivalent to a 26.4 mm x 17.6 mm frame size. Which would put the 5D even more at a disadvantage. Don’t you think that’s a bit unfair?

[Advertisement]

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

[sdai]

If that’s the way you want the cameras to be compared, you would have to crop the image from the 5D to be equivalent to a 26.4 mm x 17.6 mm frame size. Which would put the 5D even more at a disadvantage. Don’t you think that’s a bit unfair?

 

It doesn't matter how you cut the sensor size, the 5D's pixel density is still lower then DMR's ... remember a cropped sensor would yield more effective depth of field when shooting at the same exposure settings, this may cause the illusion that a cropped sensor image looks sharper under some conditions as well.

 

In any case, the debate was not about the comparison of DMR/5D's file quality, it was about the difference with/without a AA filter.

 

Anyone who has tried the optional/removable AA filters on the old Kodak DSLRs or the Canon D2000, Mamiya ZD, etc could testify.

[sdai]

The Leica press conference is scheduled for 9/24, 10:00 am CEST.

 

Does that stand for Central Europe standard time, Michael? that's the time in Frankfurt, right?

[EH21]

Sdai,

I wrote the same framing - meaning the crop factor has nothing to do with it. If you take the same shot with both camera bodies using the same leica lens the DMR will have more detail even though it has less pixels.

I don't follow these forums so closely so don't know if you have actually shot with either camera you're writing about here. If you haven't tried such a comparison first hand, you should.

Eric

 

 

Apples should be compared to apples. Remember the DMR has a 1.33x cropping factor. When its Kodak sensor is cut into 36x24 full format, it's gonna be 17.6MP.

 

Put it this way, the DMR's pixel density is about 2.1MP per square centimeter, the 5D's pixel density is only 1.5MP per square centimeter. Mathematically, the DMR should have close to 40% more resolution than the 5D so what's the surprise?

 

The only way to prove it is to take two identical shots with and without the AA on the same camera with the same lens.

[sdai]

I wrote the same framing - meaning the crop factor has nothing to do with it. If you take the same shot with both camera bodies using the same leica lens the DMR will have more detail even though it has less pixels.

 

Eric, the way you tried it won't prove anything because even without an AA filter, the 5D may still look softer, or have less resolution than the DMR image.

 

Have you seen a 5D image without an AA filter? probably not. So how do you know the amount of sharpness/resolution lost due to the AA filter?

 

Same applies to the DMR, nobody has seen an image with a DMR when an AA filter is put in front of its sensor, so how can one say how much superior it is than being used with an AA filter?

 

I'm not denying the pixel casualty due to the use of an AA, I have only said that it's vastly exaggerated.

[EH21]

Sdai,

The point is a DMR will give a shooter more detail than a 5D provided they take the same shot. This can be easily shown using the same leica lens on both cameras - I've done it. And a DMR pitted against the same 5D with canon glass? No contest. Why speculate on silly things like adding a AA filter or taking one off? At least that's uninteresting to me. I've seen the maxxmaxx samples floating around on the different forums and honestly I can't see a difference. Nothing like the difference between the DMR and the 5D.

Eric

 

 

 

 

Eric, the way you tried it won't prove anything because even without an AA filter, the 5D may still look softer, or have less resolution than the DMR image.

 

Have you seen a 5D image without an AA filter? probably not. So how do you know the amount of sharpness/resolution lost due to the AA filter?

 

Same applies to the DMR, nobody has seen an image with a DMR when an AA filter is put in front of its sensor, so how can one say how much superior it is than being used with an AA filter?

 

I'm not denying the pixel casualty due to the use of an AA, I have only said that it's vastly exaggerated.

[stunsworth]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I still believe that if Leica can't support the R series they will be out of business within 3-5 years. A rangefinder, albeit a great one, is not enough to support a camera company in my opinion.

 

In fairness to Leica, I don't think the R line has been selling well for many years. A big chink of their revenue comes from the sport optics department - if I remember correctly, they used to make as much money from them as they did from cameras.

 

I think we sometimes have to recognise that there's a difference between what we would like as individuals, and what is necessarily good for the company.

[andybarton]

Steve

 

There was "news" here some time ago that production of R9s had ceased and it wouldn't surprise me to find that R lenses are more or less built to order.

 

And, yes, Leica must make more money from us birdwatchers than they do from their cameras. I'd say that 2/3 of serious birdwatchers use Leica binoculars of one sort or another, most of the remainder use Swarovskis. IIRC, Bill Oddie has jumped ship.

[stunsworth]

There's a line of thought that says that Leica should have dropped the R line years ago and concentrated on the M system. I'm glad they didn't, but in retrospect I wonder if they now think it would have been the better thing to do?

[Guest Joachim_I]

I'd say that 2/3 of serious birdwatchers use Leica binoculars of one sort or another, most of the remainder use Swarovskis.

That's certainly not the case in the Netherlands (where birdwatching is quite popular too, for good reasons). I see a lot of cheap Porros. Note that these people may be serious about birding too but for some reason can't or don't want to afford a better product. Among the more expensive brands, I see mostly Swarovski (which are cheaper here than for example in Germany), followed by Leica and Zeiss with about equal share. Personally, I use the excellent Fujinon 8x30 FMTR-SX and for fun also a Leitz Binuxit 8x30.

 

I heard the Geovid line of binoculars was very successful with hunters. Leica had a kind of monopoly there for a while. Meanwhile Zeiss offers very similar products.

 

Joachim

[mjh]

Why speculate on silly things like adding a AA filter or taking one off?

Some people have actually done this, see Hot Rod Visible.

[sdai]

Why speculate on silly things like adding a AA filter or taking one off? At least that's uninteresting to me. I've seen the maxxmaxx samples floating around on the different forums and honestly I can't see a difference. Nothing like the difference between the DMR and the 5D.

Eric

 

Now we're back to square one, that's exactly my point ... One should not see that much a difference with or without an AA filter. The better DMR file quality has many other contributing factors.

 

Cheers.

[carstenw]

Apples should be compared to apples. Remember the DMR has a 1.33x cropping factor. When its Kodak sensor is cut into 36x24 full format, it's gonna be 17.6MP.

 

Put it this way, the DMR's pixel density is about 2.1MP per square centimeter, the 5D's pixel density is only 1.5MP per square centimeter. Mathematically, the DMR should have close to 40% more resolution than the 5D so what's the surprise?

 

The only way to prove it is to take two identical shots with and without the AA on the same camera with the same lens.

 

What a truly bizarre and mathematical way to compare. It is quite easy to compare cameras. You take a picture with each, and compare them. If you like one better, buy that camera. Hypothetical relationship between pixel densities and crop factors are uninteresting, because in the end we compare images, not tech.

[sdai]

firing a cheap shot has never been part of German culture, have you just waken up and started at page 14?

[vanhulsenbeek]

firing a cheap shot has never been part of German culture, have you just waken up and started at page 14?

 

True: read about the canon Dicke Bertha in

Amazon.com: The Guns of August: Barbara W. Tuchman: Books

[lct]

...I'm not denying the pixel casualty due to the use of an AA, I have only said that it's vastly exaggerated.

Makes sense if the Sony A900 has an AA filter. Quite Leica (or Zeiss) -like at first glance.

[carstenw]

firing a cheap shot has never been part of German culture, have you just waken up and started at page 14?

 

I am not German, and that wasn't a cheap shot. I really mean it. If you want to compare cameras, look at the results, not the specs. Specs are irrelevant in the face of images.

[paulmoore]

I am not German, and that wasn't a cheap shot. I really mean it. If you want to compare cameras, look at the results, not the specs. Specs are irrelevant in the face of images.

 

seems obvious.. I always found it difficult to compare bw developer based on the chemicals which made it up..I am sure some judged them that way though.

new reflex camera:

I am impressed with solms' ability to keep this under wraps as they have.. with just a few days to go and we are all clueless. . I stand by my long time desire to have a new format and will welcome the change.. to the chagrin of some-of-the-above posters who poo-poo'd

my desire for a break from 2:3.. we shall see.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[sdai]

I am not German, and that wasn't a cheap shot. I really mean it. If you want to compare cameras, look at the results, not the specs. Specs are irrelevant in the face of images.

 

To clear it up, my posts was only regarding EH21's comment below, in which he says:

 

The DMR benefits from both the lack of AA filter but also from true 16bit files.

 

And I don't think the lack of AA has that much big effect on the file quality. That's it. No one is comparing the DMR to the 5D.

 

If you always feel the urge to jump the gun and take on topics you don't even bother to read from the beginning, carry on.

[like_no_other]

A long time ago I saw a comparison article about a Nikon camera with AA filter and with AA filter removed. The visul difference regarding sharpness/clarity was significant, stronger than 20% pixels more or less.

 

Nice to read about how German culture is seen here.