stevelap Posted July 24, 2008 Share #61 Posted July 24, 2008 Advertisement (gone after registration) Agreed but why would a couple more millimeters give better images than a full frame body? I struggle to see any common sense here but i may be wrong hence my modest questions. Larger sensor area = more pixels for a given pixel density or, more significant for image quality, larger photosites for a given pixel quantity. Isn't that how the (greatly simplified) physics works? Therefore, if Leica decide to go 'full frame or larger' they (or their sensor supplier) have the option of choosing a larger sensor area over which to distribute the pixels. They can then further choose to maximise pixel density or optimise photosite size for improved image quality, or most likely use the best combination of both to achieve their aims. If there is to be an announcement of sorts at photokina, only two months away now, then those choices will already have been made of course, so the dice have been thrown. By the way, I agree with those who argue that whatever route Leica has chosen 'R' lens backwards compatibility is surely part of the roadmap. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted July 24, 2008 Posted July 24, 2008 Hi stevelap, Take a look here Leica R10 with 24x36mm sensor Can't take current R lenses?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
lct Posted July 24, 2008 Share #62 Posted July 24, 2008 Larger sensor area = more pixels for a given pixel density or, more significant for image quality, larger photosites for a given pixel quantity. Isn't that how the (greatly simplified) physics works?... So a couple millimeters more would make such an IQ difference as to change the lens mount and to risk loosing legacy customers? Hard to believe to me. The DMR's results are so nice yet that the same in FF would be more than enough IMHO. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevelap Posted July 24, 2008 Share #63 Posted July 24, 2008 So a couple millimeters more would make such an IQ difference as to change the lens mount and to risk loosing legacy customers? Hard to believe to me. The DMR's results are so nice yet that the same in FF would be more than enough IMHO. I don't believe that legacy 'R' customers need necessarily be lost in a 'larger than full-frame' scenario, if that's the route Leica have chosen, as I believe that some measure of 'R' lens compatibility will have been designed into any new body/system. We'll probably know within a couple of months. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted July 24, 2008 Share #64 Posted July 24, 2008 Yes we'll see but you are so many here to praise a new mount for reasons i don't understand that i fear the worst. I planned to purchase a couple R lenses but i think i'll refrain till i'm reassured that good sense has not deserted Leica. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosuna Posted July 24, 2008 Share #65 Posted July 24, 2008 So a couple millimeters more would make such an IQ difference as to change the lens mount and to risk loosing legacy customers? Hard to believe to me. The DMR's results are so nice yet that the same in FF would be more than enough IMHO. I don't think a couple of millimeters is worth the loss in compatibility with R lenses. The difference will be greater than that. Think on 6mm instead of 2. Leica has no other choice. 35mm reflex systems are very versatile. You must to offer many lenses, from extreme wide-angles to superteles, macro, tilt and shift, portrait lenses, zooms... etc... The costs of manufacture and distribution of such a catalogue are very high. You need a large stock of all your lenses and accesories. On the other hand, Leica cannot compete against Canon, Nikon, Sony, etc in terms of image quality on the same format. They cannot. The digital photography is determined by the lens, but also by the sensor, the processor, the software... Leica cannot be competitive in terms of price. So, how can they survive in the 35mm market in the long term? It is impossible. They need new customers, and a different product. A few lenses for specific (professional) tasks (landscape and studio work), a small camera (much smaller than 645 and 6x6 based systems) with superior image quality (better than 35mm at low ISOs). This product will be competitive against 35mm (for particular types of work), and competitive against 645 format (much smaller, less expensive). The Mamiya ZD was a good try, but it was a 645 camera with a cropped sensor (it was similar in body size to a 1Ds Canon). The new Leica will be even smaller. I don't know if this strategy will be a success, but it is the only product concept which has some possibility of success. I don't know about the compatibility of actual R lenses, but the lens-to-flange distance of medium format cameras is much larger than that of 35mm cameras. . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted July 24, 2008 Share #66 Posted July 24, 2008 ...Leica cannot compete against Canon, Nikon, Sony, etc in terms of image quality on the same format... I strongly but amicably disagree Ruben. Just compare a DMF pic to a D3 one. As much as i like the D3 (with Zeiss lenses), i prefer the DMR IQ personally. But i have nothing to do with 6mm more if it makes me loose any lens compatibility. As for new curtomers why would they spend little fortunes for a 'mini-MF' gear where they can have real MF at a similar cost? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosuna Posted July 24, 2008 Share #67 Posted July 24, 2008 Advertisement (gone after registration) I strongly but amicably disagree Ruben. Just compare a DMF pic to a D3 one. As much as i like the D3 (with Zeiss lenses), i prefer the DMR IQ personally. But i have nothing to do with 6mm more if it makes me loose any lens compatibility. As for new curtomers why would they spend little fortunes for a 'mini-MF' gear where they can have real MF at a similar cost? The cost cannot be the same, or Leica will have problems. If you compare "full frame" formats, the 645 is much larger than the future Leica MF format. The body and lenses relative sizes must be different too. And think on the speed of the lenses... Leica will be able to offer f/2 lenses, at least. The DMR produces beatiful images at low ISOs, but the market is a cruel boss. You cannot sell enough numbers of modules like the DMR at Leica prices in 2008... and the same goes for manual focus lenses... The D3 will be only one of the many 35mm cameras in the market... You will have a very diverse offer in that segment of the market very soon. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted July 24, 2008 Share #68 Posted July 24, 2008 The cost cannot be the same, or Leica will have problems. If you compare "full frame" formats, the 645 is much larger than the future Leica MF format. The body and lenses relative sizes must be different too. And think on the speed of the lenses... Leica will be able to offer f/2 lenses, at least.... By 'future' you mean 'possible' i guess. Anyway you're dreaming when you suggest that a mini-MF Leica could be cheaper than a real MF IMHO. Look at the last offers from Phase One for instance. And how could f/2 lenses work with the new format? Either they would be current lenses that will work in 'native' 24x36 format, through an adapter, or they would be bigger (and dearer) new lenses to match the new format. Am i missing something here? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdai Posted July 24, 2008 Share #69 Posted July 24, 2008 Two things need to said: 1. Hasselblad has a 110mm f/2 lens for the V system, Contax also have a 80mm f/2 lens for their 645 so it's absolutely not record breaking "if" Leica is going to build a f/2 lens for a smaller than 645 system. 2. There's no chance that a R lens can be used on a medium format camera because the register distance will be too long to let the R lens properly focus, unless Leica is going to build an adapter WITH several glass elements in order to bring the focus to the focal plane, which will only reduce the quality and performance of R lenses of course. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdai Posted July 24, 2008 Share #70 Posted July 24, 2008 I am actually starting to think that Leica should forget about SLR altogether, whether it's 35mm FF or medium format. So they will have no risk and be able to focus on what they can do best, we as legacy R users will no longer be bothered as well. Just give us a word, say the R is dead ... let it RIP. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dsapkota Posted July 24, 2008 Author Share #71 Posted July 24, 2008 Once again, nobody has yet commented on possibility of IS/VR function in the camera itself. Photography in Nature - Dhruba Kumar Sapkota Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicapages Posted July 25, 2008 Share #72 Posted July 25, 2008 Hi Dhruba, relax ! Why do you keep pushing this issue further? All that was said in this thread belongs in any case to the realm of pure speculation. There are hardly any facts on future R development available of all. Some hints maybe, but no facts. So let us take a deep breath and wait until the expected announcement at Photokina, which is due in a month and a half. Many of us have wishes and requests regarding future R development, and I am confident that Leica is following many posts on this forum. If Photokina does not bring along what you'd like to see, then one can still base purchasing/replacement decisions on the then available information. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted July 25, 2008 Share #73 Posted July 25, 2008 Hi Dhruba, relax ! Why do you keep pushing this issue further?... Perhaps dsapkota suggested that in-camera IS and/or VR may require a larger than full frame sensors without changing the R mount? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdai Posted July 25, 2008 Share #74 Posted July 25, 2008 The number of extra pixels needed to offset the shake in a CCD-shift stabilization is negligible when compared to the total amount of pixels in both horizontal and vertical directions. To say one will need a larger than FF sensor ONLY because of this is laughable. Anyway, in camera stabilization is a very bad idea. First of all, you won't see the effect of compensation through the optical viewfinder, second, it doesn't work well for long lenses, third, it doesn't work well for large sensors. Canon has in camera stabilization long before anybody has tried it in a commercialized product, they don't use it at all not even in 100 dollar point and shooters. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted July 25, 2008 Share #75 Posted July 25, 2008 The number of extra pixels needed to offset the shake in a CCD-shift stabilization is negligible when compared to the total amount of pixels in both horizontal and vertical directions. To say one will need a larger than FF sensor ONLY because of this is laughable. Anyway, in camera stabilization is a very bad idea. First of all, you won't see the effect of compensation through the optical viewfinder, second, it doesn't work well for long lenses, third, it doesn't work well for large sensors... QUOTE] I always thought that this would be the reason that Leica might have suggested a larger than full frame sensor. Alternatively, they could use a larger shutter to allow a 24x36 sensor some room to move and still stay in the lens' image circle. I am not sure which would be the better or most cost effective approach. Making a larger shutter opening would require a lot of camera design changes and wouldn't show an exact frame of view in the viewfinder. Wheras a larger sensor might be more expensive in itself however the IS/VR implementation for it would only require moving the sensor. The rest of the body could be standard. As for the other concerns, I may be wrong, but I don't see any technical reason why moving the sensor to compensate for vibration couldn't be as effective as in-lens systems even with a 24x36 sensor. That is what Sony has planned so we'll see it soon enough. The advantage of having IS in every lens would be appealing. I can't see Leica introducing an entire new line of lenses each with IS and AF. When it comes to seeing the stabilized image while shooting, there are a lot of times I'd like to have stabilization and not see the results when shooting. It can give me vertigo when working from helicopters. I don't like the feeling when using it from a ladder, roof, or balcony either. In other situations it is a little disconcerting when the image is locked in and then unlocks and re-locks. (Sort of jumps.) With long lenses it does help smooth the view a bit. With other lenses, the stabilized view is not vey beneficial to me. It seems to me that incorporating the stabilization in the body and keeping compatibility with the existing lenses would be a no-brainer for Leica. I guess they could also offer a few new long lenses with built in stabilization if that makes so much difference and they have the technology. Something bigger than 35mm would be a pretty dangerous road for Leica. Keep in mind that current MF backs can be removed from the DSLR body and mounted onto a specialized camera for view camera movements or wide angle work. This increases their versatility. Something between 35mm and MF would be pretty useless for this. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdai Posted July 25, 2008 Share #76 Posted July 25, 2008 It doesn't matter whether IS/VR is built in lenses or in the cameras, remember its primary purpose is to make up for the slower shutter speed when smaller aperture lenses are used. IS/VR is never meant to save the day of a lousy photographer with sloppy technique. Some may find it helpful for some reason but Leica has probably the largest collection of fast primers and zoomers of any camera company in its stable. I suspect it is on top of Leica's to-do list. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosuna Posted July 28, 2008 Share #77 Posted July 28, 2008 Two things need to said: 1. Hasselblad has a 110mm f/2 lens for the V system, Contax also have a 80mm f/2 lens for their 645 so it's absolutely not record breaking "if" Leica is going to build a f/2 lens for a smaller than 645 system. 2. There's no chance that a R lens can be used on a medium format camera because the register distance will be too long to let the R lens properly focus, unless Leica is going to build an adapter WITH several glass elements in order to bring the focus to the focal plane, which will only reduce the quality and performance of R lenses of course. Well, the relative register distance of the M8 is much shorter than that of the R system, even if you enlarge the format (a mere 50%) keeping the lens-to-flange distance. Leica R users don't understand the reasons that support this change towards a large format, but it is a necessary change... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdai Posted July 28, 2008 Share #78 Posted July 28, 2008 Well, the relative register distance of the M8 is much shorter than that of the R system, even if you enlarge the format (a mere 50%) keeping the lens-to-flange distance. Leica R users don't understand the reasons that support this change towards a large format, but it is a necessary change... That's exactly why you can't adapt the M lenses on a R camera. For the same reason, you can't adapt the R lenses on a medium format camera. You may be right that I don't understand why Leica has to go for larger than 35mm, to be frank, I don't want to understand because I already have a Hasselblad and that's larger than the rumored larger than 35mm format. If Leica "really" wants to do it, go ahead please ... and I wish them good luck. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pixtweak Posted July 28, 2008 Share #79 Posted July 28, 2008 I am not a Leica convert as yet, but Canon digital has dissapointed me in terms of the high rate of repairs and fixes that have been required of my lenses and 5D factory adjustments. The camera and or lenses have simply failed me too often, and required repeated repairs at Factory Service. I should note that Canon in my case has acknowledged these defects and repaired them well beyond the warranty period at no cost to me, including return shipping. So they do at least stand behind their system, but there have been too many surprises in particular shooting situations where I have lost the shot because of defects in the equipment. In terms of how can Leica compete against Nikon and Canon, I would say there is a measure of superior quality and unquestionable confidence in the reliabillity of these systems where Leica may offer a decisive advantage. I am not sure that is the case, but in terms of my Canon experience I am looking for and hoping there is an alternative. I would say if Leica can get a 24 x 36 version of the Kodak/Hasselblad 50MP sensor that would certainly be worth consideration and comparrison testing. Now that I have two years of experience proscessing and printing from a 5D, I am also hopeful that there is something to be said about the better dynamic range and overall image quality offered by the Leica CCD sensor that Leica photographers (inlcuding former Cannon owners) have indicated. Still there is going to be a second generation 5D with a higher bit depth in the months to come, at a far more attractive price point than a Leica that may resolve most of the issues I have had with the current 5D. Leica's "niche" is that it can deliver a truly professional level of quality and a superior warranty in a system that can not be matched by Canon and Nikon in terms of precision and hopefuly reliabillity. I wish they could come up with Leica 5D/D700 solution that would be within reach of more photographers. Leica's price point realy begs the question why not just go with Medium format. For me the answer might be that three lenses and Kodak CCD image quality might give me close to medium format quality for less and with a wider range of focal lengths. I assume current lenses will be compatible with the FF release. If anything there may be a new line of lenses that offer optimum performance, for people to upgrade to when they choose to do so. "Just compare a DMF pic to a D3 one" - Erfahrener Benutzer Do you have any links with quality samples comparing these two? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
georg Posted July 29, 2008 Share #80 Posted July 29, 2008 It was always about getting the best quality out of the smallest format. The very first Leica was the first approach -> small negatives but big prints. Prof. photographers used large format cameras (Technica, Graflex?) up to the early 50s even for free-hand work, then they switched to medium format (Rollei, Hasselblad). The best lenses available (which are current Asph/Apo-lenses from Leica so we need only a few new R-lenses <90mm) in combination with 2008 sensor-technology (like the new Kodak CCD in 24x36mm with 24Mpixels) to create a system, which delivers a unsurpassed quality in this small format. Ok, it won't be a 50MPixel MFDB but many professionals are happy with the resolution of their older 22MPixel backs anyway. Nikon and Canon deliver perfect systems for their purpose: press/sports-photography: rugged and fast cameras! But the new Leica could be used as a alternative to todays low-end MFDB-work with great ergonomics, bright viewfinders, great manual focus but with the compactness and versatility of the 35mm-world (a "simple" 2,8/180Apo equivalents the Zeiss TPP!!! Lenses are easily 2 full stops faster!). @pixtweak Leica has no better "out of the box" reliability as the high-end-systems of Canon/Nikon, you notice that they're made in small series. I had a few products that had malfunctions within the first year. The difference to other "mass-production"-systems is the way these things are designed/build, when they work, they work. Even after decades they just feel like new! No cost-reduction every year, no new suppliers because someone from a low-wage-country claims to be just as good only cheaper... It will take them some time to establish the same high-quality-suppliers/longtime relationships for all the digital-stuff but I think the new DSLR will be a step in the right direction! But it won't be a midclass-system like the 5D or it's successor, it will be damn expansive high-end, that's for sure. But you're looking for the best possibly quality in the 35mm-world, don't need the speed of sports/press-photography? Leica is the way to go. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.