DMR successor likely "FF or Larger"

[cpclee]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

According to a Leica executive:

 

David Farkas Photography Blog

 

(Go to Photokina Day 1.)

 

I suppose "larger" here means a square format within the existing image circle. Sounds like a good strategy and an excellent way for Leica to differentiate itself from the Japanese competitors. This may also explain Leica's motivation for acquiring Sinar. I wouldn't be suprised if the DMR's successor is modular like most medium format cameras.

[Advertisement]

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

[carstenw]

According to a Leica executive:

 

David Farkas Photography Blog

 

(Go to Photokina Day 1.)

 

I suppose "larger" here means a square format within the existing image circle. Sounds like a good strategy and an excellent way for Leica to differentiate itself from the Japanese competitors. This may also explain Leica's motivation for acquiring Sinar. I wouldn't be suprised if the DMR's successor is modular like most medium format cameras.

 

The diagonal still has to stay within the image circle, so it can't be larger... I would be shocked if Leica would make another 35mm format. They practically invented it! He must be referring to MF. I do expect the R10 to be physically smaller and FF.

[cpclee]

It's possible to inscribe a square that has the circle's diameter as it's diagonal. Such a square has the largest area among all possible rectangles inscribable in the circle. That's a geometric fact.

[rob_x2004]

But not the longest axes.

[cpclee]

Ok let me see if this is more clear.

 

The regular 35mm format is 36mmx24mm. Its diagonal is (roughly) 43mm, which is also the diameter of the image circle. The area of this format is 36x24=864.

 

The square format would be 31mmx31mm. The diagonal of such a square is also 43mm, so it fits inside the same image circle. The overall area is larger (31x31=961), but you do get one edge shorter and one edge longer than the regular 35mm format.

[xray]

Sinar has had a number of original design MF / LF cameras over the past years and if my memory is correct they integrated one of their digital backs with one of their slr bodies. Even my Sinar Norma that I purchased in 1969 was cutting edge technology for the time. Sinar has been in the lens and digital back business for a number of years now and the purchase of Sinar should be a real boost to Leica in the professional market.

[rob_x2004]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Good argument Chris. Do you ever print or present? All your images are square or are you missing the point?

[ho_co]

Very interesting idea. Doesn't obsolete existing lenses, and gives larger image with greater image quality. Good move.

 

But so far as I know, almost everyone else has moved away from square format. Rectangles are easier to compose for. I guess it was for that reason that I always felt great when I got a good picture with the square: Hard to compose for, very satisfying when the composition works.

 

This is the second time I've heard this speculation, so I guess I better start considering the idea. But to my ears, going square doesn't sound like the right way to go. And going to a 31 mm diagonal offers only an 11% increase in area over full-frame. My first reaction is that it sounds as if we gain a little but lose a lot.

 

Thanks for the heads-up, Chris! Definitely something to keep an eye on!

 

--HC

[ChipNovaMac]

Read that comment "or larger" and I wonder about that. Could Leica be thinking of a sub-MF camera? If so how does that fit in the R range? Only time will tell. But it does seem that Leica is going to be with us awhile longer.

[jbstitt]

So I am confused. If the lens has a 36mm long side, 18 mm radius, they why could that 36 mm not be rotated within the image circle giving a 36 by 36 possible square format with existing lenses. This would give 1296 sq mm which is indeed an attractive size and format.

[rob_x2004]

Well, printing in 6x4 presentation for example, 36x(36x4/6)=864, opposed to 31x(31x(4/6)=640. For five by seven 24x(24x7/5)=806 as opposed to 31x(31x5/7)=686 etc do your flip flops for whichever axis fills first. What was the argument again? Ahh thats right. Print square format. Yea right.

[jrgeoffrion]

Ok let me see if this is more clear.

 

The regular 35mm format is 36mmx24mm. Its diagonal is (roughly) 43mm, which is also the diameter of the image circle. The area of this format is 36x24=864.

 

The square format would be 31mmx31mm. The diagonal of such a square is also 43mm, so it fits inside the same image circle. The overall area is larger (31x31=961), but you do get one edge shorter and one edge longer than the regular 35mm format.

 

The math is accurate. It's actually 30.6mm if my memory doesn't fail me.

[jrgeoffrion]

Very interesting idea. Doesn't obsolete existing lenses, and gives larger image with greater image quality. Good move.

 

...Rectangles are easier to compose for. I guess it was for that reason that I always felt great when I got a good picture with the square: Hard to compose for, very satisfying when the composition works.

 

Actually, the camera could be designed to give you the option of a square, horizontal rectangle, or vertical rectangle -- without changing the camera orientation. Similar to the Nikon D2x high-speed crop. In addition, different aspect ratios could be enabled.

[itn]

If it's a Modular-Digital Back System as the Sinar-m would be, we may have a FF, Square or whatever suits to the System's shutter unit.

And we only need to change the digital back when the new technology is introduced.

[pascal_meheut]

We would just have a problem with some hoods, like the 28mm/2.8 built-in one: it is a rectangle. Maybe also with the 15mm and I wonder if some lenses do not have some rectangle anti-flare parts inside.

[gdb]

The 19mm also has a rectangular sunshade, and the 28-90mm Vario has a rectangular sunshade as the 15mm, AND a rectangular anti flare inside the lens

[rfleica]

a larger than 24mm vertical may require a rethink on mirror technology/dimensions.

[geoff]

a larger than 24mm vertical may require a rethink on mirror technology/dimensions.

 

 

Exactly.

 

This "why not" thought of utilizing a square rather than a rectangle inside the same size imaging circle has come up many times before but negates a simple fact–you need a matching square mirror.

 

In order to swing a square mirror up out of the way necessitates a deeper camera body which in turn would require lenses to be placed farther away from the image plane.

 

So really, this would require all new lens designs. Not exactly an R system camera at this point.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[cpclee]

There are ways to implement a square mirror without the clearance issue:

 

- A pellicle mirror. Such a mirror allows light through it so does not flip during exposure. Canon's Pellix (1960s) and EOS 1N RS (1990s) used such a mirror.

 

- A mirror mechanism where the hinge slides (i.e. towards the sensor) as the mirror swings up. Such a mechanism should also be quieter, as the sliding motion absorbs some of the energy from the swinging.

[geoff]

There are ways to implement a square mirror without the clearance issue:

 

- A pellicle mirror. Such a mirror allows light through it so does not flip during exposure. Canon's Pellix (1960s) and EOS 1N RS (1990s) used such a mirror.

 

- A mirror mechanism where the hinge slides (i.e. towards the sensor) as the mirror swings up. Such a mechanism should also be quieter, as the sliding motion absorbs some of the energy from the swinging.

 

A pellicle mirror diverts light to the viewfinder and film (sensor) at the same time, but because light has to pass through it there are two important issues. It needs to be keep it very clean and second it diminishes the amount of light both in the viewfinder and hitting the film (sensor) with about a 2/3 stop loss. Not exactly traits to be associated with Leica.

 

Other than that, I’m having a hard time visualizing what a sliding hinged mirror system would look like and whether it would save any space to begin with. A larger square mirror would still have to completely move out of the way to support a taller sensor.