If we all like Leica R glass so much...

[gyoung]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

You lost me on this one...

 

Bit like a technical camera's ground glass screen really, if you can mount it at the right distance from the screen (or sensor) you can use any lens, all you need is a way of checking the focus, are the screens good enough for that?

 

Gerry

[zapp]

...why do we care so adamantly that Leica make an R10? Or the S2? Or whatever? Isn't the body a lot less important these days than it's ever been? Why not just encourage Leica to make lenses for other mounts, just like Zeiss does?

 

Because Leica is not using strong AA filters in the DMR/M8 to allow the lenses to perform really well. Design and control of Leica cameras is just right, the M8 has not many buttons, but just enough.

The big question after the photokina will be (as was said here before) whether live view features will make the whole idea of SLR obsolete in the near future. In that case the M system may have survived just long enough to finally outperform the R system by all means and there would be no reason to present a new R camera - R glass fits M cameras, focusing is done by live view. Micro 4/3 is nothing but the idea of a digital rangefinder camera. Digital sensors have reached peak performance in 24x36mm2 format, even Leica lenses do not resolve 22 MP wide open. I may put my R system for sale quite soon, need to check out the M options or move on to a larger format and keep a little micro 4/3 on the site.

We should start speculation after this years photokina.

[lct]

...the M system may have survived just long enough to finally outperform the R system by all means and there would be no reason to present a new R camera - R glass fits M cameras, focusing is done by live view....

And we all go chimping like...

[sdai]

Yeh, then who will need a human being behind the camera? a chimp could do this job.

[derek_stanton]

...why do we care so adamantly that Leica make an R10? Or the S2? Or whatever? Isn't the body a lot less important these days than it's ever been? Why not just encourage Leica to make lenses for other mounts, just like Zeiss does?

 

Unfortunately, there's a flaw in the question. Has anyone, anywhere, ever been able to "encourage Leica to" do anything? Are we suggesting a petition or a forum poll?

 

If Leica did make AF lenses for Canon or Nikon, i would certainly be very interested. As it stands, i can't consider Leica for my 'digital platform.' The DMR was too large and expensive, and still (only) worked with manual focus lenses. And, as much as the happy users proclaim its superiority, i can't name a single prominent professional who adopted the system. I'm sure there are a few, but they are uncommon. It's kinda like the idea of shooting street photography with a Mamiya RZ. Sounds like a good idea, for several reasons, but there must be a greater, overwhelming number of reasons why the best published and exhibited photographers aren't doing it. Even if the DMR has such significant file quality advantages, i have to imagine they're somehow equalized/diminished in practical use.

 

Whatever. It may all be moot, if the AF-Rika rumor is true. Still, i hope there's a companion film body to go with the digital base. Maybe, again, it's another modular approach? Hope it's smaller than the R8, though. As much as i liked mine, if there's only going to be one body, i hope it's more compact. It's not such a problem if one can have both a large and a small body....

[stuny]

Derek -

 

I suppose one of the reasons you do not know of any prominent pros using the DMR is that only 5,000 were built before Leica had no choice (due to mergers) to stop production, so that's a very small number to go around, pro and amateur alike.

[roguewave]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

It amazes me that people are making judgments about a product they haven't used or don't own. The DMR is by far the finest digital 35mm camera. If people can't see the difference, then they probably wouldn't need what it offers.

 

There's no "explaining" this difference. The ENGINEERS, optical designers and the folks that integrate the various components that cumulatively comprise the R8-9/DMR have fashioned a wonder. I have met & shot with many "PROFESSIONAL" photographers and in every case they had never used the DMR. They were BLOWN AWAY by the difference in the images made by the DMR and their Canon & NIkons. Most photojournalists don't use the DMR because it's not the right tool. They say so themselves. Quality is secondary to them. Most of the images end up on the web as very small sRGB jpegs. Most print magazines are interested in quality either. IT"S TOO EXPENSIVE!

 

Yes, the 80 lux makes fine images with the D5. But, it's no DMR, at least not in MY HANDS!

[Ruhayat]

...why do we care so adamantly that Leica make an R10? Or the S2? Or whatever? Isn't the body a lot less important these days than it's ever been? Why not just encourage Leica to make lenses for other mounts, just like Zeiss does?

 

Huh. I was just thinking the same thing the other day when I was playing around with an Olympus e520. Nice size, feels well-balanced in my hand, has good heft... I only wish I could use an R lens on it without needing an adapter.

 

Why DOES Leica need to do its own dSLR body, anyway (or have Panasonic do one for them)? Given the pace at which the technology is moving, surely it's a lost cause to try and keep up for a company so small and specialised?

[mgcd]

Huh. I was just thinking the same thing the other day when I was playing around with an Olympus e520. Nice size, feels well-balanced in my hand, has good heft... I only wish I could use an R lens on it without needing an adapter.

 

Why DOES Leica need to do its own dSLR body, anyway (or have Panasonic do one for them)? Given the pace at which the technology is moving, surely it's a lost cause to try and keep up for a company so small and specialised?

 

Well since I am one of those who actually owns and uses R cameras (+DMR) and lenses, a great deal of them I may add, the why for me is because I use them for my work, and frankly I just don't see changing for changes' sake. If a technological development helps to improve the quality and delivery of my work I will adopt it without hesitation. That said I do expect continued development and support for the R line for many years to come. Panasonic for the R line? No thanks. As I said many times before, Leica R lenses belong on real Leica R cameras.

 

Cheers,

[wildlightphoto]

i can't name a single prominent professional who adopted the system. I'm sure there are a few, but they are uncommon.

With the very small number of DMR units produced, logic would suggest that you'd see very few in anyone's hands, amateur or professional.

 

Digital sensors have reached peak performance in 24x36mm2 format, even Leica lenses do not resolve 22 MP wide open.

Which lenses are you thinking of? I'd bet that with good technique lenses like the 280 f/4 APO could out-resolve a 22MP sensor, wide open.

[Ruhayat]

Well since I am one of those who actually owns and uses R cameras (+DMR) and lenses, a great deal of them I may add, the why for me is because I use them for my work, and frankly I just don't see changing for changes' sake. If a technological development helps to improve the quality and delivery of my work I will adopt it without hesitation. That said I do expect continued development and support for the R line for many years to come. Panasonic for the R line? No thanks. As I said many times before, Leica R lenses belong on real Leica R cameras.

 

Cheers,

 

Good point. I guess for people who already have a hefty investment in R glass a new dSLR body from Leica would be almost mandatory. Especially if you make a living from it. Then again, continuing just on that basis would make the market rather small; perhaps as small as the one for the M system currently. Should Leica be serving two niche markets concurrently?

 

I like the company as much as I like Apple, and would like to see them remain healthy, if not make the stunning turnaround that Apple has in the recent years. As Apple's case shows, this means having a line of consumer-oriented products as a cashcow while maintaining the traditional core of premium Macs. One could argue that the Panaleicas are Leica's version of the iPod, sure, but I say the R lenses are perhaps a better allegory.

 

From my perspective, with dSLRs now selling in the tens of millions (and technology changing every year), wouldn't the bigger opportunity for Leica in the SLR arena come from new buyers like me who wants to shoot an R lens on a reasonably priced body? I mean, if I could just stick an R lens onto my Nikon D70 -- the dSLR body I have currently; I also have a Zeiss Ikon with 35mm Summicron as well as a Digilux 2 and some compact digicams -- I'd very quickly buy a couple of macros and a 50mm prime for it. That's 3 new lens purchases in Leica's basket already.

[mgcd]

From my perspective, with dSLRs now selling in the tens of millions (and technology changing every year), wouldn't the bigger opportunity for Leica in the SLR arena come from new buyers like me who wants to shoot an R lens on a reasonably priced body? I mean, if I could just stick an R lens onto my Nikon D70 -- the dSLR body I have currently; I also have a Zeiss Ikon with 35mm Summicron as well as a Digilux 2 and some compact digicams -- I'd very quickly buy a couple of macros and a 50mm prime for it. That's 3 new lens purchases in Leica's basket already.

 

To be honest I have always cringed at the idea of anyone putting an R lens on anything other than an R body. From my perspective these things have to be exclusive, but in my model that would mean more reasonably priced R bodies like the R-E model philosophy of the past. I'm not running the company so these decisions are certainly not mine to make.

 

Cheers,

[sdai]

Then again, continuing just on that basis would make the market rather small; perhaps as small as the one for the M system currently.

 

I've no doubt that there'll be even less, much less, digital medium format shooters than R system users if they think medium format could save their business.

 

I like the company as much as I like Apple, and would like to see them remain healthy, if not make the stunning turnaround that Apple has in the recent years. As Apple's case shows, this means having a line of consumer-oriented products as a cashcow while maintaining the traditional core of premium Macs.

 

Apple is a great example here, why don't you see people running OS X on any PC? because running OS X on a Mac is part of the integral experience. (Ok, one reason is that Apple doesn't allow it happen of course. )

 

]if I could just stick an R lens onto my Nikon D70

 

I understand your sentiment but a camera in D70's class won't do any justice to the R optics, due to its limited resolution I doubt that you could see much difference between a Leica lens and a Nikon lens, if not at all.

[sdai]

but in my model that would mean more reasonably priced R bodies like the R-E model philosophy of the past. I'm not running the company so these decisions are certainly not mine to make.

 

Leica really doesn't need to spend too much effort in the camera body, and they could get money back in lens sales, everybody in the industry does the same so why can't they? put the camera in as many hands as possible, and these people are "locked" into the R mount.

[Ruhayat]

To be honest I have always cringed at the idea of anyone putting an R lens on anything other than an R body. From my perspective these things have to be exclusive, but in my model that would mean more reasonably priced R bodies like the R-E model philosophy of the past.

 

 

Again, I share your view. In fact, I think the lens + camera as an integral system was true even in the film age -- I remember buying my Yashica based on how I liked the way it rendered colours compared to a Nikon.

 

But if Leica can have a cashcow to keep them going while they develop the more exotic stuff, why not? As Al Pacino says, the reason why he takes on blockbusters where he quite evidently hams his way through is because the pay cheque gives him the luxury to pursue directing small films and theatre projects which he is actually passionate about.

 

One could argue that Leica is already similarly "hamming" its way with the Panaleica products. But why risk cheapening the brand equity that way when they could probably make just as much by simply releasing lens for the N and C mounts?

 

Although, I have to confess to some selfishness on my part: my idea of bliss is an M8 + 35 & 50mm in one hand, and digital R + 60mm macro & 105mm in the other. I've only just got started on the M with a 35mm Cron. As it is, if I want both right now I'd have to sell off my house while not making any money out of my camera purchases. So R + D70 would be a pretty good compromise for now.

[derek_stanton]

It amazes me that people are making judgments about a product they haven't used or don't own. The DMR is by far the finest digital 35mm camera. If people can't see the difference, then they probably wouldn't need what it offers.

 

There's no "explaining" this difference. The ENGINEERS, optical designers and the folks that integrate the various components that cumulatively comprise the R8-9/DMR have fashioned a wonder. I have met & shot with many "PROFESSIONAL" photographers and in every case they had never used the DMR. They were BLOWN AWAY by the difference in the images made by the DMR and their Canon & NIkons. Most photojournalists don't use the DMR because it's not the right tool. They say so themselves. Quality is secondary to them. Most of the images end up on the web as very small sRGB jpegs. Most print magazines are interested in quality either. IT"S TOO EXPENSIVE!

 

Yes, the 80 lux makes fine images with the D5. But, it's no DMR, at least not in MY HANDS!

 

Lighten up. I didn't make any judgements about the DMR. I've never used it. No one's criticizing your child here.

 

Everyone has "Engineers, optical designers and folks to integrate components."

 

My point is that even if there is some small qualitative advantage with the DMR, it's essentially moot. I don't believe any of the photographers in the books i buy, or in the exhibitions i see are in any way hindered by their not owning a DMR. It's a lot like photographers shooting a 1Ds MkII and then 'upgrading' to a Mk III. The upgrade probably has some imaging enhancements, but it really isn't going to make any of the resulting photographs better in any significant, demonstrable way. Especially after processing. So, pros choose more efficient, more cost-effective, more reliable tools.

 

If i say that pros don't shoot the DMR that's *Not A Criticism of The DMR.* It's just a statement about the industry, and you're free to speculate or pontificate about the reasons.

 

Lastly, it's a bit ridiculous to make this statement: "If people can't see the difference, then they probably wouldn't need what it offers." I hope you're not insinuating that Leica folks have more highly attuned eyes or intellects. But, i'm sure you are..... Kinda like, "if you have to ask the price, you can't afford it."

[sdai]

But why risk cheapening the brand equity that way when they could probably make just as much by simply releasing lens for the N and C mounts?

 

Have you taken a look at Zeiss's advertising material for the ZE lenses? they've blacken the Canon logo on camera and everywhere, there's no mention of the word "Canon" at all from cover to cover, perhaps they figure it's a shame and cheapening of their brand equity as well?

[Ruhayat]

Sdai, you make some good counterpoints. Have to disagree on the OS X analogy, though. Without wishing to stretch it too far, I'm currently running OS X Tiger on a generic "hackintosh" PC and the (software) experience is just as smooth as what I get from my real Macs. Until Apple bricks it when I next update my OS, of course.

 

In fact, with the PC hidden under the desk and all you can see are the monitor, mouse and Apple keyboard, most visitors think I'm running a real Mac.

 

Similarly, use an R lens on a Nikon and you'd get a compromised vision, true. But the compromise would only be in terms of tonality (colours, noise, contrast, etc), which I argue can be narrowed somewhat in Photoshop. More importantly, the lens signature (bokeh, sharpness, etc which make up that Leica glow) would be the same, and you'd already on your way to building up an R collection instead of having to wait until you can afford a body in order to start.

[Ruhayat]

Just guessing here, but I don't think blacking out the camera is anything to be ashamed of; maybe they just didn't want to pay royalties to Canon. And since they make lenses for other mounts too, showing a Canon in that ad might lead new prospective buyers using other cameras to think they only make lenses for the Canon mount.

 

But of course all this is just shooting the breeze. I don't know what Leica will bring in the future. All I know is that at this current time if I want to shoot with R glass (and the samples in the Photo gallery are very tasty!), then the only option to me personally, cash-strapped that I am, is that e520 with an adapter.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[sdai]

Just guessing here, but I don't think blacking out the camera is anything to be ashamed of; maybe they just didn't want to pay royalties to Canon.

 

That has actually debunked a rumor long spreading on the web that "one" has to get Canon or Nikon's approval for adapting/fitting their mount, this is not the case at all, if Leica wants to do this, they could have started long time ago, there's no need to talk to Canon/Nikon at all.

 

Some electronics in the mount may be proprietary and one has to reverse engineer it in order to get full compatibility to the camera body. But in terms of the mechanical mount itself, it can not be patented so everyone can do it.

 

Seriously, Zeiss is trying to avoid any possible connection to Canon in this event because they're not connected on this matter after all.