Micheal Posted July 1, 2006 Share #1 Posted July 1, 2006 Advertisement (gone after registration) I really hope Leica will have progressed to the state of using a full size sensor in the R10. Using a19mm 2.8 Elmarit & a 28mm 2.8 Elmarit focal length as my primary lenses, (and the focal lengths I have used for many years) I would really be disappointed if the smaller size sensor standard were to be used. I would rather my 19mm didn't become something close to a 24mm or my 28mm to become something like a 35mm due to the change in viewing angle. It would be somewhat self defeating as focal length/viewing angle is a matter of choice. Sincerely, Michael Dickey Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted July 1, 2006 Posted July 1, 2006 Hi Micheal, Take a look here R10 Sensor. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
adan Posted July 1, 2006 Share #2 Posted July 1, 2006 Michael, I suspect you will be in luck. (And Welcome, BTW!) There are techno/mechanico/optical reasons why the first two in-house Leica digital products - the DMR and the M8 (or whatever it will be called) - are stuck with smaller sensors: the DMR has to be compatible with a film camera body, and the M8 has to work with very short-focus rangefinder lenses. Neither factor would apply to a dedicated digital SLR, where the shutter can be moved forward a tad from the focal plane, and the SLR lenses are somewhat more digital-friendly in their optics. I'm sure Leica would prefer to go with a full-frame sensor if they can get the technology to work. Depends on whether they can find a sensor source at a reasonable price (Canon doesn't sell theirs, and Kodak did not make their own for their 'full-frame' bodies (RIP)). It will also be interesting to see where they come in price-wise. The M-digital looks like it will low-ball many people's price expectations (not that it's cheap!). So a full-frame R might be a bit less than the Canon 1Ds - or even the price of a DMR alone. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pascal_meheut Posted July 1, 2006 Share #3 Posted July 1, 2006 I would prefer a FF too of course but there are other issues to consider. Price and availability as Alan said but also image quality in the edges with all lenses and size. If the market is going FF, Leica should do it too. But if not, staying with a smaller sensor has advantages. I would rather have a D200 sized body with a smaller, lighter mirror at 3000-4000€ (less vibrations) than a FF or body the size of the 5D (or worst, the size of the DMR) costing 6000-7000€. But of course, I already changed my lens set to adapt to the DMR. I understand that changind the 19mm/2.8 to the bigger 6000€ 15mm/2.8 is not something Michael would like to do. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marknorton Posted July 1, 2006 Share #4 Posted July 1, 2006 Depends on whether they can find a sensor source at a reasonable price (Canon doesn't sell theirs, and Kodak did not make their own for their 'full-frame' bodies (RIP)). What about the Dalsa sensor? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
topi Posted July 1, 2006 Share #5 Posted July 1, 2006 Actually, I would like to see an improved Foveon sensor inside the R10. There's no AA filter in the Foveon sensor, yet colour moire is no problem. Due to this sharpness is good, with very little - if any - sharpening needed in postprocessing. Even the files from the current Sigma with a Foveon sensor print out at a way they have no right to, given the size of the output file. Plus the look is slightly different from the other, Bayer type sensors. Some will argue it's more film-like. Cheers, -Topi Kuusinen, Finland Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pascal_meheut Posted July 1, 2006 Share #6 Posted July 1, 2006 Sure but the same is true of the DMR sensor: no AA, not a lot of sharpening needed and film like colors. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
graham_mitchell Posted July 1, 2006 Share #7 Posted July 1, 2006 Advertisement (gone after registration) If the R10 is FF and ~16MP, I'm pretty sure I will switch to an all-Leica system. Time will tell... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
albertknappmd Posted July 1, 2006 Share #8 Posted July 1, 2006 I also hope that teh R10is on hte drawing board as we speak and that it will equipped with a FF CCD or CMOS. Maybe its ally Panasonic is working on one now! Let's pray! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
martinb Posted July 1, 2006 Share #9 Posted July 1, 2006 If Leica's wide angles were cheaper and faster it would be ok with a crop sensor. But when you have to pay 7000 USD for the 15mm to get a 21mm equivalent it's not very fun. Also there's not a single lens from 28mm and down that's faster than f/2.8. A 28mm summicron (or/and 24mm) would be great! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_f Posted July 5, 2006 Share #10 Posted July 5, 2006 Before the old forum was closed down, a thread on the future "R10" D-SLR was started. I had mentioned in this thread that Leica had previously mentioned their intention to use Photokina 06 as both an introduction for their new digital M (M8) but also as a starting point to exchange ideas re: the design of their next all-digital D-SLR. Since Leica has decided to join in strategic partnerships for the design and manufacturing of the DMR and M8, it would be fair to assume that Leica would continue to rely on these same partners for the next "R10". In other words: Kodak ISS for the sensor, and (presumably) Jenoptik for the electronics. The rest is up in the air. I too am hoping for a FF sensor, 16 to 20 MP (with no AA filter of course). BTW, would you like the next R10 to look like a R9 with a motor, or would you prefer a new look? A more prominent hand grip perhaps. What is your opinion ? Cheers, John F. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guy_mancuso Posted July 5, 2006 Share #11 Posted July 5, 2006 John I would like it to be overall smaller but not by a lot, but still keep the fit we have with the R9/DMR it really fits in my hand like a glove. So I would say about a inch smaller in height and also a little thinner around the waist area . this should still maintain a good feel to the camera. I don't want a 5d size , I like a little meat but more important i want a strong build and throw in some weather sealing but here is a idea, a door for the sensor so you can open it up to clean it,. Sounds weird but take the LCD 2.5 BTW and be able to open that up on a hinge and behind it is the sensor to clean. Okay serious engeneering trick I know but it would really be nice. now also I would not change the mechnicals that much at all , the mirror lock up has to stay. Focus confirmation with existing Rom lenses. FF viewfinder very bright with a built in magnifer. They can lose the rewind crank but have a single frame release that is a quiet mode. DOF preview leave that but gives us 4fps and a much faster buffer. 16mpx, 16 bit , no AA filter and a 12 stop Dynamic range. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest chris_h Posted July 5, 2006 Share #12 Posted July 5, 2006 New Design, Full-Frame, Full-Colour - that's all I need. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosuna Posted July 5, 2006 Share #13 Posted July 5, 2006 The same Nyquist limit of the DMR sensor in a full frame sensor means 15MP. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kobold Posted July 5, 2006 Share #14 Posted July 5, 2006 Guy's prettty much hit the main points, IMO. I would prefer to have a more substantial right hand grip, though. With a wrist strap, a deeper grip allows the camera to be held in a relaxed hand; for me this is important when resting between shots or thinking. And the camera needs to be deep enough for the little finger to be able to counter the weight of a lens; the 5D needs the battery grip accessory (the little finger is off the body otherwise, for me). Agree re. mirror lockup. Around 15–16MP at least; no AA filter, 16 bit, of course. Better lossless compression for Raw files than the DMR does would be an advantage, too. Quieter shutter than R9 would be nice. Faster frame rates not important to me. Much bigger review LCD than DMR, though. Magnification of review images by thumb-operated wheel, AND instant revert to shooting status by pressing shutter (without having to press the "play" button again to get out of review mode) essential. Magnifier for finder essential. Under- and over-exposure does not need the safety design feature, I feel; just to be able to press up or down withhout needing to slide to side first would be fine (it is in a protected position, and finder display indicates if in operation anyway). My 2¢'s worth. Kit Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
garyp Posted July 5, 2006 Share #15 Posted July 5, 2006 I'd like the next R body [digital or film] to be lighter; I'm perfectly happy with the size/shape of the R8/R9. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Ross Posted July 5, 2006 Share #16 Posted July 5, 2006 The same Nyquist limit of the DMR sensor in a full frame sensor means 15MP. Question: Isn't the Nyquist limit related to the pixel size? Using the 6.8µm pixel size and 24mm X 36mm sensor size, I get 3529 X 5294, which gives 18.7MP. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest flatfour Posted July 5, 2006 Share #17 Posted July 5, 2006 Can someone please explain why a full frame sensor is required, As many people on this site seem to agree with Erwin Puts and think that exceeding 10mp is a waste of money what is the benefit ? Is there something special, about a full frame sensor ? To me it appears to be no different from moving up to medium format from 35mm. I know ultimate picture quality is not achieved with 35mm but if your biggest print is A3 what is there to gain. I know very little about digital photography but the site seems to have some knowledgeable people who say that 10mp is fine. I just don't get this chase for sensor size. Why not have a double frame size sensor ? Or a triple frame size sensor ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
masjah Posted July 5, 2006 Share #18 Posted July 5, 2006 Or, alternatively DMR is about 10Mp. Full frame scaling factor is 1.37 so full frame area is 1.37x1.37 times that of the DMR, that is about 1.87. Thus, for the same pixel density, you would need 10Mp times 1.87, or 18.7 Mp, as Bob says. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted July 5, 2006 Share #19 Posted July 5, 2006 Anthony, largely it's down to wide angle users wanting to use their lenses at their designed angle of view. I'm sure the long lens users appreciate the cropped sensors for different reasons :-) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest flatfour Posted July 5, 2006 Share #20 Posted July 5, 2006 Steve - Thanks that does explain it. So the light angle of a digital lens is greater so a 2/3rds sensor gives the same lens coverage as a 35mm frame. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.