Guest guy_mancuso Posted July 7, 2006 Share #41 Posted July 7, 2006 Advertisement (gone after registration) Exactly Kit these little extra custom parts do make life easier for the over 40 crowd for sure. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted July 7, 2006 Posted July 7, 2006 Hi Guest guy_mancuso, Take a look here R10 Sensor. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Micheal Posted July 19, 2006 Author Share #42 Posted July 19, 2006 Flatfour, It dosen't make any difference what the focal length is. One does not get a FF image with current Leica sensor technology. Sincerely Michael Dickey Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pierovitch Posted July 20, 2006 Share #43 Posted July 20, 2006 I can never understand this debate. The only reason there is any disadvantage to the user for a not quite full frame sensor is that you might have to get another wide angle lens. If you don't have a 15mm then the missing lens in the Leica R line up is a digital 10-20 mm zoom. If you look through an SLR who cares about sensor size, its the image you see that counts. Cheers Pierre Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
supperman Posted July 20, 2006 Share #44 Posted July 20, 2006 I can never understand this debate. The only reason there is any disadvantage to the user for a not quite full frame sensor is that you might have to get another wide angle lens. If you don't have a 15mm then the missing lens in the Leica R line up is a digital 10-20 mm zoom. If you look through an SLR who cares about sensor size, its the image you see that counts. Cheers Pierre Well, people paid $7500 for a Leica 15mm so that they can get a 15mm FOV, and they would not be happy if they only get a 21mm FOV with it. And it would also mean that you'd need a 11mm f/2.8 to get the same FOV and speed, which is also difficult, and probably expensive, to build. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosuna Posted July 20, 2006 Share #45 Posted July 20, 2006 The size of the sensor is a key variable in determining image quality (contrast, resolution, noise). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Micheal Posted July 20, 2006 Author Share #46 Posted July 20, 2006 Rosuna, As we used to say, "right on". Pierovitch The purchase of another expensive lens or lenses isn't the most logical solution. md Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ptomsu Posted July 20, 2006 Share #47 Posted July 20, 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... Due to some publications by Leica themselves a few years ago they stated that a FF sensor would at least need to be 18 MP in order to compete with film. Given this I would assume a R10 would at least have 18 - 20MP, which would be a good number for keeping it up to date for some time if it would arrive at Photokina 2008. If you read the above, you see a lot of "assume", would" etc, so this clearly is speculation but one that WOULD make sense :-) Peter Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
martinb Posted July 20, 2006 Share #48 Posted July 20, 2006 Due to some publications by Leica themselves a few years ago they stated that a FF sensor would at least need to be 18 MP in order to compete with film. Given this I would assume a R10 would at least have 18 - 20MP, which would be a good number for keeping it up to date for some time if it would arrive at Photokina 2008. If you read the above, you see a lot of "assume", would" etc, so this clearly is speculation but one that WOULD make sense :-) Peter The DMR easily beats 35mm film. Maybe a properly Imacon scanned ISO 50 or 100 35mm slide can compete with the DMR. With the DMR you get the color and resolution from slide film and dynamic range from negative film. Best of both worlds. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ebwilson Posted July 21, 2006 Share #49 Posted July 21, 2006 One of the big arguments for the smaller sensor (and one of the reasons Leica said the M8 was "impossible") has to do with the way light strikes film versus how it strikes a sensor. Film, being flat can, accept light from about any angle that can reach the plane. Sensors, however, have a depth to them (visualize a million little cylinders smiling out from the film plane towards the lens). However shallow the depth of the cylinder with a sensor at the bottom, there is some interference, which increases as you move away from the center of the target. "Full frame digital" is as much a lens issue as a sensor issue. The technical issue is how to render older lenses designed strictly for film when the angle of the light to the sensor is too oblique. Newer lenses specific to digital attempt to minimize very oblique light angles to the sensor plane. Leica, I believe, said that the M8 was impossible because the back of the lens is very close to the film. When you think about it, this close proximity makes the issue more difficult in the M design. Using the smaller sensor is IMHO the only way a M8 could happen without inventing a whole new generation of lenses. This probably would have alienated the hordes waiting to leverage their legacy glass. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
robert_parker Posted July 21, 2006 Share #50 Posted July 21, 2006 As a DMR user, I think I'd look for the following in a R10: 1) Slightly less bulk - ie. not as tall, not as heavy and I'm not sure, even though I have large hands, that I'd want a much bigger handgrip 2) 'Live view' on a larger rear screen 3) Bigger viewfinder to make focussing (which is critical with the DMR, as has been said already) easier 4) A full frame sensor would make life easier - how about designing a sensor which could fit in a type of legacy mount - so that newer sensors, or sensors of different characteristics, could be installed (and more easily cleaned) - a bit like focussing screens 5) Regularly updated firmware !! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
martinb Posted July 21, 2006 Share #51 Posted July 21, 2006 Robert, I don't think we will see live view in a R camera. Very hard to make with a FF or smaller sensor camera + it would not benefit the viewfinder. In a R10 I would want: 1. FF or only slightly smaller 1.2x crop sensor. 2. 100% viewfinder. 3. Better viewfinder. Yeah, I know the R9 viewfinder is good but this a mf camera and it really got to be something really special for people to buy it. So make it 100%, keep the brightness and a little more magnification and I'm happy. 4. Smaller body but not too small. 5. ISO 25-3200 with lower noise at all sensitivities. 6. IS in body. I think that everything I said is very realistic and if Leica do this there's a possibility this will be a winner. Add a 21mm f/4.0 tilt and shift lens and architectural photographers will love it combined with the big and bright 100% viewfinder. I think that what Leica has to do is to make it more appealing to studio, architectural, fine art and such photographers. This is never going to be a camera for photojournalism, action or sport. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.