SJP Posted April 20, 2009 Share #21 Posted April 20, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) I could be wrong, ..snip... Yep, I believe you are. The R10 needs to be similar in concept to the M8, manual focussing only, state of the art lenses, manual shutter & aperture priority. A digital FM2 or F3 or R3 or whatever. Think...... no frills attached. Think teutonic simplicity. Think the noble art of manual photography. This is not retro, this is quintessentially what Leica is about... From this point of view the S2 is not really what we are looking for, but it has its redeeming features like being radically different to anything else out there. That it has AF is merely to satisfy the market but I expect deep in their hearts they hope most users will switch the AF off while unpacking & keep it there. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted April 20, 2009 Posted April 20, 2009 Hi SJP, Take a look here R Lenses on S2 a possibility. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
lct Posted April 20, 2009 Share #22 Posted April 20, 2009 Any of you guys ever get excercise?... A camera is not a dumbbel IMHO. That kind of brick is bulky enough for me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted April 20, 2009 Share #23 Posted April 20, 2009 That it has AF is merely to satisfy the market but I expect deep in their hearts they hope most users will switch the AF off while unpacking & keep it there. And not be in focus? Medium format with these high res sensors requires more magnification to focus accurately than the optical SLR viewfinder provides. Especially at larger apertures. That is why good AF is so important in them. Live view typically provides a 10x magnified view for manual focusing that is much more accurate than optical focusing on an SLR. (Mostly for shooting static subjects.) I now always use live view when I need critical focusing accuracy. A lot of MF cameras are used for product photography. What Leica does with the R10 is anybody's guess. I just prefer to guess that they'll actually make something different since they already have the traditional end of the market covered with the M8 and the S2. Another "me too" DSLR system won't be anything special except as a platform for the "superior imaging quality" of the Leica lenses. But if resolution is what you are after and willing to pay for, they have the S2. Besides, how many lenses will be available for the R10 when it finally does come out? Probably not enough to make it competitive with Canon and Nikon. Why not get ahead of the curve for once and look past the SLR for their future? Produce a system that is smaller, quieter, more versatile, simpler and more economical. Being only at the stratospheric end of the market leaves them very vulnerable to competition and disruptive technology. And if they get EVF and other technology working well in a smaller higher volume camera they can later bring it into the S system. "Think teutonic simplicity." Such as a turbo Porsche or any other German car that is packed with technology and gizmos? I always thought that creating and using advanced technology was one of the things that German industry was about. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosuna Posted April 20, 2009 Share #24 Posted April 20, 2009 Personally, I'd hope to see the R10 as much more like a Panasonic GH1 than anything else. Hopefully with a larger sensor. Maybe with an even better EVF. What is the point of ending the R production and designing an entirely new system if it isn't going to be radically different from what Nikon, Canon, and Sony sell? And much smaller than an S2 - which is being marketed as "not very large"? An R that uses EVF could not only work with old R lenses, but due to not having a mirror, could also accommodate M lenses that don't vignette too badly. (Unless they solve that vignetting problem too.) So there would be a ready market for the camera from both R and M lens owners. It would extend the range and usefulness of the M system as well. Why define such a new system if you already has something like that? The M system, of course... The M system is based on a small mount to sensor distance. It has an optical viewfinder and a rangefinder, but you can replace then and use a EVF instead. The R system had a lot of similarities with the M system. Those two separate systems doesn't make sense now, because AF motorized lenses and contrast based AF can eliminate both the mirror box and the rangefinder. I too handled one and didn't think it was so large and heavy, especially compared to MF cameras that I have used. That is why I wonder what would be the point of an R10 unless it is much smaller and lighter. That is why I feel that Leica should really have something much different in the R10 or whatever it will be called. Competing head to head with Nikon, Canon, and Sony via a traditional 35mm DSLR system seems pointless to me.__________________ I agree. A classical reflex system makes sense for a MF camera... but the future points towards systems like the Micro Four Thirds. Leica already has a system like that (the M), and they can adapt it to the new technologies. Why define a third reflex system, also for 24x36mm format? I think the S, M and Micro 4/3 are enough for Leica. The M system can support two different lines of cameras and lenses: a manual focus line (classical), with rangefinder and optical viewfinder; and an electronic line, with contrast based AF, live view and motorized AF lenses. You could used the lenses of the first line with the cameras of the second line, and the other way too. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildlightphoto Posted April 21, 2009 Share #25 Posted April 21, 2009 Personally, I'd hope to see the R10 as much more like a Panasonic GH1 than anything else. Hopefully with a larger sensor. Maybe with an even better EVF. Given existing technology, heat dissipation would be a big problem with a bigger sensor. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted April 21, 2009 Share #26 Posted April 21, 2009 The M system can support two different lines of cameras and lenses: a manual focus line (classical), with rangefinder and optical viewfinder; and an electronic line, with contrast based AF, live view and motorized AF lenses. You could used the lenses of the first line with the cameras of the second line, and the other way too. Well maybe they won't come down as hard on you as they did on me for suggesting something similar. This is exactly what I just proposed but I called it an R10 so as to not upset all of the traditional M'ists. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted April 21, 2009 Share #27 Posted April 21, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) Given existing technology, heat dissipation would be a big problem with a bigger sensor. Why do you think that? I am not aware that heat is a problem with APS and 24x36mm sensors when using live view. Besides, technology improves faster than we may think. A few years ago, most people didn't expect to see live view in any SLR. I found this regarding the D300, "Joseph Wisniewski [Frequent poster] , Mar 19, 2008; 09:20 a.m. David, you're repeating "common mythology". A typical CCD sensor uses about 100mW (1/10 of a watt) while the backlights for the LCD display use 1-3W, 10-30x as much power as the sensor. CMOS may use less then half the power of CCD, but if the display and processor both are using 20x the power of the sensor, does it really matter? The sensor itself, whether CMOS or CCD, doesn't use much power so it doesn't generate much heat. The heat comes from the LCD and the processor, both of which are very active in live view. This aside, I've done some multi-hour live view macro sessions, without a noticeable increase in noise. The camera will shut down if you use live view in a very warm environment for extended periods, but I've yet to encounter this in any of my shooting. I'd expect this is more to protect the electronics, and keep from exploding the battery, than to prevent sensor noise. " ____________________ So if Joe is correct, the sensor is apparently not a big concern for heat generation. An EVF display is much smaller than an LCD so it should be much cooler than running live view on the 3" LCD. Plus it can be located in such a way to get maximum cooling. Don't lots of cameras have an EVF like this already with no cooling issues? (Even if they are lower resolution displays.) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted April 21, 2009 Share #28 Posted April 21, 2009 Err, why do even 4/3rds cameras use a secondary small sensor for live-view then? Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/82595-r-lenses-on-s2-a-possibility/?do=findComment&comment=877615'>More sharing options...
rosuna Posted April 21, 2009 Share #29 Posted April 21, 2009 It is not due to heat dissipation. The second sensor was conceived for continuous AF with live view. You get live view and the mirror is in place all the time. The normal procedure is more complicated: you move up the mirror, activate live view, press the shutter, the mirror goes down, the AF module works, the mirror goes up, the shutter activates and the picture is taken... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted April 21, 2009 Share #30 Posted April 21, 2009 Err, why do even 4/3rds cameras use a secondary small sensor for live-view then? I believe that's the only camera that does it with a secondary sensor. The rest use the main and only sensor. Also regarding AF in live view. Some cameras have two modes of AF. One where they momentarily drop the mirror for phase AF from the AF module, the other where the mirror stays up for contrast AF off any preselected location on the sensor. Here's the basis for an EVF system: A system with an EVF such as the Panasonic G1 and GH-1 have no mirror to move. The shutter is normally open for the sensor to receive the light rays that are then processed and displayed as an image on the EVF. Apparently Panasonic has improved contrast AF so that it is reasonably fast. Thus there is no need for an AF module or secondary mirror. This is a very simple design that eliminates the need for several components - SLR mirror, ground glass, prism, AF module. Plus it eliminates the need for the lenses to be far enough forward to clear the mirror. So a thin body can be made. And with a thin body, it can accommodate many lenses by using adapters. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted April 21, 2009 Share #31 Posted April 21, 2009 But there is still the closing of the shutter just before the exposure is made, and given the hoohah about the M8 shutter, that might well be an obstacle Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted April 21, 2009 Share #32 Posted April 21, 2009 But there is still the closing of the shutter just before the exposure is made, and given the hoohah about the M8 shutter, that might well be an obstacle I'm not sure what you are getting at. There are millions of cameras with shutters that seem to be working for this. And very quietly at that. Here's a link that has more about live view on the 5DII including noise comparisons. The leaf shutters in the S2 will also work this way even without live view. (Just as they function in all leaf shutter SLRs.) Canon EOS 5D Mark II Review: 11. Displays: Digital Photography Review Jaap, I know you are a doubting Thomas. But live view is proven technology that is in many current DSLRs. Please realize that a lot of photographers may have different needs from their equipment than you have. The "traditional" role for a Leica M is a very small role in the entire photographic scene today and getting smaller all of the time. (A lot of photojournalism is moving to video.) Panoramas and QTVR tours are more and more in demand. With the S2, Leica shows they understand that they need to appeal to photographers outside of their traditional market. I hope that Leica will make other cameras that will go further in addressing other needs of even more photographers. Now that Pansonic has improved the EVF and contrast detect AF technology, I have no doubt that more cameras will go this route and eliminate the complexity of the SLR mechanism. Especially entry level DSLRs. While I, like many others, generally prefer using the optical viewfinder in an SLR over an EVF, there is no doubt that EVFs offer some advantages - both in some shooting situations as well as in camera design. We'll have to see if EVFs improve to the point that higher end users prefer them to the viewfinder of a regular SLR. In any case, due to the implementation of live view in so many DSLRs, there will eventually be accessory EVFs to give photographers three options for viewing in the one camera - SLR, EVF and rear live view LCD. For a somewhat traditional Leica it could be optical viewfinder, EVF, and live view on the LCD. An EVF will be especially useful for shooting video clips. And a lot of photojournalists now shoot video along with stills. Leica could have an optical finder that would facilitate eye level viewing while shooting video with a compact interchangeable lens camera. Live view provides precise magnified focus confirmation that eliminates concerns about how well the SLR or rangefinder system is adjusted or if the focus shifts when you stop down the lens. Additionally live view facilitates remote viewing on a computer or separate monitor. That is useful for still life - such as food, jewelry, products, and other applications so that you can watch the monitor while arranging the articles on the set and adjusting the lights. This keeps you from having to go back and forth between the set and the camera. That is one reason why a lot of MF studio shooters would like live view. Photo microscopy benefits from live view. Also, when using a technical camera, it may be difficult to switch between the digital back and the ground glass. It is hard to focus and frame some of those lenses on the small ground glass - you need a high power loupe for precise focus due to the hi resolution of the backs. It is especially difficult to focus when employing swings and tilts. And you risk disturbing the camera when you switch from ground glass to the digital back. Then you'll still need to re-check the framing and focus on the LCD or computer after you shoot the photo. So clearly at this point, questioning the viability and usefulness of live view only seems logical if you have a very narrow view of what a photographer does with a camera. With all of the recent technological advancements, I am trying to understand how much longer there will be a need for a shutter. Surely, if that can be eliminated, the only moving parts that will be needed in a camera will be in the lenses. (And perhaps IS in the body.) So at that point, cameras will become much simpler to build, more durable, and virtually silent. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted April 21, 2009 Share #33 Posted April 21, 2009 In live view from the main sensor the shutter has to close before being able to open and close for the exposure and open again = one extra shutter actuation = annoyed Leica M users. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted April 21, 2009 Share #34 Posted April 21, 2009 Just for the record - we always appear to be at opposite ends on this issue - I don't mind any future camera having this option for those that want it - as long as I can switch it off and it does not impact on the camera use then - nor on the image quality nor on the camera price. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted April 21, 2009 Share #35 Posted April 21, 2009 Just for the record - we always appear to be at opposite ends on this issue - I don't mind any future camera having this option for those that want it - as long as I can switch it off and it does not impact on the camera use then - nor on the image quality nor on the camera price. This really isn't an issue and there are no sides. It is simply a feature that will probably be on every digital camera before long. Leica is just slow to adopt it. This is just another case of technology advancing - remember that the first digital cameras didn't even have an LCD. You can use it or not just as I rarely use servo AF and various other features. Some people on the M forum have an endless belief that some things in cameras can, should, and will stay the same indefinitely. Well maybe a few things can stay the same, but a digital M is pretty far from an M3 in terms of the type of technology it uses. And when it comes to electronic technology, change is fast paced and relentless. Even Leica has to accept this as mechanical advances in technology pretty much ran its course in cameras some time ago. Regardless of any desire to maintain an M form factor. So using electronics is nearly the only way for a manufacturer to advance a camera. (Lenses are a different issue, but they also can benefit from electronics via software and IS.) If you think M8 users reject change, look at how excited they get when an M8 firmware upgrade adds something. The overall benefit of live view for Leica is that a rangefinder camera can be usable for a number of applications where that camera was previously not considered suitable. Why would this not be a good thing for Leica? Just as I never figured to be shooting architecture exclusively with a 35mm format camera. The romantic image of a truth seeking photojournalist armed only with his Leicas is a myth and is out of date with what most photojournalists and other photographers need now and will need in the future. The S2 shows that they can still make tools for the trade. That is their job as I see it. As for the Leica M users being upset about an extra shutter activation. If Canon can make the shutter reasonably quiet, why can't Leica? I haven't tried out the G-1 but that may be quieter still and is surely more responsive than a 5DII is in live view mode. In any case, if it has an optical finder, you can choose when you use live view or an EVF. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gentleman Villain Posted April 22, 2009 Share #36 Posted April 22, 2009 I too handled one and didn't think it was so large and heavy, especially compared to MF cameras that I have used. That is why I wonder what would be the point of an R10 unless it is much smaller and lighter. That is why I feel that Leica should really have something much different in the R10 or whatever it will be called. Competing head to head with Nikon, Canon, and Sony via a traditional 35mm DSLR system seems pointless to me. The digital R doesn't quite make sense to me either...I'm sure that Leica will make an incredible camera but just can't quite see the market for another 35mm dslr. On the other hand, I do believe that the S2 has the potential to do very well...and I'm also very bullish on the future of the M series...Heck, I even think that film will make a comeback. But a digital R? ...just not seein' it either Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted April 22, 2009 Share #37 Posted April 22, 2009 So Leica SLR users are supposed to buy a $15/20K MF cam with new $$$ lenses to go digital? How do you expect them to stay at Leica then? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted April 22, 2009 Share #38 Posted April 22, 2009 As for the Leica M users being upset about an extra shutter activation. If Canon can make the shutter reasonably quiet, why can't Leica? I could quote you a number of reasons, not the least being the expectation pattern, but the bottom line is that both Canon and Leica shutters come from the same assembly line.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gentleman Villain Posted April 22, 2009 Share #39 Posted April 22, 2009 How do you expect them to stay at Leica then? they seem like too small of a market to even bother trying to please Rangefinder users are kind of like a cult...so there will probably always be a market for the M. I come from the commercial world and know that the S2 has a lot of promise for that market. But the 35mm DSLR market isn't a very sophisticated market. Most 35mm DSLR shooters don't really have the eye and the ability to understand the benefits of a Leica. I don't think they'll spend the money. The 35mm DSLR people that can see the difference will most likely move to MF before investing in a new and very expensive digital R. But who knows? Anything can happen...the whole industry is changing faster than any of us can really understand Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted April 22, 2009 Share #40 Posted April 22, 2009 Leica isnot in the business of making huge numbers of cameras. How many R10 cameras would they expect to sell yearly? I suspect the prognosis is below 10.000. Surely there are that number of interested customers around the world? Especially if Leica makes the camera retro-compatible with the existing R lenses. I agree, without that the camera would be stillborn. Even a die-hard Leica fan like me would buy a Canon and an adapter... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.