thrid Posted July 5, 2009 Share #21 Posted July 5, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) The Canon lacks mechanical connections between body and lens, so unless Canon design and install a mechanical system (which I'd think unlikely), there's only be stop down metering and no automatic diaphragm. That might satisfy the few masochists who are happy with an arrangement that was out of date in the 1960s, but it's not a mainstream solution. I agree. I used my R glass on my old 5D, but the lack of an automatic diaphragm made the whole thing fairly impractical. The new Zeiss for EF mount lenses overcome this problem, but I have no idea if Leica could offer a similar modification to existing R glass. The flange difference btween the Nikon F and Leica R is actually very close not quite different. That's the reason you can't use R lenses on an F, there isn't enough space for the adaptor. You're right. Aside from the difference in flange focal distance the real problem is that the diameter of the F mount is a lot smaller than needed for R glass. There is a frankenstein Nikon with R mount on Cameraquest.com. It works (sort of), but it's not a pretty sight. If Leica was to use Nikon bodies, they would have to make some pretty serious modifications to the front of the camera. I think it would be easier for them to adapt a Canon body, but the aperture linkage would be a serious problem in either case. DMR-II anyone? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted July 5, 2009 Posted July 5, 2009 Hi thrid, Take a look here Digital R-Leica solutions. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
rick_dykstra Posted July 9, 2009 Share #22 Posted July 9, 2009 I have just bought a D700 to use with my R glass ... [/Quote] Andy, I'm thinking along similar lines. How will you mount the lenses? read, read, read ... Ah, Leitax. Your report will be interesting. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rick_dykstra Posted July 9, 2009 Share #23 Posted July 9, 2009 Thinking about it, wouldn't the 'easiest' approach be to take a DMR and install a larger sensor? In 2003 the limitation was availability of sensors at reasonable cost and quality. And I guess the size of the film gate was a problem. Larger, quality sensors are know available and if the gate can be enlarged ... We need a privateer to design and offer such an upgrade. Maybe that small firm in Germany could do it. What's their name again? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted July 9, 2009 Share #24 Posted July 9, 2009 Andy, I'm thinking along similar lines. How will you mount the lenses? read, read, read ... Ah, Leitax. Your report will be interesting. It would be interesting. However not a solution. My main R lenses are the 35-70 and 105-280. Neither can be Leitaxed. And wht to do with my extenders:confused: Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rick_dykstra Posted July 9, 2009 Share #25 Posted July 9, 2009 There is a frankenstein Nikon with R mount on Cameraquest.com. Thrid - can you point me to this please? I can't find it on the site. Thanks. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BigSplash Posted July 10, 2009 Share #26 Posted July 10, 2009 The muddled thinking seems to be concentrated around Rio de Janeiro, not Solms. The R10 was likely canned because the business case for it no longer stacked up, if it ever did. Like it or not, the R never achieved the sales expected and, when Leica last separated them out, accounted for about a quarter of M sales. We don't know but it may never have been profitable for them. Whatever Digital-R solution Leica are currently looking at, it must be difficult to commit significant development budget just to appease legacy R users, most of whom, in a fit of pique, will not adopt it anyway. Leica can best survive by occupying and exploiting niche markets of which the M and S2 are good examples. The moment they try to go head to head with Canon, Nikon, Sony will be when they lose the plot. I agree that focussing a niche is the way to go and NOT to attack Canon, Nikon, Sony in the mass volume market. I also agree that the real strengths of Leica is in superb optics and quality mechanics for lenses and camera bodies. This then beggars the following questions: > What exactly are the niches that Leica wishes to differentiate and dominate? > Are the niches likely to be large enough and will they grow ?( Apple iPod took on Sony et al's market dominance of walkman products, and Apple iPhone took on Motorola, Nokia, Samsung and Sony Ericsson! Apple Mac and notebook computers seem to be te dominant one for graphics, video and photo editing .....these are all large niches that Apple penetrated gradually.) > Can and should Leica partner with significant players for their main stream products? Japanese companies are used to partnerships. They do this well but ONLY with companies they see as reliable and consistent...something of a weakness it would appear with Leica at times. (Think Philips & Sony, Sony and Ericsson, Texas Instruments and Canon, followed by Acer, Leica and Panasonic ...which apparently had had a rocky ride when S.Lee was in charge !) Ditching the "R" lenses does not make sense to me at least as the lens activity is a strength for Leica. Why they did not or now do not build a collaboration with XXX to turnaround this decision does not seem sensible. This could be followed by a "R+" series of lenses that happen to fit the Canon EOS range for example. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted July 10, 2009 Share #27 Posted July 10, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) It was reported here recently that Leica cannot get access to the patents for the Canon lens mount, and cannot therefore build lenses for Canons even if they wanted to. The Japanese will only allow other Japanese companies access to their patents. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted July 10, 2009 Share #28 Posted July 10, 2009 From Leica's perspective...I think that the reality of the marketplace is such that most who are looking for better quality and are willing to spend $3,000 - $7,000 for each lens would get more image improvement (over Canon, Nikon and Sony) with an S2 or other MF system. Spending $3,000 for a 50mm 1.4 and $7,000 for an R10 probably would not be so much better than lower priced alternatives and thus wouldn't appeal to enough photographers to justify production. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildlightphoto Posted July 10, 2009 Share #29 Posted July 10, 2009 Spending $3,000 for a 50mm 1.4 and $7,000 for an R10 probably would not be so much better than lower priced alternatives ... You've seen test results? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted July 10, 2009 Share #30 Posted July 10, 2009 You've seen test results? Again you skipped the point of the post! It doesn't matter what the results are if the gear doesn't sell. I can only conclude that Leica did not think they could make an R10 and new AF lenses that would be so much better than that of the competition that they'd be able to sell enough of them to make a profit. It is only logical that if your goal is a significantly better quality image, then a larger format Leica would have more potential than a smaller format Leica in controlled applications that get the most out of any camera. (A lot of applications don't get the most out of a given lens or camera for various reasons.) If you think that the Leica lenses and cameras were so much better than Nikon or Canon gear to justify the cost, that may have been true for you and some others. But it is apparent that it was not an important factor to enough photographers to allow Leica to keep making those cameras and lenses. Apparently hundreds of thousands of photographers are happy with "lessor" lenses. And Leica certainly did not do enough of a sales job or demonstration to convince people to buy the more expensive Leica glass. Maybe you should have worked with Leica and given them some marketing help. So I figure that Leica is hoping the S2 will work better for them because the price of Leica gear could be more competitive against other MF gear. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
glenerrolrd Posted July 10, 2009 Share #31 Posted July 10, 2009 I will report on the Leitax solution when my mounts arrive andy I did this months ago when the Leitax solution was first released. Its a fine solution and IMHO a lot better than the "adapters " we used on the Canons. The mount is simply replaced with a slightly thinner version that mates to the Nikon body ..no adapter. The lens are identified to the body thru the menu as a "non CPU" lens. Metering,focus confirmation and EXIF data are handled correctly. The only downside is that you have to stop down the lens to its working aperture . It will support either "A" or "M" modes. I have converted the 80 /1.4 summilux , the 180/2.8 pre apo and the 500/8 mirror. All work extremely well and with the D700 ..I can get the advantage of better ISO performance. I use the zeiss zf for the wides and normal ...18 thru 100mm. Performance is below the DMR but the range is much better... Roger Dunham Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildlightphoto Posted July 11, 2009 Share #32 Posted July 11, 2009 Again you skipped the point of the post! Then perhaps your point was not very clear. It is only logical that if your goal is a significantly better quality image, then a larger format Leica would have more potential than a smaller format Leica in controlled applications that get the most out of any camera. (A lot of applications don't get the most out of a given lens or camera for various reasons.) Assuming the larger and smaller cameras use similar technology, we agree. What I saw in your previous post was an assumption that a 24mm x 36mm Leica would not show significantly higher image quality than a competing similar-sized camera. As we have seen when comparing the smaller DMR and M8 sensors with the larger 5D sensor this assumption falls apart. If you think that the Leica lenses and cameras were so much better than Nikon or Canon gear to justify the cost, that may have been true for you and some others. But it is apparent that it was not an important factor to enough photographers to allow Leica to keep making those cameras and lenses. We may never know all of the reasons for the disappointing Leica-R sales figures but I do know that many photographers were never aware of any difference in image quality because they never tried using any Leica-R equipment. The lack of AF was cited most often as the primary reason in my experience. Now, this is speculation on my part, but I suspect that those photographers who never used a good manual-focus viewfinder had no clue that there were any viewfinders better than those in the AF cameras they were accustomed to using. I know of several photographers who, after a quick look through a Leicaflex SL viewfinder, experienced a sudden and uncomfortable change in perspective w.r.t. their AF equipment. Apparently hundreds of thousands of photographers are happy with "lessor" lenses. Perhaps, or perhaps they're ignorant of how much better lenses can be. Speculation either way, Alan. Mine and yours. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted July 11, 2009 Share #33 Posted July 11, 2009 ...As we have seen when comparing the smaller DMR and M8 sensors with the larger 5D sensor this assumption falls apart. We may never know all of the reasons for the disappointing Leica-R sales figures but I do know that many photographers were never aware of any difference in image quality because they never tried using any Leica-R equipment. The lack of AF was cited most often as the primary reason in my experience. Now, this is speculation on my part, but I suspect that those photographers who never used a good manual-focus viewfinder had no clue that there were any viewfinders better than those in the AF cameras they were accustomed to using. I know of several photographers who, after a quick look through a Leicaflex SL viewfinder, experienced a sudden and uncomfortable change in perspective w.r.t. their AF equipment. Perhaps, or perhaps they're ignorant of how much better lenses can be. Speculation either way, Alan. Mine and yours. I think you may be making some of the same assumptions that Leica made and that is why the R system is no longer being made. I am not speculating on the fact that Leica reached the conclusion that it could not compete against the likes of Canon, Nikon, and Sony when it comes to 35mm format AF DSLRs. Even if the Leica gear could somehow be made so that it is significantly better, it would have to justify the higher cost. And that may not be possible for the sales volume required to keep the system up to date. (Whereas MF gear does not have as short a life cycle and probably is a better fit for Leica's low volume manufacturing methodology.) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildlightphoto Posted July 11, 2009 Share #34 Posted July 11, 2009 I think you may be making some of the same assumptions that Leica made and that is why the R system is no longer being made. Would you like to tell me what assumptions I'm making? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted July 11, 2009 Share #35 Posted July 11, 2009 Would you like to tell me what assumptions I'm making? That if only photographers would "see the light" all will be well with Leica. Your statements could be turned on their head and the R system "superiority" goes away. You could say if only people saw the superiority of the high ISO of the Nikons and Canons, if only they needed the fast frame rate, the speed of the AF, the IS, the reliability, the support, the dust shaker, live view, TSE lenses, etc., etc. It doesn't always come down to the viewfinder of the SL and the assumption of significant "superiority" of any Leica lens and that real men only use MF lenses. Those items do not make up for a number of deficits especially considering the cost disadvantage. Leica made its choice some time ago and the market has spoken. Now it is just a matter of keeping the old lenses useful in various ways. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildlightphoto Posted July 11, 2009 Share #36 Posted July 11, 2009 That if only photographers would "see the light" all will be well with Leica. Alan, I'm not the simpleton this implies. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted July 11, 2009 Share #37 Posted July 11, 2009 I give up. I'm not trying to offend anyone or make an argument. You said that if they had tried it they would have seen what they were missing. To me that is the same as "see the light." I think the reasons why Canon, Nikon, and Sony DSLRs systems exist and the Leica R system has been dropped are too numerous for me to list. I only stated why I thought Leica made the decision to give up on the R and go with the S2. I'm sure plenty of people like the R system but there apparently weren't enough of them buying new gear. I think the S2 system is a better fit for Leica now that the 35mm SLR has become more of a mass produced commodity item. Time will tell how well it does. I have had a number of cameras and lenses for various formats that are no longer in vogue and have lost major value. Some I sold at low prices and some I still have. My first DSLR cost $8,000 is worth maybe $500 and is barely a backup of a backup for me. I have nearly worthless scanners that I spent $9,000 on. Lots of "obsolete" computers, software and printers. And I gave away a very nice high end color darkroom. That's progress. Oh, and I'm starting to wear out too. So you guys with R lenses that can still be used on something shouldn't feel too bad. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildlightphoto Posted July 11, 2009 Share #38 Posted July 11, 2009 I give up. I'm not trying to offend anyone or make an argument. You said that if they had tried it they would have seen what they were missing. To me that is the same as "see the light." I never said that photographers 'seeing the light' would save Leica. That is an utterly simplistic view of things and I'm not offended, just aghast and astounded that anyone would think such a thing. That cannot possibly be your honest thoughts. For the record, Alan: my assumption is that people choose best when they have full and complete information. I'm not about to tell people what is best for them, that's their decision, but they make the best decision for their own needs and wants when they do so with full knowledge. A photographer making an equipment choice without knowledge of all the options may be making a poor choice, and if they have no knowledge of or experience with better equipment they might make a poor choice. Or a good choice, even if only by happenstance. I hope what you're 'giving up' is the assumptions about others' motivations and objectives. This will go a long way toward finding the common ground that I suspect we share. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicaman94044 Posted July 11, 2009 Share #39 Posted July 11, 2009 Given when the DMR was designed and released and given that it still holds it's own against the best of the best at 200 ISO and under, Leica could have made an impact with an R10 that would have made N and C stand up and take notice. Leica's failure was inept marketing. They spent small fortunes in beautiful, expensive brochures and catalogues that featured photos that were for the most part trash. Had they featured bird photos by Doug Herr, wedding photos by the likes of JR Geoffrion and other subjects photographed by competent photographers who knew how to make the glass sing... Leica would have made a stronger showing. One need only recall how used Leica glass prices soared during the DMR Bible thread over on the Miranda Forum to see what effective marketing could have done for Leica. Back in the 80's Nikon had a traveling Nikon school. You paid to attend. Leica could have done the same and would have sold a lot more glass had they featured slides taken with Leica glass projected through Leica projectors. It is precisely about "seeing the light", but Leica was too inept to turn on the light so prospective clients could see what they were missing. Given the sharp cuts and consolidation going on in the MF digital market (not to mention the difficulty in setting up "pro" rental facilities nationwide... Leica has bitten off more than it can chew. There are no legacy lenses that will fit the S2. Few but the wealthiest "hobby photographers" will invest in an S2 system where a backup camera and 4+ lenses are needed. Hasselblad, Mamiya/Phase and what's left of Sinar are well established with reliable systems that have a track record. This is not the economy to release yet another "boutique" item. Just watch the wreckage by year's end... Leica really screwed the pooch with their abandonment of the R10 and their pathetic excuse for marketing. You don't want to know how I really feel... Lawrence Beck Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted July 11, 2009 Share #40 Posted July 11, 2009 For the record, Alan: my assumption is that people choose best when they have full and complete information. I'm not about to tell people what is best for them, that's their decision, but they make the best decision for their own needs and wants when they do so with full knowledge. A photographer making an equipment choice without knowledge of all the options may be making a poor choice, and if they have no knowledge of or experience with better equipment they might make a poor choice. Or a good choice, even if only by happenstance. This doesn't matter to me in regard to my posts. I know that photographers typically buy the gear they are familiar with. Many photographers assisted Hasselblad shooters and ended up buying Hassies even though I felt that Rollei had a better system. Now Rollei is out of business. I know that Fred Maroon used Leica Rs but I don't believe it rubbed off on any of his assistants. The R gear could have been the best thing since sliced bread. (I'm not arguing this point.) For whatever reason, there weren't enough people who chose the R gear to keep it in production. Whether they tried it or not. I'm sure there are many reasons - some of which may have been beyond Leica's ability to overcome even with much greater resources thrown at the problem. Maybe Leica should have put many R systems into a lot of photo schools, or should have had a rental program, or should have had some lower priced lenses, AF, and a DSLR 6 years ago.... woulda, shoulda, coulda... I can't say why but only that they didn't make a success out of it. You can't turn the clock back. Now they are retrenching and targeting a smaller market. Let's see if they have a better results with the S2 system. This too will be difficult. Many businesses are having a tough time now. I am not qualified to run Leica, but if I had that job, I can't really say what I would do. I think they are in a tight spot but hopefully they have a good plan that will work for them. I think the fact that many R lenses can be adapted to several other cameras helps bale out the situation so that they can have a future with newer digital bodies. A future FF EVF solution may not be the "ideal" solution for many shooters but it will keep the R lenses usable on updated bodies way into the future. Whereas with electronically controlled lenses, you are generally stuck to one brand of bodies. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.