Why only a digital back instead of a full frame DSLR???

Could anyone explain in a convincing way why Leica is only going to

introduce a 10 mp digital back for Leica R with a 26,4 x 17,6 mm ccd

when Canon (and Kodak?) already offer full frame DSLR's with 11 mp

chips which make full use of the lenses for 24 x 36 mm without any

prolongation (ie. without changing a 90 mm lens into a 123,3 mm lens,

as the Leica digital back will do)???

 

Is there any convincing reason to buy a Leica R9 and a number of R-

lenses hoping for the digital back to become a succes - when Canon

already offers a full frame dslr with excellent lenses?

"Could anyone explain in a convincing way why Leica is only going to..." <p> Cuz that's all the CAN do :-(

leica isnt in the same market as canon and nikon....

its a different breed

<<Could anyone explain in a convincing way why Leica is only going to introduce a 10 mp digital back for Leica R with a 26,4 x 17,6 mm ccd when Canon (and Kodak?) already offer full frame DSLR's with 11 mp chips>>

 

Leica, Erwin, Lucien and perhaps Doug Herr can explain this. I won't try because I biased ;>)

 

<<Is there any convincing reason to buy a Leica R9 and a number of R- lenses hoping for the digital back to become a succes - when Canon already offers a full frame dslr with excellent lenses?>>

 

Sure. Say you're charged with the premeditated murder of your business partner in church with a bishop, two priests and sixty nuns as eyewitnesses; this was 2 days after taking out a $10Million life insurance policy on him and purchasing a one-way ticket to Rio; you confided to your poker buddies the night before, failed a polygraph test and confessed to the police. You're pleading not-guilty by reason of insanity. So you buy the R9 and a number of R lenses and testify you think the digital back will be a success. Slam dunk, you're off to Rio.

My bet is that the primary reason is Leica has to buy the technology from someone who actually has digital expertise, and buying the older technology is cheaper. Producing a back rather than a full digital camera also allows the few people (relatively speaking) who own Rs to leverage their existing investment - a good thing from a PR perspective. The smaller CCD also avoids the R&D costs of coming out with a new line of digital-only R lenses for optimum full-frame digital results.

 

By the time Leica comes out with the back, if they expect to actually compete with Canon, Kodak and Nikon head-on, they're crazier than we think they are.

ROTFLMAO!

If I remember from the transcript of the web chat when the back was announced it has to do with the quality of images. Because the lenses are designed for film the rays of light strike at an angle. The CCD/CMOS digital sensors have receptor "wells". Light striking at an angle does not fill those "wells" properly. Leica felt that full frame sensors did not yet meet their quality standards.

Jay, may I please buy the movie rights to your plot above? You can still be the Executive Producer, and we'll star Jennifer Lopez and Ben Affleck - I hear they're great on the big screen...

Michael

 

My belief is that primarily Leica wanted to retain the use of existing lenses and bodies (R8 and R9), for the sake of continuity, just as they did when the M mount was introduced, by designing the cameras so that there was room to fit a 1mm spacer/adaptor.

 

This would also help with customer loyalty, and improve interest in the R system.

 

There has to be a time when to keep introducing larger and larger mega-pixelled chips would be counter productive (larger files, longer download time etc), in the same way that we don't have 10 or 15 litre engines,with the maximum staying around 5/6 litres (generally)

 

Already we have Nikon introducing ONLY a 4 megapixel new camera (D2H), because that is enough for the job envisioned for this camera.

 

Of course alongside the digital back Leica may introduce another full frame digital camera, or they may not need to, if the quality of the sensors improve rather than just the pixels being increased,and by introducing new very short focal length lenses for digital use, just like Nikon have.

 

Canon's D1's are great cameras, but being bricks, they are not suited to everything, basically being great at sport, press and wildlife ( and I'm sure many other things).

 

I guess we're all different and want different things from life, so choice is a good thing.

 

Regards

 

Bruno

> Could anyone explain in a convincing way why Leica is only going to >introduce a 10 mp digital back for Leica R with a 26,4 x 17,6 mm ccd >when Canon (and Kodak?) already offer full frame DSLR's with 11 mp >chips which make full use of the lenses for 24 x 36 mm without any >prolongation (ie. without changing a 90 mm lens into a 123,3 mm lens, >as the Leica digital back will do)???

 

 

It has to do with the size of the filmgate. You can't jam a full size sensor into the opening, at the proper flange focal distance, so it has to be a little smaller.The 1Ds and Kodak were designed from scratch as full frame cameras.

 

 

 

>Is there any convincing reason to buy a Leica R9 and a number of R- >lenses hoping for the digital back to become a succes - when Canon >already offers a full frame dslr with excellent lenses?

 

If you want to shoot digital, buy a digital camera. The 1Ds is $8000.

 

If you want to shoot film buy a film camera and a sub $1000 scanner.

Total cost will probably a lot less than the 1Ds and if you are lucky Leica will have the digital back ready next year.

 

feli

<I>Leica, Erwin, Lucien and perhaps Doug Herr can explain this</I>

<P>

Jay, what do you mean by this? I take pictures, I don't design cameras. Where are your pictures?

Chip,

 

I thought the only good reason for buying Leica was the glass (I've been using Leica LTM, M, R, and Digital since 1960 and have today 14 Leicas).

 

So please explain to me, why the quality of Leica R-glass must be narrowed to 26,4 x 17,6 mm - when the same glass was designed for 24 x 36 mm. Look at Mr Putt's MTF-curves in the Leica Pocket Book or in the Compendiums published by Leica and explain to me why and how the reproduction of each and every lens must be changed.

 

I did think that Leica had a purpose of making the corners less sharp than the center - but now Leica only wants to use the center of each lens, cutting away ca. 9 mm. That will most certainly change the reproduction that each lens produces.

 

This must imply that Leica no longer claims that the real reason for buying Leica is the glass. If that were the case, the digital back would use the whole 24 x 36 mm area in order to preserve the full characteristics of each lens. So that leads me to the question: what's then the reason for buying Leica R? Should Leica really mean that the real reason for buing Leica R is that the body of Leica R9 has advantages over other cameras and is not at all clumsy and ugly???

 

Furthermore, it seems to me to be a strange and destructive form of marketing that Leica Solms want to quit the 24 x 36 mm format that was invented and exploited to its full potential by Mr. Barnack and Leitz/Leica. The brand Leica has for many years been synonymous with 24 x 36 mm. The format of the digital back ruins this branding.

 

IMHO the digital back for Leica R9 is a flop - nobody has yet been able to convince me that there is any reason to buy a digital back which will change the characteristics of those Leica lenses that are the primary reason for my using Leicas.

 

I've been working for many years with Kodachrome and with Pradovit projectors. Colour prints used to be quite good, but it is becoming increasingly difficult to have prints made in a decent quality. I have, thus, considered to establish my own darkroom, but I understand that a darkrooom is now completely obsolete. Leica realized this some years ago by discontinuing the Focomat V35 enlargers.

 

Now, I can see that the future lies in a fully digitized process. Also Kodak realized this already some time ago by withdrawing its best film, the Kodachrome 25, from the market.

 

So, Leica, Solms, if you want to survive, you must produce a full frame DSLR A.S.A.P. The analogue Leica M and R will not survive - the future lies in the digital cameras!!!

>Is there any convincing reason to buy a Leica R9 and a number of R- lenses hoping

for the digital back to become a success<

 

No.

 

What Leica wants is to keep their current customers.

 

Before that announcement, Leica R users wanting to go digital had three solutions:

 

1) To buy a Canon EOS D and several Novoflex adaptors, and loose full aperture

measuring

 

2) To sell everything and start with a new system from scratch, Canon or Nikon.

 

3) To keep the Leica and start to build a second system for digital.

 

Now they have a fourth solution to consider.

 

Nothing more, nothing less.

 

Lucien

Michael-

 

The reason why they aren't using a full size sensor is, because of the size of the filmgate already in the R-cameras. It appears that you can't fit a full size sensor into the filmgate/opening, at the proper flange focal distance, so it has to be a little smaller. It has nothing to do with Leica giving up on the traditional 35mm frame size or their lenses or whatever. The 1Ds and Kodak were designed from scratch as full frame cameras. They are not dealing with the physical limitations of adding a full frame sensor to an already existing traditional body. By the way Canon and Kodak are pretty much the only manufacturers out there making fullframe digital 35mm cameras. Everyone else, including Nikon uses a smaller chip and is adding special lenses to their line up. Frankly the digital back is not a bad idea, because you can upgrade to newer technology, without tossing out the whole camera. Something people in medium format have been able to do for years. Lets hope Leica can pull this off.If not, buy something else.

 

feli

Jay, that is one of the funniest analogies I've seen in a long time!

<<Jay, what do you mean by this? I take pictures, I don't design cameras>>

 

Doug, then you're one up on the Leica R design team.

<I>Doug, then you're one up on the Leica R design team</I><P>

Jay, it's safe to hide behind your computer screen and type stuff like this at someone else's expense. Go to Solms, visit the people at Leica and see if you can be this funny.

<<Jay, what do you mean by this? I take pictures, I don't design >cameras>>

>Doug, then you're one up on the Leica R design team.

>-- Jay .

 

You know Jay, your constant and deliberately abrasive remarks are starting to make me feel like I'm back in kindergarten. Maybe you should get out a little more often and take some pictures, instead of playing to your peanut gallery on this list.

 

Have agreat day.

 

Feli

 

feli

Michael,

 

Maybe I didn't put it quite right. There is a school of thought that to get the most from a digital sensor the light rays need to be focused straight to each well on the digital sensor in order to get the maximum performance from a lens. This may well explain why Nikon has decided to stay with their sized chips, and introduce lenses that will work under the digital environment.

 

What seems funny to me is that Olympus has been beating this drum for years. Most chalked it up to marketing hype. It is the same reasoning that Leica is giving for the lack of a digital M model.

 

Yes I know that Canon, Kodak, and until recently Contax offered full frame sensors. If these cameras are so great, they would be flying off the shelf regardless of the pricing (and with the Kodak price is not as much an issue since it's so close to the 1D and the D1 series in cost).

I was disappointed and saddened when I read this news in LFI last week. Surely it would have been possible, and a better solution, to make a digital R-Mount camera with a full 24x36mm format. I doubt anyone will want what they're proposing. I hope they listen to customer reactions and wise up before they go down this wrong road.

Not to mention it has almost exactly the same specs!

 

GS

<<Jay, it's safe to hide behind your computer screen and type stuff like this at someone else's expense. Go to Solms, visit the people at Leica and see if you can be this funny.>>

 

I'd rather spend my time and money and go to Japan, where they make cameras, not collectibles and excuses.

<I>Could anyone explain in a convincing way why Leica is only going to introduce a

10 mp digital back for Leica R with a 26,4 x 17,6 mm ccd when Canon (and Kodak?)

already offer full frame DSLR's with 11 mp chips which make full use of the lenses for

24 x 36 mm without any prolongation (ie. without changing a 90 mm lens into a

123,3 mm lens, as the Leica digital back will do)???</I><P>Money, honey.

>Surely it would have been possible, and a better solution, to make a digital R-

Mount camera with a full 24x36mm format.<

 

Rob,

 

Contax just lost millions doing just that. A big flop.

 

Pentax stopped when it was still time.

 

Kodak is offering new firmware after new firmware to the 14n (based on the cheap

F80) struggling to improve "so so" results.

 

Only Canon managed to succeed with one of its three digital camera, but Leica R&D

resources are only a fraction of Canon's.

 

Nikon, much more powerful than Leica, is also using smaller CCD.

 

In short, Leica will be suicidal to listen to you.

 

That Digital Back is already a big risk.

Leica is just buying it from Silicon Film, what risk? Go their web site www.siliconfilm.com look at the specs for the 10 MP back, then look at the pictures. Go to the Leica site, do the same. Leica isn't developing anything, they are just buying it from someone else.

 

GS