A promising "successor" to the R9 digital

The principal reason I chose to opt for the M8 digital body was the possession of a number of M

lenses. No doubt R users are in the same boat. On the other hand, they have another excellent

choice, that is not possible for Leica M lens users.

 

Adapters from Canon EOS mount to Leica R mount are available.

 

My suggestion, no doubt not original, is to use these excellent lenses on an EOS digital body.

Canon has some very good digital camera bodies with full size sensors. The only problem that I

see is the occasional problem encountered by the fact that some R lenses seem to have too short a

back focus for the Canon throat. We cannot have everything.

 

Digital cameras need not only provide a good body (light tight, precise registering, adequate

shutter and light metering) but have the added complexity over film cameras of requiring high

quality in-camera "developing" of the image.

 

The latter is what Canon and Nikons (and a few other main line system digitals) are really noted

for. What then would be better than to marry the excellent signal processing of the Canon with

the equally excellent imaging character of the Leica R lenses.

 

In fact, it might make sense (although highly unlikely from a company defensive point of view) for

Canon and Leica to bring out this hybrid, as an option to the Canon line of lenses. Might allow

Leica to sell more R lenses.

 

There is probably a downside to all of this? Interested in your comments.

"<I>There is probably a downside to all of this?</I>"

<P>

Canon isn't interested in undermining their lens sales. I'm not interested in downgrading my photos to 12 or 14 bits. Patience will be rewarded with the R10.

<i>The latter is what Canon and Nikons (and a few other main line system digitals) are really noted for.</i>

<p>

Flawed reasoning. Sadly mistaken.

<p>

Look at Leica's history and how they borrowed ultrawides from Zeiss, Schneider (shift lenses too) and zooms from Angenieux and Minolta.

<p>

The whole presumption that Leica is a fully accomplished outfit for all small format lenses itself is incorrect.

<p>

I think they should team up with Cosina ( or just sell their name to Cosina) and concentrate on making decently priced digital RF cameras.

"The latter is what Canon and Nikons (and a few other main line system digitals) are

really noted for."

 

"Flawed reasoning. Sadly mistaken."

 

I disagree, Vivek. Leica processing in the M8 is not in general up to the standards of

that in the better Canon digital DSLRs.

 

Proof of that is white balance, which they are only recently correcting by another (n-

1) upgrade!

....and your example (Vivek) of the pre-1980s (for the most part) utilisation of other

manufacturer's lens formulae and / or production facilities for some lenses does not

hold water today. The new Leica M-lenses (about post 1990) are really an

advancement over the older lenses (in-house or borrowed), in such terms as

chromatic aberration correction (cf the 20 or more year old 35mm Summicron vs the

newer aspherical - the older lens scores higher on bokeh, of course, but is much

poorer in regard to CA - although maybe a bit less important for B&W) and micro-

contrast.

 

I guess I missed the point about the Cosina decently priced digital body? Even Epson

didn't make a decently priced digital body on the basis of the Cosina RF, although

admittedly it was (is?) less than the M8.

No need to bring Canon in this, Four Thirds bodies do take all R lenses, plus OM, Canon, Nikon, Minolta, Pentax and whatever else you care to throw at them.

 

No need to bring Cosina, they already have Panasonic.

 

Prices will not be reasonable if they keep hand making in Germany. You should just buy an Epson RD-1 instead.

 

And I doubt the R lenses would perform well in a 24׳6mm sensor, they are not nearly telecentric and there is only so much microlenses can buy us. Until some new sensor technology still unforeseen arrives, this whole 24׳6mm sensor story is senseless; we have Four Thirds and APS-C sensors, 24׳6mm ones are just too big for most current lenses. They should be reserved for the few situations where their unique capabilities justify the prices and bulk; in the age of miniaturisation, they are the new medium format.

Arthur, I use some of the most specialized lenses (not made for use with 35mm) made by Zeiss and Nikon. When you talk about the recent advances made by Leica in their optics, it does not move me much, especially considering their sky rocketing costs. Constant quotes/discussion from an oft referred review site has not had much influence on me either.

 

The Epson R-D1/s is classic. It is not without its WB problems.

 

The M8 is fabulous camera, IMO. Just too expensive. As I have mentioned before, effective post processing is essential with anything to do with photography. The M8 (with its IR bleed limitations- not a major disaster, IMO)is no exception.

 

I am also still an R user (I started my serious photography with it). I still like my SL2 and a small assortment of lenses.

Cosina might be a good partner for an entry-level body but for the flagship R body, no way. AWB is a poor example of the camera's capabilities, that's just programming. RAW files tell much more about what the camera's image quality and in this the M8 and DMR are second to none.

<P>

"<I>And I doubt the R lenses would perform well in a 24x36mm sensor</I>"

<P>

They perform quite well, at least as well as Canon's lenses on the 5D and various 1Ds models.

"AW files tell much more about what the camera's image quality and in this the M8 and DMR are second to none." Quite simply not true. That's far to subjective a statement. Medium format digital backs destroy anything the M8 or the DMR can produce. In fact, the 1dmk2n doesn't exactly produce anything inferior. Neither does the (now "old" in digital terms) 5D. Put an L lens on a 40D and see if you can tell the difference from an M8.

OK let's qualify this. The DMR and M8 produce RAW files that are second to none short of medium format. I didn't say that 40D or 1Dxxx are inferior. They're no better and they're not 16 bits/pixel so there's no point going to Canon for a digital body.

Why do these discussions always degenerate into assertions that the best ingredients are necessary if one is to bake a good cake?

"Constant quotes/discussion from an oft referred review site has not had much

influence on me either."

 

You may be right, Vivek, but there is not much hard data to go on. Erwin is one of

the few. Most everything else comes down to mater of opinion, without testing.

Dubovny (Photo techniques) seems to know what he's talking about, and not just

because he's a scientific type (physicist).

 

"Why do these discussions always degenerate into assertions that the best ingredients

are necessary if one is to bake a good cake?"

 

Dan, I guess one reason might be that many photographers working in small format

(including digital) are up against the magnification problem, where 10X or 15X and

greater is not easy to achieve?

"<I>Why do these discussions always degenerate into assertions that the best ingredients are necessary if one is to bake a good cake?</I>"

<P>

For the best results do the best you can at each step of the process. Sometimes it matters only a little, sometimes not at all, but when I have a once-in-a-lifetime photo opportunity I don't want the equipment to screw it up. Compared with the value of some photo opportunities, the cost of the equipment is trivial.

The box only has to be light tight, no? And properly register the image on the

capture device. I am leaning someday to acquiring a very cheap (even a do it yourself

Bender type "box") 4x5inch or 6x9 cm LF body, to which I can put a digital era

designed lens (Rodenstock or Schneider) on one end and a recycled P45 or other

digital back at the other.

 

With the DOF control of the LF camera and a studio professional's used digital back at

reasonable price, I think it might resolve image magnification problems for

landscape, architectural and abstract photography, perhaps enabling really good

quality large (20 x 24 and above) prints.

 

Then maybe the M lenses and R lenses, and other excellent small format lenses, for

all their quality, wil just be too expensive for what they can give, 3rd party camera

bodies or not.

A bit of a tangent to the main topic but it works well for me. I use Velvia with my M2, M4 and SL then have 39mb bitmap scans made of the slides I want to use. The quality is excellent and the cameras don't make the damn racket that seems to be inherent in the digital SLRs. This may be more expensive per shot than using a digital camera, but how many pictures are "keepers"? For those of us with a substantial investment in film equipment this is certainly a viable alternative.

What focal length gives you a 6 degree angle of view with the P45? It's a 280mm lens on the

DMR, a 400mm lens on the SL.

Douglas, 6 degrees? Landscape, architectural and abstract photography (my

interests) are not like sports or wildlife photography. My 280mm Telyt gets only very

occasional use, mainly to compress some architectural views. I guess the tools we

choose are very much application dependent.

Arthur

 

I don't disagree with you EXCEPT on an EOS camera you have only a fully manual aperture with an R lens. While one can get by with this for telephotos, for normal and wide angles it is more of a pain since focussing at working aperture is very difficult and thereby slow. It is a second-best solution in my opinion. I haven't even mentioned the metering either...In some ways a better solution if one must have manual focussing German designed lenses is to go Nikon and use the MF Zeiss lenses F mount lenses.

I have a 1dsmk11 a bunch of L lenses and a DMR and a bunch of R lenses. the DMR makes better raw files and the Leica glass is better in my opinion than my Canon L glass. <p>The Canon is superior in other areas of use not counting file quality of glass quality. The areas of advantage are - much better batteries, autofocus, image stabilising, higher ISO , better flash, better weatherproofing. these differences in strengths probably mean a lot more to most users ( especially professionals ) than Leicas areas of superiority.<p> Leica glass is more expensive generally -but you do get what you pay for. <p> It is rumoured that Leica will be announcing the R10 later this year and that autofocus will be introduced as well as a full frame sensor. I look forward to this announcement.<p> Cost is a relative thing nont an absolute - to some people Leica glass is more an investment than a 'cost'.

Peter, Robin, et al. Thanks for your informative comments. As an M8, film M and MF

user, I have little knowledge of the R system and wasn't aware that adventurous R

types had already tried their lenses on other bodies. Cross-fertilisation between

equipment of various systems keeps the manufacturers competitive.

Arthur, there's an "Alternative" forum on fredmiranda.com at http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/board/55 populated by numerous people, with many

gearheads, fitting all sorts of lenses including Leica-R to Canon bodies.

Obviously, the ?official? use of R lenses on digital bodies would be on the Digilux 3, which even has an R-to-Four Thirds Leica adapter.

If the dollar was not falling like a stone, Leica prices would be OK in the US. In Europe second hand M lenses are not cheap but remain affordable. Image quality is simply over what you get from nikons or canons particularly in wides otherwise Sagaldo et al would not use Leitz.Maybe things are different for digital ??? But with silver...

To John Boyle, scanning from M silver, that's what I do as well and I know quality is there!

The weak dollar affects all manufacturers, because no one manufactures in the US. Now if the Euro is stronger than the Yen (or Yuan), that would be another thing. The fact is that Leica is expensive.

 

The best Canons and Canons, not to mention Zuikos and whatever, are on a par with Leica, but Salgado and others are after not only optical quality but portability too.