Next step of Leica?

[warren_lafever]

and i still think Leica should make digital medium format rangefinders with a new crop of lenses. (post 400 on topic!)

[sitemistic]

The images from the DMR are great. But Leica killed the DMR.

[warren_lafever]

DMR? is that the digital modul R?<div></div>

[doug herr]

Jim Powers wrote: "<I>... Leica killed the DMR.</I>"

<P>

Hasselblad/Imacon killed the DMR. The DMR was made to Leica's specs by Imacon. When Hasselblad and Imacon merged Leica was

viewed as a competitor so Hasselblad/Imacon made additional production uneconomical.

[fran__ois_p._weill]

Douglas,

 

Your pics look excellent, though you don't offer here any positive evidence of the way the DMR handles things... These are jpeg's dimensioned 600x400px and I suppose they come from "developed" RAW files, so with the adequate post processing done. Not a reproach, just the statement of a fact.

 

As to your prints (I would really like to see them but Sacramento is a bit far form where I live) i don't doubt they are fine. But I think you stretch the things a bit when you say a Leica R + DMR might have been a serious competitor to an Hasselblad, IQ wise.

 

Imacon technology under Hasselblad ownership has now reached a point they are issuing next October (in France) a 50mpx medium format digital camera with a 36,7x49 mm sensor based on Kodak technology. it is not yet a full 4,5x6 sensor, but we are slowly nearing this threshold. I don't see how a DMR can beat or even compete with such a sensor.

 

IMHO they don't "kill the DMR" because it was a competitor to the Hasselblad line, but because producing the DMR cost them too much due to the very limited number of them they can anticipate to sell (discarding the line was more profitable). Whatever the intrinsinc quality of this back and probably because they already knew even at this date the cropped sensor way was nearing its end a a valuable way to fast improvement in image quality. The present trend is clearly toward going back to the nominal formats of film era as the technology which allows improving dynamic range and lack of noise at high ISO which dominated the sensor world in the past years is slowing down. With a larger format and a similar number of pixels, you can improve the dynamic range and the resistance to electronic noise faster and for a lower R&D cost.

 

The worst part of it is Leica invented a fairly good concept with the DMR : a digital back for a small format film SLR but was unable to pursue its developement into a full format digital back (with whatever knowledgeable partner they can find) and for the original model was unable to market it at a reasonable price.

 

By the way I think you've a superior eyesight, far above the average, as to capture with such a precision birds in flight with a manual tele-lens in nothing short of remarkable.

 

It makes me understand also why you value so much your equipment. However, few people in their fifties like me will have the capability of focusing so fast and precisely in these conditions...

 

FPW

[doug herr]

I don't claim that the DMR is a competitor to Hasselblad. Hasselblad considers Leica's <I>next</I> reflex a competitor.

The R10 (if that's what its name is) is expected to use a sensor larger than 24mm x 36mm.

<P>

I don't believe my eyesight is superior, I'm 56 years old and I've been using glasses for the last 16 years. The trick to

focussing manually on moving subjects is to use a lens with good ergonomic design.

[Allen Herbert]

The trick to focussing manually on moving subjects is to use a lens with good ergonomic design.

 

Sorry,Douglas, i' don't believe a word. It's about you the photographer regardless of the gear used.

 

Thanks for sharing your photos,the last one was special.

[el_fang]

<i>The trick to focussing manually on moving subjects is to use a lens with good ergonomic design.</i>

<p>Ah, of course. Never mind that birds (or any moving object for that matter) moving in a predictable, <b>perpendicular</b> path, as in these pictures you've posted, are not that hard to keep in focus. You should tell these four sods: <a href="http://www.richardettlinger.com/" target="_blank">Richard Ettlinger</a>, <a href="http://davidhemmingsbirdphotography.com/" target="_blank">David G. Hemmings</a>, <a href="http://www.miguellasa.com/" target="_blank">Miguel Lasa</a>, and <a href="http://www.flightschoolphotography.com/" target="_blank">Jim Neiger</a> (all of whom use digital AF gear) what they're missing out on because they're not using lenses with "good ergonomic design."</p>

<p>All four are having a <a href="http://amnh.org/exhibitions/photo/feathered/?src=e_h" target="_blank">a group show at the American Museum of Natural History</a> in New York through May 2009, in case you're wondering what crappy work is done because these poor fools haven't yet discovered "ergonomic" lenses.</p>

[don_e]

What is the connection between "The trick to focussing manually on moving subjects...", and using "digital AF gear"?

[doug herr]

Don E and Fang, I was commenting on Francois' remark that my eyesight must be far above average.

<P>

<CENTER>

<IMG SRC="http://www.wildlightphoto.com/birds/laridae/hegu00.jpg">

</CENTER>

[marc_bergman1]

El Fang,

<p>

Thanks for posting those links. There are a number of fine bird photographers here at Photonet. You can see their work in the galleries.

<p>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/gallery/photocritique/filter?period=365&rank_by=sum&category=Birds&store_prefs_p=0">Photonet Top Rated Bird Photographers</a>

<p>

[Allen Herbert]

Next step of Leica?

 

How about a cam that is reliable? How about a cam that is sealed against the environment? How about a cam that

you don't have to use filters . How about a cam with honest service backup. How about a cam you do have to pay a

small fortune for a minor upgrade. How about a cam designed for today photographers rather than a group of ancients

with more money than sense. How about a cam which wannabe Leica photographers can afford. How about a cam

that reflects the heritage of Leica....,cutting edge technology,and above all else reliability.

 

I will leave this image for Mr Leiz.........to ponder on.<div></div>

[fran__ois_p._weill]

Douglas wrote:

 

>> I don't claim that the DMR is a competitor to Hasselblad. Hasselblad considers Leica's next reflex a

competitor. The R10 (if that's what its name is) is expected to use a sensor larger than 24mm x 36mm. <<

 

It seems to me rather difficult to believe. A full format (24x36) is entirely possible but unless all the R

lenses are designed with a ircle of sharpness exceeding the 24x36 format I can't see how they can use a larger

than full format sensor and still use their R lens range. Do you have any insight on this problem?

 

Now, for me, who is myopic since I was 12 (and heavily), so wearing glasses permanently and who like any person

over 45 is now long sighted, focusing precisely a long tele lens manually at full or near full aperture is beyond

my physiological ability. Beside I know a lot of persons similarly aged who, despite being long sighted only,

have real difficulties focusing manually on a ground glass. So I maintain despite you wear glasses since 16

years, your eyesight is exceptional (after correction) for your age.

 

As far as I'm concerned, I need AF in these situations.

 

FPW

[fran__ois_p._weill]

Allen,

 

Like almost always, we are in complete agreement.

 

Leica must go back to its roots.

 

FPW

[doug herr]

"<I>A full format (24x36) is entirely possible but unless all the R lenses are designed with a circle of sharpness exceeding the 24x36

format I can't see how they can use a larger than full format sensor and still use their R lens range. Do you have any insight on this

problem?</I>"

<P>

I don't know if this is what Leica has coming, but this isn't a difficult problem. It's similar to using a DX-format lens on the D3. Existing R

lenses can be limited to the 24mm x 36mm image area while new lenses can take advantage of a larger sensor.

[mohir_ali]

What good is weather sealing the camera body when the lenses aren't? Ever heard of the capillary effect?

 

I NEED FF (10 MP is fine) for my w/a needs. I NEED better high ISO (menu less changing) w/'good, film like, noise', up to 1600 is fine, which I got with Delta 3200. I NEED better color w/o filters. I NEED it to be upgradable. I WANT limited menus. I WANT it compact.

 

I DON'T need a motor. I DON'T need a display. I DON'T need 4X6 foot prints, 24X36 inches is fine..

 

The current size and price is fine. It's ONLY $1500 more than a new MP/M7 and demo w/warrantee M8s can be under $4000.

[fran__ois_p._weill]

Douglas

 

>> ... while new lenses can take advantage of a larger sensor. <<

 

I didn't even imagine they envisage to tackle the problem this way... It means Leica envisage seriously to produce an all new line of lenses, something they certainly can do technically, instead of limiting the investment in adapting a new performing sensor to full 24x36 fromat and using the existing R range to its full potential ... It also means - like it is the case with the Nikon D3 and D700 - R lenses users will have fewer useable pixels (on the 12mpx Nikons using a DX lens means an image without more than 5mpx)...

 

If this is true, I think they are taking the wrong way once again... and a foolish spending in investment unless they really go to medium format and equals the best available backs in definition.

 

I don't beleive in compromises that much. A half small format/ half medium format doesn't seem to me so attracting. Despite what a contributor said, the Canon EOS 1Ds Mk III with its 22mpx full format sensor has been described in all serious tests as inferior to the Nikon D3 at high ISO noise wise and we don't know anything serious about the 24mpx Sony 24x36 sensor which is rumored. Looking on this problem on the pixel density side, the new Hasselblad 50mpx sensor will carry them on an area of 1798,3 sq mm, versus the Canon which carries 22mpx on a 864 sq mm. So the Hasselblad sensor will carry 2.27 times the number of pixels on an area which is 2.08 times larger. Which means the Hasselblad will have even smaller pixels (but not very much). To limit the noise resistance at high ISO by craming a lot of pixels on a limited area might not be a liability for a medium format user but it is IMHO (and I think I'm not part of the minority here) a very difficult thing to accept on a small format camera. Though I'm confident technology will take care of the noise resistance and dynamic range problem in the future.

 

But the present trend clearly indicates this progress is bound to be slower than the progress of the technology concerning the production of bigger sensor. Thus, if Leica is bound to introduce a larger than 24x36 sensor and an accompaining range of lenses, they must reach the 50mpx threshold with a sensor area about 4 times the one of a Nikon D3 so, a true medium format (it means for example a square of 58,92mm x 58,92mm, in fact almost a 6x6). With such a format and 50mpx the new Leica MF will beat the Hasselblad in resistance to noise and dynamic range retaining the same performance as the Nikon D3 on these points and equal the Hasselblad in definition, based on what exists today. Given this assumption, the user of an R lens will have 4 times less pixels available, so will end up with 12,5mpx available. So he will have the equivalent of a Nikon D3 sensor... But what about the body size ??? It will definitely be a MF.

 

Taking the medium format this way won't be a bad idea for Leica but the threshold is very high.

 

Bottom line, it means a de facto end of their small format reflex range and a very important investment. As everybody seems to agree on the impossibility for Leica to produce something akin to the average prices of the market, I wonder what will be the eventual cost for the user, body plus an entirely new lens kit ?

 

For me, Leica strategy remains unclear on most points and seems to be once again oriented toward a very limited number of potential customers. Even if they produce the MF with the specifications I referred to earlier, I'm afraid the answer of larger and potentially more wealthy corporations already engaged in MF will be swift and powerful, and will probably bring similar products (performance and format wise) on the market with a lower price and I think with a whole lot of bells and whistles on the body modes. And this in a time major actors on the MF market are leaving the proprietary approach in lens and back compatibility to broaden the potential market of their bodies.

 

Considering all these problems, I think it would be much healthier for Leica to direct their main investment toward a superior full format (24x36) rangefinder body and - if they have enough to spend on - it a "R10" with simply a full format 24x36 sensor and a revision of their existing R lenses to give a performing AF to the focal length where it is really relevant. I think they can also develop a MF lens range but this one with all the necessary compatibility with other body makes.

 

But you are entirely free to disagree.

 

FPW

[fran__ois_p._weill]

Mohir :

 

>> What good is weather sealing the camera body when the lenses aren't? Ever heard of the capillary effect? <<

 

Mohir, without disrespect, do you have carefully examined a plumbing work ? You don't need more than one seal to seal two parts. A proper seal on the body will do. Weather sealing is not waterproofing. What is liable to be damaged more on digital camera than on film one is the sensor and the electronics in the body, not the lens. Any Leica lens (and a lot of other makes) are and were resitant enough to weather and occasional water drip. And on a digital camera, dust penetrating into the body is a major problem too.

 

>> The current size and price is fine. It's ONLY $1500 more than a new MP/M7 and demo w/warrantee M8s can be under $4000. <<

 

Sorry but I fully disagree... as MP/M7 are (and were) grossly overpriced themselves... You can get a better camera buying a Zeiss Ikon for half their price which is as well built, have a better shutter performance, a better viewfinder and a more precise rangefinder due a to a more important distance between the finder and the rangefinder window than a current x0.72 M model and which is fully compatible with any M mount lens without goggles.

 

I won't comment a lot on your proposed specs except they are totally unrealistic for most potential users of a modern small format DRF both in the required definition and the lack of some features like the control screen.

 

FPW

[mohir_ali]

FPW, I'm just asking for a different sensor/software, which already exists elsewhere, and deleting some of the existing M8 'features'. Leica chose Kodak for several of the right reasons and a couple of wrong reasons, IMHO.

[michael_dimarzio]

I want a digital RF that doesn't change every L-glass lens I have into something I didn't buy. While many see the IR filter a non issue, it is for me, none of my lenses have filters on them, dust on elements is part of the game.

[marc_bergman1]

"Despite what a contributor said, the Canon EOS 1Ds Mk III with its 22mpx full format sensor has been described in all serious tests as inferior to the Nikon D3 at high ISO noise wise"

 

That doesn't necessarily mean that it is bad.

 

When one looks at noise tests they have to look beyond simple ISO noise level measurements. You also have to look at the type of noise, luminance or chroma noise, whether there is any clumping or blotching, whether there is smearing or loss of resolution, any loss of color accuracy, and to what level there is a decrease in dynamic range.

 

The Nikon D3 and D700, along with the Canon 5D and ID Mark III have remarkably low noise. The IDs III has very low noise taking in to account the number of pixels.

 

We can't just lump all cameras inferior to the D3 noise wise into the same trash bin.

[fran__ois_p._weill]

Marc Bergman :

 

>> When one looks at noise tests they have to look beyond simple ISO noise level measurements. You also have to look at the type of noise, luminance or chroma noise, whether there is any clumping or blotching, whether there is smearing or loss of resolution, any loss of color accuracy, and to what level there is a decrease in dynamic range. <<

 

Agreed

 

>> The Nikon D3 and D700, along with the Canon 5D and ID Mark III have remarkably low noise. The IDs III has very low noise taking in to account the number of pixels. <<

 

Of course yes, but I consider for the present time (let's see what will comme some years from now) more important for a small format camera which IMHO is primarily designed for ACTION photography and which has already reached the threshold of being equal (or better) in defintion to (than) a film camera using a medium sensitivity film to reach a very high level of high ISO performance than to put the emphasize on a definition which tries to equal the one of current MF backs. This is a question of priority due to the present state of the art which forces a trade between the two qualities. Of course, when it will be possible to have both (and at a more resonable price than a 1Ds Mk.III), I will heartily welcome a better definition.

 

>> We can't just lump all cameras inferior to the D3 noise wise into the same trash bin. <<

 

It is far from my opinion to put the 1Ds Mk.III in the trash bin (anyone who wants to do, that, please give me the address of the bin :-), but to pay Euro 8000 (body only) for a small format camera for which the main advantage is an exceptional definition of the sensor at the cost of high ISO performance versus its main competitor (costing about half its price) is not something I'll do. Moreover when the Hasselblad 50Mpx camera will be offered next October at a special price of Euro 11,995 (taxes not included) with a 80mm f/2.8 HC ! ...

 

I think Canon didn't take enough into account the downward curve of digital medium format camera price while they are still increasing their definition and despite the real qualities of the camera issued this one too early for what state fo the art offers in terms of pixel density vs Dynamic range and noise reduction at high ISO. At Canon they ended up with a good camera and perhaps a show pîece of technology more than a truly effective camera on the market. It is too expensive and too near to the price of a true medium format camera for a small format pro DSLR, offers too much defintion at the cost of high ISO performance for the average small format user (pro or advanced amteur) or not enough definition to be truly convincing for the medium format user. Beside, for most medium format users, already using a set of MF lenses to convert to the Canon body will be more costly than to buy a state of the art MF body compatible with their lenses. Nikon's choice seems to me a far better approach to a state of the art small format DSLR, mostly aimed to P.J.'s and more generally action photographers. This doesn't mean the 1Ds Mk.III is a bad camera but more accurately a camera which will find its market with some difficulties.

 

It is a problem not so far than the one of the M8 (reliability problems and very slow customer's service set aside) in the way it is just - IMHO - a case of misunderstanding the very nature and reason to exist of small format. But in the Canon case, at least the body performs as advertised and is really a high end one.

 

FPW

[marc_bergman1]

"Moreover when the Hasselblad 50Mpx camera will be offered next October at a special price of Euro 11,995 (taxes not included) with a 80mm f/2.8 HC ! ..."

 

That is much different than the prices I have seen. What I have read is: "The H3DII-50 camera will be available from October 2008 at a price of $39,995."

 

The IDs MarkIII is currently just under $8000(US).

[doug herr]

"<I>in the Canon case, at least the body performs as advertised ...</I>"

<P>

Aside from the AF problems.

[Brad_]

>>> Aside from the AF problems.<P>

 

Doug, you should read Bob Atkins' <a href= "http://www.photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00QOQn"> analysis - his

12:26 pm post</a>. Makes a lot of sense. RG (and his readers) is demanding 100% perfection in a world where none exists. Are you

aware

of a better

performing AF system with respect to that kind of demanding test?