Leica discontinue development of R10

[doug herr]

<p> </p>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=730481">Stuart Richardson</a> wrote: "... where is the original source for this?"</p>

<p > </p>

<p >http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/digital-forum/89060-hessenpark-news-official-no-r10-no.html</p>

<p ><br /></p>

 

[dave_olson]

<p>I have a fairly full bag(s) of Canon EOS. All three of their macro lenses, a 200 f 1.8 and a 300 f 2.8, plus a nice assortment of other Canon lenses. Now as to my Leica situation, I have one M6TTL 0.58 and two M 7s, 0.58 and 0.72. My lenses are first rate: M28 f2 asph, M35 asph, 50 f 2.5 and my 75 f 1.4 asph. All these lenses are capable of covering a large range. The only drawback is length. So I recently purchased nearly new R's. The R6.2 and the R7. The lenses I bought are a nearly new 180 f4 and a beautiful 105-280 f 4.2. All metal, no polymers. The 105-280 f 4.2 weights in at 4 1/2 pounds, the 180 considerably less. The two R bodies are all metal, a feeling of lasting purpose of and in design. I did mention that these are film cameras. Fine by me, what I started with a long time ago. So I will mate Canon EOS lenses to EOS bodies, if called for my Leica lenses to my Leica bodies. Whatever the shoot may call for and try my hand again at 'film noir'. As for Leica, all those terrible managerial decisions over the past 5-10 years are too blame. Frankly they would need a huge cash infusion and hand over managerial rights to someone like Rolex. They are simply too far behind to try and play 'catch up' with the Japanese.</p>

[uk]

<p>" We don't even know who was at the meeting, "<br>

We do Stuart. There was a dentist from Holland, a taxi driver from Milan and two very nice retired gentlemen from Germany, plus a couple of production engineers from Sony. Nice bottle of french wine and the beans are spilled.</p>

<p>:-)<br>

<br /></p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>A real shame, but not unexpected. I have a Canon 5d mkII and can use my R lenses on it...although I must say I seem not to be doing so. Its not the metering or the lack of AF, its the manual diaphragm which is a pain for most lenses other than a long telephoto (or perhaps an ultra-wide).</p>

<p>The S2 may indeed have killed the R10 - perhaps they are right to initiate an entirely new format than attempt to go head to head with the big boys in the old 35mm format.</p>

[mark cortella]

<p>I've said this before,in a previous post on this thread. You must have missed it. Go to www.leitax.com. You can put your R lenses on Pentax,Nikon,Sigma or Sony digital slr cameras. So,you can have what you want.</p>

[marc_bergman1]

<p>"You can put your R lenses on Pentax,Nikon,Sigma or Sony digital slr cameras. So,you can have what you want."</p>

<p>You forgot Canon. The problem is that none of these cameras can stop-down the lens. There are also some metering problems.</p>

[keith_lubow]

<p>They could have stopped at the M2 IMO, and never even introduced the Leicaflex.</p>

<p>Not a thing in need of improvement or change on that camera. Wanna save some money, Leica? Just make that baby again and close the R&D dept. for good.</p>

<p>No offense, but when I want an SLR, I find that there are better options than Leica, and for higher values. I can't believe they even made sales enough to have taken it as far as the R9.</p>

<p>If anything, they should just give the M8 higher ISOs, IMO. Leave everything the same, just make it a D3 competitor for low light shooting. I am not stuck on full frame. It's arbirary anyhow...and I don't want to have to buy brand new redesigned lenses just so I can have a full frame rangefinder.</p>

[kens]

<p>Huh? <em>Brand new redesigned lenses for a full frame rangefinder</em>? What are you talking about? All current M lenses are already full frame. </p>

[keith_lubow]

<p>Hi, Ken Shipman. You can unbunch your panties any time now. Of course the current lenses cover a 35mm frame (thus would cover a full frame sensor). I mean that, barring major sensor changes, in order for the lenses to have "Leica quality" at the edges of the pix on a digital Leica rangfinder, they would have to be redesigned. That is what is stated every time the topic of a full frame digital Leica RF comes up: that the relatively extreme angles of the light at the edges of the full frame sensor cannot be handled by the micro lenses while still producing a "Leica-quality" pic. I just said that they don't need to go full frame to appease me. That is all.</p>

[kens]

<p>Let me check...Nope, my panties aren't bunched up at all. I've just never heard any talk about redesigning M lenses for full frame. Can you point to one of those discussions? I'd like to read it.</p>

[keith_lubow]

<p>I explained in my last post what I meant about current technology not making for "Leica quality" at the edges. No, I did not claim that Leica is redesiging lenses to suit a full frame sensor. I was simply poking fun at them, because it is just the kind of asinine thing that they would do; try to force people to rebuy their lenses when 1.3x is just fine by me and most! Relax. Go pick a fight with someone who actually is an idiot, and let me make a dry, cynical joke without a series of disclaimers. I swear the Leica crowd is worse than a hockey crowd...</p>

[kens]

<p>No, I'm not picking any fight. I'm serious. You've read something I haven't seen in full frame discussions. I want to know more about it. I'm not asking you for an explanation. I just want to read what you've read. That's not picking a fight. Can you tell me on what site you read this so I can look for it?</p>

[keith_lubow]

<p>Oh, good Lord.....</p>

<p>This is what I wrote:</p>

<p>"That is what is stated every time the topic of a full frame digital Leica RF comes up: that the relatively extreme angles of the light at the edges of the full frame sensor cannot be handled by the micro lenses while still producing a "Leica-quality" pic."</p>

<p>Notice the colon. It indicates that the phrase which follows the colon is the specific to which I was referring generally in the phrase before the colon. I wrote that "I mean that, barring major sensor changes, in order for the lenses to have "Leica quality" at the edges of the pix on a digital Leica rangefinder, they would have to be redesigned." I did not write that Leica is redesigning anything! In fact, they are not! They have stated that they will be tackling the problem from the sensor end of it...hence the funny, ha ha. This can be found in several threads on various Websites that discuss the prospects of a full frame Leica M. <em>You could try the first hit that comes up in a Google search for "full frame Leica M":</em> http://nemeng.com/leica/004fa.shtml, for one.</p>

<p>Come on, now...Surely you have not sold your sense of humor in order to afford your Leica. I was simply making an opinionated joke as to the IMO silly choices made by Leitz's management re: R&D for the past 45 years.</p>

<p>This post is about current Leica technological developments. I put in my two cents. Forgive me if I think Leica is silly re: their development and want to make a comment about it. There is no need to distract from the OP with so many needling posts just because you misunderstood something someone wrote. If you have an honest inquiry of me, and want me to personally clarify something that is off topic, e-mail me. Otherwise, it just seems like needling; forgive me if I took it the wrong way.</p>

<p> </p>

[kens]

<p>Thanks for the link. They are talking about non-retrofocus lens design - the old 21 Super-Angulon being a classic example. Modern retrofocus is not what they are referring to. I'll accept that old non-retrofocus designs won't perform very well on a full frame sensor no matter what they do. But there shouldn't be a problem with more current lens designs. It's a given that the full frame sensor itself will be a significant redesign.<br>

And, yes, you took it completely the wrong way. I just wanted to know what you were talking about when referring to lens redesign. No needling at all.</p>

[stephen_york3]

<p>The folks who have a bunch of $$ tied up into modern Leica R are probably really p@#sed right now. And I can understand that. </p>

[keith_lubow]

<p>I would maybe be disappointed if I was of the digital persuasion, but I don't know about pissed. Folks with a lot of money tied up in the R are also folks who can either afford very nice film scanners or lab fees, if they really need the pix to be digital.</p>

[doug herr]

<p><em>"Folks with a lot of money tied up in the R are also folks who can either afford very nice film scanners or lab fees, if they really need the pix to be digital."</em><br /><em></em><br />Whether this is true or not (I'd rather avoid stereotyping) there's a big difference between scanned film and a digital original. I'm fortunate to have been using a DMR and there's no way I could be as productive with film as with the DMR.</p>

<p>Among the advantages of digital, one that stands out is the ability to review exposures and re-take the picture if necessary; by reviewing the histogram of a test photo it's possible to fine-tune exposure of a high-contrast subject and avoid losing shadow and highlight detail, then apply the fine-tuned exposure to every photo until the light changes. With film the process was to bracket & pray with every photo.</p>

<p>Another advantage of digital is high-ISO performance. Even with the DMR, not particularly noted for high-ISO performance, the ability to use faster shutter speed and/or smaller apertures for given lighting conditions and print quality gives digital a big advantage. I compared my last roll of K25 with the DMR @ ISO 400 and the DMR photos were sharper, less grainy and had much better color quality than the K25 photos.</p>

<p>I was looking forward to an R10. The files I've been getting from the DMR with Leica-R lenses are unforgettably sensational, and I wanted more of this when the DMR becomes unservicable (as all computers eventually do).</p>

[Rob F.]

Well, it's not over till it's over, folks. Stay tuned, maybe there will be an R10 after all.

[keith_lubow]

<p>"With film the process was to bracket & pray with every photo."</p>

<p>oh my....</p>

[doug herr]

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=2128716">Keith Lubow</a> wrote:</p>

 

<p>"With film the process was to bracket & pray with every photo."<br>

<em>oh my....</em></p>

<p>Here's an example. I don't often get an opportunity to photograph the American Avocet and in all cases when I was using film the exposure wasn't precise enough to keep both highlight and shadow detail.</p>

<p><em><img src="http://www.wildlightphoto.com/birds/recurvirostridae/amav01.jpg" alt="" /> </em></p>

<p>It might not be evident in this web-sized jpg but in an 11x14 print all the shadow and highlight detail is preserved<em>.</em> This due to using the histogram from a test photo to fine-tune the exposure, and this photo is one of many which, from past experience, would have failed without the rapid feedback that adigital camera allows.</p>

 

[jordan_shin]

<p>You know what would be a "good solution"? A 1.25x Apo magnifier that allows R lenses to be used on the S2, with diaphragm motor and sensors to relay 1- 2- and 3- cam, as well as ROM, information the body.</p>

[kens]

<p>It's my understanding that the flange-to-film(sensor) plane is longer on the S2 than on the R cameras. So unless the R lens is recessed into the S2 mirror box it won't focus to infinity. And recessing would lead to all sorts of problems - mirror operation, access to the the aperture ring, and the girth of most (all?) R lenses to name some obvious problems.</p>

[jordan_shin]

<p>Hence the "magnifier", a relay lens like Canon initially offered for mounting FD lenses on EOS bodies, which also enlarges the image circle by 25%; such a lens would require a lot more space than the flange distance deficit. The EOS teleconverter, I think, had 1.4x conversion and internal autofocus; it didn't just make up for difference in flange distance. Canon offered mediocre quality, but I presume Leica can do better... :-) Or it could be a 1:1 relay lens, which would be easier to design, and for which there is a lot of expertise in the world, and we'd just use a smaller area of the S2 sensor, or use the whole cropped circle. If Leica-Camera still has a good relationship with the microscope "branch", they can probably collaborate on this. Some loss in contrast is to be expected, and wide-angle lenses will suffer a lot, but resolution can probably be preserved. This way, Leica can move all of us (who can afford it) to the S system, and focus on producing one line of lenses. We'd also get used to the idea of shooting with f/2.4 lenses, if all our f/2 lenses turn in to f/2.5s, etc. It may also be possible to mount M lenses on the S2! Why not? :-)</p>

[rick_d]

<p>Like many all I wanted was an R9 with a high quality full frame sensor. What's so hard about that? Very disappointed with Leica's learned helplessness. </p>

<p>I've been looking at the alternatives. Stop down metering with Canon, Nikon or Sony is surely a pain. I don't see how it can work with the critter photography I do. I need minimum depth for focussing and no delay in shooting upon achieving focus. The iris needs to close down without my hands doing it, when the mirror is going up.</p>

<p>Still, has anyone looked at putting an R bayonet on a Sony A900? That would be better than modifying a bunch of lenses - modify the body instead!</p>

<p>And then there's the prospect of making our own solution. Take an R8 or 9 and stick a full size sensor in it. Frankenleica. :-)</p>

<p>Rick.</p>

[danielkennedy]

<p>Apple had a fantastic past financial year offering a premium unique computer in the face of Acer/Toshiba/HP/Dell/Samsung etc. If you do it right you can offer a premium product at a premium price in this financial climate, you have to gamble to win, playing safe doesn't cut it anymore. Incremental "safe" updates are now the realm of Canon and Nikon (unless the rumoured digital rangefinder is true).<br /><br>

Rick D, I have flirted with many ideas including fabricating my own electrically powered (through the EF contacts) stop down adapter for my Canon bodies, as well as stuffing my 5D Mark II into my R8.<br /><br>

The adapter would have to stop down the lens prior to metering, meaning a half depress on the shutter would have to stop down and meter, which isn't so bad since you don't autofocus with R lenses obviously. With the R body and stuffing a digital sensor into it, getting the electrics syncronised is much more difficult unfortunately since the R body has much better mechanics.</p>