Leica R solution

[david_franklin1]

<p>I remember seeing reports of Leica executives claiming there would still be some sort of solution for Leica R owners to use their lenses on a digital body. Is this still the case or am I just kidding myself it might still happen? Could it be so hard to take the technology from the M9 and fit it to an R body? An 18MP full frame R body, I would be in heaven! I know all about the adapters available by the way..... </p>

[SCL]

<p>You probably missed the Leica comments that the "R" line development (thru the DMR) was no longer going to be supported. I too hoped for years that a meaningful and affordable Leica solution for the R line was just over the horizon...well, in my opinion, the sun has set. Although I've been using my R lenses for several years on other modified digital bodies, it isn't the ideal solution. Gradually I'm moving toward somebody else...but keeping my most used R lenses for film and occasional digital use.</p>

[kens]

<p>Although Leica R development came to an end, the "promise" was a R-compatible digital body produced by another manufacturer under Leica license. Well, that promise is, what, 2 years old now and still nothing. I did hear it was supposed to feature an electronic viewfinder, and problems in that area might have delayed or killed the project. Who knows what the current situation is. My patience is gone.</p>

[paul_neuthaler]

<p>I just keep shooting my Leicaflex, 2SL's and my beautiful "Jubilee" SL2 -- what is "digital?"</p><div></div>

[Rob F.]

<p>Several years ago I bought a D200 so I could shoot my Nikkor lenses on both my film and digital bodies. This made Nikon my most essential SLR/DSLR system. The D200 was replaced with a D300. then I added a D700. I didn't want to haul around both a Nikon and Leica SLR system, so I sold my R bodies and lenses, keeping only the 90 Elmarit, 135 Elmarit, and 180 APO-telyt. I have converted the 135 and 180 to Nikon mount, and have plans to convert the 90. I use the Fotodiox conversion rings, and will try a Leitax for the 90.</p>

<p>So that's my solution. If equipment becomes a burden or a headache, I get rid of it.</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>Like you, I waited and waited, but gave up two years ago and went Canon EOS. At least I can use the R lenses via the adapters. The price of the M9 also convinced me that even if a digital R did arrive from Leica I would not be able to afford it. It is a real shame, but Contax, Yashica, Olympus etc owners had the same problem.</p>

[joseph_wisniewski]

<blockquote>

<p>the "promise" was a R-compatible digital body produced by another manufacturer under Leica license.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Ken, can you point me to a reference for that particular "promise"?</p>

[kens]

<p>Here are a couple. Others can be found if you google...<br>

http://www.overgaard.dk/leica_R10_dSLR.html<br>

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/customer-forum/89591-summary-q-session-stefan-daniel-during.html<br>

And here's an old PN thread. I think there are a few of these, too...<br>

http://www.photo.net/leica-rangefinders-forum/00Tdup</p>

[Rob F.]

<p>At the 2008 Leica Annual meeting in Louisville, Stefan Daniel said they were working on a solution. That's the last I heard about it.</p>

[MTC Photography]

<p>I don't believe Leica is able to complete with Nikon, Canon, Pentax etc in full frame DSLR market. Even if Leica eventually comes up with a digital full frame DSLR, their price would<br>

be too high.<br>

I am happy with my Canon EOS 5D MARK II +Leica R lens combination. The EOS-R adapter I use<br>

has a dandalion chip, when in focus, it flashes red lights in various spots in the viewfinder<br>

screen, focusing is easy even with wide angel 19R lens. <img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/13316673-md.jpg" alt="" width="679" height="453" /><br>

Arhat Hall in Donglin Temple, Jiangxi, Lu Mountains<br>

Canon EOS 5D MAKR II + ELMARIT R 19, no flash.</p>

[Rob F.]

<p>They could have Nikon make one of the DSLR models in Leica R mount. Maybe one that wouldn't compete much with Nikon sales, perhaps by not using any of the full frame models. It would not even have to be AF, since there are no AF Leica R lenses. It could be a stripped-down model made without AF.</p>

<p>Which Nikon would be the likely candidate?</p>

[mark cortella]

<p>Stefan Daniel was interviewed over at the Leica Forum. It was several months ago. He said a Leica R digital solution was in the works,and they where waiting for electronic viewfinder tech to improve. They-Leica forum-sends out newsletters monthly,and I think it was in 1 that showed up several months ago. I still think Leica's best bet would be for Sony to put a mount on a A900 for Leica lenses-Sony bought Minolta,so the lens should work with just a mount change. But Nikon could do it also,since it doesn't have to be an autofocus camera-and if I'm going to buy a digital R,it damn well better be full frame.</p>

[david_franklin1]

<p>Mark, I am glad there has been something said relatively recently then. However, not that enthused about electronic viewfinders but then beggars can't be choosers as the saying goes! I would definitely hope for full frame though, as other have suggested a modified A900 would be just fine for me.</p>

[joseph_wisniewski]

<p>Ken, that first source is Thorsten Overgaard saying "Leica said" this or that, without a link to where Leica supposedly said such a thing.<br>

The second source is so vague that a Leitax conversion of a Leica lens to another camera's mount will satisfy the requirement.</p>

<ul>

<li>But there will be - and we are working on this - a suitable solution how to use R lenses digitally</li>

<li>It's very important to us, that owners of R lenses can take pictures digitally in the near future</li>

</ul>

<p>It most certainly does not say "a R-compatible digital body produced by another manufacturer under Leica license."</p>

<p>As far as "can take pictures digitally", that doesn't imply coupled metering, or EXIF information. The existing R to EOS adapters satisfy the letter of what Leica promised. They let "owners of R lenses ... take pictures digitally".</p>

 

[l_dasousa]

<p>There is only one possible answer why Leica have abandoned the R system and that is their analysts have documented to the board that there are not enough potential buyers to make such profitable. Not even to adapt some existing body from another maker, for full functionality with the R lenses. If there was a chance they could make money, they would do it I think. </p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>I agree with Joseph and L Da Sousa. The "Leica digital solution" is so vague and out of date to be worthless. The EOS solution is adequate, if not optimal. The Leica S2 took all the reflex development money and the success of that is still not clear. I think they would be mad to take on the big DSLR manufacturers at this point. It is a shame, but I think we have to be thankful that they pulled their finger out and managed to make an excellent digital M at least.</p>

[kens]

<p>If the existing R adapters make you happy then I'm glad your expectations have been met. I tried it and my expectations were not met, which include aperture/meter linkage and manual focusing aid, and come from the promise of a good solution made in 2009 by Leica execs. Leica said they wouldn't make it themselves, so the 2nd party implication is obvious. 2011 and the whole thing seems to have dried up. With my typical luck this probably means an announcement is just around the corner. :0)...<br>

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

 

[joseph_wisniewski]

<p>Ken, I don't think anyone is really "happy" with the existing R adapters. The issue is that people keep reading way, way more into what Leica actually promised. You just did it again. You said</p>

<blockquote>

<p>come from the promise of a good solution made in 2009 by Leica execs.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Read what they said, again. There's no mention of a "good" solution. Leica made a vague promise of a "suitable solution", that's all. They didn't promise "good", they didn't promise to "include aperture/meter linkage and manual focusing aid" and they sure didn't promise "a R-compatible digital body produced by another manufacturer under Leica license".</p>

<p>You have to "sanity check" those sort of statements. Say, "here's what they actually said". Then "here's ways 1, 2, 3, and 4 that this could be achieved. Now, which of those things make some sort of economic sense?" Try a few...</p>

<ol>

<li>Some form of adapter for M9</li>

<li>Pure mechanical adapter for Canon</li>

<li>Adapter with chip for Canon</li>

<li>Motor coupled and chipped adapter for Canon</li>

<li>Some form of adapter for Four thirds or micro four thirds</li>

<li>Having another OEM build an R mount DSLR</li>

<li>Have a third party convert a DSLR.</li>

<li>Set up to convert Leica R lenses to fully coupled Nikon mount.</li>

</ol>

<p>And the sanity checks</p>

<ol>

<li>How do we focus?</li>

<li>Works, can do FF, needs stopped down metering, no AF confirmation. Can be done by any good metal shop. We love metal. Metal, metal, metal, ploot, ploot, metal, nookie hessum!</li>

<li>Need to deal with those Dandelion people in the Ukrane, or get another shop to build us a chip. Scary, but we can do it. We can charge customers $600 for a $49 Dandelion chip. Not bad, ploot, ploot!</li>

<li>Has to read one lever and set another in a 3mm thick mount, when the levers need to be accessed from behind the lens, not on the perimeter of the mount. Probably beyond the state of the art.</li>

<li>Customers reacted badly to the 1.33x crop factor on M8 and DMR. It won't sell unless it's FF.</li>

<li>See following...</li>

<li>See following...</li>

<li>Actually, that can be done for about $500 per lens. You need to pull off the mount, move the aperture coupler to a different point on the mount (which may be a circular slide, or may mean rotating the whole lens inside its barrel, or rotating it externally and moving the focus scale) and rigging the aperture collar to couple to the Nikon reader. I've seen fully coupled Pentax to Nikon conversions before.</li>

</ol>

<p>Here's pretty much what I said about this, two years ago. A DSLR produced by a third party, with support of Leica aperture linkages, is totally absurd, and no one with any business acumen would possibly go for it.</p>

<ul>

<li>Canon - doesn't put mechanical aperture linkages on anything that they make. Not likely to accept doing a mod in house and warrantying it, so the only possibility is a third party conversion.</li>

<li>Nikon - healthy, and does put mechanically coupled aperture mechanisms on D300, D700, and D3. Customers reacted badly to the 1.3x crop on ModulR, they sure won't accept a 1.5x crop D300 based body. So, D700 or D3.</li>

<li>Olympus - doesn't put mechanical aperture linkages on anything that they make. doesn't make anything with a crop factor larger than 2.0</li>

<li>Panasonic - doesn't put mechanical aperture linkages on anything that they make. doesn't make anything with a crop factor larger than 2.0</li>

<li>Pentax - in 2009 was struggling with their own product line, and there were rampant rumors of Hoya getting ready to shut them down. Doesn't make anything with a crop factor larger than 1.5.</li>

<li>Samsung - doesn't put mechanical aperture linkages on anything that they make. Doesn't make anything with a crop factor larger than 1.5.</li>

<li>Sony - has a "partnership" of some sort with Zeiss.</li>

</ul>

<p>OK, so we've ruled out every DSLR maker but Nikon. Now, how does Nikon come together with Leica?</p>

<ul>

<li>Nikon has to do the mod. They have to lay out new flex circuits for the aperture reader, and implement the Leica ROM protocol instead of their own. Even if the Nikon processor has enough IO pins to implement whatever Leica does differently, it's new firmware, too. Nikon does custom units, if you have NASA's budget. ;)</li>

<li>Since Nikon does the mod, it has to be warranted by Nikon, and that means that a modification that involves structural changes and flex circuit changes has to go through an entire PV (product validation) cycle, with a huge engineering overhead. Then there's "little things" like a Leica style focus screen.</li>

</ul>

<p>Now, how do you distribute it?</p>

<ul>

<li>DSLRs are very low margin. They're nearly Gillette products. So, we're talking a cost higher than an ordinary D700, because of the new parts, and the lower quantities. If you put it in Nikon's distribution channel, distributors and dealers are going to say "hey, this Likon thing is side by side with D700, it costs more, and it doesn't give us any opportunity, at all, for the profitable lens sales that make stocking DSLRs worth while. I'm not stocking this thing, it is a very powerful vessel of that which promoteth growth".</li>

<li>Put it in Leica's high margin channel, and it's going to end up on dealer's shelves for $8,000 for a D700 derived body.</li>

</ul>

<p>Besides, what do you think will happen to Leica, a company that could conjure ergonomic nightmares like R9, or the horrid combination of R9+DMR, when Leica shooters start wrapping their hands around Nikon ergonomics? Suddenly, all the years of chanting, chanting, chanting about how good Leica ergonomics are will go the path of the Emperor's clothes, and it's the beginning of the end for Leica.</p>

<p>Have a third party obtain Nikon or Canon FF DSLRs, and modify them to accommodate the Leica R mount.<br /> For Nikon, you have an aperture reader and setter, so it's just a matter of removing the camera's bull nose (the part that the lens mount sits on), moving the linkages (with circular sliders, like teleconverters use), intercepting the ribbon cable that would go to the Nikon contact bridge, connecting that to a small microcontroller, programming that mcu to translate between Nikon and Leica protocol, and adding a new bull nose, with a new Leica R connector. Probably wouldn't cost more than $1000.</p>

<ul>

<li>Add that to buying Nikon cameras at full retail, and absorb ordering and warehousing a number of cameras beyond what you'd need for actual customers, because Nikon's going to regard this procedure as voiding the warranty. Cost to customer, somewhere between insane and prohibitive.</li>

</ul>

<p>Doing it for Canon involves that same tear the bullnose off, build a translator. But the new bullnose has to have a mechanical aperture reader and a motorized setter, too. So, even more $</p>

<p>In short, there's one solution that's remotely feasible, number 3, the chipped Canon adapter. The fact that this will be used on a camera with Canon ergonomics, not Nikon, and that it will be further hobbled ergonomically by having stop-down metering is just gravy for Leica.</p>

<p>Number 8 is technically possible, but exposes Leica to the risks associated with letting their user pool experience Nikon ergonomics. And, it might be seen as an admission of failure on Leica's part. Might be cool for a third party to tool up for, though.</p>

[kens]

<p>Read the thread at the link I provided. It describes statements by Stefan Daniel and Christian Erhardt in 2009. A good solution is exactly what Stefan said. These statements were also supported by my local Leica rep as recently as last Summer. I don't need to sanity check their statements - that's what they get paid to do. I agree something might have changed their plans since 2009, but I haven't seen or heard anything to counter their statements...<br>

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

 

[Robin Smith]

<p>Reps statements are not very reliable, and as you can imagine "forms of words" are used to divert awkward questions - it pays to be skeptical. There was an interesting exchange elsewhere on the forum about the Nikon scanners and how someone had related that the Nikon rep had maintained that Nikon would "look after film users" - shortly after the Nikon 35mm scanners had been discontinued. A few months later <em>all </em>Nikon film scanners were discontinued. Clearly in this case the rep was either fibbing to stop a possibly pesky customer or didn't know. I favor the former.</p>

<p>If there is a question that they either know will get them off on a tangent with a possibly disgruntled customer then they will say something to divert the customer to what for them is a more productive discussion. The same will apply to those in marketing.</p>

<p>To be charitable, we could suggest that in 2009 Leica was indeed still thinking/dreaming of a good digital solution for the R-line, but had no specific plans for it -then time passes and the problem goes away and they have more productive things to worry about. Certainly, discontinuing the R-line itself to me is a strong message that Leica are finished with all things R. </p>

[kens]

<p>The point is what Stefan and Christian said, not the rep. The rep only supported their statements with what had come down the channel to him.<br>

I fully agree their plans might have changed, or they might still be working on it. But after having made their statements they owe it to their customers to keep them up to date on some reasonable basis.<br>

Which brings me back to my original comment about R futures: my patience is gone.</p>

[ellis_vener_photography]

<p>The Leica DMR really is a terrific camera even if it is not being made anymore. </p>

[joseph_wisniewski]

<blockquote>

<p>It describes statements by Stefan Daniel and Christian Erhardt in 2009.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't care what it "describes", only what it "quotes". You've taken quote and transformed them, by your process of "describing", into something that has no resemblance, at all, to what Leica actually said. And you did it twice.</p>

<p>Look at what Leica actually said. That was in one of your own links.</p>

<p>Then look at the business and technical realities of making some form of solution. If you are not capable of that sort of analysis, then accept the analysis of someone who is capable.</p>

<ul>

<li>Leica never promised any of the things that you said they promised.</li>

<li>The things that you said were promised, "described", divined, etc. are financially impossible.</li>

</ul>

<p>Truth sucks at times. But truth is truth.</p>

[kens]

<p><em>"...then accept the analysis of someone who is capable."</em><br />And that would be who, Joe? You, I suppose?<br />Whatever. Whether or not you buy into it makes no difference to me.</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>I assume Joseph <em>despises</em> false modesty!</p>