DMR sits idle - reluctant to let it go

[Mitch Alland]

Keep in mind Leica also makes lenses for Panasonic compacts and camcorders...

Jan, Leica does no such thing: those lenses are manufactured by Pansonic, or by a Chinese OEM firm on behalf of Panasonic in China, under the Leica brand, either designed jointly by Leica and Panasonic, or by Panasonic with Leica input — the latter is not all to clear.

—Mitch/Bangkok
http://www.flickr.com/photos/10268776@N00/

 

[fotografz]

If it makes the camera bigger rather than smaller, NOT INTERESTED. Also not interested in dropping another 30K on a digital camera system with all new lenses. Enough already.

If they go with a square then we're probably looking at 36X36, which is the smallest sized MF sensor currently available while retaining the current mount... which means it is viable financially. But those are CCDs and the ISOs are currently limited to 1600, which is marginal in terms of performance at that ISO. Those systems are optimized for ISO 50 or 100.

The questions that come to mind are: do the current lenses image circle truly cover a square with excellence both top to bottom as well as side to side? And will the sensor need micro lenses for wide lenses?

 

[doug]

... do the current lenses image circle truly cover a square with excellence both top to bottom as well as side to side?

The image circle question applies more to corners than to top & bottom. The thing that would restrict lens performance top & bottom would be light baffles, easily removed or modified.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

It sounds than they could enlarge it than proportionally to 24x36 and still keep the old mount and lenses . This is my bet, you know if this is the case than the may make just the 24 side bigger and change the ratio. Be interesting to see what they do here. Maybe like 28 x 36 , I don't think they want to go to big because than the mirror box has to grow and in turn so does the body. I would think they would want to keep the size as small as they can.

 

[fotografz]

Ahh yes, corner-to-corner would be the issue ... right.

36X36 probably wouldn't work then.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Nor a square mirror . I tend to think enlarged or change a dimension . This will add to the MPX count

 

[Jack]

So I expect the famous remark about a somewhat larger sensor than "Full Frame" to be something like the 4:5 aspect mentioned by Doug.

Actually, I think 4:3 makes the most sense for a DSLR --- rectangular enough to show a significant difference between vertical and horizontal frames and the DSLR is easy to orient vertically or horizontally. Square makes some sense for MF as it is less convenient to lay them over on their sides, but it is so easy to do with a DSLR that the square would translate to wasted or unused sensor area for most shots with them.

My .02...

 

[Guy Mancuso]

I could go for 4:3 on the R10. I agree square you will wind up cropping on more than 80 percent of your shots. It would be a waste

 

[Jack]

FWIW, the 3:2 aspect ratio 36x24 frame IC = roughly 43mm diameter. At 4:3 aspect ratio, this is essentially a 34.5x26 to fit the same IC. So, IF that is the "larger than full frame" that's being rumored --- after all it is more total sensor area --- then the current mount and lenses would conceivably work. However, I would refer to this as "image circle optimization" instead of calling it larger than full frame

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Yes they can't go bigger if there going to sacrifice anything but if the image circle can handle it than I think this maybe a great idea. Last thing we want is soft corners like Canons issues for years

 

[Guy Mancuso]

I can see the marketing now . Bigger and better than FF . Sign me up , now give me a M9 and really drive me crazy. There goes that Porsche that I had in my dreams.

 

[Steen]

Jack wrote: "Actually, I think 4:3 makes the most sense for a DSLR ..."

I fully agree. Square, or anything close to square doesn't make sense with a camera which is easy to tilt to vertical.

My main point was that *IF* Leica goes beyond the present R image cirkel, and the R mount as such is discontinued, then they ought to at least tell us that it is discontinued. It wouldn't be fair to keep that as a secret to the customers.

Since they haven't told us it is discontinued I don't believe it is discontinued. Just my personal conclusion

 

[Jan Brittenson]

Jan, Leica does no such thing: those lenses are manufactured by Pansonic, or by a Chinese OEM firm on behalf of Panasonic in China, under the Leica brand, either designed jointly by Leica and Panasonic, or by Panasonic with Leica input — the latter is not all to clear.

I understand they don't manufacture these lenses, but I'd be very surprised if say a Leica Dicomar wasn't designed by Leica. So it's part of their engineering product pipeline.

 

[fotografz]

Or that three squares a day that I've grown accustomed to : -(

Enough already!

(this from the dude taking delivery of a H3D/39-II today) ... LOL.

 

[jaapv]

There have, however, been many strange rumours on different Forums about the R10. One of the rumours that have had the longest life is the idea that the R10 would not only become full frame but go even further, e.g. 36 x 36 or 40 x 30. Perhaps Leica's earlier take over of Sinar may have added to this rumour.

I think the main fuel for this was an interview in LFI where the official Leica statement was: "The R10 will be full frame or larger"

 

[jaapv]

Jack wrote: "Actually, I think 4:3 makes the most sense for a DSLR ..."

I fully agree. Square, or anything close to square doesn't make sense with a camera which is easy to tilt to vertical.

My main point was that *IF* Leica goes beyond the present R image cirkel, and the R mount as such is discontinued, then they ought to at least tell us that it is discontinued. It wouldn't be fair to keep that as a secret to the customers.

Since they haven't told us it is discontinued I don't believe it is discontinued. Just my personal conclusion

If they make a larger mount, the concept of an adapter ring springs to mind. leica was known at one time as "a factory of rings that also happens to make cameras":grin:

 

[Jack]

Problem with an adapter ring is it adds distance between the camera and lens, and like an extension tube moves focus closer, eliminating infinity. Canon has the least F2F (Film to Flange) focal of any current DSLR system. So it might work IF Leica can part with any of the already preciously limited space in the R system...

Of course an adapter with OPTICS inside is an option, like a 1.1 teleconverter...

 

[robsteve]

Jack:

I think Jaap meant a much larger diameter mount and the adapter just adapting diameter, not thickness.

They could also do like they did with LTM to M, make the register 1mm longer to allow you to adapt the old lenses to the new mount.

 

[Jack]

Jack:

I think Jaap meant a much larger diameter mount and the adapter just adapting diameter, not thickness.

Then the new mount would have to be one heck of a lot wider than the current one

They could also do like they did with LTM to M, make the register 1mm longer to allow you to adapt the old lenses to the new mount.

Sure, but then the new camera has to have the lens mounting flange 1mm CLOSER to the sensor for that, meaning even less room in the mirror box. Less room in the mirror box does not engineer well if they also go "larger than full frame" since they'll need a larger mirror still...

Very difficult to have your cake and eat it too on this one... Bottom line, the way I see it, you are going to get full-frame and maybe retain the current mount, OR larger than full frame with an entirely new mount and lenses. If option B, then the only "adapter" that makes sense for the current R lenses will have to have some optics in it.

Cheers,

 

[EH21]

But you don't need a mirror or even a mirror box if you have live view. They could put a tiny display in the viewfinder and a big one on the back. Actually such a display could be as big and as bright as you want it.