Future Platform for R Lenses?

[Mitchell]

I'm sure this is a subject that's been kicked to death, but I couldn't find a thread on it.

I have some nice R lenses 180/2.8 Apo, 100macro, 280/4 Apo. Is there going to be a digital platform other than DMR, Nikon, etc., i.e., a new R compatible platform?

I'm thinking of selling an M8, and the R lenses to finance a M9.

Best,

Mitchell

 

[Jan Brittenson]

Do they even sell the lenses anymore? I think we're forgotten my friend.

 

[lmr]

My R9 is sitting idle.

My R lens goes on G1 m4/3 quite often.

The R lens are feeling rather neglected... might start hunting for DMR.

Robert.

 

[David K]

It would appear that Leica is not going to develop a future R platform. From what I've heard the R market is a small fraction of the M market and would not justify the investment. Pretty sure Leica has said as much publicly... but it's a shame nonetheless. The R glass is excellent and some of the lenses are outstanding.

 

[kweide]

My 90 mm cron found its place on E-3 and E-P1

 

[engel001]

I have converted my 28-90mm Vario-Elmarit by Leitax for Sony A850. Last week, I took the combo to Arizona. Here are a few from Prescott, the Desert Botanical Garden, and Scottsdale. - Christopher

 

[overgaarcom]

Looks good with the Sony photos. Is that the Vario-Elmarit-R ASPH 28-90 you had changed into Sony (permanently)?

The number two photo with the two guitar players actually has a Leica look to it. The others I can't tell.

 

[monza]

The Leitax is a bayonet replacement; it's reversible.

 

[engel001]

Thorsten, thanks for the comments. Regarding the second picture, it is one of a series I took of the same situation. There was a hint of flare in the some of these. I think the Zeiss lenses are somewhat more resistant to flare than the Leica R lenses I have been using. The hood on the Vario-Elmarit is borderline small, and I have a protective filter over the front element.
I read with interest your Leica pages, particularly the R-solution based on a possible Leica Mini-M in 2012.

 

[jonoslack]

I'm sure this is a subject that's been kicked to death, but I couldn't find a thread on it.

Well, as I understand it Leica said that there would not be an R10 . . . . . but that there would be a camera which would be capable of using your R lenses. I haven't heard anything different from this, and it seems logical enough to me.

Maybe you'll have to wait a little while,

 

[Bill_Green]

I think the Sony A900 or Nikon D3x are as close to a R10 as we are going to get. The A900 is a great manual focus platform. I don't think the sharpness or color depth are quite at the same level as the DMR, but it is IMO a much more solid, reliable platform. I have no experience with the D3x. 25Mp is a blessing and curse. Where I could get sharp shots hand held with the DMR, I can't with the Sony.

While this has been beaten to death, there remains no real answer.

 

[Chuck Jones]

I think the Sony A900 or Nikon D3x are as close to a R10 as we are going to get. The A900 is a great manual focus platform. I don't think the sharpness or color depth are quite at the same level as the DMR, but it is IMO a much more solid, reliable platform. I have no experience with the D3x. 25Mp is a blessing and curse. Where I could get sharp shots hand held with the DMR, I can't with the Sony.

While this has been beaten to death, there remains no real answer.

Personally, I think all of those photos he posted pretty much answers the question. You can't create a photo that looks like those using any lens Sony makes for the A900. Enough said.

Non-sharp shots with the Sony you could get with the DMR is purely the difference in the weight balance, and the Sony being harder to focus due to a huge difference in the viewfinders. Focus screen in the Sony isn't really up to manual focus without a lot of work, in my opinion. So nail your focus first, then just take a one second pause before composing and tripping your shutter. That one second will allow your muscles that you used to focus with to relax, and your hand more steady for the shot a second later.

 

[Bill_Green]

Personally, I think all of those photos he posted pretty much answers the question. You can't create a photo that looks like those using any lens Sony makes for the A900. Enough said.

Non-sharp shots with the Sony you could get with the DMR is purely the difference in the weight balance, and the Sony being harder to focus due to a huge difference in the viewfinders. Focus screen in the Sony isn't really up to manual focus without a lot of work, in my opinion. So nail your focus first, then just take a one second pause before composing and tripping your shutter. That one second will allow your muscles that you used to focus with to relax, and your hand more steady for the shot a second later.

Hi Chuck, I'm not sure if your response was aimed at me or the original poster. What I was trying to say is that DMR had a look to it that was more MFDB than DSLR and the difference in color depth between the Leica's 16-bit color and the Sony's 12-bit is noticeable. Where the Sony has more than double the resolution of the DMR, it doesn't seem to resolve much more detail. I discovered part of the lack of sharpness was due to Sony's SSS.

Chuck, do you have any experience with the Sony? I'm using the Sony M focusing screen, but just like you said it falls a little short. I used the stock screen on the DMR.

 

[Chuck Jones]

Hi Chuck, I'm not sure if your response was aimed at me or the original poster. What I was trying to say is that DMR had a look to it that was more MFDB than DSLR and the difference in color depth between the Leica's 16-bit color and the Sony's 12-bit is noticeable. Where the Sony has more than double the resolution of the DMR, it doesn't seem to resolve much more detail. I discovered part of the lack of sharpness was due to Sony's SSS.

Chuck, do you have any experience with the Sony? I'm using the Sony M focusing screen, but just like you said it falls a little short. I used the stock screen on the DMR.

Bill, I owned not one, but two DMR's. Had to, one was usually headed in for repair, or on the way back. Great looking files when they worked though, and yes, the true 16 bit and absence of AA filter made them really rich files color wise. I have many "keepers" from that camera, and love the pure Kodachrome look to them.

The Sony wasn't there when I tried some test shots, so I passed. Thin files just don't do it for me, I like to push 'em around some and need the juice there to start or it falls apart for me in post. I have the same problem with my Nikon files, but I bought it for the high ISO ultra low light situations when anything is better than a frame full of nothing but blur.

 

[Bill_Green]

Bill, I owned not one, but two DMR's. Had to, one was usually headed in for repair, or on the way back. Great looking files when they worked though, and yes, the true 16 bit and absence of AA filter made them really rich files color wise. I have many "keepers" from that camera, and love the pure Kodachrome look to them.

The Sony wasn't there when I tried some test shots, so I passed. Thin files just don't do it for me, I like to push 'em around some and need the juice there to start or it falls apart for me in post. I have the same problem with my Nikon files, but I bought it for the high ISO ultra low light situations when anything is better than a frame full of nothing but blur.

Actually I meant did/do you own a Sony, but question answered. That pretty well sums up my experience with both cameras. If I found a solid source of batteries for the DMR I would have kept it. Still wish I could have bought your Contax system.

I feel like I have become pretty good at processing the Sony files, but without question they are lacking depth.

 

[Chuck Jones]

It's the depth of all these DSLR files today that just turns me off. My old DMR's ate all their lunches for a 10 MP camera. But it came with a cost. Hauling a lot of weight isn't my cup of tea. And six charged batteries was the norm for me... MF had the files I wanted, and wasn't much heavier to be practical about it. They have their place for sure, but DSLR just isn't my own particular thing. Other people love 'em and wouldn't use a rangefinder if you gave it to them. Horses for courses I guess.

 

[Mitchell]

Thanks everyone. I think its time form to move on from R.

I guess I'm on the verge of selling a DMR, R9, 180/2.8 Apo, 280/4 Apo, 28/2.8 and 100 Macro (maybe I'll keep the macro) if anyone is interested. Also probably an M8. To finance a M9. Email me if interested.

Best,

Mitchell

 

[doug]

If I found a solid source of batteries for the DMR I would have kept it.

We're working on one:

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica...mr-battery-solution-michael-bass-designs.html

 

[Steen]

Three weeks ago there was a Questions & Answers session with Leica at fotokina.
Seems like the LUF members are still waiting for the forum owner's summary. The summary is at Leica for correction.
But one of the members who also participated has posted his own short summary, see post # 456 in this thread.

 

[jonoslack]

The Sony wasn't there when I tried some test shots, so I passed. Thin files just don't do it for me, I like to push 'em around some and need the juice there to start or it falls apart for me in post. I have the same problem with my Nikon files, but I bought it for the high ISO ultra low light situations when anything is better than a frame full of nothing but blur.

Hi Chuck - interesting observations. I've not had a DMR, so I can't comment about it, but when I saw the A900 files, I immediately sold all my Nikon gear. I still get a little hit when looking at A900 files two years on. I think the colour rolloff and balance is a subtle delight compared to the crass and vulgar Nikon equivalents (of course, only my humble opinion), and while I agree that the 12 bit files have less headroom adjustment, I think that they respond really well if properly exposed in the first place.