Future Platform for R Lenses?

[PeterA]

I used to have 2 R9 bodies one for film and one with a DMR back - with pretty much every piece of glass ever made for the R series cameras - except the tele modules. This represented a significant investment on my part.

I never ever had a problem with the DMR backs or my R9 camera bodies. I can still say that the files produced by this back were wonderful.

It came as a total shock to me when Leica walked away from the R series body - as a long time owner and user of M and R series cameras I felt totally betrayed and let down - particulary because they kept uttering / mouthing/ and hinting at continued support for the R series lens system - implying that a new R series camera would come.

The move to the S2 has been fascinating to watch - a totally new system with its own lenses and unique image circles apparently customised to a unique chip in a great body - BIG DEAL another 'trust me' system locked into a chip size that attempts to lock in users - what a load of BOLLOCKS.

IF the price / value equation even half added up I probably would have switched to the S2 - irrepsective of the bitter after taste I acquired on exiting totally out of the R system.

Much as I love Leica- the fact of the matter is that their M9 @ 18 megapixels now pretty much defines the physical limits of sharp shooting wide open - which is a large part of why we spend a small fortune on the luxes - for sure at apertures of 5.6 and smaller some of the limitations become less apparent - but in the main I get far fewer keeper snaps with the M9 than the M8. As for considered work - on a tripod even - well the M9 is great - but hey if I am going to do that - out comes the Alpa....

What a pity the same chip in the M9 couldnt have been put into an R10

instead the 'ask' is to fork out for a totally new system - which let me be frank here - from an image capture point of view runs a distant last versus any technical camera - and (at best) matches 3 year old technology from the established MFD players.

Leica tried to piggy back off system prices pre the global financial crisis - in the meantime so called 'entry' model backs and packaged bodies from well established MF companies - are selling at near half Leicas body only prices - and lets not get started on like new second hand deals..

Much as I love Leica product - no way Jose - party is over.

Every time I see another innocent thread concerning the R series - it just makes me slightly angry at Leica:cussing: Oh wellI need a cup of tea now and a nice lie down


(end rant)

 

[bensonga]

+1 to what Peter said, even though I'm sure I have just a small fraction of the $$ he had invested in Leica R glass etc. Every now and then (such as when reading this thread), I wonder if I should pick up a DMR back (CameraWest has one now in 10- condition for $2995)....and then I worry about putting any more serious money into a dead end system. Plus the battery issues, long term support etc. I'll keep my R8 for film and use my Leica R glass on whatever digital cameras I can (without switching to a Leitax mount)...such as my G1 or 5D. A poor substitute for a proper R10....thank you Leica.

To Hasselblad's credit, at least they have continued to provide a digital solution for V-system owners, even if it isn't the full frame square sensor many of us would like to see.

Gary

 

[sinwen]

+2 Peter & Gary

Michel

 

[doug]

Count me among those who are saying

I have to wonder how much it would have cost to develop a basic R10s: a mirror box on an M9 body. I suspect something like this would have been snapped up by almost every existing R user. Add the S2's AF stuff even if only for focus confirmation and they'd start to pick up a few new buyers.

As it is I'll keep using the DMR (x2) as long as I can. Rationally, there's little I want from it that it doesn't deliver, but I can understand the irrational fears about future support.

 

[cmb_]

Rationally, there's little I want from it that it doesn't deliver, but I can understand the irrational fears about future support.

Agree here but I would have liked to see another firmware update for the DMR, especially now that they are doing this in-house for the S2, M8, & M9. I am sure they could make some improvements - for example, why does the menu only scroll in one direction from the default position and why is card formatting almost near the bottom - which is about the only function I need to use in the menu 99% of the time!

 

[Jan Brittenson]

I have to wonder how much it would have cost to develop a basic R10s: a mirror box on an M9 body. I suspect something like this would have been snapped up by almost every existing R user.

I totally agree with this. The DMR was pushed as an interim solution and I at least bought into the R system expecting digital bodies. It really shouldn't have been that tough to produce a digital body loosely based on the M8's electronics and firmware. That should have saved them at least 50-75% of engineering effort by reusing tried and true bits and pieces. It's not like we'd expect a Canikon 45-point AF with artificial intelligence, ESP metering, and 10 fps. For many other parts like mirror, prism, metering, indicators, etc, they could reuse and reshape the R9's mechanical parts. (I doubt the R9 firmware would be of much use though, it's probably 8051 based or some such whereas a digital camera needs a full fledged DSP like a Blackfin.)

In the process of selling my DMR I just put it back together and gave it a spin. God I love the feel of it on the R9 with a Lux 80. It's a matter of taste, but I think it's freaking fantastic. If they just merged it all together, updated the imaging electronics, and made the drive unit/vertical grip more the size of the film winder (not motor drive), maybe slim it down a bit since it wouldn't have all the interior surfaces anymore - it would be GREAT.

 

[Arjuna]

.. I have to wonder how much it would have cost to develop a basic R10s: a mirror box on an M9 body. ...

The M9 (and M8) sensors have, AFAIK, angled micro-lenses on them to correct for using rangefinder lenses - they wouldn't be appropriate for use in an SLR/with SLR lenses.

If they could start with an M7 body, and put a digital sensor and electronics in it to make an M8/M9, I think that they could start with an R9 body, and do the same to make an R10, if they thought there was a good business case for doing it.

 

[doug]

The M9 (and M8) sensors have, AFAIK, angled micro-lenses on them to correct for using rangefinder lenses - they wouldn't be appropriate for use in an SLR/with SLR lenses.

That's what I thought too and it was discussed on the l-camera-forum and shown that long lenses on the visoflex were fine with the M9's sensor.

 

[jonoslack]

That's what I thought too and it was discussed on the l-camera-forum and shown that long lenses on the visoflex were fine with the M9's sensor.

Hi Doug
Quite sure you're right - after all, the telephoto M lenses are going to be largely telecentric.

 

[bensonga]

Might as well post this one again (courtesy of Fotografz)....for those who haven't seen it before.

Could have been a great camera....

 

[jonoslack]

Might as well post this one again (courtesy of Fotografz)....for those who haven't seen it before.

Could have been a great camera....

:clap::clap:
Lovely - splendid work Marc (I'd have had one)- but it doesn't mean it would have been financially viable. But I think the culprit here was more the sub-prime mortgage market than Leica.

. . . . and there still could be some kind of solution down the line.

 

[Bill_Green]

It's not like we'd expect a Canikon 45-point AF with artificial intelligence, ESP metering, and 10 fps.

Are you kidding? I would have been totally fine with spot metering and a lever shutter cock (can't really call it a film advance).

 

[doug]

... I think the culprit here was more the sub-prime mortgage market than Leica.

+1

I'm confident there will be a solution eventually, but it might not be within a time frame that most of us can tolerate.

 

[bensonga]

+1

I'm confident there will be a solution eventually, but it might not be within a time frame that most of us can tolerate.

What's the average life expectancy for men in the US these days? 80? I'm 57. Wonder if I'll see that day.....and still have the eye sight and other faculties required to use a future R10.

I'll probably hold onto my collection of six R lenses for a few more years, just in case. Ever hopeful.....

Gary

 

[woodyspedden]

What's the average life expectancy for men in the US these days? 80? I'm 57. Wonder if I'll see that day.....and still have the eye sight and other faculties required to use a future R10.

I'll probably hold onto my collection of six R lenses for a few more years, just in case. Ever hopeful.....

Gary

Gary

I am 73 so your odds are much greater than mine LOL

Woody

 

[Steen]

I thought the LUF members were still waiting for the official summary of the Q&A meeting at photokina, but it looks like I was wrong.
Maybe this summary from LUF moderator Andy Barton is actually the official LUF summary ?
Anyway, basicly still the same message with regards to future platform for the R lenses.

 

[Chuck Jones]

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.

I finally gave up and sold all my R gear save for a couple of lenses I am using on a 7D for video. I don't believe they will ever resurrect the R line, digital or otherwise I am sad to say. :angry: So count me +1 on being another sucker who held on too long. Besides, the new M9 in trade will get a bunch of work between now and eternity if they make a new R even then

Jono, I own this dang Nikon for simplicity of use in low light. Period. It's files are crap, I agree. I hate the dang things. My problem is most of my night stuff is so low light, a lot of the time it is almost impossible to get the shot on the fly and nail perfectly at the same time a correct exposure. Live action doesn't wait for any man. I should try the Sony again though as last time was just a few test fires.

 

[Seascape]

Well my 4 R lenses aren't going anywhere, they are all classics. I guess the R6 will just have to be their dedicated body for now and I'll wait out Leica to see if there is something coming down the road.

I must say if high performance shooting of a tripod is the objective (M's do the hand holding shooting), a MFD back is easy an affordable right now. Maybe a digital R is becoming redundant.

Thank goodness Hasselblad still supports V series lens owners, too bad Leica isn't doing the same for R glass owners

 

[Chuck Jones]

After seeing what i am getting out of my M9, trading in my old R glass for the new body has certainly been the best choice I could ever have made. As a working pro, I can't tie up a ton of money sitting on a shelf, or I would have no doubt kept my R glass collection as well. But just to avoid situations like this, my rule is if I haven't used it in the past year, it goes up on the block. Only way I can keep up with new gear investments....

 

[sinwen]

Personnally I keep my lenses because the money I'll get for them would be not worth.
Better fix them on a good body, as I am not after quick & fast snaping....