Leica RDigital Back

[dirk]

"in 12 months I believe anything less than a full frame sensor (CCD ro CMOS) will just not cut the mustard."

This is actually a very interesting statement and question at the same time. Although I agree with you nat the moment, if you look at the efforts of Olympus with their 4/3 system, there seem to be still companies, who think differently.

There is no standard in chip design yet as it is in "film design". Nowadays 24x36 for film is the standard and different companies try to make the best body around it.

But with digital chips, nobody knows excatly who will be the winner at the end. I know that Contax for ex&le does not think about anything smaller then full size chip for the contax SLR-line seriously. For them this is the way to go and at the moment it seems to be the best "compromise", since we can use every lens as we are used to use it.

But they have to drop their pants first and show everybody that they really know how to build the right body with the right price and do the appropriate marketing to avoid such a reputation-desaster like with the ND.

In general I do not think that we are already at a point where we can be sure what the standard will be in 3 years. If technology advances in the speed as it was within the last 5 years, then it might be possible to have a smaller chip with the same performance as a fullsize chip and maybe also new lenses which fill the gap especially in the wide-angle area.

I am very curious how the success of the new Olympus system will be (look at www.olympusinfo.com). Hopefully it will be available til December. This could be a success or also a huge loss for them.

In the past, Olympus demonstrated that they know what they are doing. They build very good tiny SLR cameras and since some years they also prooved with the E-20 that they know something about digital photography.

Also Nikon is interesting to watch. They announced this new wideangle lens to compensate the disadvantage of the non-fullsize chip. So this is a different alternative to the problem of smaller chips.

And Leica did a smart move with the anouncement/rumour of the digital back: All Leica fans will wait now til 2004 before they buy something else. I think Leica knows that if they would not announce something for the future, everybody would at least try all the Canons, Nikons et alii digital cameras.

If you think about it, a rumour at least one year in advance (we do not know when in 2004 it will be available) is nothing worth. So many things can change til then. Leica can not seriously know what they have to deliver to compete seriously in 2004. And therefore I do not think that they risk to give to many details now already about it.

Otherwise they risk the same as Contax experienced with the ND. To announce something with detailed specs to early and then not beeing able to deliver in time and match the then changed demand of the users.

To say it over-pronounced this rumour/announcement is in my opinion "their last hope" to keep the clients in a good mood. Say something to give hope, but say not too much to get into trouble

Just my 2cents...

Dirk

 

[sclamb]

Marc

I love Leica and am a user of many cameras and lenses. However, this would just be so expensive as a route into digital. Using UK prices:

R9 £1,500
Fast APO lens (180 f/2 say) £3,000
Digital back £4,000 (guess)

That's £8,500 to get into Leica digital with ONE lens and little automation (and if it is not a full frame sensor then less than optimum quality from the APO lens)! Love them as I do, even I know that is crazy money, especially when I can get Leica quality using the R lens on a Canon with adapter and full frame sensor.

As I said, based on similar rumours and speculation. Now if the back was £1,000 then that would be a different story and quite attractive (other than the image quality aspect).

Simon

 

[sclamb]

Dirk

Good points. I am not convinced ny the 4/3 initiative as we are talking about yet another new system and format.

There are enough legacy 35mm lenses in the world, and production waiting to be sold, that a full frame (35mm frame that is) chip at the right price in a quality camera would do very well. Add to that the development cost of a new lens line to take advantage of any sensor format other than 35mm, and it will start to be very costly for manufacturers to make digital offerings.

Canon seem to be the closest with the 1DS, just a shame that the 10D is not full frame, but they have proved a lot of other things with the 10D.

Simon

 

[sdmjr]

Simon make an interesting point. However, look at it from the other side. I own and use twenty Leica R lenses. The Digital Back for me is an excellent idea. Using a Canon with an adapter ring takes away the automatic diaphragm and invites trouble.
Happy Snaps,
Sal

 

[sclamb]

Sal

Would you want a full 35mm sensor or would you settle for a compromise on the full imaging quality of your lenses wiht a smaller sensor size. Also, would there be a price point at which you would say 'no'?

Simon

 

[sdmjr]

Simon, Of course, I would prefer a full frame 35mm sensor. I do not see how the smaller sensor compromises image quality. The price point is a tough question. First of all, I do NOT want a second slr system for digital. Unless, I can replace my entire Leica R system & lenses and add a couple of digital bodies for less than the cost of the digital backs, I'm staying with Leica. Maybe, I'm the exception, but I found, in the long run, my overall costs have been less with Leica inspite of the high initial cost.
Happy Snaps, Sal

 

[sclamb]

Sal

The optical quality is compromised because the optical formula for a lens where light falls on a frame size of 36X24mm is diferent to that needed for a sensor that is of smaller dimensions. This is especially noticeable around the edges of the image in the smaller frame.

If you are using a lens where the design is optimised for 35mm size then it will not perform optimally on a smaller sensor - the image will be degraded (although many will not notice the difference).

There is a web site somewhere with diagrams that explain all this and it was in a magazine I read recently.

Simon

 

[dirk]

"compromised optical quality with smaller chips"

As far as I understand it, there is always a negative effect with smaller chips. For prints of the same size, you have to enlarge images made with a smaller chip more then with a fullsize chip to get the same final print size.

Depending on the chip you are using, you will have the same difference as with film cameras between 35mm and Medium Format.

For decades this was a big issue and the major reason why many people preferred Medium Format over 35mm. It surprises me that this is not taken into account at all while talking about different chip-sizes.

Is the quality requirements of most users lowering for the sake of seeing the image immediately?

The cost factor can not be an issue for private users (non-professionals) as the investments necessary to have the same flexibility as with film cameras is huge (body, flashcards etc., batteries, laptop, harddisks or DVDs) and some negative points as power cord almost everywhere and 20kg luggage.

Dirk

 

[Craig24]

Dirk

Apart from actual chip size and pixel count, the degree digital noise generated is a big part of the equation. A smaller chip that produces less noise is always going to be better than a full frame noisy chip. The 10MP Leica APS chip mooted here has awesome specs. On the surface, it should compete very well with Canon's much-vaunted 1Ds. If the Leica sensor produces as much noise as the 1Ds then any of the reputed image quality benefits gained from the use of Leica glass must be diminished.

I’m on record as being a sceptic as to the benefits of high quality film optics as applied to direct digital capture. I see digital capture as a totally separate medium with its own qualities, advantages and disadvantages. To compare it directly to film is IMHO a mistake. It is a totally different light sensitive system. Direct comparisons are like confusing Carbon Transfer with Platinum-Palladium. After all they are both alt. printing processes are they not?

I’ve seen fine 12 x16†enlargements of wallabies (small kangaroos) standing amongst tall summer glass. A good test for dig. imagery. All made with a Canon 60D some with L series glass and some with Leica and adaptor, despite claims of the artist I couldn’t tell the difference. These were exhibition standard inkjet technology prints made on good quality artist rag paper. Perhaps a better comparison could be made if the output was a Lambda or Frontier?

IMHO the only advantage to a 24 x 36mm sized chip is that 35mm film photographers don’t have to apply a focal length conversion factor. I have also seen stunning large exhibition Frontier prints made from a file captured by a Fuji Finepix (factor 1.6) and Nikon lens. These things look like they were made on a 66 Blat or Rollei, and have three dimensional effects to put the Leica myth to shame.

From what I have seen, it is the skill of the dry darkroom printer that has the greatest influence on final print quality in digital imaging, not the quality of the optics nor the chip size.

Cheers to all, craig

 

[sclamb]

Craig

Please share with us the 'awesome specs' of the Leica R digital sensor that you have seen and where you saw them.

Thanks.

Simon