[LRflex] Re: More speculation on the direction of the R10.
- From: "Neil Gould" <neil@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <leicareflex@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 7 May 2007 07:46:54 -0500
Hi David,
> Date: Sun, 06 May 2007 07:51:06 -0700
> From: David Young <telyt@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> So, consider this ... (Note: Speculation - not based on anything!)
>
> No digital photo I've ever seen matches the scans from my Nikon V-ED
> film scanner. At 4000 dpi a 35mm neg becomes a 24mb image when
> scanned!.
>
> Common wisdom says that Kodachrome 25 was equivalent to a 30mb
> sensor. Most medium to low ISO films are equivalent to a 24mb sensor.
>
I think we are members of a small minority that feel this way. I use my
ArtixScan 120tf 4000 dpi scanner to digitize 35mm & 6x6cm film with
results that digital cameras just can't achieve. Unfortunately, my Leaf 45
(5,000+ dpi) is a basket case, but it could beat the pants off of the 4000
dpi scanners for 35mm. And, a drum scan can beat the pants off of all
others. However, many photographers feel quite differently, as they
apparently prefer the image qualities where digital capture excells, such
as the lack of grain. Perhaps the issue is simply a preference for the
"look" of one medium or the other. The downside to our approach is that
quality scanning is a time consuming process, time that is only recouped
when one considers the archival storage of images. Film wins that one
hands-down.
> So... if we assume [a] that Leica really does want to lead the
> pack, once more, and [b] they can develop a dSLR that is viable in
> most other ways, why would they not use this emerging technology to
> produce a 30mb camera in either an APS-C, APS-H or even a 35mm frame
> sized sensor? With the lossless compression techniques used in the
> M8, the resulting file would be smaller than the 19.5mb files
> currently generated by the DMR, thus taking.
>
> With an 18 month lead time, and Canon just now talking of a new 1Ds
> Mk III with a 20mpixel (useable) sensor, a 30mp might give them the
> leg-up they need to jump ahead of the competition.
>
I don't think that Leica is in a position to either sponsor or manufacture
sensors. They'll have to use whatever they can get "off the shelf" from
one of the primary sensor manufacturers and try to make a difference in
the software. That's a tough row to hoe, considering the advances in the
image quality and user interface of the current crop of digicams. The less
distance between low-end and high-end results, the more difficult it will
be to justify the expense of the high-end.
On the same note, we are in a transitional period with regards to
expensive camera gear in general. To date, "Leica quality" applied mainly
to the mechanical structure of their film bodies and optical quality of
cherry-picked lenses. Until now, the expense of high-end digital cameras
was based on sensor and software R&D. However, we're approaching the
break-even point for those aspects and with CAD/CAM it is possible to
manufacture comparatively exotic bodies and lenses at very low cost.
Given that the microswitches and other circuitry will be largely the same
for all brands resulting in equivalent reliability, it may be difficult to
justify paying many times the cost for products of similar if not
equivalent performance. Perhaps we are seeing this at work in the sales
volume of Olympus eVolts vs. L1 and Digilux 3? If people can't see the
difference, they won't pay the difference.
> Adding auto-focus would give customers a good reason to buy new glass
> (what Leica really want!). Of course, it would have to be able to use
> my existing glass (via an adapter, or not) and offer focus
> confirmation with such glass. (AF with new lenses would be nice, but
> I'm more interested in preserving my current investment.)
>
> Adding mirror-up Live View, as done with the Canon ID Mk III and the
> coming 40D, would simply be a firmware proposition, as even in the R8
> & R9, the mirror and shutter are computer controlled.
>
> I have to admit, if they could produce such a camera, at the cost of
> an M8 (or very little more) that had the noise levels of the DMR
> (does not need to be any better), in an R8 (or smaller) body, while
> maintaining at least an R8 level viewfinder, I might forgive them
> their sins with my DMR!
>
I am fascinated by the success of the M8. Is it based in nostalgia for the
"M look" and a desire to use existing lenses, or has Leica introduced some
aspect of performance and/or functionality that makes it easy to justify
the cost?
Regards,
Neil
------
Unsubscribe or change to/from Digest Mode at:
http://www3.telus.net/~telyt/lrflex.htm
Archives are at:
//www.freelists.org/archives/leicareflex/
Other related posts:
