Do you want image stabilisation in camera?

[Doug]

Leica took a sharp turn in following the R series with the new S series dSLR, into a different pro-oriented market. I wonder if they might choose a similar turn in following the M with a N series of larger dRF cameras with the same 30x45mm sensor as the S2, and sharing most of the electronics and some other parts.

There is no other medium-format digital RF, so if there's any interest out there, the field is wide open. (Excluding Alpa etc non-RF options?) I expect it could be rather like a smaller Mamiya 7 in size and appearance, or like a Bronica RF though a bit shorter. Like the S2 it would be surprisingly compact for its capability. The lenses, like the S2's, would be unique to it, with no backwards legacy.

In such a case, I'd expect the M9 or similar successor to remain on the market as a lower-priced option with M compatibility.

What do you think? 🙂

Edit: If they were able to include image stabilization in the new N1 dRF, that would be quite a coup... There is no MF digital with that feature now. Perhaps it's infeasible, but the new Pentax 645D has sensor movement to shake off dust. It uses a similar Kodak 33x44 sensor... Maybe there was too much sensor mass to move it fast enough for IS.

 

[tlitody]

Leica took a sharp turn in following the R series with the new S series dSLR, into a different pro-oriented market. I wonder if they might choose a similar turn in following the M with a N series of larger dRF cameras with the same 30x45mm sensor as the S2, and sharing most of the electronics and some other parts.

There is no other medium-format digital RF, so if there's any interest out there, the field is wide open. (Excluding Alpa etc non-RF options?) I expect it could be rather like a smaller Mamiya 7 in size and appearance, or like a Bronica RF though a bit shorter. Like the S2 it would be surprisingly compact for its capability. The lenses, like the S2's, would be unique to it, with no backwards legacy.

In such a case, I'd expect the M9 or similar successor to remain on the market as a lower-priced option with M compatibility.

What do you think? 🙂

Edit: If they were able to include image stabilization in the new N1 dRF, that would be quite a coup... There is no MF digital with that feature now. Perhaps it's infeasible, but the new Pentax 645D has sensor movement to shake off dust. It uses a similar Kodak 33x44 sensor... Maybe there was too much sensor mass to move it fast enough for IS.

I think you've lost the plot. You don't need bigger format you need better sensor with more pixels and that R&D doesn't have to be done by leica. It's done by the sensor manufacturers so why would leica pay for it? They can use the M9 body with a better sensor as they become available. The S2 was required to satisfy the see through the lens and auto focus requirements of some photographers. So now now they have the only two chassis they need for digital.

 

[tlitody]

Leica took a sharp turn in following the R series with the new S series dSLR, into a different pro-oriented market. I wonder if they might choose a similar turn in following the M with a N series of larger dRF cameras with the same 30x45mm sensor as the S2, and sharing most of the electronics and some other parts.

There is no other medium-format digital RF, so if there's any interest out there, the field is wide open. (Excluding Alpa etc non-RF options?) I expect it could be rather like a smaller Mamiya 7 in size and appearance, or like a Bronica RF though a bit shorter. Like the S2 it would be surprisingly compact for its capability. The lenses, like the S2's, would be unique to it, with no backwards legacy.

In such a case, I'd expect the M9 or similar successor to remain on the market as a lower-priced option with M compatibility.

What do you think? 🙂

Edit: If they were able to include image stabilization in the new N1 dRF, that would be quite a coup... There is no MF digital with that feature now. Perhaps it's infeasible, but the new Pentax 645D has sensor movement to shake off dust. It uses a similar Kodak 33x44 sensor... Maybe there was too much sensor mass to move it fast enough for IS.

The mistake Leica made with S2 is using a 3:2 format instead of a 4:3 format which is better suited to pro photographers for fashion and portraiture IMO. But surely they must have done some market research before designing it. How often do you see 3:2 format images in a fashion magazine which are mostly printed in standard portrait format.

 

[Roger Hicks]

How often do you see 3:2 format images in a fashion magazine which are mostly printed in standard portrait format.

More often than you see the squat, ugly formats of 4:3 (1:1.3 recurring) or 4x5/8x10 (1:1.25). Arguably DIN A-series would be optimum (1.414 recurring) - which incidentally is quite close to 5x7 inch (1:1.4).

Cheers.

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I think you've lost the plot. You don't need bigger format you need better sensor with more pixels and that R&D doesn't have to be done by leica. It's done by the sensor manufacturers so why would leica pay for it? They can use the M9 body with a better sensor as they become available. The S2 was required to satisfy the see through the lens and auto focus requirements of some photographers. So now now they have the only two chassis they need for digital.

Certainly true for serious digital, and the X1 provides a snapshot chassis. All it needs is a viewfinder (and ideally a faster lens).

Cheers,

R.

 

[PKR]

Is there anyone technically minded enough to explain how it works ... in layman's terms?

It works like a gyroscope. If you remove a bike wheel from the bike and spin it and hold the axel ends with your hands and try to move the wheel while it's spinning, you will see a bit of how it works. Research: Gyro-stabilization.

 

[Richard Marks]

The mistake Leica made with S2 is using a 3:2 format instead of a 4:3 format which is better suited to pro photographers for fashion and portraiture IMO. But surely they must have done some market research before designing it. How often do you see 3:2 format images in a fashion magazine which are mostly printed in standard portrait format.

It is a bit early to say that they have made a mistake with the S2
I think timing is unfortunate to launch something 2-3x the price of Hasselblad H system in a world recession where fashion and advertising inevitably are getting less work.

I still think they have a mountain to climb taking on the H series. The other issue from a professional perspective is back up and servicing. If everything has to be sent to Germany with an 8 week turn around then this will not be tollerated lightly. Leica are offering immediate turn around for a mere extra £5,000 on the price but this is something they are not used to doing. On the other hand, if they only sell 10 world wide then support will not be a big problem!

Another issue is that Leica are insisting dealers buy a minimum of two units and no one is very keen on aquiring a demo.

Leica did announce that there would be a "solution" for R system users. Still no news. I deeply regret them abandoning this. Is the solution to buy CanNikon?Clearly R Glass is being used a lot on other DSLR's going by the shortage of second hand R glass. Surely they could at least have made some Nikon and Canon mounts onto the R series glass and this may have been quite profitable for relatively little effort? Oh for a 50 lux R in Nikon mount.

On the heated discussion about the size of an M platform body I am personally quite relaxed about this and do not insist that it fits into a pocket in my plus fours. But then in my case i still have some sensory loss in my hands after spinal surgery and find the perfectly rounded M a bit slippy! Something ruberised and a bit chunky is actually quite a lot better! Im guessing any one with worn out hands might think the same.


best wishes


Richard

 

[tlitody]

More often than you see the squat, ugly formats of 4:3 (1:1.3 recurring) or 4x5/8x10 (1:1.25). Arguably DIN A-series would be optimum (1.414 recurring) - which incidentally is quite close to 5x7 inch (1:1.4).

Cheers.

R.

4:3 or 4:5 (same as 8:10) or something else but the point is the marketing seems targetted at advertising and fashion and for that it would have made sense to design a camera which doesn't have to be rotated for portrait format and which doesn't have a format which is so wide.
I think they have designed to cover location and journalism work which has not made it so suitable for fashion and portrait. It's trying to accomodate too many groups of photographers by using the 3:2 format. Just my opinion(which is not expert)

 

[Roger Hicks]

4:3 or 4:5 (same as 8:10) or something else but the point is the marketing seems targetted at advertising and fashion and for that it would have made sense to design a camera which doesn't have to be rotated for portrait format and which doesn't have a format which is so wide.
I think they have designed to cover location and journalism work which has not made it so suitable for fashion and portrait. It's trying to accomodate too many groups of photographers by using the 3:2 format. Just my opinion(which is not expert)

Sorry, don't agree AT ALL. A lot of experience in a hire studio as an assistant (mostly advertising, some fashion, automotive, you name it...), quite apart from all the other photographers I've known and my own 44 years of photography (about 36 years of publication) lead me to believe that turning a camera on its side is something that most professionals do automatically when they need to, unless they have a camera with a revolving or reversing back. No-one I have ever met is going to crop a portrait chunk out of a landcape image, except in the case of a grab shot where they didn't have the optimum focal length on the camera.

Cheers,

R.

 

[tlitody]

Sorry, don't agree AT ALL. A lot of experience in a hire studio as an assistant (mostly advertising, some fashion, automotive, you name it...), quite apart from all the other photographers I've known and my own 44 years of photography (about 36 years of publication) lead me to believe that turning a camera on its side is something that most professionals do automatically when they need to, unless they have a camera with a revolving or reversing back. No-one I have ever met is going to crop a portrait chunk out of a landcape image, except in the case of a grab shot where they didn't have the optimum focal length on the camera.

Cheers,

R.

Hasselblad use 4:3 format ratio. PhaseOne use 4:3 format ratio. Mamiya use 4:3 format ratio.

Are you telling me that Leica as complete newbies to the professional studio photographer market with the S2 have trumped these other players by going to 3:2 format ratio? They have certainly kept to their ethos of doing it differently but at the same time, they seem to be trying to redefine what pro studio photographers need. We'll see.

 

[Roger Hicks]

No, all I'm arguing about is turning a camera on its side. At that point, which format you use is a matter of personal preference. I don't think it has anything to do with fashion, portrait or anything else.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Richard Marks]

Hasselblad use 4:3 format ratio. PhaseOne use 4:3 format ratio. Mamiya use 4:3 format ratio.

Are you telling me that Leica as complete newbies to the professional studio photographer market with the S2 have trumped these other players by going to 3:2 format ratio? They have certainly kept to their ethos of doing it differently but at the same time, they seem to be trying to redefine what pro studio photographers need. We'll see.

Id be more worried about the after sales support than the format if i were having to rely on an S2. Leica's repais have traditionally been something of a cottage industry. Also Leica have not the best record with electronics and certainly the digitasl M series has taken at least 3 years to iron out the problems. I can not believe there are many photographers who are buying two S2's to allow for backup.

Best wishes

Richard

 

[tlitody]

Id be more worried about the after sales support than the format if i were having to rely on an S2. Leica's repais have traditionally been something of a cottage industry. Also Leica have not the best record with electronics and certainly the digitasl M series has taken at least 3 years to iron out the problems. I can not believe there are many photographers who are buying two S2's to allow for backup.

Best wishes

Richard

Doesn't have IS either 😉

 

[Richard Marks]

Doesn't have IS either 😉

Ah skillfully returned to the actual origin of the thread.
no IS and no cleavage recognition software either. How will the fashion photogs ever cope😉

Richard

 

[tlitody]

Ah skillfully returned to the actual origin of the thread.
no IS and no cleavage recognition software either. How will the fashion photogs ever cope😉

Richard

In reality the S2 is a nikon or canon with a bigger sensor. It isn't a studio camera IMO. I think it's designed as a location camera for professionals given its price. When it comes to digital, Leica simply can't claim the high ground because the technology changes too fast so one week one manufacturer has it and the next week another has it. For the money I'd rather buy a Sony with a spare body or two and zeiss glass and I'd still have change to play with.
And the sony has sensor IS. 😉

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

Sorry, don't agree AT ALL. A lot of experience in a hire studio as an assistant (mostly advertising, some fashion, automotive, you name it...), quite apart from all the other photographers I've known and my own 44 years of photography (about 36 years of publication) lead me to believe that turning a camera on its side is something that most professionals do automatically when they need to, unless they have a camera with a revolving or reversing back.

What?!? Experience relevant on the Intertoobes?!? I thought fact-challenged opinions always trumped experience :bang:



:angel:

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

BTW, if they're going to put image stabilization in the M9, why not add auto-focus? And a radio tuner w/MP3 player. And a pentaprism. Oooh! and a pop-up flash.

 

[tlitody]

BTW, if they're going to put image stabilization in the M9, why not add auto-focus? And a radio tuner w/MP3 player. And a pentaprism. Oooh! and a pop-up flash.

I take it you voted no then😀

 

[tlitody]

No, all I'm arguing about is turning a camera on its side. At that point, which format you use is a matter of personal preference. I don't think it has anything to do with fashion, portrait or anything else.

Cheers,

R.

But turn an S2 on its side and you have a poor format. I've always thought 3:2 doesn't make a good portrait format. So you can crop but the 3:2 format doesn't help with composition and framing when in portrait orientation. YMMV.

 

[Richard Marks]

In reality the S2 is a nikon or canon with a bigger sensor. It isn't a studio camera IMO. I think it's designed as a location camera for professionals given its price. When it comes to digital, Leica simply can't claim the high ground because the technology changes too fast so one week one manufacturer has it and the next week another has it. For the money I'd rather buy a Sony with a spare body or two and zeiss glass and I'd still have change to play with.
And the sony has sensor IS. 😉

If only it were a Nikon or Canon with larger sensor it would have UK service support, reliable Japanese electronics and it would be very considerably less expensive. Agreed Leica can not compete in the electronics fast lane but their optics are pearless (at least the 35mm format and I assume the S ones are too). Hasselblad solved this via Fuji. I can only think that Leica would benefit hugely by a collaborative approach. Not only would this bring huge R and D funding but there would also be some one else to carry the can if something flopped! Obviously Leica would loose some control but I suspect we would benefit as users with a better product in the greater scheme of things.

Out of interest what would folks prefer in their M10, German electronics as is, or a reworking from one of the two Japanese camera giants?

Best wishes

Richard