Roger Hicks
Veteran
This was, from information I have, MUCH less of a factor in the disappearance of the camera than the unavailability of the sensor. Your suggestion may have been a factor, but the non-availability of the sensor was decisive.
Cheers,
R.
Pablito
coco frío
OK, I chose it. Now how do I pay for it? I went to the store to get mine but I left empty handed. They insisted on payment.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
For sure, it has to be. No part ... can't make them. ;-)
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Save up the money before you go to the store.
icebear
Veteran
oh please ... no discussion about the "crop factor" of cameras using other than a proper Barnack size sensor
.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
oh please ... no discussion about the "crop factor" of cameras using other than a proper Barnack size sensor
You mean the original Barnack, the Ur-Leica of two years later, or the first production Leica? ];-)
icebear
Veteran
The Ur-Leica using 24x36mm (double the old cine format of 18x24mm).
Darthfeeble
But you can call me Steve
{Film M bodies (1,2,3,4,4-2,4-p,5,6).
The real deal for a fraction of the price of a M9.}
I tried shoving that film stuff into the slot on my computer and nothing happened. ?? S
The real deal for a fraction of the price of a M9.}
I tried shoving that film stuff into the slot on my computer and nothing happened. ?? S
kshapero
South Florida Man
sure but we are talking digital. Hint: I am an M3 and Nikon F user.
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
People are smarter than you give them credit for. For most people the salient feature of the lens is not its focal length, but its field of view, in degrees. Absolute focal length is for most purposes a less useful thing to think about.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
If that's true, then you shouldn't refer to FoV by focal length in MM, you should refer to it by degrees in Horizontal and Vertical, or Diagonal.
Field of View is only related to focal length in the context of a particular format, and even in the film-only world there are a dozen or more commonly used formats.
dct
perpetual amateur
You got already a few answers and assumptions, why the R8/R9 digital backs were not a success. I would also add the specifications (1.4x crop, 10 MP). Compared to new DSLR offerings appearing from CaNikon it wasn't worth the price.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Well, the whole run of (3600) DMR sold out pretty quickly, they still command high prices despite their age and limited servicability. I cannot rate that as a lack of success. 1.3 crop btw. The files are still amongst the best I know. CCD, uncompressed 16 bit color depth and no AA filter give them a head start on the offerings from the far East.
The idea died because Leica wanted to buy Imacon (the builder), but Hasselblad snapped it up, resulting in a corporate dust-up with the DMR as casualty.
The idea died because Leica wanted to buy Imacon (the builder), but Hasselblad snapped it up, resulting in a corporate dust-up with the DMR as casualty.
dave lackey
Veteran
Yes, so successful I can hardly even find one to buy, they just aren't up for sale very often!
I have two dream cameras in my life....an R9+DMR and an M9. That is about the only thing that would make me box up the R4 and the M3.
icebear
Veteran
Dave,
don't sell your M3, you will regret it someday.
don't sell your M3, you will regret it someday.
giellaleafapmu
Well-known
That's exactly why half-frame cameras are called half-frame: they are half of the mandatory double...
GLF
giellaleafapmu
Well-known
Ben Z
Veteran
You really don't think Leica could have found another company on this planet who could have built more DMRs at least as well and probably more economically as Imacon?
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Highly unlikely - the system was basically a quarter-size Phase One digital back adapted to the R8. They ordered a run of max. 5000 without any intention of continuing the series.
The intention was to continue with an integrated DSLR, but in the final stages of planning it was found that the camera would cost in excess of 6000 Euro, which given the Canikon competition would have priced the camera right out of the market, even if it might have been a superior camera. So then the decision was taken to pull the plug on the whole R system. The right decision imo, I might add. It was a money pit from beginning to end. Culminating in the R8/9. The development costs drove the company into an -fortunately unconsummated- state of bankruptcy without ever selling in the numbers needed, despite it being the best film SLR ever built. Except maybe the SL2, which lost money on each camera sold.
The intention was to continue with an integrated DSLR, but in the final stages of planning it was found that the camera would cost in excess of 6000 Euro, which given the Canikon competition would have priced the camera right out of the market, even if it might have been a superior camera. So then the decision was taken to pull the plug on the whole R system. The right decision imo, I might add. It was a money pit from beginning to end. Culminating in the R8/9. The development costs drove the company into an -fortunately unconsummated- state of bankruptcy without ever selling in the numbers needed, despite it being the best film SLR ever built. Except maybe the SL2, which lost money on each camera sold.