R 10 update

[parisian]

Tiny little paragraph in this weeks BJP
"Leica now says that pricing for its forthcoming S2 camera has yet to be determined and that a January 2010 launch for version 10 of its R camera is not planned."
This is a correction to information given to BJP by a Leica spokesman reported in the 11 March issue.
When is Photokina? perhaps they prefer to launch on home ground.

[parisian]

Just thinking away
A brand new 'system' camera that is aimed at the 'pro' market has to arrive complete with system; lenses, flash, macro etc.
Now the R10 is vaguely said to have AF capability and 3 or 4 new AF, undoubtedly zoom lenses. There is the new flash - SF58 - but little else. There is also supposed to be backwards compatibility with the legacy lenses.
Surely it is these lenses that would allow them to announce a true system? New lenses are a given but they will be completey different to any that Leica have produced before and many current R users while wanting the convenience of digital will also want to continue with manual focus and known quality.
Stopping production of the R9 is sensible, it probably wasn't selling anyway but stopping production of the lens system as well seems to be shooting themselves in the foot. Perhaps there is a stockpile of R glass but I find this the most worrying of the recent announcements.
The launch of an incomplete system can only fail.

[Staropramen]

My understanding is that this scenario has been known, but not publicised, for many months. Sure some dealers have been optimistic - possibly overly so - and some have taken deposits for the S2 and possibly even the R10. But amongst others that I speak to regularly and who have pretty close links with Leica UK, there's been a pretty clear understanding that delays were going to push a release date back significantly.

It might be reasonable to assume that changing economic circumstances are likely to impact on Leica more than on the volume brands, even if delays are not especially of a technical nature. But given Leica's track record, I would expect the release of the R10 to be much later than is currently anticipated.

I agree that owners of older R lenses might reasonably expect a good degree of backwards compatibility from the R10: I would too, though I wouldn't be surprised if this was only partial, or didn't actually happen. But equally, I'd like to see a bug-free R10 without firmware/sensor/filter issues from the start, and with a decent range of lenses, so if a short delay would ensure all such issues are sorted, I'd be moderately content. An R10 would be my last-ever camera purchase - it'd better be good.

However, a delay of much more than a year would make me look at a FF Nikon of Canon, possibly even a second-user Medium format digital camera. If a significant number of other potential R10 customers think this way, Leica could be looking at a much smaller market than is anticipated today. After all, the other big companies have a massive head-start in digital cameras compared to Leica, and they have hitherto been able to thump out model after model, upgrade after upgrade, to a growing market, at a pace that Leica could never achieve. I'm not in the mood to wait 12 months for a digital camera that might be old in concept, long in gestation, has virtually no pedigree, is very expensive - and (so far) has an ambiguous specification.


I didn't buy an M8 because of the delays and technical issues - and now never will. And if a 'fully backwards-compatible' M7 and 21mm Asph. came along at a decent price my interest in an R10 would be extinguished instantly.

[Mark_Norton]

My reading of Leica's announcement is that they are drawing a line under the R which has never delivered the sales needed to justify the investment required to keep it up to date. The most recent figures I have for the split between R and M show the R accounted for 1/4 of the M sales and this was before the M8 was launched since when the position is probably even more polarised.

What I worry about is that some of the R lenses are among the very best 35mm SLR lenses ever made and, at first sight, it looks like these are being dumped. I also look at DMR images which are clearly superior to M8 images. There's a three dimensionality to the DMR images which is just incredible. Zeiss have shown how a top lens design can be made available to work on Nikon, Canon and Sony platforms and it's a pity Leica did not see the opportunity to make the best of the R lenses available to other camera users.

As for the loose Leica cannon talking about the R10, a January launch was never realistic; most of the products they announced at Photokina (September 2008) are not yet available - I've had three of them on order since December and there's no date for any of them. We're hoping the S2 will be available by the end of this year, though the idea it will be priced between a D3 and D3x is in the realms of the fairies. The R is dead and if, on the back of the S, Leica think there's a market for an "entry level" SLR, it will owe more to the S than the R. I don't think anyone should make assumptions that their R lenses will work on a future Leica camera.

[Staropramen]

Zeiss have shown how a top lens design can be made available to work on Nikon, Canon and Sony platforms and it's a pity Leica did not see the opportunity to make the best of the R lenses available to other camera users.

Absolutely. It seems somewhat myopic of Leica to have hopped into bed with consumer oriented Panasonic without also exploiting the wider market for quality lenses used on quality cameras. Zeiss' strategy is equally odd though (as is Cosina Voigtlander's), in-so-far-as they are producing manual focus lenses in a era when the future of film and manual focus is hotly debated and while top marque camera manufacturers have abandoned manual focus lenses (and even aperture rings). These are 'funny' times!

My marketing motto is: 'Utimately, the most important question for a business to answer is not "What can you make?" but "What can you sell?" It seems that Canon, Nikon, Zeiss Voigtlander .... etc know this, but it appears to be eluding Leica.

[TimF]

But manual focus is better - less 'convenient' maybe, but still better.

As for your motto, it may be applicable is selling beans (or the equivalent in other areas). Leica, and other premium brands have never been about mere volume. Those names who remain successful in whatever field are so because they offer something the mass market doesn't. Customers go to them precisely because of those factors.

[parisian]

Mornin' Tim, indeed manual focus is still the way to go despite all the varieties of and improvements in AF. For me anyway there is always a hint of doubt until I have checked it on the rear screen. That of course takes a lot of the spontaneity out of a shoot.
Watching a rangefinder or split image SLR screen 'snap' into focus is still my preferred view.

[Staropramen]

Leica are great at making things that don't sell. And selling is more important to premium brands (because it critically affects cash-flow, profits and survival) as it is to volume brands with their larger resources and wider customerbase, etc. So, the motto still applies to them - there's no escape, unless Leica Cameras AG is being run as a rich man's hobby for other rich men with an endless supply of cash to tide them over poor performance and blunders ....... Ah! gotcha: Leica isn't a proper business, it's marginally profitable plaything - I forgot that bit!

[Zou]

Surely sticking with MF makes it easier for Cosina/Zeiss to vary the mount but keep performance level - they don't need to worry about AF speed/compatibility etc. Makes perfect sense to me.

And I agree with Tim, it's just better for my purposes.

[Mark_Norton]

I agree, Leica argue that AF actually compromises image quality because you have to make the mount loose - sloppy - enough for a small motor to focus the lens; MF is fine, but I would like auto-diaphragm operation which you also lose if you put an R lens on a Nikon with the correct mount. Open the lens to focus, manually stop down to shoot, not good.

At least the Zeiss lenses have an AIS mount so that you can focus and meter wide open and the lens stops down to the working aperture when you shoot.

[Staropramen]

I just spent a day in Lincoln with an SL2 and a R5: I didn't even think about taking my AF gear 'cos I wanted total control of every aspect, e.g. focus point depth of field, differential focus, hyperfocal focussing.

What a stress free day it was - with no cursing or muttering like "Just *beep* focus on what I *beep* want will you!"

[Benchista]

I agree, Leica argue that AF actually compromises image quality because you have to make the mount loose - sloppy - enough for a small motor to focus the lens;

Zeiss long argued the same way, too, and of course the first AF Contax SLR worked by moving the film plane, rather than the lens. But they managed to get round it to their satisfaction, and I don't think Leica's tolerances are an order of magnitude better than those of Zeiss, so I think Leica could manage it - if they could afford to.

[TimF]

The trouble is the inherent slop factor with existing AF systems; even the best AF points only "see" lenses as if they were stopped down to f/2.8 and the worst only as if the lens were at f/5.6. For fast lenses that is a real problem, especially when combined with the way some of those optics exhibit focus shift when stopped down. That, rather than the motor thing may be the real sticking point for Leica. Pretty much alone now, they design lenses to a maximum optical performance regardless of price, rather than the best possible IQ within a price limitation.

The design of AF capability is not a problem for Leica. They demonstrated, but never sold, an SL2 with autofocus as far back as 1976 (the AF design was sold to Minolta in exchange for shutter design information I believe).

[Mark_Norton]

The S2 is said to contain compensation for focus shift based on the lens attached so may well focus based on the predicted working aperture.

Tim, where does the idea that an AF system only sees a lens of f2.8 irrespective of its actual maximum aperture stem from?

[TimF]

Mark,
This is the best explanation I can find at present - clicky. You'll note that the maximum aperture seen on the central point is given here as f/5.6 - much worse than stated by me. Hopefully the indication that this information is confirmed by contact with Zeiss will give it the necessary credibility some sceptics will doubtless desire.

[parisian]

Interesting site that Tim, thank you.