Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/10/15
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]It is quite likely that Leica investigated a 35mm size sensor for the M, found sensors that size cost a fortune just for the sensor, looked at the resolution required to match M film resolution and found that it was not possible to achieve in the edges and corners because of the physical limitations of the then sensors. A combination of very expensive sensor and resolution in the edges and corners which may be criticised by the old school Leica faithful got them to make the statements they did a few years ago. Maybe reducing the sensor size and sensor resolution allows the shortcomings to be within the reach of a software solution. Maybe the simple fact that the Epson is produced led them to feel they HAD to do something. We will perhaps never know - particularly if compromise is used :-) I note that the Epson has correction software included for CV lenses. I see considerable "vignetting" in uncorrected WA shots. I own and use a 15mm on my M6 frequently, it does not vignette as much full frame as the 1.5 cropped digital files show. I think the apparent vignetting seen in the digital pictures is due to the geometrical effects at the sensor wells, not optical vignetting. I would speculate that the correction software is compensating for the loss of light in the outer region sensor pits due to the angle of the rays from these deeply inset lenses. To what extent this is a genuine 100% correction and to what extent it is a "fudge" I have no idea. There is no correction software AFAIK for any of the Leica lenses and the profiles in the correction, if it is as I speculate, will depend on the geometry of the lens, not its focal length. Maybe the digital M has only become "possible" because people are baying for it, not because it has suddenly become technically feasible to achieve the resolution originally sought. With lower resolution standards (?) Epson has shown that it is feasible. There are aspects of the qualities of lenses clearly visible even on small web pictures, such as boke and lack of flare. High resolution is not the only good feature of our Leica lenses. In fact I would argue that if one usually prints A4 sized the resolution is nowhere near the most important aspect of the lens. Certainly I have a box full of much admired A4 prints taken with my old 3.3 megapixel Canon EOS D30, resolution is perfectly acceptable in these. I will probably buy an Epson RD1 and I shall be content with the resolution at 6 megapixels and will expect to see the benefits of the Leica look in my pictures from it. I accept that it will probably not have the ultimate resolution potential of film, but since I rarely, if ever, exploit the ultimate resolution of my lenses (you know, tripod, ultra high res film, optimum stop, vast enlargement) and it is other aspects of my Leica lenses I most appreciate, I am sure I shall be pleased to have it. If a digital M offers something I want over and above this I will probably get one of those too. I expect it to be extremely expensive. Logically, since the bulk of product cost is R&D, design and tooling rather than piecepart cost the price of and M with, say, the same digital specification as a EOS1DSMk2 would equal the cost of the EOS multiplied by the ratio of sales volume. I have no idea what the ratio of sales volume is but I, as an engineer, would be pretty impressed if they could profitably sell a digital M in the likely volumes if the price is much less than ten times the EOS price. OTOH it is clearly possible to produce a smaller sensor, smaller buffer, lower resolution unit for much less. Frank On 15 Oct, 2004, at 04:01, feli wrote: > Well, contrary to popular opinion, I'm going to make a wild guess here > and > say that some preliminary research has been going on for a few years. > I really don't think they are a complete bunch of idiots. For one > thing I believe > that they feel that it has to be full frame, and it's really only been > in the last > year that full frame chips have matured and come down enough in price > to make it a viable option for them. I think they can scrape by for > another > year and half and well see something quite good. I downloaded the hires > test images from the R-Module and they look pretty damn good. If the > high > ISO pics hold up they may have something really special. > > Feli > > On Oct 14, 2004, at 7:35 PM, B. D. Colen wrote: > >> If they don't get it right with the digital R and sell a boat load of >> them they won't be around to produce the digital M. They're already >> losing money, and the R line has been a loser for a number of years. >> So >> they're not in a position to screw around. If they'd been smart, they >> would have started work on the digital M back when Cosina reportedly >> did >> - rather than tell everyone that such a camera was an impossibility - >> and have it out by now. Because the M is where the potentially huge >> market is. But that would have taken a modicum of marketing savy. ;-) > > > ________________________________________________________ > feli2@earthlink.net > www.elanphotos.com > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >