[Leica] M9 - the end of the line for Leica?

[Frank.Dernie at btinternet.com (Frank Dernie)]

I have long felt that digital camera systems should use electronics to 
correct those aberrations which -can- be thus corrected, such as distortion 
and, to an extent CA. The 4/3 mount standard allows for/encourages this. 
Incidentally it has come in for some criticism for this which I think is 
half-witted, personally. I would be surprised if P&S digitals have not done 
this for some time since the lens/sensor/electronics are integral, it would 
be daft not to. OTOH for existing lens mounts it is risky to do this since 
there will be always be someone who fits the lens to a film camera and go 
all wobbly about how awful modern digital lenses are... A bit like those who 
shoot raw with the Olympus and Panasonic 4/3 cameras then try to find a 
convertor which does -not- support the software correction to check how 
"wrong" the lens is. The idiot at photozone does this.
Frank

On 10 Nov, 2009, at 15:09, Lawrence Zeitlin wrote:

> Perhaps Dante Stella is correct in his assertion that the M9 may be the end
> of the M line for Leica. Indeed it may be the end of the line for digital
> cameras that emulate film cameras. As photographers who grew up using film
> age and leave the active camera market, camera design may turn in a
> different direction. We have already seen it happen in video cameras. 
> Modern
> camcorders have ilittle resemblance, either in form or function, to the the
> old Bell and Howell or Bolex. Here are some thoughts on camera evolution,
> probably brought on by too much single malt scotch while wearing my Tilly
> hat. Perhaps we sometimes forget that it is the image, not the lens or the
> camera, that is all important. If you are not interested in photographic
> technology, read no further. Just go out and take pictures.
> 
> The future of digital cameras, even for Leica should the firm survive, is
> software minimization of optical defects. Why not? This is nature's way. 
> The
> human eye, for example, has a primitive optical system, basically an F3.5,
> 25mm FL non-achromat doublet. The sharp image circle is about 3 mm in the
> center of the fovea giving a field of view of 3 degrees in a single
> fixation. The retina's "film speed" in daylight is roughly equivalent to 
> ISO
> 800 with a central resolving power, under perfect conditions, of
> approximately 68 l/mm. Looked at objectively, the raw image quality is 
> about
> the same as a Box Brownie. All those lovely, crisp, wide angle images you
> perceive are constructed by software processing in the brain.
> 
> Here is a partial list of what goes on. The projected image is encoded,
> focus is corrected, edges of objects are enhanced, colors are assigned to
> various portions of the image depending on which cells in the retina are
> activated, small image portions are stitched together as a function of
> eyeball position to form a whole percept, and an illusion of depth is
> created by the disparity of images from each eyeball. A pseudo image is
> created for blank spots (blind spot) in the retina. In addition, geometric
> shapes are corrected so that they accord with experience. Objects viewed at
> a distance are made to appear larger. Colors constancy is maintained 
> despite
> changes in the viewing light. And the same image enhancement techniques
> could be applied to tomorrow's digital cameras.
> 
> Microcomputer technology has reached the point where lens defects can be
> corrected in software better than in glass. The defects that are most 
> easily
> fixed are those of geometric representation. Pincushioning and barrel
> distortion corrections are almost trivial. Intensity fall off at the edge 
> of
> a wide angle image can be dealt with fairly easily provided sufficient
> information exists to let the software boost or subdue a portion of the
> image. Coma, astigmatism, and field curvature are harder to fix but all 
> have
> been done in special purpose packages. Most difficult, at least with a
> planar sensor are color refractive aberrations.
> 
> The fact that most geometric aberrations can be corrected in software frees
> up lens designers. They can concentrate on creating faster multifocal
> lenses, or superior performance lenses with fewer elements. This is not a
> new idea. Image defects have been corrected by other means for decades.
> Extreme wide angle lenses (Hypergon, etc.) often used a variable density
> filter, darker in the center than the edges, to equalize image density
> across the frame. Some cameras, both cheap and very expensive, used curved
> film planes to compensate for curvature of field. The Kodak Brownie, the
> Minox, and large astronomical telescopes all used this trick. Even Leica
> uses offset micro lenses to change the angle of light rays at the edge of
> the field.
> 
> So here is what I envision for a future generation of digital cameras.  At
> the final stage of manufacture, a lens, fitted to its camera body, is
> focused on a diagnostic target. The image from the camera's sensor is
> compared with a theoretically perfect image of the target. Pincushioning,
> barrel distortion, and image fall off are measured, corrected and the
> correction factors logged. If the lens is of variable focus design,
> corrections are logged for each focal length. Areas of poorer resolution 
> are
> determined and local sharpening is employed to provide uniform apparent
> quality over the field of view. A lookup table with all the corrections is
> burned on a microchip and incorporated into the lens mount.
> 
> When the lens is mounted to the camera, the camera's microcomputer notes 
> the
> corrections necessary to get a perfect image with that particular lens and
> adjusts its image processing to suit. In addition, dead pixels in the 
> sensor
> are mapped (hopefully very few) and a fill in algorithm is used to provide 
> a
> seamless image. Each lens that can be fitted to the camera carries its own
> lookup table for a "perfect image."
> 
> Will it be costly? Maybe at first, but the magic of electronics is an ever
> decreasing price curve. Once lens data chips and adaptive camera
> microcomputers are mass produced, and automatic lens calibration systems 
> are
> developed, the cost will almost certainly be lower than conventional 
> cameras
> of equivalent performance. Faster microcomputers will make the new digital
> cameras as responsive as the old film cameras. After all, it is much 
> cheaper
> to make a digital chip than a precision lens element. Did I mention that I
> bought a half dozen full function scientific digital calculators for $1 
> each
> at the Dollar store?
> 
> Nature doesn't depend on perfect optics to provide a perfect image. Why
> should Leica?
> 
> Of course all this may never come to pass. Both the Mayans and Hollywood
> predict that the world will come to an end in 2012. My ordinary Leica will
> be good enough to take pictures of the last few minutes. Maybe alien space
> travelers will see them.
> 
> Larry Z
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information