Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2017/02/02
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]The original 4/3?s format spec was with all the rays of the back of lens
hitting the film plane directly on a 90-degree angle as there was plenty of
distance between the film plane and the back of the lens... A long throw. At
the obvious cost of a smaller format camera with no smaller body... I?m not
even sure those cameras are even made any more people would just must rather
have a smaller camera when shooting a smaller format. The micro 4/3?s spec.
Its less embarrassing. And let the micro lenses on the sensor do all the
work.
I?ve done a lot of shooting like most people here with older lenses designed
for film but in the past few years have been slowly and persistently
accumulating the most current glass from Nikon. Those have all been 1.8?s.
They are just out and cutting edge for Nikon, sharp as heck, fast but not
too fast. They cost half a grand USD not a grand and a half like a 1.4. Some
think of them as ?prosumer? but the specs surpass most of the 1.4?s. The
bulk and weight sure does. Nikon is no longer set at making glass which
squeeze into the 52mm filter parameter at the front. (Canon?s were 55mm and
Olympus were 49mm?s) The current lens designs have way bigger front elements
and feel to be puffed up with a bicycle pump. They are nowhere as compact as
before but they often are lighter in weight. Like mini dirigibles. It?s like
they are filled with helium
I?ve put most of my manual focus and early auto focus glass in a bottom draw
and never use or think about them. They are unloved. Everything I see and
play with is new new new. G lenes they are called.
I use a slightly Leica like kit of 50mm, 35mm, and 80mm all new 1.8?s. And
all designed with digital in mind. And I noticed my output may be
better for it.
--
Mark William Rabiner
Photographer
On 2/1/17, 3:53 AM, "LUG on behalf of Frank Dernie"
<lug-bounces+mark=rabinergroup.com at leica-users.org on behalf of
Frank.Dernie at btinternet.com> wrote:
All sensors have micro lenses over them, if I understand correctly, to
compensate for the non-light -sensitive portions of the chip and concentrate
all the light onto the sensitive bit. The difference is between the
micro-lens positions relative to the pixel. On most sensors there is a
symmetrical micro-lens array over the whole sensor for the M sensor the
microlenses are directly over the pixels in the centre of the sensor but are
increasingly offset towards the centre as the distance of the pixel from the
centre of the sensor increases thereby partly compensating for the fact that
the typical rangefinder lens has an exit pupil much closer to the sensor
than lenses originally designed for reflex cameras.
Those of us old enough, and interested enough, to have followed the
development of digital photography will remember the early Sony and,
particularly, Olympus publicity pointing out that lenses designed for film
were not necessarily suitable for use on a digital sensor.
I am sure that has not changed but two things have, firstly lenses
designed in the last decades will have been designed with this in mind, and
sensors will have microlens arrays to compensate to a degree.
Clearly if there are offset microlenses then these can only be
absolutely spot-on for one exit pupil distance, and fine for a range either
side, depending on the actual geometry.
I wonder if all sensors have offset microlenses nowadays, just not as
much as the M sensor, since few, if any, lenses have their exit pupils at
infinity which would be the optimum for a symmetrical position?
Frank D.
> On 31 Jan 2017, at 07:12, Frank Filippone <red735i at verizon.net>
wrote:
>
> To add to John's response...... and what I write is my firm belief,
but I have no facts to support it.... ( why should that matter, this IS the
Internet isn't it?)
>
> Leica seems to interpret a "Sensor" as the assembly of silicon chip,
case, glass cover, micro lenses, and PCB to hold it all as a "Sensor" and
possibly the image processing chip. In a recent interview with Stephan
Daniels, he is asked about the sensor and responds in this way.
> I am an Integrated Circuit guy..... which means I interpret the ward
"sensor" to mean the silicon chip.... No more, no less.
>
> When Leica says the M10 sensor is different from the SL sensor, and
using Daniels' interpretation, adding the micro lenses to the SL chip would
make it a "new" sensor..... ditto new PCB or image processor or....
changing to eh Maestro II processor would be a "new" sensor......... you get
the idea....
>
> My guess is that after spending a small fortune on the M240 sensor (
remember Leica had it designed by CMOSIS and fabbed by STM Microelectronics
and or Fujitsu, unclear which is the current foundry), that the IC chip
inside is the same from all 3 cameras... what IS different among the 3, is
the micro lenses, cover glass plate, and for sure the accompanying PCB that
supports it all, and image processing chip with its attendant FW.....
>
> M240 = Maestro processor, micro lenses
> SL Processor = remove the micro lenses
> M10 processor = Maestro II processor, micro lenses
>
> So if Frank is right, how does he explain the differences in the
optical outputs, which are very different between the 3 cameras?
>
> The output of the sensor goes to the image processing chip...... now
the Maestro 2 processor. The firmware written for this chip has been
changed and improved... thus different outputs....
> Do I have ANY data to prove this? Nope, it just makes most sense
financially and in an engineering sense..... and why the M10 has only a 24MP
sensor, rather than the larger MP output that was expected....
>
> How would this be proved? Using a microscope and looking at the
sensor chip.. With experience it is easy to tell if the chips are the same
or different........
>
> It is always more sexy to say you have a NEW and IMPROVED sensor than
to say you have a tweaked sensor.....
>
> References to Tide products is fully intentional.....
>
> Frank Filippone
>
> Red735i at verizon.net
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: LUG [mailto:lug-bounces+red735i=verizon.net at leica-users.org]
On Behalf Of John McMaster
> Sent: Monday, January 30, 2017 11:05 AM
> To: Leica Users Group
> Subject: Re: [Leica] URL: M10 interview with Stefan Daniel
>
> Because there is a short distance between the rear element and the
sensor there are micro lenses to aid as you get further from the sensor.
Also a thinner glass cover.
>
> http://www.the.me/the-leica-m-max-sensor-explained/
>
> These are the reasons that M non-retrofocus lenses do not play well
with standard Sony, and I have read neither with the SL, compared to SLR
style lenses.
>
> john
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> What does this mean:
>
> "Jesko: It?s true that it is a really brand new sensor. Of course the
experience from SL and Q take action also in developing the sensor for the M
system. It is not the same, even though it is same spec 24 MP and the
performance is also quite similar. but it is a unique sensor, and M lenses
need a special certain design especially the micro lens shift, special glass
package.?
>
> I?m wondering about the last sentence about micro lens shift and
special glass package? Is that about the sensor or the lens that needs the
special design?
>
> Thanks
>
> Adam
>
>> On 2017 Jan 30, at 5:33 AM, John McMaster <john at mcmaster.fr> wrote:
>>
>>
http://leicarumors.com/2017/01/29/leica-m10-interview-why-no-video-where-is-the-typ-label-compressed-dng-files-and-more.aspx/#more-44744
>>
>> john
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
_______________________________________________
Leica Users Group.
See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information