Jump to content

SL II Sensor Size increase?


sillbeers15

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

With the recent release of both the Hasselblad X1D & Fujifilm GFX50s mirrorless medium format digital cameras, I see a shift in medium format lens size (mind you these are AF not MF) reduction due to the fact that the lenses sit closer to the sensor in the absence of the DSLR mirror mechanism.

As for the Leica SL, the SL lenses also sit closer to the sensor but have grown in size and the mount diameter is somewhat similar to the R lenses. When one mounts the R lenses via the R to SL adapter, the R lenses sit some 30mm further. By the same logic, does it means that Leica SL system is designed with a provision for a larger sensor size for future SL cameras (on native lenses only)? Which explains the larger than expected SL native lenses? 

Even the X1D & GFX50s is regarded as medium format, their sensor size is smaller than the 100MP sensors.

If Leica SL system can succeed in producing future SLs with larger sensor size bigger than the current full frame sensors with 40-50MP retaining the high ISO capability(perhaps still a shade smaller than medium format sensors), it can be the next game changer!

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If Leica SL system can succeed in producing future SLs with larger sensor size bigger than the current full frame sensors with 40-50MP retaining the high ISO capability(perhaps still a shade smaller than medium format sensors), it can be the next game changer!

 

Even if it could be made larger, it seems that the GFX (and lenses) will be designed to accommodate higher MP.  

 

Moreover, the GFX comes with a removable EVF, so that the same body could potentially benefit from future VF improvements.  

 

Of course we'll have to wait for actual equipment, not rumors.

 

But the game is indeed changing...potentially by various manufacturers.

 

Jeff

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

By the same logic, does it means that Leica SL system is designed with a provision for a larger sensor size for future SL cameras (on native lenses only)?

No, it doesn’t. There already is a Leica system designed for a larger image circle – the S system. The SL system is a 35 mm system.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing is unexpected about SL lens size if you take a look at comparable full frame lenses for Canon, Nikon, Sony. The SL offers excellent compatibility with M lenses if you're looking for something smaller.

 

The S system shows you Leica's required lens size to meet quality and AF requirements with a larger sensor. Perhaps a future S camera will have an EVF option.

 

Why do you think the SL is designed for a larger sensor? Why does this keep coming up on forums? You can very easily compare like systems (comparing sensor size, lens focal length and aperture, etc).

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this is a more logical direction for the S system. There you already have the lens mount and a set of exceptional lenses ready to go. It's a full system just waiting for a competitive camera body. While the Fuji and Hasselblad are somewhat smaller than the S the real advantage is in the weight of the camera and lenses. An EVF S system camera would be significantly lighter than the optical prism in the current S. It would also be cheaper to produce and a cost reduction could make entry to the system more affordable. A set of lighter f4 or 4.5 lenses would be significantly smaller and lighter than the Summarits we have now but still allow users the option of the fast and leaf shutter lenses from the current range if they wanted. Those lenses would be easier to design because of the larger lens mount. At the same time Leica could maintain an optical version for those who wanted one.

 

Although and EVF based S would be the same depth, size savings in terms of height and width could be made.

 

Keeping the current flange distance and lens mount would give Leica a huge head start as they would have a complete set of native lenses available while they develop a set of smaller and lighter "slow" lenses.

 

I think the S system has a huge unrealised potential. A less than 1kg, 50+MP camera with and EVF, floppy screen and in the $10K region would be a very attractive camera when considering how good the S miniMF lenses are.

 

Of course most landscape photographers aren't going to touch any Leica MF camera until they do something about the maximum exposure times and mandatory dark frame subtraction.

 

Gordon

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this is a more logical direction for the S system.

 

I agree wholeheartedly with this post.

 

I would certainly add a sub-$10k S camera to my fleet if it offered EVF (and possibly without) if it also included something like 50+ MP resolution.

 

An M, SL, and S setup with all lenses useable on the SL would be great.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Nothing is unexpected about SL lens size if you take a look at comparable full frame lenses for Canon, Nikon, Sony. The SL offers excellent compatibility with M lenses if you're looking for something smaller.

 

The S system shows you Leica's required lens size to meet quality and AF requirements with a larger sensor. Perhaps a future S camera will have an EVF option.

 

Why do you think the SL is designed for a larger sensor? Why does this keep coming up on forums? You can very easily compare like systems (comparing sensor size, lens focal length and aperture, etc).

The way the competitors of other medium format are evolving, I see no future for the Leica S to survive, unless it evolve into compatible 80-100MP sensor range with current S pricing. For the SL to evolve and survive, it must improve on higher resolution with or without a bigger sensor in time to come. If there is room for bigger sensor with current native lens size (which I see), this is where a a higher resolution sensor with high ISO will be promising for the SL system to stay relevant.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The way the competitors of other medium format are evolving, I see no future for the Leica S to survive, unless it evolve into compatible 80-100MP sensor range with current S pricing. For the SL to evolve and survive, it must improve on higher resolution with or without a bigger sensor in time to come. If there is room for bigger sensor with current native lens size (which I see), this is where a a higher resolution sensor with high ISO will be promising for the SL system to stay relevant.

How do you see room for bigger sensor size with current native lens size? Does the 24-90, 90-280, or 50 cover a large enough image circle for the S system or larger?

 

I presume you're looking at exterior dimensions, which are comparable for similar focal lengths, apertures, price, and quality from every brand.

Link to post
Share on other sites

How do you see room for bigger sensor size with current native lens size? Does the 24-90, 90-280, or 50 cover a large enough image circle for the S system or larger?

 

I presume you're looking at exterior dimensions, which are comparable for similar focal lengths, apertures, price, and quality from every brand.

Comparing the exterior diameters between the SL & S lenses is one thought and the SL lenses sit closer to the sensor comparing to the S is the other for me to derive my thoughts.

The interior diameter between R & SL lenses are also similar in size but the SL lenses again sit closer to the sensor with SL body attached. Simple physics!

Edited by sillbeers15
Link to post
Share on other sites

Comparing the exterior diameters between the SL & S lenses is one thought and the SL lenses sit closer to the sensor comparing to the S is the other for me to derive my thoughts.

The interior diameter between R & SL lenses are also similar in size but the SL lenses again sit closer to the sensor with SL body attached. Simple physics!

I don't believe the three parameters you suggested (exterior diameters between SL and S lenses, interior diameter between R and SL, and the flange distance for the SL) describes the "simple physics" for the image circle that covers a larger sensor.

 

You can see the SL 24-90 raw output with something like Rawdigger. It's clearly not designed for a larger sensor.

 

Do you have actual measurements showing the SL lenses are able to cover a larger sensor with the quality Leica is aiming for, or at all?

 

The S lenses are a proof of concept for Leica lens size on a larger sensor. Lenses from Sony, Canon, Nikon, Zeiss, Sigma are proof of concept for lens size on a full frame sensor and they are very similar to Leica's lenses. R lenses are all MF and lack image stabilization and you surely recognize this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't believe the three parameters you suggested (exterior diameters between SL and S lenses, interior diameter between R and SL, and the flange distance for the SL) describes the "simple physics" for the image circle that covers a larger sensor.

 

You can see the SL 24-90 raw output with something like Rawdigger. It's clearly not designed for a larger sensor.

 

Do you have actual measurements showing the SL lenses are able to cover a larger sensor with the quality Leica is aiming for, or at all?

 

The S lenses are a proof of concept for Leica lens size on a larger sensor. Lenses from Sony, Canon, Nikon, Zeiss, Sigma are proof of concept for lens size on a full frame sensor and they are very similar to Leica's lenses. R lenses are all MF and lack image stabilization and you surely recognize this.

First, I'm not here to fight to say I'm absolutely correct as I do not measurements to prove that.

Just look at the size comparison between the 50mm SL vs 50 corn in pics of 'Summilux-SL 50 MM F/1,4 ASPH' thread, tell me both lenses are designed for the same sized sensor?

It is based on my observation and physical logic I form my suspicion for such possibility of a larger sensor future SL.  

When I wrote about future M with AF in late 2014, many folks in the forum did not agree that that is likely to happen,...only Leica did a twist to produce AF system as in the form as an SL and not an evolution of the current M in late 2015.

Let's remember Leica needs to survive. With so much changes from competitors going on, it either evolve and grow bigger and stronger or die. The last thing that can happen is no change.

Edited by sillbeers15
Link to post
Share on other sites

First, I'm not here to fight to say I'm absolutely correct as I do not measurements to prove that.

Just look at the size comparison between the 50mm SL vs 50 corn in pics of 'Summilux-SL 50 MM F/1,4 ASPH' thread, tell me both lenses are designed for the same sized sensor?

It is based on my observation and physical logic I form my suspicion for such possibility of a larger sensor future SL.  

When I wrote about future M with AF in late 2014, many folks in the forum did not agree that that is likely to happen,...only Leica did a twist to produce AF system as in the form as an SL and not an evolution of the current M in late 2015.

Let's remember Leica needs to survive. With so much changes from competitors going on, it either evolve and grow bigger and stronger or die. The last thing that can happen is no change.

I presume you're comparing the 50 SL with the M mount 50 APO. Different apertures, one has AF, and very different price points.

 

Compare the 50 SL to the Sigma 50 Art, and the Zeiss 55 Otus for a more similar comparison.

Link to post
Share on other sites

For the SL to evolve and survive, it must improve on higher resolution with or without a bigger sensor in time to come. If there is room for bigger sensor with current native lens size (which I see), this is where a a higher resolution sensor with high ISO will be promising for the SL system to stay relevant.

 

 

The D5, 1Dx2 have lower resolution than the SL and they're new release flagship cameras. The SL still has more DR than the Canon and is close enough to the D5 (which lost some DR from the D4) for it not to matter. The Nikon and Canon have the best tracking AF money can buy and enormous battery capacity. The SL has massive lens adaptability and an EVF with all the benefits that brings. The Sl looks like it will have the best AF 50mm ever made. The SL is more expensive but not massively so ($8.5K vs $11K in Oz).

 

I don't see the SL as terminal.

 

Gordon

Link to post
Share on other sites

I presume you're comparing the 50 SL with the M mount 50 APO. Different apertures, one has AF, and very different price points.

 

Compare the 50 SL to the Sigma 50 Art, and the Zeiss 55 Otus for a more similar comparison.

Time will tell in 36mths later,....

Link to post
Share on other sites

The D5, 1Dx2 have lower resolution than the SL and they're new release flagship cameras. The SL still has more DR than the Canon and is close enough to the D5 (which lost some DR from the D4) for it not to matter. The Nikon and Canon have the best tracking AF money can buy and enormous battery capacity. The SL has massive lens adaptability and an EVF with all the benefits that brings. The Sl looks like it will have the best AF 50mm ever made. The SL is more expensive but not massively so ($8.5K vs $11K in Oz).

 

I don't see the SL as terminal.

 

Gordon

Both Nikon & Canon are big fishes in big trouble with continue eroding market share over the last 5 years.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Solvitur ambulando. Hold a Leica SL lens towards a scene and a piece of white paper with a scale behind it.

Even doing this roughly hand holding, it looks like an image circle of about 40mm +/-5mm - not big enough for medium format (however that term is stretched in the digital era: it won't be medium format to me until we have sensors 60mm wide).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Comparing the exterior diameters between the SL & S lenses is one thought and the SL lenses sit closer to the sensor comparing to the S is the other for me to derive my thoughts.

The interior diameter between R & SL lenses are also similar in size but the SL lenses again sit closer to the sensor with SL body attached. Simple physics!

Sorry, but that’s neither here nor there. The flange distance has nothing to do with the diameter of the image circle and the size of the sensor. The S is an SLR, needing room for a mirror, thus its flange distance is long. The SL is a mirrorless camera so its flange distance can be short. That’s all there is to it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, but that’s neither here nor there. The flange distance has nothing to do with the diameter of the image circle and the size of the sensor. The S is an SLR, needing room for a mirror, thus its flange distance is long. The SL is a mirrorless camera so its flange distance can be short. That’s all there is to it.

Show me a medium format lens with smaller diameter than a 35mm lens?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...