Speculating re how M8 lens coding might work

[edlaurpic]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I read with interest that the coding on new lenses, which can be added to most old M lenses, doesn't just collect exif data but also provides for optimization of image quality. Then I starting thinking about the fact that Kodak has been involved in the development of the sensor and remembered that, like the Digital M, the digital SLR that Kodak sold for a while (first called the 14n, then the SLRn, also did not employ an anti-aliasing filter over the sensor. As I understand it, an AA filter reduces resolution in favor of reducing digital noise, CA and other problems that sensors that lack an AA filter exhibit. I ownder the SLRN for a while and was amazed at how much sharper the images from the SLRN were compared to Canon DSLR's that had the AA filter. On the other hand, I also experienced all kinds of magenta banding, CA and other issues that the lack of an AA filter allowed to occur. So the camera produced great images some of the time and bad ones at other times. THen Kodak did a major firmware upgrade that provided for manual or automatic modifications of a lens optimization factor. When it worked right, the camera would recognize the lens that had been mounted and this would come up in the lens opt. menu. You could also change the lens optimization factor manually. By the time these changes were made, most SLRn buyers had given up, myself among them. I ended up returning the SLRN and selling all of my Nikon glass and getting Canon DSLR's and lenses. The Canon never produced images that were as sharp, but the lack of other imaging problems made up for it and the high ASA capability was wondrous to me. WHich brings me back to the digital M (M8). Maybe Kodak is employing some of what they learned with the SLRN in the M8 sensor and lens coding. Perhaps what we will get with the M8 is a camera that can have its cake and eat it too .... i.e. be able to do without an AA filter and get great resolution, but through the coding, eliminate artifacts (probably the wrong word) that are introduced when no AA is used. If that is the case, I am really excited about that because when the SLRN was good it was extremely good ... much better than the Canon. By the way, I am selling my Canon 1ds Mark II to get a little extra cash for the M8 because I never use it. I got an R-d1 and have gladly given up the larger files and resolution in order to return to the joy of rangefinder photography. Sorry to be long-winded, but I would love to know whether any of you believe my theory might be right about the coding on the lenses for the M8.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[lct]

Welcome to the forum Ed!

The DMR has no AA filter either and doesn't cause magenta banding or CA AFAIK, perhaps some moiré from time to time but DMR users like Guy, Conrad or Pascal will tell it much better than me.

Anyway the digital M should be sharper that the R-D1 anyway as even my D70 with its weak AA filter is sharper than the latter.

[earleygallery]

Just a few thoughts on the subject;

 

1) Software for the RD1 corrects problems such as vingetting with some wideangle lenses - maybe the coding will enable this type of action to be performed in camera?

 

2) Whatever the coding does, it does it through the firmware. Presumably the same actions could be performed via the software that comes with the camera? i.e. if you have a lens which isn't coded, but is one of the supported lenses, you could select it from a list and 'apply' ?

 

3) Will coded lenes have any effect on the image if one is shooting RAW?

 

It is difficult to see what else, apart from lens data, will be supported by the coding.

 

Regards

[lct]

DxO can do all this and more by software and into the camera as well.

All they need to know is ID of the lens, what the coding gives them very simply.

I just hope that those in-camera tweakings can be disabled or don't work on raw files at least as I know from my experience with the R-D1 that a bit of correction of vignetting in enough in most cases but the latter must be done manually to get the best results.

[Bob Ross]

Hi Ed,

The sensor in the 14n was made by Fill Factory and had its share of unique problems. The sensor in the M8 is supposed to be a variation on the KAF FFT sensor in the DMR. This family of sensor can be found in the Oly E-1 (with AA filter), DMR (no AA filter) and a medium format back (no AA filter), so it has a track record in various sizes. The DMR has off set microlenses to account for vignetting and the M8 probably has a variation of this since the sensor fall off is more severe with RF lenses. The microlenses might cure darken corners for some focal lengths and aggravate it with others. If Leica designed the microlenses for the wider lenses, then the tele end might start showing darkened corners. The 6 bit codes would enable in-camera correction or added RAW data info for conversion software. I don't expect we will see the kind of problems Kodak had with the 14n, but we may have new ones, since each digital camera has its own personality...:-)

Bob

[Bob Ross]

DxO can do all this and more by software and into the camera as well.

All they need to know is ID of the lens, what the coding gives them very simply.

I just hope that those in-camera tweakings can be disabled or don't work on raw files at least as I know from my experience with the R-D1 that a bit of correction of vignetting in enough in most cases but the latter must be done manually to get the best results.

The Oly E-1 has what they call Shading Compensation as an option. I have never used it, but I have heard that it increases write times significantly. The function is not available for RAW or RAW + JPEG. They also warn that, "at high ISOs noise in image edges may be conspicuous".

[edlaurpic]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Thanks for your comments. I have heard that the DMR performs really well and without an anti aliasing filter...I hadn't thought of that.

 

But that brings up something else. For me the highest and best use of my Leica M cameras has been low light hand held photography. I realize that the R-d1 requires one to make a lot of compromises, but one of its strengths is its performance at 1600ASA, for which I feel it really does an excellent job. Likewise with the Canon DSLRs, with the 1dsMII, 20D and 5 D all having excellent performance at 1600 and even 3200 (at a price, of course, of one needing a Sherpa to help carry them around, particularly the 1DS.) We haven't heard anything about high ASA performance of the M8 yet, which makes me think they are working on it right now but don't have it dialed in yet as we make our postings in this forum. And, as I recall, the Leica DMR's high ASA performance leaves something to be desired (right?), but I would love to hear otherwise. Don't get me wrong, I have already decided to buy and M8 and, indeed, already paid a 20% deposit on one, but if it turned out that it had high ASA performance along with what I would normally expect from a Leica M camera, I would really be thrilled.

[stunsworth]

Ed, this may make me sound like an appologist for Leica, but however bad the performance at ISO 1600 compared to Canon, I'll bet that it's better than film at the same speed :-)

[edlaurpic]

Steve -

 

You know, I think you are probably right. Actually, when I shot a lot of film I almost never used anything faster than 400 ASA. And even when a pretty good 800 ASA negative film came out (I think it was Fujicolor), I preferred using 400 ASA color.

 

With black and white I experimented with acufine and diafine (poor results) and even used some 1600 ASA film (huge grain).

 

Perhaps, if the M8 disappoints in the high ASA area, it will make up for it with its long base rangefinder accuracy and framing accuracy and other things, and I will just end up using my faster lenses, as I did when TRiX with D76 was my normal B&W film and various 400 ASA films were what I used for color (but I can hope).

 

By the way, what is the upper end of low noise ASA on the DMR? 800?

[Guest guy_mancuso]

Skiping around here , just got in.

Ed the DMR at ISO 800 is as far as i dare to go but if you had Noise Ninja it does work some magic. At 800 it does have noise but you can get by pretty easy with it. And i'm picky. LOL

 

The Dmr has no AA filter and shooting raw i do get on occasion some moire and it really depends on the subject. Sometimes i may get it in a shirt but not the tweed suit or in a tie. but in C1 there is a plugin for PS called DeMorize and if you lasso the area and apply the filter it goes away very simply. Personally the one main reason i bought the DMR , i want nothing between the sensor and the lens. The DMR is exactly like a MF back only in a 35mm package. CCD, 16 bit , No AA filter and a Kodak sensor that is in many MF backs like Phase one. Actually i think it is a small P45 sensor but I need to make sure of that .

[jrc]

I had both the Kodak 14n and SLRn and because of the kind of shooting I do, never had much trouble -- but as people reported various problems, I'd go out and shoot a couple of shots to see if I could reproduce them. The most troubling for me was the magenta color fringing of dark objects against bright sky -- troubling because I live in Minnesota and in the winter, with bare trees, we have a lot of dark lines against the sky. However, as Kodak came out with better and better firmware, the cameras kept getting better; not so much the original 14n sensor, which eventually I had upgraded to the newer sensor, but the second sensor really got to be very good; I think in many ways better than the 1DsII. But the camera had other faults, especially IMHO in ergonomics. Also, I'll say that most of the color shift problems of the Kodaks were easily cleaned up with post-processing, and a lot of progress has been made since then...

 

Given Leica's ergonomics ability, which is at least as good and some would say better than Nikon's, I doubt that will be a problem with the M8 -- certainly the people at Epson had learned a great deal by the time they put out the R-D1. And if Kodak has continued making the same kind of progress with firmware as they were making with the now ancient 14n and SLRn, then the M8 should be a spectacular camera.

 

JC

[mgcd]

DMR @ 1600 Iso

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[Guest guy_mancuso]

I was just waiting for Conrad to show this one, pretty darn good. :D

[Bob Ross]

Guy,

The Kodak sensor product page link is http://www.kodak.com/US/en/dpq/site/SENSORS/name/ISSFullFrameProductFamily

The 6.8µm pixel family has the KAF-5100CE (E-1 5MP discontinued), KAF-10010 (DMR 10MP), KAF-31600 (31.6MP Pentax 645?) and the KAF-3900 (39MP). This family of FFT sensors do have a slow frame rates.

Bob

[Guest guy_mancuso]

Thanks Bob i will check that out.

[Guest guy_mancuso]

I think it was the pixel pitch that i was thinking about they both are 6.8 square pixels the P45 and DMR.

[marknorton]

That ISO 1600 shot looks great to me, entirely usable.

 

So if the DMR uses the KAF-10010, what sensor do we think the M8 is going to use. It's saild to be slightly larger (1.33 crop factor instead of 1.37). I don't see it on the Kodak web-site. A new as yet unannounced Kodak sensor? Another vendor?

[lct]

Mark, do you think the KAF-10010 is not large enough with its 31.7mm diagonal?

(specs here)

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[marknorton]

Using the same sensor in the M8 will yield the same crop factor of 1.37, so if you believe the stated crop factor of 1.33, it must be a different Kodak sensor or a different sensor vendor. The longer we wait for concrete news, the older what we think we know becomes and may or may not be valid. Just because Leica said Kodak and 1.33 at some point in the past doesn't mean that's the way it will be.

 

Jenoptik LOS has been mentioned as a possible partner with Leica for the M8 and if you look on the Dalsa web-site, you can see that Dalsa are already a supplier to Jenoptik. Who knows what the contractual arrangements with Imacon were for the DMR but the delay in getting out the new or fixed firmware hints at a less than happy relationship, especially now that Imacon is part of Hasselblad. Third party developments for (potential) competitors may not interest them.

 

It's easy to see that Jenoptik and Dalsa could offer a complete solution to Leica. New sensor, which Dalsa describe as not requiring microlenses, Jenoptik with the electronics fabrication and software skills to produce complete assemblies for installation into bodies in Solms.

 

Look at the Dalsa web-site and you see interesting news items on contracts placed which, because of their timing and size, could easily be for the M8.

[lct]

Sorry Mark, my question was unclear.

Would it be possible that the DMR does not use the whole imager size of the sensor which could be large enough for the digital M?

BTW Leica said it will be a Kodak sensor if i remember well.