Brand "new" CMOSIS sensor for M

[M. Valdemar]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

It is interesting that CMOSIS is basically a new company started by the old staff of Fill Factory.

 

Fill Factory, you may recall, is the company that made the full frame CMOS sensors for the Kodak DSLRs made over ten years ago, like the DCS SLR/n.

 

These cameras had excellent sensors which were crippled by poor firmware and software.

 

The new Leica sensor is very similar to ones in the 10 year old Kodaks. The Kodaks did not have an AA filter. I wonder if the M does?

 

Very interesting indeed.

[Advertisement]

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

[sdai]

How come everyone was talking about ST microelectronics right after the May 10 event then? do they really get involved with Leica on anything or not?

[M. Valdemar]

I have no idea about ST. But the new Leica CMOSIS sensor has very similar specs to the old Fill Factory sensor. (base iso 160 vs 200)

 

The old one was an excellent sensor too.

[andyedward]

According to Sean Reid, Leica worked towards achieving the familiar Leica look for the new sensor

[honcho]

.....

 

These cameras had excellent sensors which were crippled by poor firmware and software.

 

.....

 

The story wasn't that simple. The Kodak DCS Pro 14-N was crippled by producing images that were practically unusable above 100iso. The camera was a disaster and I was relieved to offload mine within a couple of weeks of buying it new,

 

I hope they learnt something.

[sdai]

Sorry, guys, I just read the press release from CMOSIS ... apparently they designed the chip and ST is subcontracted to fab the sensor.

[M. Valdemar]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

You are very wrong. The 14n makes excellent images up to about 400 ISO or a little higher. The base ISO is 80. The early firmware and RAW processing software was horrible. It was very hard to get a good image.

 

Because of complaints and terrible early press, Kodak withdrew the 14n and released the SLR/n which had a revamped sensor and better power management. The base ISO was now 160. This camera easily makes good images at ISO 640.

 

Of course, these cameras are long gone, but there was a final firmware release of 5.4.9 which dramatically improved the files. (Kodak was guilty of horrible marketing mistakes and releasing flawed firmware)

 

Combine the new firmware with a modern RAW processor, like Adobe RAW, and the Kodaks make stunning, crisp, almost noise-free images.

 

I know, I have 2 SLR/n's and a 14n.

 

Click around this Korean website, where you can see gorgeous Kodak SLR/N and 14n files. In South Korea, the used Kodak DSLR cameras are high-priced, still used cult items. In my opinion, the files are equal or better to the Leica M9 files.

 

http://www.slrclub.com/bbs/zboard.php?id=kodak_forum

 

 

 

http://www.slrclub.com/bbs/vx2.php?id=kodak_forum&page=3&divpage=27&select_arrange=headnum&desc=asc&no=143861

 

The story wasn't that simple. The Kodak DCS Pro 14-N was crippled by producing images that were practically unusable above 100iso. The camera was a disaster and I was relieved to offload mine within a couple of weeks of buying it new,

 

I hope they learnt something.

 

 

 

.

[honcho]

'Cult item' is one thing, earning a living is a different reality. The camera was useless.

[M. Valdemar]

You're entitled to your opinion, but if you haven't tried one for a decade and you're basing your opinion on very early firmware and RAW software, you are posting misinformation. Did you look at the posted files?

 

'Cult item' is one thing, earning a living is a different reality. The camera was useless.

[brianv]

'Cult item' is one thing, earning a living is a different reality. The camera was useless.

 

 

It might have been useless to you, but certainly not useless to everyone that bought it. What did people do when the fastest film available was ASA 100? I guess all of thoese cameras were useless until Tri-X came out. You did not know the limitations of the camera, and you did not know how to use it within those limitations.Wrong tool for you, just fine for other people that used it professionally.

 

The base ISO of the Nikon D1x is 125. It is very noisy at 400ISO. Used in the lab, it was a fine camera. It was a 5.2MPixel, 1.5x crop and was almost $7K when new. The Kodak was 14MPixels, full-frame, and cost less.

 

On the new sensor: the well capacity of the 20MPixel detector offered by CMOSIS as a standard product is about 1/3rd of the CCD in the M8, about 1/3rd of those in Truesense's current line-up of 6.8um family of detectors. I would be interested in knowing the well capacity (saturation) and dark current (noise floor) of the new sensor.

[AlanG]

You are very wrong. The 14n makes excellent images up to about 400 ISO or a little higher. The base ISO is 80. The early firmware and RAW processing software was horrible. It was very hard to get a good image.

 

Well I guess it depends on what you consider an excellent image. I used one of the later models - the SLR/c (Canon mount) for about a week and it was awful compared with my excellent 1Ds. Uneven color (Magenta to green shift across the frame was common) especially bad with shift lenses. There also was terrible color aliasing on fine detail and highlights. (Italian flag effect.)

 

I even remember that you had a menu system in the camera and you had to tell it what lens was mounted in order to minimize the color shift. Or you could use a slider in the raw conversions software to try to counter act the mess too. If you are saying that some magic software came out later that fixed the problems that would be great if anyone still has the camera or wants to reprocess their old raw files.

 

I think everyone better hope that the M sensor is much much better than that one and I expect that will be the case.

[M. Valdemar]

Just take a look at the links in my post.

 

And the RAW software is not "magic", just vastly improved over what was available in 2003. Not to mention the upgraded firmware.

 

Yes, we all get it. The Kodaks were not easy to use and had serious problems 10 years ago. If they had been released with mature software/firmware, they would have been very successful.

 

 

Well I guess it depends on what you consider an excellent image. I used one of the later models - the SLR/c (Canon mount) for about a week and it was awful compared with my excellent 1Ds. Uneven color (Magenta to green shift across the frame was common) especially bad with shift lenses. There also was terrible color aliasing on fine detail and highlights. (Italian flag effect.)

 

I even remember that you had a menu system in the camera and you had to tell it what lens was mounted in order to minimize the color shift. Or you could use a slider in the raw conversions software to try to counter act the mess too. If you are saying that some magic software came out later that fixed the problems that would be great if anyone still has the camera or wants to reprocess their old raw files.

 

I think everyone better hope that the M sensor is much much better than that one and I expect that will be the case.

[AlanG]

 

Yes, we all get it. The Kodaks were not easy to use and had serious problems 10 years ago. If they had been released with mature software/firmware, they would have been very successful.

 

I'll accept that better software has come out. I can't make much out of those links. Are they in Japanese? Do any current mainstream raw converters work with those files today?

 

I have to wonder why Nikon and other companies did not go with the Fill Factory sensor when they needed full frame if it was just a matter of making better software and firmware.

 

Anyhow if the Fill Factory chips were actually great or not is irrelevant as long as this new chip is good.

[M. Valdemar]

As I said in my post above, the links are Korean. But you don't need to read anything but look at the photos. They use English when listing the camera used. I linked directly to some photos.

 

As I also said in my posts above, Adobe RAW works very well.

 

Maybe you should read first before shooting from the hip, but you're so negative about the Kodaks that you couldn't wait to blast them.

 

As for Nikon not using Fill Factory sensors, I have no idea why Nikon does anything.

 

I didn't say the sensors were bad, I simply noted some points about their origin I noticed.

 

 

I'll accept that better software has come out. I can't make much out of those links. Are they in Japanese? Do any current mainstream raw converters work with those files today?

 

I have to wonder why Nikon and other companies did not go with the Fill Factory sensor when they needed full frame if it was just a matter of making better software and firmware.

 

Anyhow if the Fill Factory chips were actually great or not is irrelevant as long as this new chip is good.

[AlanG]

As I said in my post above, the links are Korean. But you don't need to read anything but look at the photos. They use English when listing the camera used. I linked directly to some photos.

 

As I also said in my posts above, Adobe RAW works very well.

 

Maybe you should read first before shooting from the hip, but you're so negative about the Kodaks that you couldn't wait to blast them.

 

As for Nikon not using Fill Factory sensors, I have no idea why Nikon does anything.

 

I didn't say the sensors were bad, I simply noted some points about their origin I noticed.

 

Sorry overlooked your reference to Korean and Adobe raw. I've read like 1,000 posts today as well as all of the announcements and Leica brochures and tech data. How does Adobe raw adjust for the color shift... e.g is there a slider like in the Kodak software? Or did the firmware fix that? Can the camera now work with a 24mm shift lens without color shifting?

 

I looked at the photos but didn't see a way to get them at 100%. In any case I was able to make nice photos with the Kodak too... just not under some circumstances or in comparison with the 1Ds.

 

Anyway I'm glad you and others are now happy with your Kodak cameras but I had to judge the package as it was. If the chip really was good but couldn't be well implemented at the time, that is a shame.

[M. Valdemar]

There are several RAW software programs, including some free ones, that will compensate for color shift and other problems.

 

All vastly improved since the early versions.

 

As for firmware, this is fundamental and also made a major difference in the way the cameras operated.

 

I still use mine to this day, albeit not as often as I used to.