thighslapper Posted September 1, 2015 Share #641 Posted September 1, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) There may be something new coming (isn’t there always?) but it may not incorporate the technology hinted at by that patent. I have to agree ....... it isn't a particularly elegant solution and I can see a fair few practical problems with it ....... it involves the two sensors either moving laterally to triangulate the 'target' ...... or variable angulation of the sensors ...... both of which strike me as just as difficult to calibrate/adjust as the current mechanism as there are yet again moving parts. If I was Leica I would offer an upgraded M RF product line with a better EVF and a second M which is basically a Q with interchangeable M lenses and an AF line similar to that for the T. There would be lots of overlapping products and technologies that have already been manufactured and tested and usable with relatively minor production changes. That makes far more sense from a development cost/risk basis and would not alienate current users. A hybrid built in EVF or a new opto-mechanical RF mechanism would be nice ....... but both look very difficult to implement successfully and keep a compact body for use with M lenses. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted September 1, 2015 Posted September 1, 2015 Hi thighslapper, Take a look here NEW M.. This year.. This Fall.... I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
AndreasAM Posted September 1, 2015 Share #642 Posted September 1, 2015 I have to agree ....... it isn't a particularly elegant solution and I can see a fair few practical problems with it ....... it involves the two sensors either moving laterally to triangulate the 'target' ...... or variable angulation of the sensors ...... both of which strike me as just as difficult to calibrate/adjust as the current mechanism as there are yet again moving parts. If I was Leica I would offer an upgraded M RF product line with a better EVF and a second M which is basically a Q with interchangeable M lenses. The Optical Electronic RangeFinder (OERF), explained in the patent, doesn't have any moving parts or a variable angulation of the sensors. It is a fixed unit, which after taking measurements of any misalignment in production and stored in the camera's databank for use in the camera's software, doesn't need any calibration or adjustment, afterwards, when in use. This is a huge advantage when you compare it with a mechanical RF. Whether or not the OERF is in real development, or is prepared for production now or in the near future, remains to be seen. Regards, Andreas Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thighslapper Posted September 1, 2015 Share #643 Posted September 1, 2015 The Optical Electronic RangeFinder (OERF), explained in the patent, doesn't have any moving parts or a variable angulation of the sensors. It is a fixed unit, which after taking measurements of any misalignment in production and stored in the camera's databank for use in the camera's software, doesn't need any calibration or adjustment, afterwards, when in use. This is a huge advantage when you compare it with a mechanical RF. Whether or not the OERF is in real development, or is prepared for production now or in the near future, remains to be seen. Regards, Andreas I've obviously misunderstood the diagram ....... please explain how it works ......... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pop Posted September 1, 2015 Share #644 Posted September 1, 2015 You have two small cameras looking at the same scene. You show the images of both on the same screen. You use software to superimpose the two by moving one or both images. The displacement yields the distance from the scene. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted September 1, 2015 Share #645 Posted September 1, 2015 Yes - but you still have to read out the focusing of the lens - mechanically (at least, with the current lenses.) So either you connect a position sensor to the RF arm or you do rotate one camera mechanically. With all the attendant calibration issues. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndreasAM Posted September 1, 2015 Share #646 Posted September 1, 2015 I've obviously misunderstood the diagram ....... please explain how it works ......... I can refer to my posts #105 and especially #205, and the discussion from #105, in this thread, where things are explained and discussed. The lateral distance between the two sensors, the angulation between and focal length of the sensors are design "variables" to obtain, in the development of the OERF, an optimal solution for a desired accuracy and workings for a future focal range of the, to be used, lenses. When the optimal (combined) results for these parameters are analyzed and decided, they will be fixed for the production of sensors and the OERF-unit Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndreasAM Posted September 1, 2015 Share #647 Posted September 1, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) Yes - but you still have to read out the focusing of the lens - mechanically (at least, with the current lenses.) So either you connect a position sensor to the RF arm or you do rotate one camera mechanically. With all the attendant calibration issues. Yes, that is true for the current MF-lenses, but this has nothing to do with the OERF itself but with the accuracy of the Roll Lever in the camera and coupled sensor. A less common issue with misaligned RF's. But there will be no RangeFinder, which is "out of whack", anymore. So one huge thing to be worried less about, when buying and using a RF-camera. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted September 1, 2015 Share #648 Posted September 1, 2015 Knowing how fussy Leica users can be about the clarity of their dear rangefinder i wonder if they (we) would accept such an electronic window instead of the usual RF patch. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thighslapper Posted September 1, 2015 Share #649 Posted September 1, 2015 I still don't understand what parts 7,8,9,10 and particularly 11 are supposed to do on this patent diagram. Also it relies on phase difference .... and whilst measuring a minimum or maximum value may be accurate I somehow doubt that if nothing moves the measurement of the degree of phase difference from a fixed point would be accurate enough under all circumstances to be pinned to a point on a table of values. Plus, it doesn't get round the fact that there is lens variation and the difficulty with longer lenses with very fast apertures that need very accurate focussing. It seems a cumbersome way of providing a means of focussing just to retain a 28mm or so optical view to show the periphery ..... and you still need an EVF or rear screen to compose using sub 28mm lenses. Far better to just have a 50mp sensor and just use a cropped part in the middle like the 35/50 option on the Q. I cannot see how it would be better than a very high resolution EVF and magnification/peaking. The Q is as near as you will get to an EVF that looks and behaves like it is optical ........ having implemented that I will be surprised if they pursue this strange beast ...... but there again we have had surprises in the past (the T was entirely unpredictable) ...... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndreasAM Posted September 1, 2015 Share #650 Posted September 1, 2015 I still don't understand what parts 7,8,9,10 and particularly 11 are supposed to do on this patent diagram. The numbers are explained in the patent, http://www.google.com/patents/DE102012009975A1?cl=en down below in the text: #5,6 are image acquisition modules, they consist of: #7,8 measuring lenses and #9,10 image aquisition lenses #5,6 are fixed on a baseplate (#11) These modules are just small "camera's" with there own specifications, fit for the task of measuring the triangulation. For this they have to be fixed at a specific lateral distance and with a specific angle to each other, hence the baseplate #11 (or small rail). I imagine, to put it simply, that a production module of an OERF is a small closed unit within the camera, with two small "eyes" poking through the front of the camera housing, completed and connected with a lot of electronics in the camera. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted September 1, 2015 Share #651 Posted September 1, 2015 Yes, that is true for the current MF-lenses, but this has nothing to do with the OERF itself but with the accuracy of the Roll Lever in the camera and coupled sensor. A less common issue with misaligned RF's. But there will be no RangeFinder, which is "out of whack", anymore. So one huge thing to be worried less about, when buying and using a RF-camera. Well, actually the thing that gets maladjusted is normally the roller arm. Hence people playing around with 2 mm Allen keys, three adjustment points on the arm, etc. Another source is the lens itself. I fail to see how an ERF is going to change that. It is very rare for the optical part of the rangefinder to go out of adjustment. Obviously it should be possible to finetune the mechanical failings in a digital way. It should be user-controllable and preferably individually for each lens. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pop Posted September 1, 2015 Share #652 Posted September 1, 2015 Even if the roller arm lost its adjustment, you could apply the correction in the software which reckons the distance. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndreasAM Posted September 1, 2015 Share #653 Posted September 1, 2015 Well, actually the thing that gets maladjusted is normally the roller arm. Hence people playing around with 2 mm Allen keys, three adjustment points on the arm, etc. Another source is the lens itself. I fail to see how an ERF is going to change that. It is very rare for the optical part of the rangefinder to go out of adjustment. Even if the roller arm lost its adjustment, you could apply the correction in the software which reckons the distance. We have discussed this before, that mal-alignments and the needed corrections can be stored in the databank of a new camera, equipped with this databank. And these needed corrections can be used for the exact calculation of the difference between the triangulation and the achieved focus distance of the used lens with this camera. But when I read Jaap's post that this is a common problem (didn't know that really), it is time to change the design of the M-mount and make it less prone to maladjustment. It needs a new camera with the OERF (future M or otherwise) with a better smarter M-mount design, perhaps with a more integrated sensor, reading the movement of the helicoid of the lens itself, thus making a rollever or any other mechanical parts for the RF, unnecessary. Don't know if this is possible, but sounds the way to go here, if you want to keep using existing M-lenses and rule out any influence of mechanical misalignments, when using an OERF. Future manual focusing M-lenses could be provided with the sensor itself, but then it needs the electronic coupling with the camera. Any misalignment of the lens-helicoid could be stored on the (future) lens-chip and read by the software of the camera. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JHAG Posted September 1, 2015 Share #654 Posted September 1, 2015 Still Harrison Cameras are offering a £500 discount on the Leica M 240 at the moment. May be I am wrong but you don't do that if it is selling well or unless you expect a new model soon ? http://www.harrisoncameras.co.uk/Cameras/Rangefinders.htm Oh, and £500 off the ME as well if that's more your thing. Still pricey. I paid both M240 and T 5600 € new in the Netherlands last december Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pop Posted September 1, 2015 Share #655 Posted September 1, 2015 ... It needs a new camera with the OERF (future M or otherwise) with a better smarter M-mount design, perhaps with a more integrated sensor, reading the movement of the helicoid of the lens itself, ... If measuring the distance of the optical unit from the sensor is a problem, measuring the angular position of the helicoid might be simpler. That, however, seems to require that not only the kind of lens mounted was known but the exact instance. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thighslapper Posted September 1, 2015 Share #656 Posted September 1, 2015 The numbers are explained in the patent, http://www.google.com/patents/DE102012009975A1?cl=en apologies ..... I didn't see the fuller explanation on google ..... only the short version referenced previously here via vida leica etc. I see there has been some legal changes to the patent in April/May ....... not clear what the significance is ....... probably just getting Solms off the documentation as they have moved ...... but as there has been some activity maybe it will pop up in the new M after all ...... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndreasAM Posted September 1, 2015 Share #657 Posted September 1, 2015 If measuring the distance of the optical unit from the sensor is a problem, measuring the angular position of the helicoid might be simpler. That, however, seems to require that not only the kind of lens mounted was known but the exact instance. Wel we are going in unknown territories, just speculating to the hilt now; It could be possible that camera and specific lens are coupled as such, using the six bit coding, storing a unique name of this lens in the camera's database and calibrating, by the user, the begin and end position of the instance of the helicoid of this lens. This gives us an exact and calibrated measurement of the movement of each individual existing M-lens. But this is a lot to ask for from Leica, to accomplish this solution and integrate it in a new system only for existing lenses. All this to invest in the goodwill for old and trusted Leica-users?! Not the normal way forward in technical development. There comes a point that you have to discard old technology and backwards compatibility, to make a full and clean implementation of new technology possible. More likely that a second or third iteration of an RF-camera! with OERF will in the end be provided with a new concept of using MF-lenses by an electronic coupling of lens and camera, where integrated sensors are used for measurements instead of rollovers and cams. The first generation will make do with a sensor on the roll-lever of the camera for measuring the existing focus distance of the lens. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndreasAM Posted September 1, 2015 Share #658 Posted September 1, 2015 apologies ..... I didn't see the fuller explanation on google ..... only the short version referenced previously here via vida leica etc. I see there has been some legal changes to the patent in April/May ....... not clear what the significance is ....... probably just getting Solms off the documentation as they have moved ...... but as there has been some activity maybe it will pop up in the new M after all ...... No problem!! Happy to be able to explain some points. regards, Andreas Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exodies Posted September 1, 2015 Share #659 Posted September 1, 2015 Old lenses could easily be chipped, like your pet, to identify each individually. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edward Louis Marit Posted September 2, 2015 Share #660 Posted September 2, 2015 I could really do with some GAS relief too, having acquired both a M246 and a Noctilux earlier this year.I also bought M246 and Noctlilux. I do not want to spend any more money this year. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.