Scott Root Posted September 11, 2015 Author Share #161 Posted September 11, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) Which is not an option for rangefinder lenses as they should be as small as possible. Reason this cannot be a consideration for Leica M lenses. Thus Leica uses as thin a cover glass as possible, resulting in IR problems, cracked cover glass, corrosion by using coating instead of a sandwich, moiré by eliminating an AA filter, etc. Meaning they adapt the sensor to the limit of technical possibilities, not the lens design. And they are handicapped by having to use a narrow M mount as well for the sake of retrocompatability. Likewise, Sony is married to the thicker cover glass and must now design all lenses to accommodate the thicker cover glass of the Alpha series camera or risk incompatibility with current Alpha series models. And, we know that lenses designed as such are typically larger than rangefinder style lenses. There is also the mass issue of the thick cover glass that makes me suspect that is why the A7RII jumps around like a jack rabbit when sensor cleaning, and only goodness knows whether that greater mass will give Leica a better edge when it comes to in body image stabilization for if and when Leica introduces IBIS in a camera body. In other words, Leica may have made the tough decision regarding sensor cover glass thickness with the Leica M8/9 and Sony may be sorely sorry they took the easy decision early on to not use microlenes on the sensors and instead just employ a thick cover glass. In other words, I suspect that thick cover glass and use of microlenses are incompatabile. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted September 11, 2015 Posted September 11, 2015 Hi Scott Root, Take a look here Leica's organic rendering versus plasticized Sony 7RII. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
jaapv Posted September 11, 2015 Share #162 Posted September 11, 2015 Very good point about the cover glass. But I think Sony wouldn't hesitate to introduce something that is incompatible with current lenses, as opposed to Leica. I don't think Sony's sensors lack microlenses, but they surely do not use short-register optimized microlenses. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
edwardkaraa Posted September 11, 2015 Share #163 Posted September 11, 2015 That's nonsense. Every sensor needs both a glass cover and microlenses. It cannot function normally without them. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted September 11, 2015 Share #164 Posted September 11, 2015 Yes but all microlenses are not the same. Those of the Leica sensor are made for M lenses, note Sony's. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted September 11, 2015 Share #165 Posted September 11, 2015 That's nonsense. Every sensor needs both a glass cover and microlenses. It cannot function normally without them. As I mentioned, but the point he made was about the drawbacks about adapting lens designs to the specifics of a sensor. In that respect some manufacturers may well make the mistake of "designing for digital" and be stuck on the technology current at the moment of that design. Once sensor technology develops (who knows, in the future a sensel may well be natively insensitive to IR, or the coverage of sensels may well be 100% making microlenses superfluous - there is no way to predict) all lenses designed that way will be useless -unlike Leica lenses developed over a century by now. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
edwardkaraa Posted September 11, 2015 Share #166 Posted September 11, 2015 Yes, of course. My reply was actually intended for Scott's comment that Sony's sensor has no microlenses, and a thick sensor cover instead. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjh Posted September 11, 2015 Share #167 Posted September 11, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) That's nonsense. Every sensor needs both a glass cover and microlenses. It cannot function normally without them. Well, there are sensors without microlenses – for medium-format sensors that used to be the norm. While you lose about one f-stop in sensitivity the sensor is less sensitive to large incident angles. Having said that, Sony’s sensors do have microlenses. As to cover glass thickness: what is often referred to as ‘cover glass’ is actually a stack of glass panes with different purposes, like an UV/IR filter (that could be combination of an absorption and an interference filter), a low-pass filter (which in itself comprises multiple panes) etc., the topmost of which may be able to vibrate to shake off dust. All that on top of the microlenses, the colour filter array, and the chip itself. The low-pass filter isn’t strictly necessary but the other parts of the stack are. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wacka Posted September 15, 2015 Share #168 Posted September 15, 2015 I don't get it. You can clearly see the 'organic' rendering is the typical Leica stunt of stylised noise inclusion (or tuning). I mean it's pleasing and all but it doesn't change the fact that the Sony is better, and I could probably do the same in post. The wierd thing about Leica apologists I notice is that they spend a lot of time defending the indefensible, yet don't focus on the positive handling characteristics of the M's which have yet to be bettered (IMO) by any platform, which is the main reason to be of the rangefinder in this day and age. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted September 15, 2015 Share #169 Posted September 15, 2015 Noise inclusion? How would that work? Leica cameras generate noise electronically to add to the file??? Less noise reduction might be a better description. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wacka Posted September 15, 2015 Share #170 Posted September 15, 2015 Well, they use - or seems to consistently display as an attribute over multiple cameras / model ranges - noise as a faux-film element. I have no idea whether it's actually *added* but what is abundantly clear is that I have noisy images which I can't then add noise to if I want to make it look like a Leica image. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted September 15, 2015 Share #171 Posted September 15, 2015 This conspiracy theory is completely new to me... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wacka Posted September 15, 2015 Share #172 Posted September 15, 2015 What makes you think it's a conspiracy? They have a certain look they want to achieve, and they don't have the money to dictate sensor development on their own. So they compromise. To compare the A7RII against the M240 and dismiss it as 'plastic' is utterly ludicrous for that reason. It's like pitting a Taurus against an Aventador and saying "the Lambo sucks, it's too fast". In fact, do you want know what's actually 'wrong' with Sony's execution? Really, it's not about the tech they cram in. It's that their design and OS don't account for emotion. Emotion is - for most regular joes - what creates product loyalty and the defensiveness you see out of a lot of owners of Fuji and Leica alike, because it's very much an ego thing too: It's absolutely no coincidence that both pull on the heart strings in their design and tactile feedback as much as try to introduce compelling hardware. For Leica owners, and those who gravitate to Leica, in typical cases they just don't resonate with anything Sony intros since it strikes them more like an anonymous gadget than what they think is a piece of history / mechanical art / etc / delete as applicable. This affects perception of the product in a huge way. This is why you get e.g. in detail ways Fuji-owning 'reviewers' criticising Sony dial feedback, when actually the Sony is way better built in this respect. The same goes for wishful thinking for sensors from fellow Leica owners looking at technically more competent gear. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
edwardkaraa Posted September 15, 2015 Share #173 Posted September 15, 2015 Leica has stated in the past that they believe noise reduction is something that should be left to the photographer discretion. It has been documented how much noise reduction Sony does even before the raw file is written. I prefer Leica 's approach. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted September 15, 2015 Share #174 Posted September 15, 2015 What makes you think it's a conspiracy? You Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdlaing Posted September 15, 2015 Share #175 Posted September 15, 2015 This conspiracy theory is completely new to me... I've heard everything now. Added noise? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted September 15, 2015 Share #176 Posted September 15, 2015 Err...The Leica M sensor was developed for Leica by CMOSIS, the Leica Q sensor was developed specifically by a Panasonic affiliate... They have a certain look they want to achieve, and they don't have the money to dictate sensor development on their own. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hexx Posted September 15, 2015 Share #177 Posted September 15, 2015 ... This is why you get e.g. in detail ways Fuji-owning 'reviewers' criticising Sony dial feedback, when actually the Sony is way better built in this respect. The same goes for wishful thinking for sensors from fellow Leica owners looking at technically more competent gear. as an owner of X100, X-Pro-1, M240 and former owner of A7r -> I will disagree Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wacka Posted September 15, 2015 Share #178 Posted September 15, 2015 Err...The Leica M sensor was developed for Leica by CMOSIS, the Leica Q sensor was developed specifically by a Panasonic affiliate... Yes, in terms of tweaked available sensors. The Q is something new. Don't know enough about where the sensor is coming from, but I can say it appears to have a lot more Panasonic in it than previous "real" Leicas (the CPU's still Fujitsu with the Maestro II, isn't it?) - and that's not a bad thing IMO. as an owner of X100, X-Pro-1, M240 and former owner of A7r -> I will disagree See above the bit you quoted. I have an X100T and an X-T1 but I can see right through them as I don't necessary resonate to the form over function thing - which is also why I often have a very ambivalent relationship to the Leicas I may have at any given time, depending on the level of that they exhibit. It's early days but the Q might be my favourite digital Leica for this reason - it's probably the most Sonylike thing they've made so far. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted September 15, 2015 Share #179 Posted September 15, 2015 Yes, in terms of tweaked available sensors. The Q is something new. Don't know enough about where the sensor is coming from, but I can say it appears to have a lot more Panasonic in it than previous "real" Leicas (the CPU's still Fujitsu with the Maestro II, isn't it?) - and that's not a bad thing IMO. See above the bit you quoted. I have an X100T and an X-T1 but I can see right through them as I don't necessary resonate to the form over function thing - which is also why I often have a very ambivalent relationship to the Leicas I may have at any given time, depending on the level of that they exhibit. It's early days but the Q might be my favourite digital Leica for this reason - it's probably the most Sonylike thing they've made so far. Wrong again - the Leica M sensor is a proprietary development. And yes, the Q has all the signs of the intensified technical cooperation between Leica and Panasonic. However, how that makes the camera "Sony-like" is quite beyond me, assuming that is a good thing - as a user of both Sony and Leica cameras I could not see that as much of a positive... If you want cameras with some Sony in them, you'll have to look at the X-series, with their Sony sensors. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wacka Posted September 15, 2015 Share #180 Posted September 15, 2015 Wrong again - the Leica M sensor is a proprietary development. And yes, the Q has all the signs of the intensified technical cooperation between Leica and Panasonic. However, how that makes the camera "Sony-like" is quite beyond me, assuming that is a good thing - as a user of both Sony and Leica cameras I could not see that as much of a positive... If you want cameras with some Sony in them, you'll have to look at the X-series, with their Sony sensors. It's interesting that you've actually confirmed my point regarding 'noise-grain' with that dismissive reply. Used an X recently? Used anything else non-Leica which uses that sensor? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.