Mornnb Posted October 17, 2015 Share #21 Posted October 17, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) Any self calibration would have to include the lens ... I think the proponents of this electro-optical rangefinder are forgetting that what takes the picture is the setting on the lens in relation to the sensor. The rangefinder is irrelevant to this process, save for assisting the photographer to set the focus. Adding electronics to the rangefinder mechanism is still doing nothing to increase the accurate of the primary process of setting the lens relative to the sensor. No this is wrong. Through live view you can easily see when the in focus position is different to what the rangefinder says it is. With an electronic focus patch you can then tell the camera how far it is off from the true sensor to lens distance. The beauty of this is by using the lens barcode reader you can have a different setting for every single lens. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 17, 2015 Posted October 17, 2015 Hi Mornnb, Take a look here An Electronic Range Finder in an M. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Exodies Posted October 17, 2015 Share #22 Posted October 17, 2015 I'm happy with the rangefinder as is; I don't understand how you tell an automatic focus confirmation system not to focus on the branches at the edge of the forest but the unicorn behind them. The problem I would like to see solved is the frame lines. I accept that parallax is probably insurmountable but surely something can be done to show only the lines for the lens mounted. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thighslapper Posted October 17, 2015 Share #23 Posted October 17, 2015 Self calibrating would have to be lens specific. There is no mechanism to identify the actual lens ........ only the model via 6 bit coding....... so there would have to be ferreting about in the menus every time you change lenses to bring up the correct calibration ..... For AF lenses with an electronic connection to the lens you could read the lens serial number and it would be lens specific .... but then if they were AF you wouldn't need to ....... The system in the patent looks ok in theory ..... but there are plenty of potential obstacles in making it a suitable replacement for the current RF system with an auxiliary EVF. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted October 17, 2015 Share #24 Posted October 17, 2015 The problem I would like to see solved is the frame lines. I accept that parallax is probably insurmountable but surely something can be done to show only the lines for the lens mounted. +1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted October 17, 2015 Share #25 Posted October 17, 2015 Self calibrating would have to be lens specific. There is no mechanism to identify the actual lens ........ only the model via 6 bit coding....... so there would have to be ferreting about in the menus every time you change lenses to bring up the correct calibration ..... For AF lenses with an electronic connection to the lens you could read the lens serial number and it would be lens specific .... but then if they were AF you wouldn't need to ....... The system in the patent looks ok in theory ..... but there are plenty of potential obstacles in making it a suitable replacement for the current RF system with an auxiliary EVF. I think that the issue of lens-specific calibration could be solved via proper software... to say, establishing a profile for the lens recognized via the usual 6 bit coding ("MY Summicron 90" )... of course, this would mean that one cannot manage two lenses with the same code... a collateral (an probably rare) issue that in turn could be solved further complicating the Software ("MY Summicron 50 2445898... MY Summicron 50 3560981"... - menu-setting, of course, overriding the 6 bit recognition... or proposing a menu choice when one of THOSE lenses is mounted and recognized... as a Software guy, I know that it can be imagined complex as you like... forgetting about technical limitations... ) Anyway, it's interesting and encouraging that they still are thinking of ways to make it better the RF... a proof that M line will live on... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exodies Posted October 17, 2015 Share #26 Posted October 17, 2015 Old and new lenses could be identified by a new body by attaching an rfid to the lens. Cost about 3¢ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jto555 Posted October 17, 2015 Author Share #27 Posted October 17, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) Reading the article again, it said that the "calibration table the different phase intervals associated distances a microprocessor unit in the housing is provided and connected to the signal outputs of the image pickup modules". So to my non engineer brain, that means that the Calibration Table can have a user input correction applied to it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Branch Posted October 18, 2015 Share #28 Posted October 18, 2015 .............I doubt it will surpass the rangefinder in the core range of 28-90mm. Outside that range, it has a way to go to beat the SLR, but that is another story, I guess ... I'm not sure why the wide angle limit for which a RF is deemed to be superior to other methods is 28mm. In my experience a RF is far superior with focal lengths shorter than 28mm. I'm assuming here that this is a discussion about focusing accuracy - viewfinder accuracy is an entirely different matter. I would readily agree that shorter than 28mm an EVF beats any optical system for viewfinder accuracy. With my 18mm I would not contemplate an optical viewfinder; but the EVF is as good as useless for focusing it. Personally I don't subscribe to the "Near infinite depth of field making accurate focusing unnecessary" school of thought. I have many examples taken in all sorts of conditions where the point of focus when using the 18mm lens is quite obvious. I posted one recently in another thread. This, in my opinion, is a departure from the days of the 21mm f3.4 Super-Angulon-M with film. The modern 18mm lens used with the sensor in an M240 provides the potential for a very different level of performance and a much more sharply defined transition from In to Out of focus. Which, in my world, requires accurate focusing even with an 18mm. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted October 18, 2015 Share #29 Posted October 18, 2015 +1. I have no experience with wider focal lengths than 21mm but the rangefinder shows clearly its superiority there. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
algrove Posted October 18, 2015 Share #30 Posted October 18, 2015 On some days the 18mm is my favorite WA lens on my M-240 platform cameras. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted October 18, 2015 Share #31 Posted October 18, 2015 More correctly, the rangefinder uses a table-lookup (faster than calculating) and can interpolate if necessary. It is reasonable to store a user adjustment but separate from the factory lookup table values. The patent includes the availability to include the sensor in determining focus. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
uhoh7 Posted October 19, 2015 Share #32 Posted October 19, 2015 Well it's nice to see they are thinking about it. TY very much to mornnb for informative posts Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sarav Posted October 19, 2015 Share #33 Posted October 19, 2015 after many film leica and several digital ones I recently bought a couple of MP (film). To me Leica has produced too many camera which are Leica because of brand but not because of history and philosophy. Leica was almost dead prior to M9 then it came the M9. M9 IS A LEICA with digital sensor...STOP. Nothing else. It's marvellous. People has bought in dozens of thousands in a couple of years. Leica has produces Monochrom, maybe the best ever Leica. Now Leica is producing too many costing toys, with different form and size, which nothing will tell in Leica history, just some posters in Wetzlar. Leica M is a good camera but it's too large, slow, noisy, a little bit complicated; maybe a new M in the size of an MP (film) with good ISO capabilities (who needs more actually????), good materials, quick response (film camera is faster), good quality-check (I've had numerous RESOLVED issues with bodies and lenses) would be a new M9-like success. my 2 cents Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thighslapper Posted October 19, 2015 Share #34 Posted October 19, 2015 I have to agree ....... I think Leica has diversified its camera portfolio too widely and risks abandoning its core products in a fountain of new gizmos ........ The Q has to be by far the best of a rather mixed bag from the last few years . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanJW Posted October 19, 2015 Share #35 Posted October 19, 2015 after many film leica and several digital ones I recently bought a couple of MP (film). To me Leica has produced too many camera which are Leica because of brand but not because of history and philosophy. Leica was almost dead prior to M9 then it came the M9. M9 IS A LEICA with digital sensor...STOP. Nothing else. It's marvellous. People has bought in dozens of thousands in a couple of years. Leica has produces Monochrom, maybe the best ever Leica. Now Leica is producing too many costing toys, with different form and size, which nothing will tell in Leica history, just some posters in Wetzlar. Leica M is a good camera but it's too large, slow, noisy, a little bit complicated; maybe a new M in the size of an MP (film) with good ISO capabilities (who needs more actually????), good materials, quick response (film camera is faster), good quality-check (I've had numerous RESOLVED issues with bodies and lenses) would be a new M9-like success. my 2 cents My 2 cents is a bit different. The M240 is a large improvement over the M9 in usability and is far quieter too. In the latter sense, the M240 is much more of a return to Leica basics than the M9 was, as the M9 shutter was far too noisy. It is also essentially the same size. Does the M have more features than M9? Yes, but you don't have to use live view or the EVF or video if you don't want to. It also has much better high ISO performance. Second, not everybody is a strictly rangefinder shooter and I have no objection to Leica producing new cameras to expand its market. IMHO it failed with the T, but succeeded with the Q, which is a very advanced camera that feels like a very basic one at the same time. I hope they can achieve the same with any new M that comes along. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sarav Posted October 19, 2015 Share #36 Posted October 19, 2015 The M240 is a large improvement over the M9 in usability and is far quieter too...... I agree! M240 is a step forward from M9 but it still is noisy and toooooo bulky. I don't say M9 is better than other cameras in general. Absolutely not. I've published some books with photos taken with DMR, M8, M9 and M240 and the latter has produced the better files. Better in workability not in quality (they equally produce wonderful photos): with M240 you'll obtain a great result in postproduction in a very short time. But with all these digital cameras (which I love) I find myself in a status of very short latency before shooting; with film camera this latency is not existent, my minds goesquicker (probably because of the lack of technological functions and relative buttons that I don't need). A simpler and slimmer camera with the new OPTICAL rangefinder of the M240 (clearly better than previous ones) would be a masterpiece. Tomorrow we'll see what Leica is introducing in its portfolio, hopefully not another letter K? Z? J? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exodies Posted October 19, 2015 Share #37 Posted October 19, 2015 I have to agree ....... I think Leica has diversified its camera portfolio too widely and risks abandoning its core products in a fountain of new gizmos ........ The Q has to be by far the best of a rather mixed bag from the last few years . There must be a minimum of new product releases below which you fail to fully occupy your researchers and designers. These are expensive teams to run and prolly work best when they have a concrete result every so often. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thighslapper Posted October 21, 2015 Share #38 Posted October 21, 2015 There must be a minimum of new product releases below which you fail to fully occupy your researchers and designers. These are expensive teams to run and prolly work best when they have a concrete result every so often. perhaps they would be more productively employed in sorting out the outstanding Firmware issues in the M, T, XV and Q ........ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mornnb Posted October 21, 2015 Share #39 Posted October 21, 2015 after many film leica and several digital ones I recently bought a couple of MP (film). To me Leica has produced too many camera which are Leica because of brand but not because of history and philosophy. Leica was almost dead prior to M9 then it came the M9. M9 IS A LEICA with digital sensor...STOP. Nothing else. It's marvellous. People has bought in dozens of thousands in a couple of years. Leica has produces Monochrom, maybe the best ever Leica. I disagree completely. The M9 was a digital camera that wanted to be film. The M is Leica truly embracing digital, with all the features that one takes for granted as part of digital photography. Such as live view and focus peaking. The M is the first digital Leica that one can say is close to perfection and resolved all the issues I had with the M9. Now Leica is producing too many costing toys, with different form and size, which nothing will tell in Leica history, just some posters in Wetzlar.Leica M is a good camera but it's too large, slow, noisy, a little bit complicated; maybe a new M in the size of an MP (film) with good ISO capabilities (who needs more actually????), good materials, quick response (film camera is faster), good quality-check (I've had numerous RESOLVED issues with bodies and lenses) would be a new M9-like success. my 2 cents I could make use of better high ISO abilities. For stopped down candid style street photography with zone focusing, high iso abilities make it easier to get the shot as you can better maintain a fast shutter and small aperture. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted October 21, 2015 Share #40 Posted October 21, 2015 perhaps they would be more productively employed in sorting out the outstanding Firmware issues in the M, T, XV and Q ........ The very same has crossed my mind often, but I suspect Leica is hampered by not owning all the pieces of the firmware. Today is not like our old days of monolithic software. I welcome correction. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.