Jump to content

interview with Dr. Kaufmann and CEO Kaltner on the SL


cpclee

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

the main design constraint was that the sensor needed to cope with M lenses without enjoying the benefit of a microlens shifting optimised for these lenses.

 

So you are basically saying that if I shoot R lenses on the M9 I get weird results ?

Don't think so.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 171
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Where did I say i want to do that ?

It was just to prove that shifted microlenses is not an issue for R lenses.

 

Shifted microlenses are problematic with telecentric lenses, for exactly the same reason non shifted microlenses are problematic with symmetric wide angle designs. The result is heavy vignetting.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So we will see a new M most likely in September 2016 (Photokina). That has been hinted now a couple of times by people who know the little extra bit! The M will be "pure" and is also considered by Leica as their key product where they can't make any mistakes. So what do expect?

 

1.) A new processor, just like the SL

2.) An improved sensor, actually in September 2016 I would expect a new sensor generation over what is available today for the SL/Q

3.) An external EVF with the specs of the SL as well as GPS (like in the T)? I would prefer a hybrid VF but whether that is doable and "pure" enough, I am not sure...

4.) Thinner Body, probably but I don't expect a revolution, rather a small evolutionary reduction of size and weight.

6.) Better Display on the back, I don't think a touch our tiltable screen as I wouldn't consider this extremly "pure" or very functional with an M.

7.) No AF, clearly

8.) Dual Card Slot (probably if doable with the size)

9.) WIFI would make sense, Sensor cleaning not so much (that actually anyhow doesn't work anywhere else really well)

10.) Some minor fixes (moveable focus point with EVF, Darkframe to turn off, no limitation in bulb mode)...

 

Well and it will look pretty close to all existing M's... So no big surprises, we can go back have a nice Christmas, spent the camera money on presents for the loved ones and come back to the forum in late August next year ;-)

 

11.) same design of buttons at the back as SL now, which would be marvellous indeed

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

A CMOS sensor was an obvious prerequisite but the main design constraint was that the sensor needed to cope with M lenses without enjoying the benefit of a microlens shifting optimised for these lenses.

.

According to LFI the SL has the same kind of micro lens shifting than the M.

Link to post
Share on other sites

According to LFI the SL has the same kind of micro lens shifting than the M.

 

Neither the SL nor the M have shifted microlenses (but the M9 did). Since the M and SL have to work with telecentric lenses, shifted microlenses would cause even more problems. They have been replaced by egg shaped microlenses, which work reasonably well with M glass, but unfortunately not as well as the shifted ones. It's one of the reasons I hope Leica would revert back with the M as an M lens platform only and really optimize it for M glass, instead of making compromises in order to make it a jack of all trades.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Neither the SL nor the M have shifted microlenses (but the M9 did).

 

It's only a matter of time, and not very long, when we will see flexible sensors that change their shape to match the incident light coming from the back of the lens.  No more flat sensors.  Not even fixed-shape curved seniors.  Sensors that bend.

 

And, not too long after that, we will see lenses with flexible "jelly-like" elements that change shape to focus, just like the human eye.

 

Both comcepts are are in the lab.

 

Then this whole discussion will be moot...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Neither the SL nor the M have shifted microlenses (but the M9 did). Since the M and SL have to work with telecentric lenses, shifted microlenses would cause even more problems. They have been replaced by egg shaped microlenses, which work reasonably well with M glass, but unfortunately not as well as the shifted ones. It's one of the reasons I hope Leica would revert back with the M as an M lens platform only and really optimize it for M glass, instead of making compromises in order to make it a jack of all trades.

Quoted from LFI (8/2015 page 54)

...

This is particularly important for the use of M lenses on the SL, which requires the sensor to adapt to the lens, not vice versa.

As a result the sensor with its layers of microlenses, colour filters and infrared barrier filters has become slightly thinner.

In addition, the microlenses on the edge of the sensor have been moved slightly toward the center (as with the Leica Digital Modul R and digital M models) without affecting the sensor compatibility with other lenses. According to Leica, this make the second world's best camera for M lenses, after the M itself.

...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Shifted microlenses are problematic with telecentric lenses, for exactly the same reason non shifted microlenses are problematic with symmetric wide angle designs. The result is heavy vignetting.

Not the microlens design used by Leica on the M240 and presumably the following sensors, as they have an increased acceptance angle besides being shifted towards the edges.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Neither the SL nor the M have shifted microlenses (but the M9 did). Since the M and SL have to work with telecentric lenses, shifted microlenses would cause even more problems. They have been replaced by egg shaped microlenses, which work reasonably well with M glass, but unfortunately not as well as the shifted ones. It's one of the reasons I hope Leica would revert back with the M as an M lens platform only and really optimize it for M glass, instead of making compromises in order to make it a jack of all trades.

 

Are there any visible or otherwise evident manifestations of this compromise in the M? I'm not noticing any, which isn't to say they're not there.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Are there any visible or otherwise evident manifestations of this compromise in the M? I'm not noticing any, which isn't to say they're not there.

Compared to the M9, the M240 has more color shading and even some lenses without color shading on the M9 have a noticeable one on the M240. Most Leica lens users won't notice the difference if they have the auto lens correction on, though this approach causes irreparable damage to the files in the borders. I keep auto correction off, since I use ZM lenses and can see a huge difference between the M9 and M240.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's only a matter of time, and not very long, when we will see flexible sensors that change their shape to match the incident light coming from the back of the lens.  No more flat sensors.

 

That will be great, but M lenses are designed for flat sensors (film).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Compared to the M9, the M240 has more color shading

 

One thing is vignetting, and another is the infamous color-vignetting (aka "italian flag" issue).

As far as we know, color-vignetting seems to be caused by the sensor technology, not by the micro-lenses.

As a matter of fact, the A7R2 uses a BSI sensor that is immune to color-vignetting.

Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing is vignetting, and another is the infamous color-vignetting (aka "italian flag" issue).

As far as we know, color-vignetting seems to be caused by the sensor technology, not by the micro-lenses.

As a matter of fact, the A7R2 uses a BSI sensor that is immune to color-vignetting.

That is not entirely accurate. The color vignetting is caused by pixels crosstalk, or light rays spilling over more than one pixel. One way to counter this phenomenon is to shift the microlenses so that they focus the oblique light rays onto the pixels, or the BSI technology that if I understand it correctly has very shallow wells where there is very little space between microlenses and pixels.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That is not entirely accurate. The color vignetting is caused by pixels crosstalk, or light rays spilling over more than one pixel. One way to counter this phenomenon is to shift the microlenses so that they focus the oblique light rays onto the pixels

 

No. It has been demonstrated that this is not the cause, and that shifted microlenses don't help at all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

How do they compare in terms of view-to-exposure delay? I simply do not know.

 

Based upon my seat-of-the-pants reckoning from the SL demo I had in my hands last Friday, the SL is about as responsive (from seeing image to capturing it) as my Nikon D750, maybe a little better. Which is, by and large, in the same ballpark as my M-P. The SL stores data a bit more quickly, it seemed, so seems faster when you have it in the fast sequential capture mode. 

 

Both the M-P and the SL are far quieter in operation than the D750, however. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...