leffe Posted December 15, 2015 Share #1 Posted December 15, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) According to the latest LFI, the sensor is technically different. (LFI 1/2016, Page 47) What do we know about that? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted December 15, 2015 Posted December 15, 2015 Hi leffe, Take a look here M 262 sensor is technically different to M 240. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Steve Ricoh Posted December 16, 2015 Share #2 Posted December 16, 2015 Can you summarise the difference, or provide the web address to the reference, I haven't a clue where to begin. Thanks. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThePioneer Posted December 16, 2015 Share #3 Posted December 16, 2015 That edition has not arrived at my door yet. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjh Posted December 17, 2015 Share #4 Posted December 17, 2015 Can you summarise the difference That’s what he did – the sensor is ‘technologically different’ from that of the M (Typ 240), according to LFI, quoting product manager Jesko von Oeynhausen. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
elmars Posted December 17, 2015 Share #5 Posted December 17, 2015 Of course he meant: What are this for differences? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
brill64 Posted December 17, 2015 Share #6 Posted December 17, 2015 there's no live view. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gpwhite Posted December 17, 2015 Share #7 Posted December 17, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) That’s what he did – the sensor is ‘technologically different’ from that of the M (Typ 240), according to LFI, quoting product manager Jesko von Oeynhausen. Michael, can you add any further detail for us? I think it is understandable that Leica FF "users" are extremely curious about how these four 24MP FF sensors compare "technologically" so they can better fathom why the images are so different in appearance (i.e., M240 , Q, SL and now M262)? Thanks! I have not seen an M262, let alone its images, but my files from each the M240, Q and SL are very different from each other (and all very good in their own rights). 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JonathanP Posted December 17, 2015 Share #8 Posted December 17, 2015 I'm just wondering if something has got lost in translation here - the M262 is of course different sensor technology from the previous ME, but I thought the M262 was a example of producing a lower cost version of an existing product to boost sales before the new model appears? I would find hard to believe it has a different/better sensor than the M240 that is still on sale for more money? Jonathan (I did buy a new Subaru Forrester once that was on run-out offer before the new model was released, it came fitted with the new models revised engine so had slightly better specs than those published for the car. But I'd be very surprised if Leica was doing that here - they'd want to make full marketing capital with the M240 replacement). Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted December 17, 2015 Share #9 Posted December 17, 2015 I do not think it a translation issue - we have an identical -puzzled- thread on the German Forum. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gpwhite Posted December 17, 2015 Share #10 Posted December 17, 2015 and MJH has yet to comment further... hmmm. It may be time to begin a Conspiracy in Wetzlar thread Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted December 17, 2015 Share #11 Posted December 17, 2015 Well, the most logical explanation might be that the absence of Liveview and the corresponding readout makes a technical difference, for instance the on-board electronic hardware might be different. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gpwhite Posted December 17, 2015 Share #12 Posted December 17, 2015 Well, the most logical explanation might be that the absence of Liveview and the corresponding readout makes a technical difference, for instance the on-board electronic hardware might be different. Jaap, I expect you are right and that the sensor/processor units between M 262 and 240 produce, in terms of DNG, the same output. I think that is what we are interested in. But I am curious, as much as anything because of what seems a cryptic comment above from one who should know, and I have asked a technical resource at Leica USA to comment. He was very knowledgable about the Maestro II processor and might know about this comparison too. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exodies Posted December 17, 2015 Share #13 Posted December 17, 2015 Surely the absence of live view is a firmware setting. It would be very extravagant to redesign a sensor just to leave out a function. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JonathanP Posted December 17, 2015 Share #14 Posted December 17, 2015 (edited) Surely the absence of live view is a firmware setting. It would be very extravagant to redesign a sensor just to leave out a function. Absolutely. In the qualities that Leica manufacture cameras, surely they would want to keep a standard part across all the M(240) derivative cameras, for stock control, spare parts and economy of scale. If you were making 10's of millions of them, then of course tweak the silicon if it can shave a few cents off.. Jonathan Edited December 17, 2015 by jperkins 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjh Posted December 17, 2015 Share #15 Posted December 17, 2015 Of course he meant: What are this for differences? I don’t know. All I know is from reading the article written by my colleague Simon Schwarzer (who was quoting Jesko von Oeynhausen). 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheshireCat Posted December 17, 2015 Share #16 Posted December 17, 2015 Surely the absence of live view is a firmware setting. It would be very extravagant to redesign a sensor just to leave out a function. Indeed. Also considering that a new "technically different" sensor would require new "fixups" for color-vignetting correction. Even chips from the same silicon wafer are not all created equal. Those that cannot keep up to the nominal clock-speed, or have some failed subsystems (then disabled), are usually renamed and sold as lower-specced chips. This does not totally justify the "technically different" definition, but everyone should now be used to Leica's "technonsense". Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted December 18, 2015 Share #17 Posted December 18, 2015 Surely the absence of live view is a firmware setting. It would be very extravagant to redesign a sensor just to leave out a function. Just speculating... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
masjah Posted December 18, 2015 Share #18 Posted December 18, 2015 (edited) Indeed. Also considering that a new "technically different" sensor would require new "fixups" for color-vignetting correction. Even chips from the same silicon wafer are not all created equal. Those that cannot keep up to the nominal clock-speed, or have some failed subsystems (then disabled), are usually renamed and sold as lower-specced chips. This does not totally justify the "technically different" definition, but everyone should now be used to Leica's "technonsense". What do I know, but I suspect this is the most likely explanation. Intel used to do this sort of thing (and probably still does.) If there is a load of chips where everything is fine except that the bit that facilitates live view is duff, then use them! (It would be legalistically true to say that they are then "technically different" from the M240 chip.) Edited December 18, 2015 by masjah Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exodies Posted December 18, 2015 Share #19 Posted December 18, 2015 (edited) There's another source of sensors without live view - those developed as the M9 replacement. Wrong number of pixels though. Edited December 18, 2015 by Exodies Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheshireCat Posted December 18, 2015 Share #20 Posted December 18, 2015 There's another source of sensors without live view - those developed as the M9 replacement. Wrong number of pixels though. ... and wrong technology (CCD) ... and different chip requiring major hardware, production, and firmware reworks. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.