Peter H Posted July 20, 2016 Share #301 Posted July 20, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) The lenses are designed for a 43 mm image circle. A 36 x 36 mm sensor requires a 51 mm image circle which is actually closer to the 54 mm image circle of the Leica S. So yes, you could switch between portrait and landscape without turning the camera as you would stay clear of the corners then. The corners are the issue. Now with the M specifically there are also issues like the roller for the rangefinder coupling that might get in the way. And yes, the viewfinder would need some reworking, too. Let’s say it is not a very realistic proposition. For your help in understanding and for your information, The yellow area's are 24x36, hence the image of the M (portrait and landscape), the grey area is the 36x36 mm. As you notice in the drawing the circle of 43,2 mm. (COC of the M-lens) doesn't fit outside the grey area. You need a bigger CoC for this, a minimum of 51 mm. was drawing anyway. So, It's not the 36mm square sensor that's the problem but the lenses' inability to project an image that would fill it. I knew I was missing something simple! Thanks for the explanations and the diagram. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted July 20, 2016 Posted July 20, 2016 Hi Peter H, Take a look here How many megapixels in the next M?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
pico Posted July 20, 2016 Share #302 Posted July 20, 2016 Another illustration. The blue background is 36x36mm. The violet color is 24x36mm. Note that rotating 24x36mm requires more area than 36x36mm. So 24x36mm fits only in horizontal or vertical orientation, and wastes the rest. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exodies Posted July 20, 2016 Share #303 Posted July 20, 2016 Of course it's not a question of ordering a 43mm diameter circular sensor and Bob's your uncle, but Barnak also had to do a little bit more work than order some 35mm film. Just imagine - for the first time ever in the history of photography the lens would determine the layout of the image, not the shape of the sensor. And another thing. If the rangefinder window was in the bottom left corner of the body (instead of top left) there would be a longer baseline giving a more accurate rangefinder. Jump out of the box, guys, the water's lovely. Isn't solving these little problems what engineers are for? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exodies Posted July 20, 2016 Share #304 Posted July 20, 2016 It occurs to me that a product has to evolve if it is to be any good. So, first iteration of the circular sensor camera wouldn't have a rangefinder, only a viewfinder, a notched stick projecting forward from the top of the body on which you slide a wire loop to the notch matching the lens attached; whatever you see in the loop will be in the picture (I hope the stick doesn't have to be too long...). Focus is done using the meter scale on the lens. OK? Now we just need the sensor. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted July 20, 2016 Share #305 Posted July 20, 2016 A round sensor would waste too much silicone to be cost effective. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdlaing Posted July 20, 2016 Share #306 Posted July 20, 2016 Silicon? Silicone makes your chest bigger. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exodies Posted July 20, 2016 Share #307 Posted July 20, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) A round sensor in a hexagonal chip wouldn't waste much silicon Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmahto Posted July 20, 2016 Share #308 Posted July 20, 2016 Silicon? Silicone makes your chest bigger. larger sensor or larger chest... hmmmm... I know what my preference is. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmahto Posted July 20, 2016 Share #309 Posted July 20, 2016 I'm actually still fine with the 18mp my M9 has ... though I did buy an S 006 to complement the M9. The 37.5 seems plenty to me, the Filesize is still bareable and decent to work with on a laptop. Between the M9 and M240 there was an increase of about 10MB in filesize (around 50%) which made the workflow slower, but did not add 50% more detail. For me the benefit of the M240 files to the M9 files felt more like 10%, maybe less. I couldn't really tell much of a difference in resolved Detail reproduction. The S 006 is a different level entirely. File size is 100% larger than the M9, and there is a whole lot more detail to be worked with. Maybe not 100% more, but it certainly feels much better. What I want to express, is basically that in order to truly make a difference with MP, it has to be at least 36mp ... 4mp extra just won't do ... But at that point it does become difficult for the S 007 .... While I did just get into the S System and I really enjoy using it (compared to the M240 which felt boring to me..) it seems that it has pushed Leica into a corner. It's probably too early to release a new S, but as long as the S only has 37.5 mp, they really can't go higher with the M SL Q .... Maybe an S-P 007 with a new Sensor (and upgrade program) could do the trick ... but who knows. For me going from M9 to M240 didn't do a whole lot for image resolution (I guess I could have printed sharp A1 instead of A2, that's all). For me the benefit was 1-2 stop higher usable ISO. A clean high ISO with enough DR is more preferable to me than more resolution. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
steveBK Posted July 21, 2016 Share #310 Posted July 21, 2016 DR and High ISO are the big push these days I find the Q files to be noticeably more malleable in post than my M240 files.. hopefully the next M takes this further Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NERICSSON Posted July 21, 2016 Share #311 Posted July 21, 2016 So with a rectangular sensor the best option would be a rectangular lens... :-D Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
colonel Posted July 21, 2016 Share #312 Posted July 21, 2016 We could have a square sensor but would need a new type of lens to make full usage, although the old ones would work of course As mjh said there are however other considerations, such as shutter, which would make it an expensive project Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exodies Posted July 21, 2016 Share #313 Posted July 21, 2016 Not if it was an electronic shutter as used for movie recording. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FMB Posted July 21, 2016 Share #314 Posted July 21, 2016 I'm, an amateur with trembling hands. That means: all my life since fourteen years I've been fighting against this movement with tripods, mini pods, shutter speeds, higher ISO, etc. From 8 to 18 MP I haven't detected any added difficulty in my "standards" of fighting , but changing from 18 to 24 MP, YES. I've had to improve my precautions. Only a test. Try to close your hand to draw an small window and look through it. Every time you close your hands it will be more difficult to see a vertical line easy and clear . If your hands are fortunately steady take a cardboard with two holes of 2 mm and 8 mm of diameter, move it and see what happen looking through them. The more we diminish the diameter the less we see the contours of the objets. I thing some similar happens with the size of the pixels. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdlaing Posted July 21, 2016 Share #315 Posted July 21, 2016 Another illustration. The blue background is 36x36mm. The violet color is 24x36mm. Note that rotating 24x36mm requires more area than 36x36mm. So 24x36mm fits only in horizontal or vertical orientation, and wastes the rest. I am not sure what you are trying to illustrate here. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted July 21, 2016 Share #316 Posted July 21, 2016 Keep the horizon straight Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted July 21, 2016 Share #317 Posted July 21, 2016 Another illustration. The blue background is 36x36mm. The violet color is 24x36mm. Note that rotating 24x36mm requires more area than 36x36mm. So 24x36mm fits only in horizontal or vertical orientation, and wastes the rest. Obvious given that (4 - Pi) is MORE than 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exodies Posted July 21, 2016 Share #318 Posted July 21, 2016 Unless I've picked up the wrong data, there seems to be a long way to go in reducing pixel size from the M 240 and not suffer from motion smearing: Apple iPhone 6 - pixels 1.5 micrometer square M typ 240 - pixels on a 6 micrometer square grid Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted July 22, 2016 Share #319 Posted July 22, 2016 Well, it does depend on the size of the image you want to display... A phone screen is not like a print - like all flaws it gets visible with magnification. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
edwardkaraa Posted July 22, 2016 Share #320 Posted July 22, 2016 The next M will have 24 mp, unusable ISO 50,000, and will feature an auxiliary EVF with 4 mp. Whatever you're smoking guys, I would advise you to quit Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.