SL II Sensor Size increase?

[mjh]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

What do you call the SL?? Manual focus?

I call it “no M”. Your claim was that Leica would develop an M with AF and they have not. Not every camera built by Leica is an M.

[mjh]

Show me a medium format lens with smaller diameter than a 35mm lens?

Huh? We were talking about flange distance, not lens diameter. Lens diameter is largely irrelevant in this context anyway as depends on several factors, not all concerned with the size of the image circle or even optics in general.

[sillbeers15]

I call it “no M”. Your claim was that Leica would develop an M with AF and they have not. Not every camera built by Leica is an M.

Are you dum?

The M9 is a rangefinder with CCD sensor.

The M240 is a mirrorless with CMOS sensor and Rangefinder, therefore it can focus non M lenses using liveview.

The SL is also a mirrorless with CMOS sensor plus AF capability.

Understand??

[sillbeers15]

Huh? We were talking about flange distance, not lens diameter. Lens diameter is largely irrelevant in this context anyway as depends on several factors, not all concerned with the size of the image circle or even optics in general.

A larger sensor or film plate will require more glass area and therefore larger diameter.

Mirrorless can allow lens to be mounted closer to sensor and filmplate therefore accepting smaller diameter lenses.

Therefore micro4third cameras generally have more compact lenses due to smaller sensor size and mirrorless.

Can you see the relation???

[steppenw0lf]

An increase in size means an increase in cost - so going towards a bigger sensor makes very little sense and is not the trend.

Miniaturization is the big trend in photo technology (and in many other technologies), because it helps to reduce cost.

PanaLeicas will have the same capabilities regarding IQ as current FF, at a lower price.

[sillbeers15]

An increase in size means an increase in cost - so going towards a bigger sensor makes very little sense and is not the trend.

Miniaturization is the big trend in photo technology (and in many other technologies), because it helps to reduce cost.

PanaLeicas will have the same capabilities regarding IQ as current FF, at a lower price.

I agree with your logic. However in business, it is demand that decides and not cost. Else, Leica would not have existed.

[pop]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Are you dum? (...)

Understand??

This kind of comment is not appreciated here. Please have a look at our forum rules: Forum Rules

[sillbeers15]

This kind of comment is not appreciated here. Please have a look at our forum rules: Forum Rules

I apologize.

[steppenw0lf]

In business you have to go where there is a gap. If there ever was a gap in midrange, then it is now filled with several competitors. So too late to join.

[pop]

The M9 is a rangefinder with CCD sensor.

The M240 is a mirrorless with CMOS sensor and Rangefinder, therefore it can focus non M lenses using liveview.

The SL is also a mirrorless with CMOS sensor plus AF capability.

A Leica M camera is a camera with an M type Bayonet and a rangefinder. There are very few specialized models which do not have rangefinders because they are made for very limited circumstances where rangefinders would not be useful or even useable. Other cameras which can also be used with  M lenses are not M cameras. The Sony NEX series comes to mind.

[sillbeers15]

In business you have to go where there is a gap. If there ever was a gap in midrange, then it is now filled with several competitors. So too late to join.

Very true. I am only discussing what I see as a possible gap.

[sillbeers15]

A Leica M camera is a camera with an M type Bayonet and a rangefinder. There are very few specialized models which do not have rangefinders because they are made for very limited circumstances where rangefinders would not be useful or even useable. Other cameras which can also be used with  M lenses are not M cameras. The Sony NEX series comes to mind.

I was not talking about non Leica cameras.

[LocalHero1953]

With the recent release of both the Hasselblad X1D & Fujifilm GFX50s mirrorless medium format digital cameras, I see a shift in medium format lens size (mind you these are AF not MF) reduction due to the fact that the lenses sit closer to the sensor in the absence of the DSLR mirror mechanism.

As for the Leica SL, the SL lenses also sit closer to the sensor but have grown in size and the mount diameter is somewhat similar to the R lenses. When one mounts the R lenses via the R to SL adapter, the R lenses sit some 30mm further. By the same logic, does it means that Leica SL system is designed with a provision for a larger sensor size for future SL cameras (on native lenses only)? Which explains the larger than expected SL native lenses? 

Even the X1D & GFX50s is regarded as medium format, their sensor size is smaller than the 100MP sensors.

If Leica SL system can succeed in producing future SLs with larger sensor size bigger than the current full frame sensors with 40-50MP retaining the high ISO capability(perhaps still a shade smaller than medium format sensors), it can be the next game changer!

I've lost track of this argument.

 

To return to your original suggestions:

 

- No, the SL system is not designed for a larger sensor size (see my earlier post in which I showed how you can measure the image circle of the SL lenses). So this doesn't explain the larger than expected SL native lenses (obviously, I haven't checked the SL 50/1.4).

- Therefore the SL cannot be a game changer (by combining it with a larger sensor).

 

This leaves the possibility that Leica might choose to design a mirrorless medium format body with a L-mount. They would then have to either design a whole new range of L-mount lenses with a wider image circle, or rely on S-mount lenses being fitted by adapter, as on the current SL. 

I don't know enough about lens design to say whether the L-mount is too small for a medium format system (or would impose unnecessary design constraints on one).

[mjh]

A larger sensor or film plate will require more glass area and therefore larger diameter.

Mirrorless can allow lens to be mounted closer to sensor and filmplate therefore accepting smaller diameter lenses.

Therefore micro4third cameras generally have more compact lenses due to smaller sensor size and mirrorless.

Can you see the relation???

As a matter of fact Olympus strives to build near telecentric lenses for the (Micro) FourThirds system and such lenses have large rear lenses. You want the light to hit the sensor at a small incident angle which obviously requires large rear lenses. Trust me: You don’t want small rear lenses.

 

Mirrorless doesn’t imply small/compact lenses. Actually telephoto lenses must be longer when the the flange distance is shorter. Only some wide-angle lenses can be smaller as mirrorless cameras with a short flange distance don’t need as many retrofocus lenses as SLRs do. Micro FourThirds lenses can be smaller than those for APS-C or 35 mm systems simply because the focal length for a given angle of view is shorter. Which also has its downsides of course.

[scott kirkpatrick]

Solvitur ambulando. Hold a Leica SL lens towards a scene and a piece of white paper with a scale behind it.

Even doing this roughly hand holding, it looks like an image circle of about 40mm +/-5mm - not big enough for medium format (however that term is stretched in the digital era: it won't be medium format to me until we have sensors 60mm wide).

The 35mm FF is 24mm high, 36mm wide and 44mm along the diagonal.  Your exercise suggests vignetting, if anything.

 

scott

[ramarren]

The overall size of the SL lenses gives no clue as to the possibility of a larger sensor in the SL body because it is far more a matter of styling than anything else. 

 

There is a clue provided by the diameter and register of the lens mount. There is an 'ideal' or at least minimum relationship between the size and shape of the sensor relative to the mount register and the mount flange diameter. Olympus hit the numbers for this right on the money with the E-System (FourThirds format sensor, SLR bodies, designed/optimized for f/2 lenses), which is preserved in the Micro-FourThirds system bodies (shorter mount register, so the mount flange diameter could be reduced without changing the relationship or the design spec, enabling more compact lenses). 

 

I'm sure Leica is aware of these optimizations and design specifications. It is the strongest influence on lens design. What is the lens mount diameter of the Leica S system? I know the register is about 53mm. If the SL were to be upgradeable to the same sized sensor (30x45 mm), it would likely have to have a lens mounting flange diameter of similar dimensions, minus a little bit due to the shorter mount register. 

 

I am pretty sure the SL is not upgradeable to the larger sensor, not without shrouding the sensor and causing serious issues in lens design (as we've seen with the Sony A7 series cameras, where they stuffed a FF sensor behind a lens mount designed for APS-C sensors; I think Sigma was most vocal about the issues, with a public statement). Leica would not make that mistake. I recall when I first saw the Leica T: I wondered why the body was so large and the lens mount so big because the mount diameter was quite a lot larger than needed for the APS-C sensor.

 

This is why I was absolutely sure there would be a FF sensor behind that lens mount at some point, and why I commenced buying more R system lenses ... which were very inexpensive for a while. 

[sillbeers15]

The overall size of the SL lenses gives no clue as to the possibility of a larger sensor in the SL body because it is far more a matter of styling than anything else. 

 

There is a clue provided by the diameter and register of the lens mount. There is an 'ideal' or at least minimum relationship between the size and shape of the sensor relative to the mount register and the mount flange diameter. Olympus hit the numbers for this right on the money with the E-System (FourThirds format sensor, SLR bodies, designed/optimized for f/2 lenses), which is preserved in the Micro-FourThirds system bodies (shorter mount register, so the mount flange diameter could be reduced without changing the relationship or the design spec, enabling more compact lenses). 

 

I'm sure Leica is aware of these optimizations and design specifications. It is the strongest influence on lens design. What is the lens mount diameter of the Leica S system? I know the register is about 53mm. If the SL were to be upgradeable to the same sized sensor (30x45 mm), it would likely have to have a lens mounting flange diameter of similar dimensions, minus a little bit due to the shorter mount register. 

 

I am pretty sure the SL is not upgradeable to the larger sensor, not without shrouding the sensor and causing serious issues in lens design (as we've seen with the Sony A7 series cameras, where they stuffed a FF sensor behind a lens mount designed for APS-C sensors; I think Sigma was most vocal about the issues, with a public statement). Leica would not make that mistake. I recall when I first saw the Leica T: I wondered why the body was so large and the lens mount so big because the mount diameter was quite a lot larger than needed for the APS-C sensor.

 

This is why I was absolutely sure there would be a FF sensor behind that lens mount at some point, and why I commenced buying more R system lenses ... which were very inexpensive for a while. 

Your logic is sound, if so then the limitation for future bigger sensor SL would not be possible w/o changing the entire SL system. I'm only curious about the possibility of larger sensor size ( I did not say medium format size) to accommodate a optimized pixel increase (pixel size will continue to increase by competitors to cox more sales of newer products, effectiveness & efficiency is another issue) judging from the mirrorless + Larger lens diameter of SL lenses. I do not know the rational behind the SL lenses designed to such diameter and I do not know the almost similar to R lens mount diameter of SL system but I do suspect the possibility of accommodating sensor size increase (perhaps 20%) and that may mean not able to accommodate m & R lenses anymore after SL system has its own full range of lenses. I know I would think and plan in such a way if I were directing the SL design team rather than designing a new system around the limit of the boundary from the beginning. I also observed that the 28mm lens on the Q is almost same diameter as the M lenses despite having AF capability although it is fixed lens design camera, so I do not buy the reasoning that SL designers just design the lenses with bigger diameter than required. Leica is a company that sees the sensor design and optics as dual core competency for the future of the company and I admire that. Almost all competitors big and small uses Sony sensors on their products. That gives no product distinction despite lower risk. Leica has the ability to adjust sensor size to fit its design concept and product strategy. I know many of you do not share my curiosity and thoughts,...it is because I'm a Out-Of-The-Box thinker. 

[LD_50]

Leica is a company that sees the sensor design and optics as dual core competency for the future of the company and I admire that. Almost all competitors big and small uses Sony sensors on their products. That gives no product distinction despite lower risk. Leica has the ability to adjust sensor size to fit its design concept and product strategy. I know many of you do not share my curiosity and thoughts,...it is because I'm a Out-Of-The-Box thinker.

 

It's not out of the box thinking or lack of curiosity that leads many here to disagree with the idea of a bigger sensor in the SL body. It is the plainly clear existence of the S system, the obviousness that SL lenses are larger than R and M lenses because they are AF with weather sealing, a larger mount diameter, and shooting for different quality goals.

 

A 20% larger sensor isn't needed for higher resolution. Sony already has a 42 MP full frame and Canon a 50.6 MP. The SL system isn't designed against any sensor size limited resolutio. There is currently room to double the number of pixels with technology already on the market.

[sillbeers15]

It's not out of the box thinking or lack of curiosity that leads many here to disagree with the idea of a bigger sensor in the SL body. It is the plainly clear existence of the S system, the obviousness that SL lenses are larger than R and M lenses because they are AF with weather sealing, a larger mount diameter, and shooting for different quality goals.

 

A 20% larger sensor isn't needed for higher resolution. Sony already has a 42 MP full frame and Canon a 50.6 MP. The SL system isn't designed against any sensor size limited resolutio. There is currently room to double the number of pixels with technology already on the market.

There are distinct advantages of a larger footprint than mere cramping of more pixels into an existing sized sensor. However, there are also direct drawbacks in application as bigger sensors at medium format range needs much bigger glass therefore limiting the range of application (ie, telephotos will be too big for handheld beyond 150mm in 35mm focal length) and not to mention the need for higher processor speed to keep up with the current 11fps of the SL. 

This is why medium format exist till today as an alternative to 35mm (mainly as indoor studio cameras) rather than a natural progression for serious photographers.

In your explanation, there is either 35mm or medium format to go to. That thought is outdated as we are no longer bounded by film strips supplied by fixed industrial standards.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[LD_50]

In your explanation, there is either 35mm or medium format to go to. That thought is outdated as we are no longer bounded by film strips supplied by fixed industrial standards.

No.

 

My explanation has nothing to do with any fixed industrial standards. I have no clue what you're talking about.

 

I'm mentioning LEICA's standards, the SL and S cameras.

 

The SL matches the standard size LEICA created. Others followed.

 

The S is another size LEICA created. It's not the same as ANY medium format or any other sensor or film size.