Sensor "sharpness"

[jrp]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

One of the marketing claims made by Leica for the M10 is that it has a "sharp sensor". This could mean no more than no low-pass filter is being used over the sensor, but that is also the case with other Leica cameras.

 

There is also a suggestion that the new sensor is (even) better suited to the wider angle M lenses, which are not well matched to, e.g., Sony sensors (or the micro lenses that go over them).

 

Does anyone have any evidence one way or the other on these points?

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[brill64]

its interesting that no one has responded to this post. someone with an M10 should. Anyone?

[Steve Spencer]

I have ordered an M10, but don't have it yet, but I will try to respond. I am not sure what is meant by a sharp sensor. It is true that the M10 doesn't have a low-pass (i.e., anti-aliasing filter) and this will in general makes the images sharper but at the cost of moire in some situations. The low-pass/anit-aliasing filter is meant to blur the image slightly, so not having it does make images sharper. All the Leica M digital cameras have not used a low-pass/anti-aliasing filter, however, so this is nothing new with the M10. It is also true that Leica has modified the sensor so that it works better with wide angle lenses by adding micro lenses, but this too has been true of all Leica M digital cameras. I don't think we know if the M10 is better, worse, or the same with wide angle lenses than previous M cameras. My working hypothesis is that the M10 will work well with all currently available lenses and will work to varying degrees with older lenses that are no longer made new. With older lenses I also don't expect a simple answer that the M10 works better or worse than previous M cameras. My working hypothesis is that it will likely work better with some lenses than some of the older cameras, but will like work worse with some of the older lenses than some cameras as well. Exactly the mix of how many lenses and which lenses it works better or worse than other M cameras will likely take a lot of testing. 

Now compared to the Sony cameras (and I have a Sony A7r II) I think the issues are pretty well known. The issue is not the low pass/anit-aliasing filter or the micro lenses that some Sony cameras may or may not have, but rather it is the thickness of the glass that is in front of the sensor on the Sony cameras. It is substantially thicker than the glass in front of the sensor on Leica M cameras (and the Leica SL as well). This thicker cover glass causes astigmatism and field curvature that effects the performance in the outer edges of some Leica M lenses on the Sony cameras. It particularly effects lenses with a short exit pupil and lenses with a fast aperture. Lenses with a very fast aperture like the 50 Noctilux lenses are even affected in the center of the frame. Wide angle lenses tend to have a shorter exit pupil so they are more likely to be affected. A number of tests comparing the performance of Leica M lenses on the Sony A7 cameras to performance on a Leica M camera demonstrate that some lenses (i.e., generally those longer than 50mm, and a few other lenses) do pretty well on the Sony. Whereas other lenses (e.g., the 50 lux ASPH, the 35 cron AA, the 24 Elmar Asph, the 21 SEM, and quite a few others) have noticeable performance decrements on the Sony cameras. 

Since I have a Sony A7r II, when I get my Leica M10 I will be able to test the performance comparing the two cameras and say something more definitive, but there are a lot of tests out there. If you want to research this, then look at tests Ron Scheffler, Jim Kasson, and the Lens Rental blog have done. Some lens designers and optical engineers have weighed in on these issues as well.

[digitalfx]

I think its typical marketing speak lost in translation from German to English.

[Paul J]

I would actually agree with Leica from what I have seen, there does seem to be a noticeable increase in sensor sharpness, or crispness. Not huge but IMO, it's there.

[Stonewall Brigade]

Greater contrast can give the sense of increased sharpness.

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The cover glass is certainly of influence, but it may also mean that they tweaked the microlenses (again!) to reduce crosstalk.

[@ndy_ellis]

Interesting Steve as I am in same boat as you.  I wanted to slim down from heavy DSLRs and traded in for (and am v happy with) the  A7RII and now have M10 on order.  To achieve a more compact set-up I bought two M-mount lenses, a Leica 35mm f/2 Summicron ASPH and a Voigtlander 50mm f/1.5 Nokton which I like on the Sony (I use the Voigtander VME adapter).  It will be good to compare what the differences look like to my perception on the M10.

[edwardkaraa]

Any improvement in the design of microlenses affects color shading and vignetting but has no effect on sharpness. There have been reports that new cover glass models from Schott are thinner while providing better mechanical resistance and infrared filtering. Such thinner glass would certainly improve sharpness, so it wouldn't be impossible that Leica used it on the M10. Just an educated guess.

[timde]

 

 

 The omission of a low-pass filter also ensures the Leica M10 delivers maximum sharpness, leading to significantly enhanced imaging results, especially in the case of wide-angle and very fast lenses.

 

So, yes, omission of a low-pass filter ... but that is no different to the M240 ... or the SL IIRC

 

Its non-sense, every Leica press release is an exercise in creative writing ... they should just focus on the essential.

[tom0511]

I think its too early for final conclusions. I have had the M10 for a week and honestly I like the IQ but I cant tell you after one week if its better and by how much than the previous sensor in regards of sharpness.

[jaapv]

Any improvement in the design of microlenses affects color shading and vignetting but has no effect on sharpness. There have been reports that new cover glass models from Schott are thinner while providing better mechanical resistance and infrared filtering. Such thinner glass would certainly improve sharpness, so it wouldn't be impossible that Leica used it on the M10. Just an educated guess.

Read my post, Edward. A better or more precise design of microlenses certainly has an effect on crosstalk, which in turn influences edge sharpness, which translates in perceived sharpness.

[johnbuckley]

I don't know what "sensor sharpness" means, but I believe that the M10 images I've taken have much in common with the SL in terms of a) brightness -- to my eye they have a luster that, honestly, the M-240 did not have -- and more natural color rendering.  Whether that adds up to "sensor sharpness," I don't know.

[jaapv]

I think per-pixel acuity is meant, John.

[edwardkaraa]

Read my post, Edward. A better or more precise design of microlenses certainly has an effect on crosstalk, which in turn influences edge sharpness, which translates in perceived sharpness.

I wasn't aware of this effect but indeed after an online search I found a couple of articles that mention loss of resolution due to electronic crosstalk between pixels in cmos sensors in particular. So that too could explain the sharper sensor claim by Leica.

[charlesphoto99]

That makes very good sense. I'm into computer hifi as well, and all the talk/rage lately has been about lowering the 'noise' floor, mostly from the AC mains but also electronic crosstalk in ethernet, usb etc cables. One wouldn't even know the noise was there, until a cable or component is changed and all of a sudden it's like a veil has been lifted (even off of what one maybe considered an already very good sounding set up) and the instruments suddenly sound more life like, louder even, and the instruments more delineated in space and from each other.

 

I'm seeing a bit of the same thing with the M10 sensor. Colors, even under the worse of lighting conditions, seem to all exist together, vs the usual choose one color and sacrifice the rest. Details are very delineated, with very good clarity.  No smearing, even at very hi iso's. Really impressive! 

[Jon Warwick]

In a new M-System brochure I picked up, for the M10, it mentions "the glass cover plate of the sensor acts as an IR cut off filter and thus also avoids undesirable refractions of incoming light in additional layers of glass".

Whether that construct is new? or in combo with possibly updated microlenses? is helping per pixel acuity - I really don't know....

But my immediate reaction of the DNGs off the M10 was that pixel acuity seemed bitingly "sharp" and needed (to my taste) less sharpening than off my M240....

Whilst resolution is the same at 24mp, everything else about the sensor/software (pixel acuity, colours) seemed better to me on the M10.

These benefits might be a bit academic now for me, however, because now that I've tasted MF digital (S006 and even better the S007; and Hassie X1D), I find it hard to not prefer that larger format's IQ! But the M10 is a remarkably beautiful little package .....

[jaapv]

No, that is not new. I think it refers in a roundabout way to the absence of an AA filter. The cover glass of the previous M cameras was an IR filter as well, of varying thickness/effectiveness.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Tailwagger]

...mention loss of resolution due to electronic crosstalk between pixels in cmos sensors in particular.

 

While its obvious that too much noise is a bad thing, I do wonder if the quest to eliminate randomness altogether is necessarily a good one.  Digital pointillism does a damn fine job, but failing the advent of spooky action at a distance quantum photography, its all about approximating a continuum in the end. I'd rather listen to the imperfect beat laid down by a human drummer than the nano second perfect pulse pounded out by a square wave.

 

None of which is to say that the improvements to the M10 aren't positive. I've neither laid hands on the camera nor processed any sample output yet. But I'm hooked on Leica, first and foremost, because of all the digital systems available, it's the one that comes closest to subtlety I associate with analog photography. I'd be quite depressed if the industry's unceasing quest for resolution and acuity got in the way of that.  

[edwardkaraa]

While its obvious that too much noise is a bad thing, I do wonder if the quest to eliminate randomness altogether is necessarily a good one.  Digital pointillism does a damn fine job, but failing the advent of spooky action at a distance quantum photography, its all about approximating a continuum in the end. I'd rather listen to the imperfect beat laid down by a human drummer than the nano second perfect pulse pounded out by a square wave.

 

None of which is to say that the improvements to the M10 aren't positive. I've neither laid hands on the camera nor processed any sample output yet. But I'm hooked on Leica, first and foremost, because of all the digital systems available, it's the one that comes closest to subtlety I associate with analog photography. I'd be quite depressed if the industry's unceasing quest for resolution and acuity got in the way of that.  

That pretty much sums up my position too.