Is R10 or a brand new Digital-R coming ?

[mjh]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The moiré appears due to a difference between the detail to be resolved (transmited by the lens) and the ability of the sensor for resolving it.

If there was just a difference between the resolving power of lens and sensor, there wouldn’t necessarily be moiré. The resolution would be limited by the sensor then, but that’s all.

 

Generally, what do you do when you have a sampling frequency that’s smaller then twice the maximum frequency in the signal? You apply a low-pass filter filter that eliminates the part of the frequency spectrum you cannot resolve anyway. That’s what an antialiasing filter does, or a poor lens.

 

But why do you need an antialiasing filter? Take a look at a single pixel: ideally, it should capture all the light hitting the sensor within a square defined by the pixel pitch. Because of a fill-factor that is always less than 100 percent, it will miss some of the light, but that’s what microlenses are for – they ensure that effectively, the photo diodes will capture most of the light reaching the sensor. The photo diodes will average most of the light hitting the pixel square, thus acting as a low-pass filter. In other words, we are all set: the antialiasing filter is built-in!

 

So why do some camera vendors use additional AA filters anyway? Not because of the sensor’s limited resolution; actually, the pixel count has nothing to do with it. AA filters are employed because the sensor pixels don’t capture all the information necessary to create a complete RGB image pixel, but just one third – two out of three primary colours are missing. Within a square of 2 by 2 pixels, only one is sensitive to red, and the data you get from this sensor pixel isn’t really representative for the amount of red within this 2 by 2 pixel square – not when the lens is outresolving the sensor. That’s the reason you get moiré, and that’s why you can avoid moiré by reducing the image resolution with an antialiasing filter that spreads each point over an area covering more than one pixel. But this is an issue with any sensor using a Bayer filter array; it is an issue quite independent from the sensor’s resolution.

[jaa]

José,

 

I hope you are being too pessimistic about Leica. On the M8, I am sure they could have pushed Kodak into doing a 12 or 14 MP sensor for them, with the attendant downside of higher noise etc but a bigger headline figure - thank goodness they did not. I hope again they will do or will have done an analysis of the optimal pixel count - definition against noise and come to the correct and sensible compromise. Of course it depends on whether they decide/have decided to go full frame/ near full frame or APS-C or H. If it is APS, I would guess they would need to have 12 MP or above to get people to buy it. If it is full or near full frame, it would need probably 14 to 15MP+ to sell. As Nikon found out a few years ago, they could have excellent DSLR's but with low pixel figures and people would not buy them. I am guessing the D300 will outsell the 40D, to a considerable extent because it is 12MP against 10. The first question nearly everybody asks me on the M8 is "how many megapixels has it got?" I usually reply " why on earth would you need to know?"

 

Wilson

 

I'm not being pessimistic about Leica. I'm sure they know a full frame 14 to 18 MP would be a great solution. I'm just afraid that, if they choose (or are forced to adopt) a, say, 14 MP sensor (which with Leica lenses would allow for excellent image quality, even at high ISO), many potencial customers will be disappointed and won't buy the camera. In fact, I'm saying the same as you: MP are not that important anymore but it's what the public understands. Even when we're talking about high end products. I think Leica must come out with a full frame 17 MP (or whereabouts) camera to avoid a flood of criticism. And even so many will not be satisfied (it's just not THE BEST out there!). Nowadays we want no compromises. We want nothing less than the impossible. At a sensible price. And that's why I wrote what I wrote. Carsten is right (22 MP versus 16 MP doesn't amount to much in practice) but he's also wrong (hey, it's almost 40% more). And I'm not as optimistic as he is about 1Ds3 users being "more discriminating" and "up in arms" when they find out they upgraded for almost no real gain. Many will swear there are clear improvements (at least most of those posting on Internet forums will). See how many Nikon users are these days busy trying to justify why the D3 is not twentysomething MP (and feeling a bit disappointed), despite the fact that everything points to some great pluses of using a sensor with big pixels. My hope is that, as it seems the case with the M users, there'll be enough potencial (and informed) R users to make a good compromise camera (along the lines many, including you and Carsten, suggested) a sales hit (by Leica standards at least). But the SLR market is (for Leica, even tradicionally) a lot tougher than the rangefinder market and they have other important decisions to make, including the choice between manual and auto focus.

 

I'm an M user and can't afford an R system anyway but it'll be interesting to see what they come up with and what kind of reactions it arouses.

[sdai]

Given the same pixel quality, higher MP count is always better for printing big without excessive interpolation. For folks doing serious jobs, it is a significant advantage.

 

In my opinion, there's no need for Leica to worry about high ISO performance, speed etc in the R10 ... if people want to shoot at ISO25600, they could buy a D3, if they need 11 fps, by all means get a 1D Mark III.

 

Leica should go for the highest possible MP count available to them and deliver the best ISO100 quality in 35mm world par none.

 

I for one, do not like compromise, and prefer extreme performance ... Canon, Nikon et al have a different set of philosophy and they always seek for balance.

[sdai]

Michael is right about the AA filter ... it's about anti color aliasing, not anti-resolution. I've seen 5D pictures with and without AA filter on a friend's computer, and was hard pressed to tell any difference in resolution.

[rosuna]

Michael is right about the AA filter ... it's about anti color aliasing, not anti-resolution. I've seen 5D pictures with and without AA filter on a friend's computer, and was hard pressed to tell any difference in resolution.

 

That depends on the subject.

 

The AA filter of the 5D can be removed?

 

Chromatic moiré is due to the Bayer mosaic, but aliasing (and the resulting achromatic moiré) is a different problem. We can see its effects on any signal-recording device, of images or sound. The before mentioned reference explains this clearly.

[sdai]

The AA filter of the 5D can be removed?.

 

No, it's glued to the sensor, and also serves as the cover glass of the sensor because the 5D sensor has no cover glass otherwise.

[Riley]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

certainly there are all measure of good performing high iso camera choices now. simply being another choice, and with less of a featureset (prediction) might not work for Leica quite so well.

 

The bait i left about high Mp count sensors, and that Michael aptly trounced me on for my lack of cohesive math, plays to Leicas strengths, that of excellent resolution (lpm) and good performance wide open. If Leica be mine, then i would seek a sensor Mp count that no other lens maker could equal, approaching MF in performance but with the convenience of a 35mm package. This would place them in a nicer price category too.

 

The downside is, it could probably only manage 800iso performance, and even that might be a struggle.

[Riley]

That depends on the subject.

 

The AA filter of the 5D can be removed?

 

if you could, then from what i hear you would need to replace an equivalent glass thickness or lose focus. I have read that the AA glass is virtually epoxied on round the edges but not all, as this E-1 filter stack demonstrates

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[sdai]

You can not find a substitute for the 5D AA filter because it's NOT made of glass, it is made of crystal and only Canon can handle it at the moment.

[hankg]

At this price point users are becoming more sophisticated and once you are past 12MP other things become more important like dynamic range and high ISO. Sure all things being equal more is better but all things aren't equal and there is no free lunch. It seems the ideal for a 35mm camera is in the 16MP range once you have hit that point more MP is not really a big competitive edge in attracting buyers.

 

The market seems much more excited about the 12MP D3's high ISO capability then the jump from 16 to 22MP in the 1Ds.

[Riley]

no doubt for seeking improved diffraction properties

[carstenw]

Given the same pixel quality, higher MP count is always better for printing big without excessive interpolation. For folks doing serious jobs, it is a significant advantage.

 

"Significant"? The 21.1 MP 1Ds3 has 12.5% larger images along each edge than the 16.7 MP 1Ds2, so you can print 12.5% larger. That is not significant, but trivial. You can square that number and achieve area, but that does not increase the significance much. This update is much less important than I would have awaited from Canon. I am quite disappointed by the 1Ds3, and much more interested in the dynamic range and ISO gains of the Nikon D3.

[wlaidlaw]

"Significant"? The 21.1 MP 1Ds3 has 12.5% larger images along each edge than the 16.7 MP 1Ds2, so you can print 12.5% larger. That is not significant, but trivial. You can square that number and achieve area, but that does not increase the significance much. This update is much less important than I would have awaited from Canon. I am quite disappointed by the 1Ds3, and much more interested in the dynamic range and ISO gains of the Nikon D3.

 

Carsten,

 

I am on your side on this. Quiet high ISO performance is important to me, as I take a lot of images in the evenings and inside large historical buildings. I cannot see me ever wanting to print much larger than 100cm x 66cm so even cropped, 14 MP would be enough - maybe even 12. I do wonder if I should save my money and go for a Sony Alpha 700 and Zeiss glass. I have however only ever owned one Leica SLR, a misused second hand Leicaflex, and before I pop my clogs, I would like to have an R.

 

Wilson

[carstenw]

The reviews of the Zeiss Sony lenses are not that enthusiastic so far. The build quality of the Sony is also meant to be less than inspiring. I would hold out for a Nikon, perhaps D300, with ZF glass.

[sdai]

"Significant"? The 21.1 MP 1Ds3 has 12.5% larger images along each edge than the 16.7 MP 1Ds2, so you can print 12.5% larger. That is not significant, but trivial.

 

Of course, when you consider Nikon goes back from 178.67 pixels/mm (D2xs) to 118.22 pixels/mm (D3) ... a 51.13% reverse gain, 12.5% is peanuts. :D

[carstenw]

Of course, when you consider Nikon goes back from 178.67 pixels/mm (D2xs) to 118.22 pixels/mm (D3) ... a 51.13% reverse gain, 12.5% is peanuts. :D

 

The larger pixels give better quality and better high ISO. For what do you prefer smaller pixels, at the same overall resolution? They even stress the optics less, something which Canon could desperately use with most of their lenses. In spite of their absolutely huge lens lineup, almost everything is optically disappointing, especially wrt. CA. There are maybe about a dozen good lenses, and even those have disappointing CA to some degree.

[sdai]

In spite of their absolutely huge lens lineup, almost everything is optically disappointing, especially wrt. CA. There are maybe about a dozen good lenses, and even those have disappointing CA to some degree.

 

That's exactly why we are buying Leica, right?

 

Why on earth would Leica abandon its strength in optics and resolving power, then try to compete with Canon or Nikon in high ISO performance?

 

If I need a Nikon then I'll buy a Nikon, if I want a Leica then I'll buy a Leica ... a do-it-all and best-at-all camera never existed and will never exist.

[hankg]

Higher high ISO performance should be more a priority for the M which is Leica's reportage camera. The R should focus on absolute image quality and dynamic range. Qualities where the medium format backs are king. That does not mean the most pixels just the best quality pixels.

 

Anything from 14MP + will do if it beats the competition on dynamic range, color quality, flexibility in post and lack of digital artifacts. The jump from 16 to 21MP on the 1Ds elicited a big yawn from the market as it did not bring any dramatic increase in other aspects of IQ. The D3 on the other hand is really pushing the envelope with it's high ISO performance and it's captured all the buzz. The market has out grown the fixation on MP count now that we have past the 12MP mark. That's enough for a 2 page color spread even allowing for cropping. Get another stop or 2 of dynamic range, that would be worth more then more MP.

[EH21]

I agree with a lot posted by Carsten and others recently... Yes pixels have to square to double print size so does it really matter that much if its 16, 18, or 21 Mega Pix? No. It matters more that the next R has a full frame sensor. Why? Because Leica's strength as we know is glass, but the biggest advantage they have in glass over say Canon is in the wide ranges. That's why its important to have a full frame so we can take advantage of that beautiful glass.

 

I'd sure like to see a FF sensor, and a bigger brighter viewfinder. Honestly that's all its going to take to get me to upgrade from my DMR to the next one. If it has more pixels, that would make me happy. And If Leica introduced some Tilt Shift lenses, and some kind of remote wireless flash metering like the canon st-2 or the SB whatever that nikon has that would be AWESOME! I use my wireless TTL flash metering on my canon's all the time. Sure wish Leica had this, and need that much more than AF.

 

Dreaming of a full frame R10 with eTTL flash metering (preferably with wireless options), and a Leica Tilt Shift lens.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[zapp]

Back to the original question posted.

Last year Leica introduced several cameras with - as we see today - great success.

This year we see problems being solved with the cameras and Leica has trouble to supply the demand of lenses.

As many people said before photokina 2008 is the place for a new R10 camera. This fits nicely in the business plan of the Leica looking back. There should also be room for a couple R lens upgrades to be introduced at photokina 2008.

 

Right now Leica is doing good business and the problem is to stick to such a business plan when seeing at the same time that the M system could be expanded even further and people are buying.