mym6is12 Posted August 14, 2007 Share #1 Posted August 14, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) Is this possible ? Take what's done with layers of semi-transparent photodiodes (like Foveon ). Then add an additional bottom layer that is long-wavelength IR sensitive only ( and use it to offset charge for the diode above ) This could be applied as an additional layer to the 4 site 'Kodak' white-RGB ; 3 site Bayer or 3-layered Foveon sensors. ( This thread made me think about it - so I first posted the idea there first ) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted August 14, 2007 Posted August 14, 2007 Hi mym6is12, Take a look here IR compensation sensor ( for M9 ) possible ?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
AGeoJO Posted August 14, 2007 Share #2 Posted August 14, 2007 To make it simpler, I wouldn't mind a 0.5mm thicker "M8.5" that incorporates a built-in IR cut filter over the sensor..... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shootist Posted August 14, 2007 Share #3 Posted August 14, 2007 More then likely when and if there is a M9 it will have a new type of sensor altogether. I wouldn't expect to see a M9 for at least 2-5 years, from now. I would also suspect the body to get thinner, back to the width/thickness of the M3/M4 because by then all processing will be on one chip. You know everything is always getting smaller. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marknorton Posted August 14, 2007 Share #4 Posted August 14, 2007 I agree than an M9 doesn't make much sense unless and until there's a step change in sensor technology. Whether it can ever get back to being as thin as an M7 is another matter. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shootist Posted August 15, 2007 Share #5 Posted August 15, 2007 I agree than an M9 doesn't make much sense unless and until there's a step change in sensor technology. Whether it can ever get back to being as thin as an M7 is another matter. Mark I have never held a M7, or 6 for that matter, but I thought the M7 was thicker then the earlier M's. Having something to do with the A mode and the shutter. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted August 15, 2007 Share #6 Posted August 15, 2007 To get it thinner one would have to eliminate the LCD, the real cause of the added thickness. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted August 15, 2007 Share #7 Posted August 15, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) To make it simpler, I wouldn't mind a 0.5mm thicker "M8.5" that incorporates a built-in IR cut filter over the sensor..... You would mind as soon as you compared the results... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonoslack Posted August 15, 2007 Share #8 Posted August 15, 2007 You would mind as soon as you compared the results... Hi Jaap Absolutely - after 2 years struggling with cyan/magenta shifts on the Kodak SLR, I realise every day what a good decision Leica made in keeping the IR filter thin. IMHO the only mistake they made was not being up-front about the need for the filters in the first place. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marknorton Posted August 15, 2007 Share #9 Posted August 15, 2007 Ed, the M6 and the M7 main bodies are the same thickness, ignoring protruding knobs and buttons. The film speed dial in both protrudes behind the main casting. In these cameras, the film to lens flange distance is 28mm and the lens flange sits flush with the front of the camera. The depth of the base plate is 32mm and there's a rear extension of the casting of 2mm beyond the base plate to accomodate the speed setting dial, making 34mm in all. In effect, the back of the camera is 6mm behind the focal plane. In the M8, it turns out they needed a total of 12mm behind the focal plane to accomodate the sensor, it's board, the electronics board behind it and the LCD display, as Jaap says. How to provide that extra 6mm? Well, they could have made the body a corpulent 40mm deep, they could add 6mm to the rear extention, making it difficult to get your eye close to the viewfinder without imprinting the camera on your cheekbone, or they could move the lens mount forward as Epson did (and pointed out by Andy ages ago) with the R-D1. In the end, they did all three. They increased the body depth by 3mm (making the depth of the base plate 35mm), they moved the lens mount forwards by 2mm (which allows the sensor to sit further forwards as well, creating more space but potentially upsetting the rangefinder coupling and the use of goggled lenses/macro adapters) and they added 1mm to the rear extension which houses the buttons, thumb wheel and LCD display. To get back to the thickness of the M6/7, which I would like, they either need to reducing the packaging depth requirements behind the sensor or allow the lens mount to sit still further forwards. Hold an M6 and an M8 side by side and the M8 is a bit of a porker by comparison... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shootist Posted August 15, 2007 Share #10 Posted August 15, 2007 As I stated I have never held a M6 or 7 but I have held and use a M3, and have used a M4 in years past, and the M8 is much thicker on the top plate. Are the 6 & 7 thicker then the M3. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted August 15, 2007 Share #11 Posted August 15, 2007 No, they're the same. The height increased slightly with the introduction of the M6 TTL, but that was all. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marknorton Posted August 15, 2007 Share #12 Posted August 15, 2007 IMHO the only mistake they made was not being up-front about the need for the filters in the first place. I do so agree. Where the IR filters are regarded as a solution to a problem, they could so easily have taken the position that with the Leica Digital M, the optical system starts with a conditioning filter, then the lens, then the sensor and the lens coding integrates the lens with the camera's electronics and software. All part of making the lens "digital ready". At the time, we would have said, that sounds interesting, sign me up, instead of which a problem discovered in the field turns into a crisis. If Leica can do one thing, it is to revamp their announcements. True, something may be lost in translation but my reading of the German versions tells me they are equally abstruce. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonoslack Posted August 15, 2007 Share #13 Posted August 15, 2007 I do so agree. Where the IR filters are regarded as a solution to a problem, they could so easily have taken the position that with the Leica Digital M, the optical system starts with a conditioning filter, then the lens, then the sensor and the lens coding integrates the lens with the camera's electronics and software. All part of making the lens "digital ready". At the time, we would have said, that sounds interesting, sign me up, instead of which a problem discovered in the filed turns into a crisis. If Leica can do one thing, it is to revamp their announcements. True, something may be lost in translation but my reading of the German versions tells me they are equally abstruce. HI Mark I hope you're well. Truth be told, I don't really think that they knew quite how bad the issue was going to be - it's almost incomprehensible with hindsight (but isn't anything). When you're looking at how good something is, it's so easy to miss something as simple as a purple tuxedo:) . As for the announcements, I sometimes wonder whether the style isn't perfectly matched to their clientele (at least, to their traditional clientele). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marknorton Posted August 15, 2007 Share #14 Posted August 15, 2007 LOL, perhaps they should have one version for LHSA members, another for the rest of us. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonoslack Posted August 15, 2007 Share #15 Posted August 15, 2007 LOL, perhaps they should have one version for LHSA members, another for the rest of us. Sounds like a grand idea to me. Sometimes I read things around here which make me feel faintly sick;) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.