Why not 47MP , is this the limit of M system.

[Tailwagger]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, Tailwagger said:

Why?

Forget to mention that Leica explicitly stated that the M10 could not support IBIS due to packaging constraints. Yet another reason why the pano was likely unusable in the M.  

[Jeff S]

44 minutes ago, Tailwagger said:

Forget to mention that Leica explicitly stated that the M10 could not support IBIS due to packaging constraints. Yet another reason why the pano was likely unusable in the M.  

And also couldn’t support video due to heat management.  Not to cut corners. Lots to consider.

Jeff

[Jeff S]

9 hours ago, Einst_Stein said:

Whether it has to be on the same wafer is irrelevant, and I am not sure it makes engineering sense (to cut cost). I would skip this long and technology intense argument for now. 

Without spreading costs, as Tailwagger notes, the S probably doesn’t exist. BTW, the S007 and the M240 shared the same sensor architecture, for similar reasons.  That didn’t make 24MP the limit for future Ms.

Jeff

[Einst_Stein]

2 hours ago, Tailwagger said:

To understand the problem, look up telecentric and retrofocal lens design.  Just look at the pictures, not need to read anything. Follow that up with a high school physics lecture on the subject of diffraction.  Many wider M lenses, particularly the early designs, are retrofocal. That makes them a problem in the corners due to diffraction. 

Why? In any engineering business things happen for two completely different reasons... engineering and  business.  Perhaps, (business) due to cost, market constraints, cross technology xfers, long standing relationship or even a licensing restriction by Panasonic as to use of the sensor for an ILC is restricted to L-mount.  Or (engineering)  perhaps it just didnt fit. Or its power demands were too high for the smaller M battery. Or  41Mpx is at the current limit of the M microlensing technology.

Most likely?  The Pano sensor is FF,  there is no medium format version of it.  Where does Leica find an MF sensor for the S cameras. Sony sensors are 3x4 not 2x3, so as an off the shelf part, they are out. Therefore if MF is to continue, Leica is forced to do a custom design.  A custom design purely for S cameras is likely to be cost prohibitive. Solution? Kill two birds with one stone,  provide the S with a lower cost sensor by sharing its development and production costs with the M which will sell a 100 fold more cameras than the S. 

 

You make it more confusing. 

[Jeff S]

8 minutes ago, Einst_Stein said:

You make it more confusing. 

Good. The complexity should begin to give you an appreciation for your overly simplistic question on whether the M10R vs SL2/Q2 MP count is indicative of the limit for the M.  That could be, with current technology, but so much more might be involved, both technically as well as business-wise.  
 

There was a time when we were told that a digital M was impossible.  Back then, the world  didn’t carry smartphone cameras in their pockets.  Technology... and the marketplace... marches on.

Jeff

[Jeff S]

Einst, I think you might gain more appreciation for the many sensor technology improvements, beyond MP, that necessarily had to be achieved in the M10-R to maintain ISO and dynamic range performance, as well as to maintain effectiveness with all M lenses.  Stefan Daniel touches on 4 such improvements.  

The whole discussion is useful, but see especially from about 20-25 minute mark...

 

Just talking about MP misses a lot.  There are also numerous articles and videos (see Peter Karbe interview) on M lenses that will breathe life into some of Tailwagger’s comments on lens design.

Jeff

[tom0511]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

vor 16 Stunden schrieb Einst_Stein:

To increase MP, taking the 47MP sensor from SL2 or Q2 seemed to me a natural choice, or even more without video. 

Not less. 

Does the 40Mp indicates it’s the limit of M system?

 

Yes, even 42 MP would lead to major IQ problems due to resolution limit of M lenses.

[Jeff S]

2 minutes ago, tom0511 said:

Yes, even 42 MP would lead to major IQ problems due to resolution limit of M lenses.

I hope that’s tongue in cheek.

See Roger’s Appendix at the end of this article: “Why Perceptual Megapixels are Stupid”.

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2019/10/more-ultra-high-resolution-mtf-experiments/
 

Jeff

[Einst_Stein]

41 minutes ago, tom0511 said:

Yes, even 42 MP would lead to major IQ problems due to resolution limit of M lenses.

This is obvious. But in the M10R announcement video, LEica admit the older Leica glass would not fully appreciate even the 41MP. It needs new lens design. 

On the other hand, LEica (or, is it someone of camera reviewer?) mentioned that to live well in the modern digital technology, the M mount has severe l8mitation that it needs the upgraded L mount. One of the key parameter related to resolution (take it as MP for now, though it is only the sampling rate, not the resolution) is the mount throat size (again, assume it is related to the optical aperture diameter, but not the complete facts yet),in that M mount is 44mm while L mount is 51.6mm.  —-> L is about 20% larger than M mount.  We could expect when everything else was managed equal, M system will have about 40% lower MP/area than L system. 

41MP vs. 47MP is not there yet, but when sensor density is pushed up further, the gap will increase. 

[Dr No]

No. You will see in future.

[Tailwagger]

9 hours ago, tom0511 said:

Yes, even 42 MP would lead to major IQ problems due to resolution limit of M lenses.

So far, not my experience.  They render exactly as they always have, only more so. The inherent flaws are amplified, as we discussed in the modern lens thread but OTOH, I'm finding that I far prefer the color rendering of the R over the 10 with my earlier optics. 

 

[tom0511]

I expected that my sentnce was about limit of M lenses was not meant serious. Sorry if this lead to confusion.

My real opinion is that M-glass overall works very fine. Differences between older and newer designs were visible also with lower resolution lenses.

And some differences between certain M lenses and the new SL lenses can be seen as well.

And I am pretty sure 41 vs 47 MP was just a number caused by a different sensor. 5 MP more or less doesnt make any big difference anyways.

If the high MP bring a big advantage is another question. For me the 36MP of the S-007 is kind of a sweet spot.

But I also like the 47MP of the SL2 because it allows me to also sometimes put a TL lens on the camera and still have 20MP.

Do I need it in a M-camera....I am not sure. But if I didnt have a M10 allready my choice would be the M10-r for the dynamic range and silent shutter. And sometimes its nice to be able to crop a little bit.

[Mikep996]

FUNNY...over the years 6MP was enough.  Then 12MP was enough.  Then 16MP was enough.  Then 20, then 24, then 40 then... ???

I can understand the advantage - to a point- of higher MP for a fixed lens camera like the Q2.  But for an interchangeable lens camera?  I have pics I took with my first DSLR - 6MP Nikon - that are as detailed as a photo can be when viewed as shot (minimal cropping) and at normal viewing distance.  Really, does anybody enlarge a pic to a wall-sized print and then view it at 18"?  I don't get it.

 

[colint544]

We all share a passion for Leica cameras and photography. That's why we're on here. Over the years, I've found this site to be a font of knowledge. Any question I've ever asked, someone has more or less immediately provided the answer.

When I got my M Monochrom, I couldn't adjust the images. Someone on here explained that you have to convert the files to RGB. A bit fell off my M2, and I didn't know what it was, or did. Someone on here went to the trouble of posting a youtube video showing the strip-down of an M2. Didn't know how to straighten verticals on photoshop. Someone helped me. Didn't know how to find out the shutter count on my M Monochrom. Someone showed me how.

But has anyone noticed just how niche our passion is becoming? New camera sales have fallen off a cliff. They're below 1980 levels now, and still falling. Olympus have just been put up for sale. My barber is a keen photographer, and a good example of what's happening. He's had a Canon 5D mk3 and 50mm F1.4 lens for years. He puts pictures of his customers' haircuts on an Instagram account, and loves the way the 50mm F1.4 lens blurs out the background. But since he got his iPhone 11, his DSLR has been in a drawer. He showed me the images he's getting now from his phone. They're astounding. The background blur is beautiful. I couldn't tell the difference unless perhaps he blew the before and after shots up to poster size. And who does that any more?

I like that photography is more popular than it's ever been. But the downside of that is ubiquity. I wonder where it's all heading..?

[jaapv]

On 8/3/2020 at 5:17 AM, adan said:

One cannot pick up an S3 sensor (or a wafer of S3 sensors) and a pair of shears - or a band-saw - and "cut" an S3 sensor down to make an M10-R sensor.

Well, basically it is no more than that, albeit somewhat more sophisticated...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wafer_dicing

 

In future I'll call it wafer dicing, just for you  

[adan]

It is certainly physically possible to slice up, or cut up, or dice a wafer of silicon. To separate multiple discreet and complete chips fabricated on one big 200-300mm disk of silicon.

But slicing/dicing/cutting-down a single physical S3 sensor chip would be identical to trying to make a Mercedes A-class out of a Mercedes S-Class with a chain saw.

You would not get a smaller functioning device, you would just get a piece of useless junk.

Because the sensor chip is not homogenous - it has "parts" around the edge, that eventually get connected to the sensor package (circuit board), and thus to the outside world. Which have to remain attached and intact.

Here is how dicing works - separating the individual complete sensors from each other.

Can you show me how you would cut down or "dice" an S3 sensor unit itself (at the bottom - draw me some cutting lines), to make a functioning M10R sensor with all the fabricated doped-silicon parts around the edge (reference pixels, and I/O contacts) still intact?

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!

Edited August 4, 2020 by adan

[Jeff S]

I don’t feel sorry about my short cut slang that such and such sensors are ‘cut’ from such and such wafers, but maybe I’ll change ‘cut’ from’ to ‘derived from’, to avoid yet another side bar discussion.  But I did enjoy Andy’s little houses analogy. 😊

Jeff

[250swb]

8 hours ago, Mikep996 said:

FUNNY...over the years 6MP was enough.  Then 12MP was enough.  Then 16MP was enough.  Then 20, then 24, then 40 then... ???

I can understand the advantage - to a point- of higher MP for a fixed lens camera like the Q2.  But for an interchangeable lens camera?  I have pics I took with my first DSLR - 6MP Nikon - that are as detailed as a photo can be when viewed as shot (minimal cropping) and at normal viewing distance.  Really, does anybody enlarge a pic to a wall-sized print and then view it at 18"?  I don't get it.

 

Mike I imagine everybody has to delete their whole back catalogue each time that more megapixels are made available, on the basis they are no longer good enough. And they have to move house for bigger walls. But I'm with you, I have a 4mp print on my wall and at least once a week wonder why I never again did the same scene as well with 18mp, then 24mp, then 47mp.

[mmx_2]

11 hours ago, Mikep996 said:

FUNNY...over the years 6MP was enough.  Then 12MP was enough.  Then 16MP was enough.  Then 20, then 24, then 40 then... ???

I can understand the advantage - to a point- of higher MP for a fixed lens camera like the Q2.  But for an interchangeable lens camera?  I have pics I took with my first DSLR - 6MP Nikon - that are as detailed as a photo can be when viewed as shot (minimal cropping) and at normal viewing distance.  Really, does anybody enlarge a pic to a wall-sized print and then view it at 18"?  I don't get it.

 

Absolutely, and 640kb of RAM Memory should be enough for everyone 🤪🤓😄

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Tailwagger]

3 hours ago, Jeff S said:

I don’t feel sorry about my short cut slang that such and such sensors are ‘cut’ from such and such wafers, but maybe I’ll change ‘cut’ from’ to ‘derived from’, to avoid yet another side bar discussion.  But I did enjoy Andy’s little houses analogy. 😊

Jeff

Yeah, I think we're being a bit too literal here.  The design is cut down (or scaled up... who knows) not the physical chip. Presumably there are economies gained by having the pixel sites the same size, masks, litho, who knows. but one thing I'd bet the house on is that it's no coincidence that the pixel count lines up precisely.

Edited August 4, 2020 by Tailwagger