Leica M Sensor

[rramesh]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1. The Leica M9 sensor was made by Kodak. When Kodak sold this business, On Semiconductor made a new batch of the KAF-18500 for Leica replacing the original coverglass with Schott BG55 glass. Now On Semiconductor has stopped making this sensor as their CCD line has been discontinued. Lacking another supplier and substantial volume commitment, Leica has no option but to stop servicing CCD cameras.
2. The Leica M10, M10-P, M10-D use CMOS sensors that were built in collaboration with CMOSIS and ST Microelectronics.
3. Not sure who makes the sensor in the M10-R. Any ideas? Maybe AMS who acquired CMOSIS unless this collaboration fell through. 

Now AMS does make 47MP global shutter and 71MP rolling shutter sensors. Maybe Leica could use them with modifications. Not sure how global shutter sensors could be interesting for a camera with no video capability, though.

Please correct if I'm wrong.

Edited August 24, 2020 by rramesh

[Advertisement]

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

[adan]

The M10-R sensor is reported to be simply a smaller version of the same architecture as the Leica S3 64 Mpixel sensor (same pixels, smaller dimensions, fewer pixels).

So far as I know, both are made by AMS/CMOSIS, and both are custom designs (oddball dimensions for the S3, and unique microlenses for the M10-R, and likely custom Bayer color filters for "Leica" color rendition for both) that will not be part of the AMS catalog available to the general industry - no-one else needs them.

One has to always - always - always remember that the M in particular will have unique sensor needs, to allow for the use of the relatively compact wide-angle M lenses, especially legacy lenses designed for film up to 30 years before digital became a factor. They will never be "off-the-shelf" designs, nor will they be 47/71 Mpixel designs just because such are "available."

And it has been suggested that the 40Mpixel limit of the M10-R stems from the same needs - just not possible to make smaller pixels that work with most M wide lenses currently in existence. A question of geometry and the angle of light the M lenses project, and molding micron-scale microlenses that meet Leica's requirements.

https://www.michelebelloni.com/the-leica-m-sensor/

At some point in the future the tech may evolve further to allow more, smaller pixels that also work with M-sized wide lenses, just as it has evolved from 10 (cropped) to 18 to 24 to 40 Mpixels. But it will still be specialized and "tailor-made" technology for the M, with Leica as the only customer who needs it and will pay for it.

[scott kirkpatrick]

S3 technical spec says it uses microlenses, too.

[elmars]

As far as I know every sensor uses micro lenses. But only the M-sensors have a micro-lens-shift in the outer zones. 

[Jeff S]

1 hour ago, scott kirkpatrick said:

S3 technical spec says it uses microlenses, too.

David Farkas’ article regarding the S007 includes a discussion, with pictures, of its unique micro-lens structure.  I would imagine that the S3 incorporates a similar concept.

https://www.reddotforum.com/content/2014/11/why-leica-is-staying-at-37-5mp-for-the-s-typ-007/

Jeff

[carbon_dragon]

Does anyone know from personal knowledge just how hard it would be to take a newer sensor of the same physical size and put it in the M9? Would it just be connecting it up and updating the software or are there more incompatibilities that would have to be overcome? Would it be a bigger engineering achievement than say making a M10 monochrom or an M10P (with no screen) as far as software changes? Note I'm not expecting it to be done but I'm curious on just how hard it is to accomplish. Presumably you could find a LOT of different commercial 24MP sensors out there full frame size.

Likewise, I hear the M8 rear screen is also out of production. How hard an engineering task would be needed to replace it with a more modern rear screen? How much engineering and software would be required to make it work?

Plus Leica has a "reputation" of building it's cameras by hand with rows and rows of people rather than a production line. How much of that myth is true? It seems like the more "hand work" Leica actually does, the easier such an upgrade would be to do.

I suspect Leica does prototypes all the time (and special editions). How much effort, labor, and money does it take to produce those? I kind of hate the way things get thrown away in modern electronics. It's hardly possible to have anything fixed these days (actually fixed rather than parts replaced). It would be nice if this sort of engineering were more viable than it probably is.

[Kwesi]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I suppose one could retrofit the M10 sensor into an M9. The question remaining would be wether the onboard processor is powerful enough to process the information from the sensor quickly enough to make it useful. This would more than likely have to be a one off effort since most people holding onto their M9.s are doing so because of the CCD sensor.

[mmradman]

57 minutes ago, carbon_dragon said:

Does anyone know from personal knowledge just how hard it would be to take a newer sensor of the same physical size and put it in the M9? Would it just be connecting it up and updating the software or are there more incompatibilities that would have to be overcome? Would it be a bigger engineering achievement than say making a M10 monochrom or an M10P (with no screen) as far as software changes? Note I'm not expecting it to be done but I'm curious on just how hard it is to accomplish. Presumably you could find a LOT of different commercial 24MP sensors out there full frame size.

Likewise, I hear the M8 rear screen is also out of production. How hard an engineering task would be needed to replace it with a more modern rear screen? How much engineering and software would be required to make it work?

Plus Leica has a "reputation" of building it's cameras by hand with rows and rows of people rather than a production line. How much of that myth is true? It seems like the more "hand work" Leica actually does, the easier such an upgrade would be to do.

I suspect Leica does prototypes all the time (and special editions). How much effort, labor, and money does it take to produce those? I kind of hate the way things get thrown away in modern electronics. It's hardly possible to have anything fixed these days (actually fixed rather than parts replaced). It would be nice if this sort of engineering were more viable than it probably is.

I would imagine Leica could take current M10 shape and make it look like a M9, we are talking few cosmetic steps.  That would be quick route, conversly retrofitting old M9 with M10 innards would be somewhat more difficult.  For one external control interfaces including the rear screen are different. 

Couple of points to consider.

Although the M9 has the Aux Window for illumination of framing masks it was actually the M9-titanium Special Edition designed by Audi's Walter de'Silva  (the Car Company) which was the first with LED frame mask illumination. 

Removal of physical ISO selector wouldn't be much of a problem as ISO can be selected in Menu.

The rear of such "M9" would be very much like any other M10.

Edited August 24, 2020 by mmradman

[pedaes]

58 minutes ago, carbon_dragon said:

How much of that myth is true?

If you visit the factories you will see it is --- true.  

I think the concept of fitting a M10 sensor to a M9 is fanciful - if you could get hold of a sensor and associated motherboard etc in the first place. Unless you buy a M10 that is....😀😀

[rramesh]

Retrofitting an M10 into an M9 would be akin to a 'brain transplant'. Just buy an M10. Pity for those who bought limited edition M9s though at high prices.

Maybe in future if Leica continued with the now perfected m10 body, there could be an easier method to swap out innards.

 

[adan]

10 hours ago, carbon_dragon said:

Does anyone know from personal knowledge just how hard it would be to take a newer sensor of the same physical size and put it in the M9? Would it just be connecting it up and updating the software or are there more incompatibilities that would have to be overcome?

About like putting a 1960s Mercury (or Chrysler Hemi) engine into a 1924 Model T.

It certainly can be done, by a enthusiast (or professional) with enough cash, time, skill, knowledge and love. But Ford never bothered to do it themselves. Not cost-effective.

There are lots of parts that have to be connected, and balanced and "sized" (capacities, voltages, clock speeds, etc.) to each other. Sensor > sensor "package" and circuit board > ROM > analog/digital converter > CPU  > buffer > SD card writer. Or for the LCD on the back, the LCD, a graphics chip with driver firmware that match the resolution and connections of the specific LCD, brightness detectors and so on. Or batteries with the size to fit and the capacity for the intended volts and amps of all the parts they power. And a power distributor/controller (probably has a more technical name) that sends just the correct voltage and amps to each component.

None of which are neccesarily plug-and-play components like, perhaps, a stereo system. They are matched and tuned as the camera is being designed, to specifically work together, preferably with a minimum of power use (battery life) or wastage due to mis-matches.

Now, the limited sensor "swapability" of the M10 vs. the M10-R/M may mean Leica is thinking ahead a bit more than in the past, and planning for upgrades. But in digital years, the M9 is a 1924 Model T.

But for the most part, digital technology is still changing so fast that there is no reliable way to know what the best CPU or A/D chip or best buffer will be 5 years from now - and how to plan adequately for it in today's camera design.

As to the hand-assembly, that is - different - than it was in, say, 1960 or 1990. The camera parts are made with a greater variety of means - CNC machining by Uwe Weller Feinwerktechnik (now co-located in Leitz Park), some other parts made in the Portugal factory, electronics semi-pre-assembled by STM or other suppliers (e.g. shutter board).

All of which are delivered and pre-grouped into work boxes at Wetzlar, one camera each, and then assembled in final form in a relatively brief time. Assembly also includes "fit & finish" and testing, to some extent.

Call it a semi-myth, semi-truth.

 

Edited August 25, 2020 by adan

[carbon_dragon]

Just to put some people's minds to rest, I have an M9 which has had its sensor replaced and is OK so far, and I also already have an M10. And I asked if there was ANY similar sized sensor made by anyone that would fit compatibly in the M9's sensor position. It doesn't have to be an M10 sensor, though that would be nice. This is a thought experiment only.

If there is a camera service tech who works on Leica M9s, I just wanted to know what the scope of the effort would be and what the technical details would be. I'm not sure what kind of I/O the chip has and whether there is standardization among sensors such that any other that is about the right size would fit (or not). I've heard Leica does microlenses on the edges differently than others? Not sure if that is true or not.

And naturally, EVEN if you could just take out the old M9 sensor and attach another compatible one, you'd have to revise the software that connects to it. Now I was a software engineer in a defense contractor for 35 years before retiring. I worked on aircraft, naval, and army systems. We OFTEN had issues where a part would get to end of life and the service would be unable to replace parts and would need my company to source new parts, and revise our software such that the new part would function as part of the system. We had system engineers who were specialists in this process. For my part, I would analyze for MY part of the system, how much modification would be needed to use a new part -- what I would have to change and what the schedule risk was.

That is why I'm interested, from a technical standpoint, in knowing just how hard it would be to create a modification to an existing digital camera with a end of life part. Since we're lucky here that instead of "generic" unreliable electronics (e.g. the Contax RTS) there is just 1 part with a technical issue that necessitated abnormal replacements. This would seem to be an easier problem than trying to protect against ANY part that fails. Yet everyone talks about it as though it would cost Leica a trillion dollars and lead to their immediate bankruptcy. So let's all agree that they're not going to do this, but the question is what would it actually take? Obviously camera companies make variants of their cameras all the time, including the sensor changing (e.g. The M10R which is an M10 with a new sensor and a couple of new tricks, like a touchscreen). Doesn't that seem to indicate that the problem is not really technical at all, that it's just a question of will -- that Leica doesn't think it's in their best interest?

I've been an amateur photographer for about 47 years now and this "grail" of a continually modifiable camera has been around for ages (including when Leica was turning older Leicas into modern ones in the 40s). When digitals happened, it got a whole new boost because sensors went obsolete faster than film did. It seems like a natural idea, IF you could get it to work. But no-one has. Thus there must be good business and engineering reasons why it's never happened. I know that sometimes there is a lot of software effort needed to support a new part, even if the part just snaps out and a new one snaps on. At the least, the whole testing and certification process with military systems is often the most expensive part of the process. But is it the expense of the parts or the expense of the process or just a desire by Leica to force those older M owners to upgrade to a new and expensive model? Would Leica rather you buy a new M10 than pay even $1500 or $2000 for a new sensor? Does the specter of M9s as still viable tools with continual new sensors even after 20 years threaten to destroy Leica's business model? Leica DOES have to survive. Yet Leica has been "competing" with its old cameras for 80 years now right? How have things changed? Why is it different now?

[pedaes]

32 minutes ago, carbon_dragon said:

sized sensor made by anyone that would fit compatibly in the M9's sensor position

I don't know if this is a big joke or not. If it is - haha!  If it is not, I suggest you do a little research. What you need to concentrate on is the unique design of Leica's M 'sensors' to cope with M lenses and the distance between the rear lens element and the sensor, and resulting light-ray angles. 

Any speculation on this is a futile waste of time.

[rramesh]

From what I know, the issue with the M9 is not the sensor. Rather it's the cover glass which delaminates. Can this glass alone be replaced aftermarket. It might be tricky as it is bonded to the sensor. But, isn't this what Kolari Vision does with the Sony sensor to replace the glass with a thinner one?

[carbon_dragon]

3 hours ago, pedaes said:

I don't know if this is a big joke or not. If it is - haha!  If it is not, I suggest you do a little research. What you need to concentrate on is the unique design of Leica's M 'sensors' to cope with M lenses and the distance between the rear lens element and the sensor, and resulting light-ray angles. 

Any speculation on this is a futile waste of time.

You might have missed this in my post.

"I've heard Leica does microlenses on the edges differently than others? Not sure if that is true or not."

[jdlaing]

It’s true.

[carbon_dragon]

6 minutes ago, jdlaing said:

It’s true.

And I mentioned it because I was conceding that Leica might have made some modification to the sensor assembly to make it work in an M and that could impact the technical difficulty.

[jaapv]

And Leica has non-spherical microlenses on the SL cameras to accommodate M lenses.  

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[marknorton]

Think back to the M8 and the then dreamer of a CEO promoted a eutopian world of modifications to keep the camera up to date. If I recall, there was a menu of modifications including such things as modified frame lines, a quieter shutter and more but that soon proved to be a fools errand in terms of value rentention. My two remaining M8s were fully modified and the one I disassembled has provided some spare parts - sensor, shutter, rear LCD in readiness for any failure of the working two. In practice though, the M8 is a bit of a clunker these days, not full frame, the UV-IR problem, low resolution and oh-so-slow. My M9's are so far unaffected by the corrosion problem but of course they have zero resale value or as close as makes no difference. These days, I use an M240 and a basic M10 and am reluctant to invest any more in M bodies. I'm more likely instead to put my Leica M and R glass on a Nikon Z body which works well apart from the older wide glass like the 21 and 24mm ASPH Elmarits which are really not very good at all. But, for lenses like the Noctilux, the APO Summicrons, the R 100mm macro lens and the short teles, they work well.

The sensor, electronics and software are so tightly integrated together in any digital camera that it makes no sense at all to try an retrofit newer components. In particular, the power requirements of a CCD sensor were completely different to a CMOS sensor and as soon as you start using custom or programmed silicon, which even the M8 did, all bets are off. 

[Iphone4th]

and the M11?

Edited April 17, 2022 by Iphone4th