Second member of LHSA the R10 is confirmed

[Angora]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Speculation is not a crime ©

[AlanG]

With sensor-based image stabilization, the sensor moves within a larger area and thus the image circle would need to be bigger.

 

Not necessarily. That is my point. Think outside the box! Stabilization on cropped sensors works this way. But a larger than 24mm x 36mm sensor could move behind the 24mm x 36mm shutter opening and achieve the desired stabilization without requiring a larger image circle (and larger shutter opening) to achieve full frame stabilized results. (One would simply crop to the live 24mm x 36mm area of the sensor rather than project a larger image.)

 

The above approach would have the further advantage of accurately recoding what you see framed in the viewfinder. Whereas a smaller sensor, that for stabilzation purposes is moved slightly across the image circle, will not precisely show what the viewfinder sees.

 

It seems to me that this will be the most reasonable method for any full frame 35mm camera manufacturer to use to provide sensor based stabilization and get a 24mm x 36mm image.

[mjh]

Not necessarily. That is my point. Stabilization on cropped sensors works this way. But a larger than 24mm x 36mm sensor could move behind the 24mm x 36mm shutter opening and achieve the desired stabilization without requiring a larger image circle to achieve full frame stabilized results. (One would simply crop to the live 24mm x 36mm area of the sensor.)

If one did it this way, the usable image size would be even less than 36 x 24 mm, as the pixels at the edges of the 36 x 24 mm area would get no light when the sensor moves. If the sensor was moving by at most 1 mm in all four directions behind a 36 x 24 mm shutter opening, the usable sensor area would be 34 x 22 mm. Note that you would get the exact same results with a 34 x 22 mm sensor. The added pixels were completely wasted, adding the the cost but doing nothing for improving image quality.

 

It seems to me that this will be the most reasonable method for any manufacturer to use to provide sensor based stabilization and get a 24mm x 36mm image.

I suppose it will work in just the way current IS systems with APS-C or FourThirds sensors work. The image circle of the lenses will always be slightly larger than required which should suffice for accommodating the relatively small movements necessary for stabilizing the image.

[mooky]

All the comments are quite interesting,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,are we all so sure that the new camera will even have a mirror box? Wouldn't that change the whole sensor size question? Either way, I smell something different in the wind and I can't wait.......

[AlanG]

If one did it this way, the usable image size would be even less than 36 x 24 mm, as the pixels at the edges of the 36 x 24 mm area would get no light when the sensor moves. If the sensor was moving by at most 1 mm in all four directions behind a 36 x 24 mm shutter opening, the usable sensor area would be 34 x 22 mm. Note that you would get the exact same results with a 34 x 22 mm sensor. The added pixels were completely wasted, adding the the cost but doing nothing for improving image quality.

 

 

Why do you think I said this would be a reason for a manufacturer to employ a larger than 24mm x 36mm sensor?

 

I think you need to put a litttle more effort into picturing my model. If the sensor was larger than 24mm x 36mm, let's say 30mm x 42mm, then it will be able to move 3mm in any direction and still capture a 24mm x 36mm image through a 24mm x 36mm shutter opening.

[elansprint72]

im not sure who wrote that but it does not look or sound official in anyway. it sounds more like a blog or a diary....

 

 

 

.....and for the record i predict an R11.... remember you heard it here first ......

 

I have pre-ordered my R11s already.

[Black Dot]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I wasn't referring to Kaufmann's jokes, but Leica's consistent answers from a period of 2 years. The rumour of a bigger than FF sensor wasn't started by Kaufmann a few days ago.

 

Leica's R-system product manager suggested that it would be "full frame or larger" during an interview at one of the photo expos last year.

[Guest stnami]

....before the m 8 and the luxies came out................. we used to make up shit here and the threads just went on and on....thread no 3 on same R info in a few weeks!!!!...............same same but different see aaae

[Guest stnami]

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/digital-forum/34201-new-leica-dslr-system.html

[Bob Ross]

Speculation is not a crime ©

Indeed! And since it is legal and even fun, here is something not mentioned yet.

The sensor in the M8 is approximately two 4/3rds sensors joined along the long side. Sometimes green stripes down the middle show up to prove it:rolleyes: Now, if two M8 sensors were joined along the long side we'd get a 36 X 27mm sensor in 4:3 aspect ratio. The diagonal of this would be 45mm and the crop factor would be .967. FOV for lenses would change like 28>27, 35>34, 50>48 & 90>87. New shutter, new mirror and Prism/viewfinder and probably a new registration distance, but same mount that maybe will have AF contacts for a new line of AF lenses (RAFs).

I'd guess, no IS and no 3:2 aspect ratio, but think of the MP possibilities...20MP....32MP....40MP (4X the 4/3rds sensor gang), to sooth your loss;)

It is quite possible that sensor fabrication could be the driver.

Bob

[sdai]

One major caveat with in camera stabilization via sensor movement is that the viewfinder image doesn't get stabilized so you don't know what's actually going on ... when you press the shutter, you don't get the feeling it's only a hit or miss!

 

Another thing is with telephoto and super telephoto lenses ... where camera shake is highly magnified, sensor stabilization doesn't work or work but at a very limited degree. Most companies who adopt the technology don't have a telephoto lineup worth mentioning and there're many test reports proving the results are not fancy at all.

 

Regarding sensor size, I don't care whether it stays the same as 24x36 or grow slightly larger ... bottomline, it should work with existing R lenses and I don't believe it'll be any odd shape or size such as square format because that will require most of us crop to 5:4 or 3:2 to print and waste a lot of pixels.

 

I suspect there're some miscommunication in the original post on LUG ... I think the conceptual design stage of the R10 is completed and next comes with the engineering design stage. Perhaps it's not time to say anything yet ... but PMA 2008 we should hear something.

[dfarkas]

I can confirm the quotes by Dr. Kaufman. I attended the LHSA meeting in Rochester last week. In fact, David Young (the quoted blog writer) and I spent some quality time together in the TSA special inspection line at the ROC airport. Travel with this much Leica gear and you're just asking for speical screening.

 

Dr. Kaufman let on about a lot of topics including the R10, the 24 new lenses, the rumored 0.9 Noct, the M9, the X? camera, the new Leitzpark relocation back to Wetzlar, the creation of Leica Cinema, and the future direction of Leica as a brand. R&D is up 22.7% from last year. Sales are up and Leica is hiring more skilled techs for production. He was extreemly candid.

 

No, Dr. Kaufman was not the first to intone about a "larger than full frame" sensor in the R10. Acutally, over a year ago when I spoke to Maike Harberts, the R line product manager, at Photokina, she repeatedly corrected me when I'd talk about a "full frame" sensor. She'd add on, "...or larger." This was not covered under my NDA. She said I was free to tell people about it, so I posted it on my blog. Many here have referrenced that quote since. Admittedly, even though I've had over a year to digest this larger sensor format, I still can't tell for certain what the final product will be. And, Leica isn't telling me (even under NDA).

 

What I do know is that Dr. Kaufman and Steven Lee care a great deal about Leica. They repsect the brand and wouldn't do anything to undermine it. I am positive that whatever shape the R10 takes, it will be beyond our greatest expectations.

 

David

[Likaleica]

What I do know is that Dr. Kaufman and Steven Lee care a great deal about Leica. They repsect the brand and wouldn't do anything to undermine it. I am positive that whatever shape the R10 takes, it will be beyond our greatest expectations.

 

David

 

Whew! I'm going to sleep better tonight!

[mjh]

If the sensor was larger than 24mm x 36mm, let's say 30mm x 42mm, then it will be able to move 3mm in any direction and still capture a 24mm x 36mm image through a 24mm x 36mm shutter opening.

But how? If the shutter opening measures 36 x 24 mm and the sensor can travel 3 mm in any direction, only an area measuring 30 x 18 mm will be exposed for the full length of the selected exposure time. There is a 6 mm wide frame surrounding this area on all sides where the pixels are exposed part of the time – from 0 to 100 percent, depending on the amount of camera shake. When there is no camera shake at all – because the camera is mounted on a tripod, say –, you would get 100 percent exposure time within a 36 x 24 mm area, but as soon as there is some camera shake, vignetting will start to kick in, leaving only the central 30 x 18 mm of the sensor unaffected.

[dfarkas]

And for what it's worth, I don't think that image stabilization is in the works.

 

Just doesn't fit Leica. Look at the M8 and how elegantly simple it is. I forsee a similiar approach with the R10.

 

David

[AlanG]

But how? If the shutter opening measures 36 x 24 mm...

 

The sensor is behind the shutter. It can be larger than the opening to allow room to move in order to stabilize the image.

[sdai]

Just doesn't fit Leica. Look at the M8 and how elegantly simple it is. I forsee a similiar approach with the R10.

 

I absolutely agree with you, David. Leica should never bother with these gimmicks, not now at least, and if it doesn't live up to people's expectations, it won't make their face look good ... how many folks were asking for this kind of things anyways? not me.

[Bob Ross]

And for what it's worth, I don't think that image stabilization is in the works.

 

Just doesn't fit Leica. Look at the M8 and how elegantly simple it is. I forsee a similiar approach with the R10.

 

David

Hi David,

IS in-body probably is not the way Leica will go, but if there will be a new lens line (RAF-IS?), we could well see IS in the lenses. They do this with the Digilux 3 lenses (Pany) and they would be following the lead of Canon and Nikon and get to sell more lenses and that is the name of the game.

Bob

[telyt]

... if there will be a new lens line (RAF-IS?), we could well see IS in the lenses. They do this with the Digilux 3 lenses (Pany) and they would be following the lead of Canon and Nikon and get to sell more lenses and that is the name of the game.

Bob

 

1) Given what it does for the number of air/glass surfaces and the consequent flare control & color quality I'd hate to see IS in the lenses

 

2) Leica can do better than to follow C and N.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[sdai]

The IS element is actually a floating lens element moving orthogonally to the optical axis, driven by electro magnets ... I've owned and used many Canon's IS lenses and their non-IS predecessors such as the 400/2.8 Mk 2 and 400/2.8 IS, 500/4.5, 500/4L IS... and never found flare control, color rendition to be of any concern, there're many cases that preferences are given to non IS models though ... especially when you talk to folks who shoot sports, you may hear some say that the old 70-200/2.8, 400/2.8 are sharper than their IS cousins ... etc, they don't need IS anyways.