BernardC Posted January 18 Share #181 Posted January 18 Advertisement (gone after registration) The inevitable follow-up is "why don't Sigma and Panasonic (and presumably BlackMagic) use the same thinner cover glass?" First-off, neither brand sells M glass, and they don't support M glass. Second, cover glass thickness is only one aspect of M-lens support. Lots of people have had their Sony bodies modded to use thinner cover glass, and those modded bodies still don't perform as well as Leica bodies with M lenses. Why would those two brands spend substantial amounts on R&D and manufacturing in order to support M lenses? That would probably add a non-trivial amount to the selling price of their bodies, which would make them less competitive. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 18 Posted January 18 Hi BernardC, Take a look here Leica SL3-S: ‘More light’ – The Unbearable Lightness of Being. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
FlashGordonPhotography Posted January 18 Share #182 Posted January 18 6 hours ago, BernardC said: By that logic there's never been any improvement in low-light sensitivity on any sensor 😀! Brands have just been increasing the gain for 20 years... I love the symmetry of the two narratives. On one side are people who have the camera in hand, and find that the new model has a little more depth in the shadows. On the other side are people who know everything in advance and stick to their narrative. I haven't tried the new camera, but I also don't have a preconceived opinion about its performance. I just find the conversation fascinating. 6 hours ago, BernardC said: The inevitable follow-up is "why don't Sigma and Panasonic (and presumably BlackMagic) use the same thinner cover glass?" First-off, neither brand sells M glass, and they don't support M glass. Second, cover glass thickness is only one aspect of M-lens support. Lots of people have had their Sony bodies modded to use thinner cover glass, and those modded bodies still don't perform as well as Leica bodies with M lenses. Why would those two brands spend substantial amounts on R&D and manufacturing in order to support M lenses? That would probably add a non-trivial amount to the selling price of their bodies, which would make them less competitive. Well, technically it’s correct. It is applied gain. That doesn’t mean that there aren’t advances. Low ISO’s look clean because the noise floor is lower than the signal. For the purpose of this discussion let’s say signal equals light hitting the sensor. Signal and noise are both data and each pixel can contain a finite amount of data. You see noise when the noise exceeds signal. As you apply gain you magnify the noise floor and the signal is lowered, relatively. Therefore noise becomes more and more visible and there’s less room in each pixel for data. You also add noise with heat. So longer exposures, use in hot environments and rapid shooting all make more heat. Modern sensors have a lower base ISO noise floor so gain shows up as signal later on. Hence the improvement you are seeing. For photography this advancement was rapid until the A7R3 but has slowed (not stopped) since then as the emphasis has shifted to faster readouts. This has also meant that heat management has become super important, relative to a few years ago. Also most modern cameras has noise reduction built in. Even Leica. Some is mandatory. These processors and algorithms have improved to keep more signal when reducing noise and *AI* is using machine learning to see what should be signal and preserving it. As an interesting aside, Astro-photography camera chase lower signal to noise ratios over everything else. S/N is the most important thing in their spec sheets. You won’t even see S/N in a normal cameras specs. Astro cameras start at lower than 2MP and produce excellent results in the S/N ratio is low enough. The better ones hyper cool the sensor to 35 degrees celsius below ambient. It’s more important than resolution. They do this because signal is incredibly weak. We don’t generally have this issue. We use megapickles to increase resolved detail. They use a lower S/N ratio first and megapickles later. A 26MP APSC sensor is considered ultra high resolution, although a 60MP 24x36 sensor has hit the market for wide field deep sky photography. Currently, the Nikon Zf might be the best camera for M lenses on the market that’s not an M. It has a super thin stack. Some have tested against the SL cameras and the Zf holds up easily. I don’t have one as I have little use for low res sensors, so this is annecdotal. The micro lenses help but the stack thickness is king. And modern modified cameras are better than they used to be as well. But you are correct. Most don’t because support for MF lenses isn’t t important. Co-incidentally the people who mod sensors to improve use with M lenses all started by modding cameras for astro (full spectrum or Ha) use. Gordon 4 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pf4eva Posted January 19 Share #183 Posted January 19 10 hours ago, BernardC said: By that logic there's never been any improvement in low-light sensitivity on any sensor 😀! Brands have just been increasing the gain for 20 years... I love the symmetry of the two narratives. On one side are people who have the camera in hand, and find that the new model has a little more depth in the shadows. On the other side are people who know everything in advance and stick to their narrative. I haven't tried the new camera, but I also don't have a preconceived opinion about its performance. I just find the conversation fascinating. LOL, Not sure why I should explain it, but presence of an ISO setting in a menu doesn't mean same or different sensor, it doesn't mean anything at all. Btw people who tested camera also saying it is the same sensor. But Of course, it would be interesting to see actual tests. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted January 19 Share #184 Posted January 19 10 hours ago, BernardC said: The inevitable follow-up is "why don't Sigma and Panasonic (and presumably BlackMagic) use the same thinner cover glass?" First-off, neither brand sells M glass, and they don't support M glass. Second, cover glass thickness is only one aspect of M-lens support. Lots of people have had their Sony bodies modded to use thinner cover glass, and those modded bodies still don't perform as well as Leica bodies with M lenses. Why would those two brands spend substantial amounts on R&D and manufacturing in order to support M lenses? That would probably add a non-trivial amount to the selling price of their bodies, which would make them less competitive. Leica M cameras use shifted microlenses to comply with steep incidence angles as exhibited by older WA rangefinder lenses, other brands don't. It is that simple. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SrMi Posted January 19 Share #185 Posted January 19 7 minutes ago, jaapv said: Leica M cameras use shifted microlenses to comply with steep incidence angles as exhibited by older WA rangefinder lenses, other brands don't. It is that simple. Steep incident angles are handled better with BSI sensors. I wonder whether special microlenses are still needed with the new breed of Leica cameras with BSI sensors. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ALScott Posted January 19 Share #186 Posted January 19 (edited) 48 minutes ago, pf4eva said: LOL, Not sure why I should explain it, but presence of an ISO setting in a menu doesn't mean same or different sensor, it doesn't mean anything at all. Btw people who tested camera also saying it is the same sensor. But Of course, it would be interesting to see actual tests. Honest question here to learn, not doubting. How would anybody here or a reviewer online testing a camera really be able to know what sensor is in a camera? I mean outside of the tech specs saying it's the same MP it's not like they have a name stamped on the sensor or model number etc. Or do they? Somebody taking the cameras apart? Edited January 19 by ALScott Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ALScott Posted January 19 Share #187 Posted January 19 (edited) Advertisement (gone after registration) They say it is not the same sensor as the SL2-S and explain why it isn’t. Edited January 19 by ALScott 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlashGordonPhotography Posted January 19 Share #188 Posted January 19 4 hours ago, ALScott said: Honest question here to learn, not doubting. How would anybody here or a reviewer online testing a camera really be able to know what sensor is in a camera? I mean outside of the tech specs saying it's the same MP it's not like they have a name stamped on the sensor or model number etc. Or do they? Somebody taking the cameras apart? There are a finite number sensors available that are suitable for photo/video camera use. Sony semiconductor is what most manufacturers use. Nikon has their own designs made by Sony SC. Canon have their own fabrication facility. Neither Nikon or Canon share their sensors. There’s also Towerjazz and a few others. But Sony SC dominates. If you look at the sensor specs you can have a very educated guess at the manufacturer and the base silicon model number. Leica, Panasonic, Olympus and Fuji mostly use Sony SC sensors. Panasonic did have it’s own fabricator but I’m not sure it’s still in use for photo/video sensors. The SL3-S sensor is a variant of the Sony SC 24MP sensor in the S5ii. Likely that there’s some custom toppings (CFA and micro lenses etc) over the same base silicon. The SL2-S didn’t have PDAF points like the SL3-S but that doesn’t mean that it’s from the same basic family of sensor tech. eg: The SL3 is a PDAF sensor. M11 has no PDAF. and M11M has no PDAF and no CFA. They are from the same group of sensors though. Like siblings. The SL2-S and S5ii are more likely fraternal twins. It is likely that the Sony A7R5 and SL3 are also fraternal twins. Same base, different toppings. You can argue all day if a sensor with added PDAF points or a different CFA is actually a different sensor or a variant. But generally when people say two cameras have the same sensor they’re talking about the base silicon and ignoring the topping differences. So depending on how you look at *same* Red Dot is either right or wrong. Gordon 2 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted January 19 Share #189 Posted January 19 7 hours ago, SrMi said: Steep incident angles are handled better with BSI sensors. I wonder whether special microlenses are still needed with the new breed of Leica cameras with BSI sensors. The same question for the ellipsoid ones on the SL. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simone_DF Posted January 19 Share #190 Posted January 19 On 1/16/2025 at 6:42 PM, Smogg said: Therefore, constant comparisons in this forum with CaNiSo are pointless, they have different and practically non-intersecting sales markets. Really? Because Stefan Daniel of Leica considers Sony, Canon and Nikon direct competitors of the SL line. “From the article: First, he explained why Leica has chosen to compete in the full-frame mirrorless market against the giants of Canon, Nikon and Sony: “This is by far the biggest market in the camera industry, and the fastest growing. Either we participate, or we keep to our photographic specialties. We decided that we wanted to be part of it quite early when we launched in 2015, when the battle between DSLR and mirrorless wasn’t decided yet.” you can read the rest here https://amateurphotographer.com/latest/photo-news/leica-sl3-interview/ 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pf4eva Posted January 19 Share #191 Posted January 19 (edited) 10 hours ago, ALScott said: They say it is not the same sensor as the SL2-S and explain why it isn’t. Yeah, it is different its version of the same sensor with phase detection. Like S5 and S5II... You don't need to be a rocket scientist to assume that S3-S sensor is most likely the same as on S5II. They're all different versions of IMX410 sensor. Note that this sensor is from 2018. So you're getting 7y technology in 6k$ camera. Even Sony themselves only list base sensor variants as "different": 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 January 19 by pf4eva Quote Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/418450-leica-sl3-s-%E2%80%98more-light%E2%80%99-%E2%80%93-the-unbearable-lightness-of-being/?do=findComment&comment=5742657'>More sharing options...
BernardC Posted January 19 Share #192 Posted January 19 12 hours ago, pf4eva said: Btw people who tested camera also saying it is the same sensor. But Of course, it would be interesting to see actual tests. There's an actual test on this site, with downloadable DNGs. The tests I've read/watched don't say that it's the "same" sensor, they just say that it's still 24MP (thus similar). Leica doesn't tell them anything more than they tell the rest of the world. To my mind, if testers find that the camera has a bit more in the shadows than previous Leica, Lumix, and Sigma 24MP cameras, then that's different. Extra shadow detail isn't just for EI 100,000, it means a a little bit more dynamic range at all EIs. We can all sit on our easy chairs and speculate as to what the reason is for the difference (or just say that we don't see it). Is it AI (machine learning really, which is just better processing protocols), is it more effective cooling, is it better solder upstream of the ADC? Like I wrote earlier, I am one of the few here who apparently doesn't have a cousin who works in Sigma's clean room, an ex-spouse who leaks info from Leica, and a daughter who's an intern at Sony Semi, so I just find it entertaining to watch the speculation. 4 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BernardC Posted January 19 Share #193 Posted January 19 17 minutes ago, pf4eva said: Yeah, it is different its version of the same sensor with phase detection. Everyone already thinks that it's from the same family of sensors. Are you saying that Sony hasn't improved its product in any way since 2018? That would be very odd, since other fabs are able to improve yield, power consumption, speed (which is related to power consumption), etc., from batch to batch. They are also able to make design changes, even when staying on the same process node. It almost sounds unbelievable that a major fab like Sony Semiconductors can't do any of these things when other fabs can. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pf4eva Posted January 19 Share #194 Posted January 19 1 minute ago, BernardC said: Everyone already thinks that it's from the same family of sensors. Are you saying that Sony hasn't improved its product in any way since 2018? That would be very odd, since other fabs are able to improve yield, power consumption, speed (which is related to power consumption), etc., from batch to batch. They are also able to make design changes, even when staying on the same process node. It almost sounds unbelievable that a major fab like Sony Semiconductors can't do any of these things when other fabs can. Yes, I'm saying they didn't improve it since 2018. That's not how it works. They may improve materials, but performance would stay consistent to original specs. If you have "cousin" who works at sony who claims otherwise - let us know. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BernardC Posted January 19 Share #195 Posted January 19 Just now, pf4eva said: If you have "cousin" who works at sony who claims otherwise - let us know. You may have missed my previous post. I'm the only one here who doesn't. I'll ask around 😀 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonoslack Posted January 19 Share #196 Posted January 19 12 hours ago, jaapv said: Leica M cameras use shifted microlenses to comply with steep incidence angles as exhibited by older WA rangefinder lenses, other brands don't. It is that simple. 12 hours ago, SrMi said: Steep incident angles are handled better with BSI sensors. I wonder whether special microlenses are still needed with the new breed of Leica cameras with BSI sensors. I'm pretty sure that the shifted microlenses have gone with the BSI sensor in the M11 (I'm not certain, but I have a cousin who works at Sony). 2 2 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonoslack Posted January 19 Share #197 Posted January 19 16 hours ago, FlashGordonPhotography said: Well, technically it’s correct. It is applied gain. That doesn’t mean that there aren’t advances. Low ISO’s look clean because the noise floor is lower than the signal. For the purpose of this discussion let’s say signal equals light hitting the sensor. Signal and noise are both data and each pixel can contain a finite amount of data. You see noise when the noise exceeds signal. As you apply gain you magnify the noise floor and the signal is lowered, relatively. Therefore noise becomes more and more visible and there’s less room in each pixel for data. You also add noise with heat. So longer exposures, use in hot environments and rapid shooting all make more heat. Modern sensors have a lower base ISO noise floor so gain shows up as signal later on. Hence the improvement you are seeing. For photography this advancement was rapid until the A7R3 but has slowed (not stopped) since then as the emphasis has shifted to faster readouts. This has also meant that heat management has become super important, relative to a few years ago. Also most modern cameras has noise reduction built in. Even Leica. Some is mandatory. These processors and algorithms have improved to keep more signal when reducing noise and *AI* is using machine learning to see what should be signal and preserving it. As an interesting aside, Astro-photography camera chase lower signal to noise ratios over everything else. S/N is the most important thing in their spec sheets. You won’t even see S/N in a normal cameras specs. Astro cameras start at lower than 2MP and produce excellent results in the S/N ratio is low enough. The better ones hyper cool the sensor to 35 degrees celsius below ambient. It’s more important than resolution. They do this because signal is incredibly weak. We don’t generally have this issue. We use megapickles to increase resolved detail. They use a lower S/N ratio first and megapickles later. A 26MP APSC sensor is considered ultra high resolution, although a 60MP 24x36 sensor has hit the market for wide field deep sky photography. Currently, the Nikon Zf might be the best camera for M lenses on the market that’s not an M. It has a super thin stack. Some have tested against the SL cameras and the Zf holds up easily. I don’t have one as I have little use for low res sensors, so this is annecdotal. The micro lenses help but the stack thickness is king. And modern modified cameras are better than they used to be as well. But you are correct. Most don’t because support for MF lenses isn’t t important. Co-incidentally the people who mod sensors to improve use with M lenses all started by modding cameras for astro (full spectrum or Ha) use. Gordon Thank you Gordon What a good post! Thank you! As an aside about sensor stacks - one of the reasons to use thicker ones is that dust is then less of an issue. All the best 4 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted January 19 Share #198 Posted January 19 17 minutes ago, jonoslack said: As an aside about sensor stacks - one of the reasons to use thicker ones is that dust is then less of an issue. Or the approach that Fuji apparently uses, i.e., a 9mm gap between cover glass and sensor plane… https://fujifilm-x.com/en-us/de/stories/gfx-technologies-2/ 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SrMi Posted January 19 Share #199 Posted January 19 10 hours ago, FlashGordonPhotography said: There are a finite number sensors available that are suitable for photo/video camera use. Sony semiconductor is what most manufacturers use. Nikon has their own designs made by Sony SC. Canon have their own fabrication facility. Neither Nikon or Canon share their sensors. There’s also Towerjazz and a few others. But Sony SC dominates. If you look at the sensor specs you can have a very educated guess at the manufacturer and the base silicon model number. Leica, Panasonic, Olympus and Fuji mostly use Sony SC sensors. Panasonic did have it’s own fabricator but I’m not sure it’s still in use for photo/video sensors. The SL3-S sensor is a variant of the Sony SC 24MP sensor in the S5ii. Likely that there’s some custom toppings (CFA and micro lenses etc) over the same base silicon. The SL2-S didn’t have PDAF points like the SL3-S but that doesn’t mean that it’s from the same basic family of sensor tech. eg: The SL3 is a PDAF sensor. M11 has no PDAF. and M11M has no PDAF and no CFA. They are from the same group of sensors though. Like siblings. The SL2-S and S5ii are more likely fraternal twins. It is likely that the Sony A7R5 and SL3 are also fraternal twins. Same base, different toppings. You can argue all day if a sensor with added PDAF points or a different CFA is actually a different sensor or a variant. But generally when people say two cameras have the same sensor they’re talking about the base silicon and ignoring the topping differences. So depending on how you look at *same* Red Dot is either right or wrong. Gordon +1 Even if the sensors were identical, different cameras process raw data differently, and the result (data in raw files) differs. 2 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LBJ2 Posted January 19 Share #200 Posted January 19 (edited) FWIW and with regards to the supposed forum described Nikon "super thin stack" there has been a lot of discussion about this in general. According to this post seems the Kolari teardown *perhaps the source of the 1.1 mm story may not have included the entire stack in their measurements: "...So the real figure is ~2.3mm total glass thickness, not 1.1mm (Nikon D850 is about ~2.5mm). Still 2.3mm is notably more thin than the 3+ mm for Sony mirrorless." https://diglloyd.com/blog/2018/20181009_1248-NikonZ7-cover-glass-thickness.html Edited January 19 by LBJ2 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.