Multishot on SL3-S

[LD_50]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 minute ago, SrMi said:

I do not think that a thinner sensor stack negatively influences IQ. I believe it is common knowledge that SL2 has a thinner sensor glass than S1R (M10 having the thinnest of them all).

A change in distance from lens to sensor would absolutely impact IQ. 

[mpauliks]

vor 3 Minuten schrieb LD_50:

The question is NOT about M lenses, it’s about the dimensions for L-mount lenses.

It is about the stack thickness too. If protective glass is more thin than on Pana, this might have very well effects. But I am not a cam designer please.

[SrMi]

Just now, LD_50 said:

A change in distance from lens to sensor would absolutely impact IQ. 

The distance from the lens to the sensor is the same. Only the thickness of the toppings changes.

[mpauliks]

Gerade eben schrieb LD_50:

A change in distance from lens to sensor would absolutely impact IQ. 

The protective glass thickness does not change the distance to sensor chip itself IMO.

[mpauliks]

Maybe to close on this: chip.de from Germany provides resolution measurements for free, if you click on the details. There you can see, that M11 performs better than SL3 with same M glas. M11 has a tick higher resolution on same lens like SL3 though same sensor chip. Measurements for SL3-S are not there so far. Leica really has to balance with sensor stack design. If you take the counterparts from SL lenses itself to M glas they usually outperform the M counterparts in resolution though. You can see e.g. at Red Dot Pocketbook. Anyway, if this is really important from practical point of view? According to another fresh review SL3-S with Multishot outperforms SL3 at 60 MP.

Edited January 18 by mpauliks

[LD_50]

The thickness of the cover glass impacts the light’s path to the sensor. It does matter and if it is different for Leica and Panasonic and Sigma, there would be a measurable impact on performance of L-mount lenses on those cameras. Ideally it would be exactly the same across cameras so that the lenses designed for one camera would work equally well on another. 

I don’t expect anyone here will know for sure, but I also don’t think the physics are debatable. Optimizing for M lenses seems to require a different glass thickness in combination with a micro-lens array to properly orient the ray angle from lens to sensor. Knowing this, Leica would presumably design their L-mount lenses to align with the SL sensor.

I would also expect them to build that design into the L-mount specifications so non-Leica lenses would be designed to perform best with their sensor.

The outstanding questions:

1- Is the Leica sensor cover thickness different than Panasonic and/or Sigma?

2- Are Leica L-mount lenses designed specifically for Leica’s sensor cover thickness?

3- Are non-Leica L-mount lenses designed to match Leica’s specifications for Leica’s sensor cover thickness?

4- If there is a difference between Leica, Panasonic, and/or Sigma in sensor cover thickness, what is the impact on IQ when mounting each other’s lenses (which would be designed to a specific sensor cover thickness)?

[LD_50]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

4 minutes ago, mpauliks said:

Maybe to close on this: chip.de from Germany provides resolution measurements for free, if you click on the details. There you can see, that M11 performs better than SL3 with same M glas. M11 has a tick higher resolution on same lens like SL3 though same sensor chip. Measurements for SL3-S are not there so far. Leica really has to balance with sensor stack design. If you take the counterparts from SL lenses itself to M glas they usually outperform the M counterparts in resolution though. You can see e.g. at Red Dot Pocketbook. Anyway, if this is really important from practical point of view? According to another fresh review SL3-S with Multishot outperforms SL3 at 60 MP.

I’m not questioning M performance. 

It’s well documented M lenses perform best on M bodies, and then better on SL than other makes. 

[SrMi]

27 minutes ago, LD_50 said:

The thickness of the cover glass impacts the light’s path to the sensor. It does matter and if it is different for Leica and Panasonic and Sigma, there would be a measurable impact on performance of L-mount lenses on those cameras. Ideally it would be exactly the same across cameras so that the lenses designed for one camera would work equally well on another. 

I don’t expect anyone here will know for sure, but I also don’t think the physics are debatable. Optimizing for M lenses seems to require a different glass thickness in combination with a micro-lens array to properly orient the ray angle from lens to sensor. Knowing this, Leica would presumably design their L-mount lenses to align with the SL sensor.

I would also expect them to build that design into the L-mount specifications so non-Leica lenses would be designed to perform best with their sensor.

The outstanding questions:

1- Is the Leica sensor cover thickness different than Panasonic and/or Sigma?

2- Are Leica L-mount lenses designed specifically for Leica’s sensor cover thickness?

3- Are non-Leica L-mount lenses designed to match Leica’s specifications for Leica’s sensor cover thickness?

4- If there is a difference between Leica, Panasonic, and/or Sigma in sensor cover thickness, what is the impact on IQ when mounting each other’s lenses (which would be designed to a specific sensor cover thickness)?

Those questions have been discussed on the forum before. For L lenses, there is little impact because of difference in glass thickness.

[mpauliks]

vor 44 Minuten schrieb LD_50:

 

The outstanding questions:

1- Is the Leica sensor cover thickness different than Panasonic and/or Sigma?

2- Are Leica L-mount lenses designed specifically for Leica’s sensor cover thickness?

3- Are non-Leica L-mount lenses designed to match Leica’s specifications for Leica’s sensor cover thickness?

4- If there is a difference between Leica, Panasonic, and/or Sigma in sensor cover thickness, what is the impact on IQ when mounting each other’s lenses (which would be designed to a specific sensor cover thickness)?

1 - Thorsten writes the protective glas is thinner. He should really know. A dealer here in Berlin ( not a Leica one ) told me, yes, Leica is different to Pana. I fear, noone will tell us really super hard facts on this unless one folk really takes it apart and measures. So, we just have to trust, what folks - known to the art - tell. There might be interviews with Leica developers covering this. But the one I remember was for M8 that time.

2 - From my understanding, it is the distance to the sensor chip that counts and what lenses are designed for. That is the critical distance. I do not think - as not camera engineer - that you design lenses for cover thickness.

3 - See point 2

4 - Yes, I think so. See 1

Edited January 18 by mpauliks

[mpauliks]

To me, if you have M glas? Yes, pick a Leica! This is my instinct. Also, profiles for jpg for the different Leica lenses are only available at Leica cams, no other brand.

Edited January 18 by mpauliks

[mpauliks]

If you really want to dig into, I can make for you a shoot out of new SL3-S against Pana S9. Both are 24 MP. Would use just standard settings. And post you the images (via Flickr) with same lens from tripod, etc. Anyway this thread was more intended about the new Multishot right?

[LD_50]

1 minute ago, mpauliks said:

If you really want to dig into, I can make for you a shoot out of new SL3-S against Pana S9. Both are 24 MP. Would use just standard settings. And post you the images (via Flickr) with same lens from tripod, etc. Anyway this thread was more intended about the new Multishot right?

Thanks, no need for the comparison. I only have M lenses, Leica L-mount lenses, and one Sigma Macro that performs well enough that I don’t care if it performs better on another body.

 

[mpauliks]

Sigma´s SL 105 f/2.8 is super outstanding. Use is myself incl. the both extenders! Maybe one - if not - that best lens of all.

[mpauliks]

Here using Leica SL 100-400 on Monopod with handheld Multishot 

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 18 by mpauliks

[LocalHero1953]

How does an image shot with multishot compare with an image shot without - when posted here at forum resolution limits?

[Jon Warwick]

7 hours ago, robb said:

I don’t see myself using this in handheld mode.  But absolutely love multishot on a tripod on my sl2 cameras.

Robb

It would be a disappointment to me if multishot never made its way into the SL3.

I found it useful enough on my SL2 that I’ve decided I wouldn’t buy an SL3 unless multishot was incorporated (instead, I will keep using my 100mp medium format when I need maximal resolution for landscapes etc).

For those situations such as still mountain landscapes (and to reduce aliasing and false colors from the color filter array), multishot in the SL3 would be very useful to me.

[jaapv]

47 minutes ago, LocalHero1953 said:

How does an image shot with multishot compare with an image shot without - when posted here at forum resolution limits?

Or indeed viewed in any normal circumstances?
But you could pose that question for any high resolution image. Point is that even if one cannot see  the amount of detail, if one never knew that it was there in the subject, no one will miss it.

 Only side by side will comparisons at close distance to overcome the lack of resolution of the eye will reveal a difference. That the photographer knows that detail was recorded is of no relevance to the viewer. 

[LocalHero1953]

Perhaps images posted here should be limited to 1:1 crops, so we can actually see any difference.

[jaapv]

3 hours ago, mpauliks said:

1 - Thorsten writes the protective glas is thinner. He should really know. A dealer here in Berlin ( not a Leica one ) told me, yes, Leica is different to Pana. I fear, noone will tell us really super hard facts on this unless one folk really takes it apart and measures. So, we just have to trust, what folks - known to the art - tell. There might be interviews with Leica developers covering this. But the one I remember was for M8 that time.

2 - From my understanding, it is the distance to the sensor chip that counts and what lenses are designed for. That is the critical distance. I do not think - as not camera engineer - that you design lenses for cover thickness.

3 - See point 2

4 - Yes, I think so. See 1

The distance between an AA filter and the sensor can be of relevance. But neither camera has an AA filter…. 
The cover glass IR filter is always installed directly onto the sensor. 
The main difference between the SL sensor and  other brands to accommodate M lenses are the microlenses. On most cameras they are spherical, on SL cameras ellipsoid. 
There may be some tweaks to the IR filter as well, but I do not know. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[Jon Warwick]

2 hours ago, LocalHero1953 said:

Perhaps images posted here should be limited to 1:1 crops, so we can actually see any difference.

That’s probably when one might begin to see a difference! (and that’s coming from someone that’s a fan of multishot). The benefit of it is reduced aliasing and noise for certain scenes - multishot essentially getting rid of the problems that occur from the color filter array. A bit like the benefit of a Monochrom sensor in terms of aliasing (and hence perceived resolution in those finest of details), but the Monochrom has the benefit of better tonality too IMHO and with the further benefit of one-shot capture

Edited January 18 by Jon Warwick