Full Frame Is Here !!!!!!

[stunsworth]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Guy, I _think_ I understood that.

[adan]

1) It's hilarious how many people assume that, because Kodak does not have an appropriate sensor listed in their current catalog, Leica will have to go somewhere else for the sensor.

 

You guys HAVE heard of progress, right? You know, EXPANDING one's product line to meet customer needs?

 

The current M8 sensor was not in Kodak's catalog either - UNTIL LEICA and KODAK announced the details of the M8, including the sensor specs. It was a sensor designed for Leica's specific needs (1.33 crop, offset microlenses to handle vignetting from short-focus RF lenses, thin (as we all know) IR filter, etc. etc.)

 

d'oh!

 

2) Speaking of microlenses - the ones on the current M8 sensor already do a spectacular job of correcting vignetting. On a cropped sensor, to be sure, but with less crop than the vast majority (which are still at 1.5 or 1.6x factors).

 

One only needs to see how badly the Epson R-D1 vignetted with 12/15mm lenses - with only a 1.5x crop, compared to the M8 with 1.33x crop, to see how far Leica and Kodak moved the technology forward (or sideways) in creating the M8.

 

I'm not sure a 24 x 36 sensor could handle a Super-Angulon 21 or Hologon 15 from the 60's without some corner shading (those lenses vignetted like mad even on flat film) - but I'm pretty sure Leica/Kodak can nudge the microlenses enough to handle any of the mildly retrofocus 21/24/28 lenses that are far enough from the image plane to allow metering.

 

3) As others have said - I am mostly amazed at how little the crop factor in the M8 bothers me - MOST of the time.

 

My 50 as a short (69mm) portrait tele is MUCH easier to focus at f/2 than either the 75 or 90 were on full-frame film.

 

BUT - an f/4.5 "21mm" is a little too much of a throwback to the 1950's. I would like to be able to use my 21 f/2.8 as a real 21 f/2.8 again at some point (and that 15mm f/4.5 as a real 15mm).

 

When the 24 x 36 sensor actually gets here, I'll be ready to use it. Until then, the 18 x 27 is doing great things for me.

[Iron Flatline]

Sure, after Canon launched it's 1Ds back in 2002 several other sensor producers, like Sony and Kodak, have launched similar sensors. They function well on DSLR-cameras were the distance between rear lense element and sensor is larger. But they function well, only just. Very important: Both Canon and Nikon are about to introduce fast & wide lenses to better suit these sensors. Full frame sensors functions only just on DSLR cameras.

 

On a rangefinder camera with much shorter distance between rear lense element and sensor the light rays hit the corners of a full frame sensor with too steep an angle. Light does not hit the bottom of the pixel wells with vignetting as a result.

 

It could well be that a FF-M will be a reality one day. But not any time soon.

But that's the power of working in a digital medium - you can compensate with software.

[stunsworth]

But you can only do so much with software. I imagine - and I'm by no means an expert - that the more you have to compensate for vignetting by boosting the level of the image in the corners, the more you run into problems of introducing noise into the image.

[sandymc]

But you can only do so much with software. I imagine - and I'm by no means an expert - that the more you have to compensate for vignetting by boosting the level of the image in the corners, the more you run into problems of introducing noise into the image.

 

On the current M8, a 21mm loses nearly 3/4 of the red light in the corner with a 486 filter; close to 2 stops. Full frame, anybody's guess as how the microlenes work, but maybe 3-4 stops. That would mean 800 ASA+ levels of noise in the corners on a 100 ASA exposure.......

 

Sandy

[adan]

Steve: Absolutely. Getting rid of the Epson R-D1's vignetting with the 15mm C/V (which was brownish-tinted as well as dark) in Photoshop revealed very visible noise - basically 2 stops of noise to correct two stops of vignetting, as one would expect (Effectively the corners got exposed at ISO 800 when the middle of the frame was getting ISO 200).

 

Nasty in skies.

 

Software is OK for a little color correcting, especially if it is done early in the signal chain. But a head-start from good hardware (off-set microlenses) is significant.

[carstenw]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On the current M8, a 21mm loses nearly 3/4 of the red light in the corner with a 486 filter; close to 2 stops. Full frame, anybody's guess as how the microlenes work, but maybe 3-4 stops. That would mean 800 ASA+ levels of noise in the corners on a 100 ASA exposure.......

 

Sandy

Sandy, there is no way that Leica will release another sensor with IR problems. The ubiquitous criticism they received with the M8 has made sure of that. I am not buying another camera which requires IR filters. I look as much forward to using my lenses filter-less as I do to FF.

[sandymc]

Sandy, there is no way that Leica will release another sensor with IR problems. The ubiquitous criticism they received with the M8 has made sure of that. I am not buying another camera which requires IR filters. I look as much forward to using my lenses filter-less as I do to FF.

 

Carsten, yes, I'd agree with that. But whether the IR filter is internal or external, the light fall-off will be the same.

 

Sandy

[carstenw]

Carsten, yes, I'd agree with that. But whether the IR filter is internal or external, the light fall-off will be the same.

 

Sandy

I disagree. The light hitting the front element of the lens can come at a totally different angle than the light hitting the sensor. Anyway, there are always IR-absorbing filters... Leica will fix this one. They do know what we want, and I don't think that they dare release another camera until this is fixed. Keep in mind that the original problem was IR filter thickness, which would have led to internal reflections in the filter, and lessened sharpness in images. If Leica can find a way to pack more IR absorption into a filter the same thickness, then we have a solution. I am certain that Leica and Kodak engineers have been working overtime on this problem ever since the M8 was released.

[Olsen]

1) It's hilarious how many people assume that, because Kodak does not have an appropriate sensor listed in their current catalog, Leica will have to go somewhere else for the sensor.

 

You guys HAVE heard of progress, right? You know, EXPANDING one's product line to meet customer needs?

 

The current M8 sensor was not in Kodak's catalog either - UNTIL LEICA and KODAK announced the details of the M8, including the sensor specs. It was a sensor designed for Leica's specific needs (1.33 crop, offset microlenses to handle vignetting from short-focus RF lenses, thin (as we all know) IR filter, etc. etc.)

 

d'oh!

 

2) Speaking of microlenses - the ones on the current M8 sensor already do a spectacular job of correcting vignetting. On a cropped sensor, to be sure, but with less crop than the vast majority (which are still at 1.5 or 1.6x factors).

 

One only needs to see how badly the Epson R-D1 vignetted with 12/15mm lenses - with only a 1.5x crop, compared to the M8 with 1.33x crop, to see how far Leica and Kodak moved the technology forward (or sideways) in creating the M8.

 

I'm not sure a 24 x 36 sensor could handle a Super-Angulon 21 or Hologon 15 from the 60's without some corner shading (those lenses vignetted like mad even on flat film) - but I'm pretty sure Leica/Kodak can nudge the microlenses enough to handle any of the mildly retrofocus 21/24/28 lenses that are far enough from the image plane to allow metering.

 

3) As others have said - I am mostly amazed at how little the crop factor in the M8 bothers me - MOST of the time.

 

My 50 as a short (69mm) portrait tele is MUCH easier to focus at f/2 than either the 75 or 90 were on full-frame film.

 

BUT - an f/4.5 "21mm" is a little too much of a throwback to the 1950's. I would like to be able to use my 21 f/2.8 as a real 21 f/2.8 again at some point (and that 15mm f/4.5 as a real 15mm).

 

When the 24 x 36 sensor actually gets here, I'll be ready to use it. Until then, the 18 x 27 is doing great things for me.

 

1)

It is more hilarious how many people here who now take it for granted that 'Leica will now come with a FF-M just because of a hint'. I only hope that you all can live with the news that they are not. A Full Frame M will not be around anytime soon. If ever. What Leica have done, -. just like Nikon, Canon - and others, is to 'offer a lense more suited to the sensor situation: The WATE. This lense compensate very much for the lack of 'Full Frame'.

 

2)

To me it is a bit uncertain to understand 'how much is the micro lenses doing the job and how much is the software'. I should like to hear other opinions on that.

 

3)

It is unfortunate if the crop factor bothers you. I am afraid that you have to live with it for a long time. I agree with you that it is around 50 mm it is the most annoying. But I have learned to live with it. I have a WATE which is a great help. Fantastic lense. And I also have a Voigtländer 15 mm: A 'must' for anyone with a M-camera. My advice; expand your lense range down in the wide end.

 

I have a FF-DSLR, a 1Ds II. I bought my first digital camera which was a 1Ds because I could not focus properly with any of the cropped cameras. Although, now, the 1,3-crop cameras of Canon are far better than the amateur-1,5-crop-cameras. These I can't use at all because of my eyesight.

 

Generally, I think that the 1,33 crop factor works OK for me. It was a great achievement of Leica even to get this far. My downside - first of all, was the noice level on high ISO and wrong colors and the all the filter fuss. More pixels on the same sensor size would also be fine. So, here is plenty of room for improvement.

[ptomsu]

The WATE. This lense compensate very much for the lack of 'Full Frame'.

 

Imagine what it gives you in FF :D

[sandymc]

Keep in mind that the original problem was IR filter thickness, which would have led to internal reflections in the filter, and lessened sharpness in images. If Leica can find a way to pack more IR absorption into a filter the same thickness, then we have a solution.

 

I'm not sure that's true - Now I'm not sure anyone outside of Kodak actually understands why the sensor behaves the way it does, but the issue is that IR is just a redder red; what you need is not really more or less IR absortion per unit of filter thickness, but an IR filter that has a sharper frequency roll-off, so can decrease IR by the same amount, but have less inpact on visble red than the current filters. I would not think that that absolute thickness of the filter really matters that much - the ratio of filter material that a ray of light has to travel though at 0 degress vs 45 degrees is the same regardless of absolute thickness. What would make a difference is (a) frequency roll-off, ( microlens design, © pit design.....

 

Sandy

[Olsen]

Imagine what it gives you in FF :D

 

- Indeed. That is what I am about to test out now that my M8 is off to Solms (red line). On my MP which has been lying around. The battery was still working...

[Guest guy_mancuso]

Personally i am not that much into the FF thing what i do want is more MPX and if you just took the current sensor and made it full frame than not doing the math here I would suspect it would be 16 or 18 mpx. For me that is just perfect and I'm sure almost for everyone else it would be just fine.

[ptomsu]

I am fully into FF

[Olsen]

Personally i am not that much into the FF thing what i do want is more MPX and if you just took the current sensor and made it full frame than not doing the math here I would suspect it would be 16 or 18 mpx. For me that is just perfect and I'm sure almost for everyone else it would be just fine.

 

I have learned to live with the 1,33 crop which I don't think is so bad. Provided you have the right wide angle glass. I went for FF on my DSLR because of my eyesight. There was no way I could focus with a 1,5 crop viewfinder. 1,5 crop disturbs the field of view considerably and turns your 135-system lenses into another sort of system. 1,3 crop is far better and 1,33 is close to excellent.

 

There wont be a FF-M around for several years, if ever. Live with that.

[mjh]

I disagree. The light hitting the front element of the lens can come at a totally different angle than the light hitting the sensor.

Yes, but the IR filter doesn’t really make a difference here. Whatever solution to the IR problem Leica might come up with, it won’t also solve the vignetting problem caused by the microlenses. Microlens-induced vignetting is different from both the ordinary vignetting caused by the lens itself or the cyan corner phenomenon.

 

Anyway, there are always IR-absorbing filters... Leica will fix this one. They do know what we want, and I don't think that they dare release another camera until this is fixed. Keep in mind that the original problem was IR filter thickness, which would have led to internal reflections in the filter, and lessened sharpness in images. If Leica can find a way to pack more IR absorption into a filter the same thickness, then we have a solution.

For one thing, wanting, even desperately wanting something is neither here nor there. If Leica should find a solution, they will surely implement it, but if they don’t, whatever we might want is immaterial. Also, Sandy is absolutely right in that finding some filter material with a higher absorption factor wouldn’t be the answer. An absorption filter will also absorb some red, and a more effective filter would also render the red pixels less sensitive, increasing noise.

 

BTW, the dreaded internal reflections you mentioned would have been caused by a dichroic filter in front of the sensor – which would have been thin enough to avoid the issues with thick absorption filters, but was ruled out because of these reflections.

[lct]

...1,5 crop disturbs the field of view considerably and turns your 135-system lenses into another sort of system. 1,3 crop is far better and 1,33 is close to excellent....

Matter of eyesight and/or tastes i guess. To me APS-H is the worst format ever. When i need for instance 2 lenses with APS-C (28/50), i need 3 (28/35/75) with APS-H and i'm not that happy as i feel that 75x1.33 is still too long. Also APS-H is a 50mm killer to me. Either 50mm lenses are too long or too short so that i don't use them any more.

[Jamie Roberts]

On the current M8, a 21mm loses nearly 3/4 of the red light in the corner with a 486 filter; close to 2 stops. Full frame, anybody's guess as how the microlenes work, but maybe 3-4 stops. That would mean 800 ASA+ levels of noise in the corners on a 100 ASA exposure.......

 

Sandy

 

Perhaps, and if IIRC, the patent released by Kodak last year of their modified Bayer patter sensor showed exactly that kind of potential ISO performance improvement. So it may not be a problem at all--at least to the levels we have now in the M8 (usable ISO 1250 or ISO 10000 in the corners)...

 

But no-one really knows but Kodak. All I know is it's a long time since they developed the M8 sensor, and I'm sure they haven't been sitting on their hands since

 

@ Just--I have a feeling (and just a feeling for now) that you will see a full-frame M digital much sooner than you think. Mr Lee is not going to hint about dates like Photokina 2008 without a pretty good sense that there will be something to show there.

[mjh]

Perhaps, and if IIRC, the patent released by Kodak last year of their modified Bayer patter sensor showed exactly that kind of potential ISO performance improvement. So it may not be a problem at all--at least to the levels we have now in the M8 (usable ISO 1250 or ISO 10000 in the corners)...

Kodak’s panchromatic pixel sensor isn’t quite the universal solution it is often made to be. Yes, the panchromatic pixels will raise the sensor’s ISO sensitivity (a sensor’s ISO sensitivity is equal to the ISO sensitivity of its most sensitive pixels), but at the same time, the raised ISO value implies that the less sensitive chroma pixels will get underexposed, increasing the amount of noise in the color channels. Also, the spatial resolution in the color channels is reduced, as just 50 percent of the pixels are color sensitive at all. And it’s not mere theory; evidence for this can be found in the example images provided by Kodak. I doubt we will ever see this sensor used for serious photography.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M