Jump to content

Sensor update possible?


Guest bwcolor

Recommended Posts

Guest volkerm

Advertisement (gone after registration)

That may be as it is, but the fact remains that Leica has always quoted "vignetting" through the limited acceptance angle as the main reason to stick to 1.33 .

 

Yes, that was their claim. Have we ever see any technical comparisons from Leica which underline that with numbers? Nikon managed do reduce the vignetting from the micro lenses by a large amount, compared to the Canon 24x36 sensors. How did the Leica sensor compare when they measured 24x36 vs. crop 1,33 and how would it compare today?

 

Leica say crop 1,33 is the best. Nikon also claimed that DX ist the best, and that there is no added value in going to 24x36, at the time when they only offered DX sensors only. The vendors always praise what they have, don't you agree?

 

I would put the vignetting at f8.0 at about one stop.

 

That would be better than any of the Leica super wides.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 64
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Yes, that was their claim. Have we ever see any technical comparisons from Leica which underline that with numbers? Nikon managed do reduce the vignetting from the micro lenses by a large amount, compared to the Canon 24x36 sensors. How did the Leica sensor compare when they measured 24x36 vs. crop 1,33 and how would it compare today?

 

Has Leica got to leap through hoops to justify all their design decisions to this forum? They say; larger is not good enough for us. Their call I would say. Btw, Zeiss is saying the same. They have stated publicly that they would produce a DRF - when it could be 24x36. Not once, but repeatedly. Where is that camera?

Leica say crop 1,33 is the best. Nikon also claimed that DX ist the best, and that there is no added value in going to 24x36, at the time when they only offered DX sensors only. The vendors always praise what they have, don't you agree?

No I don't. In Leica we see a company that is bent on building the best they can'. Nikon has succumbed to pressure of the market.

 

 

That would be better than any of the Leica super wides.

 

Quite possible. The lens is simple enough to make a correction in that respect a possible design compromise.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest volkerm
Has Leica got to leap through hoops to justify all their design decisions to this forum?

 

Nope. But as an engineer, I am used to discuss design decisions based on facts. In god we trust, all others have to prove.

 

They say; larger is not good enough for us.

 

That is what Leica say. They also said we don't need AF, and we don't need automatic exposure. They sell what they have. I respect Leica's view on this matter, but I am not willing to take it as a fact without technical validation. There are too many people out there who report that it might actually work better than Leica wants us to believe.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Uhhhh...did you LOOK at the article I posted?

 

The whole point of the story was that he mounted a RANGEFINDER lens on the EOS 5D, mirror up, with the rear of the lens almost touching the sensor, the same way it would be on a Leica.

 

It worked very well, good enough with a 15mm lens (with some vignetting) and would probably be excellent with a 50mm or 35mm lens.

 

I'd buy a full sensor M-mount rangefinder, maybe from Epson, in an instant. The results would be eminently usable.

 

Isn't anybody listening to what Jaap is saying? One detail Kaufmann left out in his response is this: A CCD has to receive light at fairly close to a 90 degree angle in order to capture it. That's not a problem with film -- or at least not as much of a problem. But in order to handle light from a lens as close to the film plane as is the case in the M8 you have to find a way to collimate the light near the outer edges so it can hit the CCDs at somewhere near a vertical angle. You can collimate with an array of nano-mirrors sitting above the sensor array but the effectiveness of the process drops as you get closer to the edges. The loss in collimating the light at the edges of a 1.33 sensor is as far as Leica was willing to go in the trade with image quality. I'd say, "Hurrah for Leica" for refusing to back away from their IQ standards. A DSLR can handle a full-frame sensor because the back of the lens isn't anywhere near as close to the film plane as the back of the lens is in the M8.

 

Maybe someone will come up with a really good way to solve this problem, but so far no one has. As long as Leica continues to maintain its high IQ standards it's going to be a while before they'll even consider a full-frame sensor. As you all know, I can find a lot of things about Leica to complain about, but Kaufmann's refusal to sacrifice IQ for a "full frame" sensor isn't one of them. "Full-frame" is mostly in the eye of the beholder anyway. That's the other thing Japp's been trying to tell you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope. But as an engineer, I am used to discuss design decisions based on facts. In god we trust, all others have to prove.

 

Well, the article quoted shows us some proof already. But it looks like you are looking for justification rather than proof.

 

 

That is what Leica say. They also said we don't need AF, and we don't need automatic exposure. They sell what they have. I respect Leica's view on this matter, but I am not willing to take it as a fact without technical validation. There are too many people out there who report that it might actually work better than Leica wants us to believe.

 

Well, we still don't have AF and I don't see any serious complaints about that, and many of us are not quite convinced of AE and shift to manual at the drop of a hat. But anyway those two items are quite different. There Leica does not claim technical impossibility. Although, with AF and retrocompatability of lenses I suppose they could.

This is different. The acceptance angle of the microlenses is known from the sensor data sheets. The exit angle of the wideangle lenses is similarly known. So what proof is needed? As an engineer, surely you can do the sums?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Uhhhh...did you LOOK at the article I posted?

 

The whole point of the story was that he mounted a RANGEFINDER lens on the EOS 5D, mirror up, with the rear of the lens almost touching the sensor, the same way it would be on a Leica.

 

It worked very well, good enough with a 15mm lens (with some vignetting) and would probably be excellent with a 50mm or 35mm lens.

 

I'd buy a full sensor M-mount rangefinder, maybe from Epson, in an instant. The results would be eminently usable.

 

The whole point is that unsharpness was never claimed as an objection to a 24x36 sensor on a RF lens, and nobody ever supposed it would be. The problem claimed was vignetting, and that is exactly what this experiment shows. That may not be objectionable to you, but it may well be a quality impairment to others, and it certainly is to Leica and Zeiss. So the only thing that happened is that the status quo was confirmed. On a newer sensor of a different type too, making it all the more universal.

 

Nobody ever doubted it would work with longer lenses either, and well enough too. So what? The M8 ff should be a long-focal length camera?

 

The proof is that someone tried it and it worked.

 

There were a lot of people like you who insisted airplanes couldn't fly until one was buzzing your house.

 

Yes. It worked. Nobody ever doubted that. But the simple fact remains that the result is still not good enough. I am simply saying that the Wright biplane will not make it to the stratosphere, to elaborate on your metaphor.

Edited by jaapv
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure there are thousands of adults who would like to make their own decisions about what is acceptable vignetting, and with that caveat, would buy a full frame rangefinder.

 

Unless you were using an ultra-wide lens, the vignetting would be quite acceptable, probably not even noticeable.

 

Are you a paid lobbyist for Leica? Do you always accept what you're told?

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, but if I don't find the product I want with one company I go to the next, and I don't waste my time in trying to push them into something they won't or can't do. I think that all companies decide what they find acceptable quality. Are you married to Leica that you refuse to buy one of the ff Canons and mount a Zeiss or Leica wideangle?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest volkerm
Well, the article quoted shows us some proof already. But it looks like you are looking for justification rather than proof.

 

Ok, you seem to know more than the author of the article himself.

His conclusion is very different from yours.

 

You can't miss the vignetting at all apertures, which according to some reports is also a feature of its performance on the rangefinder cameras for which it was designed.You can't miss the vignetting at all apertures, which according to some reports is also a feature of its performance on the rangefinder cameras for which it was designed.

 

So what proof is needed? As an engineer, surely you can do the sums?

 

Indeed. And all I see is that you are pulling out random numbers out of the air, to create your own pseudo-facts that finally confirm what you like to see confirmed. That is how religion works, not engineering.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What is random about sensor fact sheets and optical formulas of lenses? And how do you know what I like to see confirmed? Ï'm just tired of people climbing onto the Japanese camera industry marketing's full-frame bandwagon.

Edited by jaapv
Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest volkerm
What is random about sensor fact sheets and optical formulas of lenses?

 

I am talking about the obviously incorrect numbers for vignetting that you have used to create "facts" at your convenience.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you a paid lobbyist for Leica? Do you always accept what you're told?

 

Why wouldn't Leica want to sell us a full frame M9 if it were possible?

 

Have Leica said anything about what sized sensor the M9 will have? Have they said anything about the M9?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest volkerm
Absolute nonsense. I own and use the lens.

 

With 1 EV vignetting, you seem to have a very special copy, which is able to bend the optical laws.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not just me. You are confusing it with the 12 mm, which indeed vignettes considerably.

From Naturfotograf.com:

 

Covering 110°, the Super-Wide Heliar captures nearly everything in front of the camera and does this with quite excellent quality. Light fall-off into the corners is pronounced at f/4.5 and still detectable at f/8, but the 15 mm behaves much more gentle than the 12 mm in this respect. Image sharpness is excellent on-axis and varies from useful to very good into the corners. Stop down to f/11 for the best all-around performance.

 

Still detectable. That translates as about one stop in my book

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest volkerm
Sorry, Volker, your position has become untenable and any further discussion leads us into the ridiculous.

 

Ridiculous indeed. We can summarize that there are absolutely no facts, and you have pulled the numbers straight out of the air, including the 3EV vignetting that you claim to have measured in the 16-9 net article.

Link to post
Share on other sites

One could always wait to purchase the M12.64 with a variable sensor size ~ if one lives long enough for Leica to produce it!

 

I do think that if Zeiss made a DRF camera, you would see Leica move to compete. Why they don't is beyond me. Perhaps Zeiss believes that there is such a small market for such a camera that the R&D costs isn't worth it. But what would all of you say if a 35MM sized sensor found it's way into a Zeiss? Would you support or purchase a Zeiss? I think many of us would. Especially if it were at a more affordable price. Hey, I cannot afford a new M8.2 with all new generation lenses. I MAY be able to afford one by Zeiss at a more affordable price. Perhaps Leica is looking into another more affordable DRF. Time will tell.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...