To Full Frame Or Not To Full Frame?

[nhabedi]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

good ergonomics, weather-sealed, reliable, tough - all the attributes of the film Leica with a full frame sensor. Pitch the price right and it would sell like hot cakes.

 

Good ergonomics, weather-sealed, reliable, tough - I'd like to have that as well. But would it sell like hot cakes? I doubt it. Did the film Leicas ever sell like hot cakes?

[jaapv]

Are the film M cameras weather-sealed then? I never noticed...

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[guywalder]

Did the film Leicas ever sell like hot cakes?

 

Yes indeed they did! Leica pretty much defined 35mm photography, when everyone thought you had to use a much larger format.... and then came the M3.....

I guess the 1950s were before your time?

[SJP]

As far as I am aware the M8 shutter is a full frame format (I believe it is the same as the one used in the R9). In addition as far as I can see there are no obstacles in the M8 body that block the line of view to the edge of the shutter.

 

So in principle it would only involve replacing the sensor to a FF size + a modification of some of the components that communicate with the sensor. If they kept the no. of pixels the same even that may not be required, but removal/resoldering of the sensor is probably not an option. Maybe Mark Nortons disssection of the M8 would shed some light on whether the other components would provide this space in principle. Keeping the number of pixels the same would automatically lead to 1.33^2 times larger bins and thus to approximately 1.77x higher sensitivity, making 2500 ISO usable and 5000 ISO the limit.

 

For me 10.5 megapixels is sufficient, one stop more sensitivity would be great news.

 

EDIT: see here http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m8-forum/21331-anatomy-leica-m8.html#post224641 a FF sensor would fit as far as I can see.

Edited March 17, 2009 by SJP

[jaapv]

If you look at the sensor inside, you'll notice that it is quite a bit larger than 1.33x. It needs those edge-pixels outside the frame to build up the image. A 24x36 sensor is larger than 24x36 and wouldn't fit.

[nhabedi]

Yes indeed they did! Leica pretty much defined 35mm photography, when everyone thought you had to use a much larger format.... and then came the M3.....

I guess the 1950s were before your time?

 

That was before my time, but I'm certainly aware of Leica's history. Putting the M8 into another body won't bring back the 1950s (where there was a lot less competition), though, and in the last 30 years or so Leica sales haven't been particularly stellar. (Not to mention that in the 1950s and before no camera sold like hot cakes. The market was much smaller then and Leica had a larger share of it, but Leicas never were "hot cakes" in the sense of being a mass product.)

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The M3 sold 235258 cameras in twelve years, the III sold 76457 from 1933-1939. Those numbers are considerbly higher than the sales nowadays, in the case of the III maybe less, but in the same period 59621 Leica II cameras were sold as well. And, of course, 25519 Leica Standards too. (Source: Brian Tomkins, Leica Pocket Book, 1984)

Edited March 17, 2009 by jaapv

[SJP]

If you look at the sensor inside, you'll notice that it is quite a bit larger than 1.33x. It needs those edge-pixels outside the frame to build up the image. A 24x36 sensor is larger than 24x36 and wouldn't fit.

Did you check the link to the dissected M8 that I added as an edit? I do not see where the space problems would arise. There seems to be quite some unused space outside the boundaries of the shutter, same applies to the panel the sensor is attached to. The sensor and cable seems to be an "easily" replacable module. If I understand correctly the edge pixels can be in the dark (in fact they should be, as they are now causing the green line problem) and they only act as a reference, probably for noise & temperature effects.

Edited March 17, 2009 by SJP

[lars_bergquist]

Lars, why does the M9 have to use the present shell? I, for one, would be happy to see a more-ergonomically-shaped design that would enable a FF sensor in a still-discreet camera.

Mike, we were speaking of upgrades. The M9 we are all hypothesizing about is a new camera, and electronics shrinkage will do a lot to make it possible. Remember that nearly all the components inside a M8, with the exception of the sensor itself, are off the shelf items.

 

I am not particularly fond of the M8 envelope. The camera feels clumsy (I have a M4-P to compare with). And while I would love a body with less 'grip depth' (I presume the distance flange--monitor glass will have to be the same, but that's another matter), I would prefer a finger grip front-right, maybe optionally screw-on, in preference to both the present grip-unfriendly curvature and the clumsy present handgrip. And mebbe my present bee-in-my-bonnnet, an auxiliary battery pack for Li-ion or/and disposable Li batteries---even with its own shutter release.

 

The old man from the Age of Vacuum Tubes

[adan]

As far as I am aware the M8 shutter is a full frame format (I believe it is the same as the one used in the R9).

 

Leica specifically said, in introducing the DMR, that the R9 shutter size was one of the reasons the DMR could NOT be full frame. The opening in the shutter needs to be larger than the image area for digital.

 

Of course, perhaps Leica knows nothing about camera design....

[nhabedi]

The M3 sold 235258 cameras in twelve years

 

That basically confirms what I said. It means they sold about 20,000 cameras per year, worldwide. Impressive for such a small company but far away from anything I'd call "hot cakes".

 

Domestic camera sales in Japan alone have been higher than 30,000 per day in 2008, not counting cameras in cell phones and PCs.

[plasticman]

One thing that I find interesting about the endless small gripes and suggested modifications to the M-form (built-in hand-grip here, curve there and so on), is that right now a broad church of people like the current design enough to buy and own it.

Some of us love the design enough to call it a modern classic.

 

What strikes me about most of the people wanting this or that feature or add-on, is that their particular modification would appeal to themselves, and possibly ten others...

[SJP]

Leica specifically said, in introducing the DMR, that the R9 shutter size was one of the reasons the DMR could NOT be full frame. The opening in the shutter needs to be larger than the image area for digital.

 

Of course, perhaps Leica knows nothing about camera design....

Interesting I did not know that. Can anyone explain why that might be? How many pixels do they need along the edge anyway? If for sake of argument it requires an about 10 pixels wide band on all sides that would reduce the frame by a horrendous 160 micrometers H and V, or a crop of 0.99.

Leica has managed to state other things which later proved not to be true (digital rangefinder is impossible, there is no IR problem etc.) and the fact that Leica may know something about camera design (or more specifically lens design) does not mean that the rest of the world know nothing or should not be able to state an opinion. Arguments based on insight are relevant, those only based on authority or percieved authority are not.

[Mike Rawcs]

Mike, we were speaking of upgrades. The M9 we are all hypothesizing about is a new camera, and electronics shrinkage will do a lot to make it possible. Remember that nearly all the components inside a M8, with the exception of the sensor itself, are off the shelf items.

 

I am not particularly fond of the M8 envelope. The camera feels clumsy (I have a M4-P to compare with). And while I would love a body with less 'grip depth' (I presume the distance flange--monitor glass will have to be the same, but that's another matter), I would prefer a finger grip front-right, maybe optionally screw-on, in preference to both the present grip-unfriendly curvature and the clumsy present handgrip. And mebbe my present bee-in-my-bonnnet, an auxiliary battery pack for Li-ion or/and disposable Li batteries---even with its own shutter release.

 

The old man from the Age of Vacuum Tubes

 

Yes Lars, the film and digital M are different due to the thumb wind: it makes all the difference to handling, hence the Thumbs-Up accessory for the M8. Film Ms weren't weather-sealed - because they didn't have to be; they were, basically, a light-tight film holder. No electronics.

 

My "hot cakes" reference was related to use by photojournalist / documentary photographers who would love a discreet, lightweight camera but who are tied to DSLRs due to their superior low-light performance. With the right product, at the right price (it has to compete in the marketplace) and an advertising campaign targeted at young, up-and-coming photographers, using a combination of classic photographs from the Leica M archive (Magnum can help here) and stunning examples from the new camera, Leica can re-build its core user base.

 

I really believe this because the M is a really special camera that excels at unobtrusive photography. It has become a niche product purchased predominately by people of a certain age who can afford it (including me). This is a great shame. I, for one, would love to see what some of the young bucks could do with the camera if they could afford it.

 

Remember, it must be robust. A digital MP, manual in everything that it can be. As reliable as a film M. Full frame. Digital cameras have now reached a quality of output that will satisfy almost everyone. So why full frame? If any marque should be 24 x 36 then it's Leica. Full frame allows bigger pixels for better low-light capability. The market wants full frame. Lenses give a field of view and depth of focus that they were designed to show with full frame. I can have a 35mm F1.4 field of view!

 

Mike.

[giordano]

Yes Lars, the film and digital M are different due to the thumb wind: it makes all the difference to handling, hence the Thumbs-Up accessory for the M8.

 

I'm still sceptical about this - the importance of the wind lever, that is, not the indisputable fact that some people find the Thumbs-Up really really useful. I think that the problem getting a grip on the M8 is rather different.

 

I should say that I've never used the wind lever of an M (or any other 35mm camera) as a grip or fingerhold: too much risk of bending the shaft or doing some other damage to the works. IMHO the main reasons the M8 is harder to hold than film Ms and many other cameras are:

1. Holding the camera in your right hand, the ball of your thumb naturally rests on the control wheel and 4-way buttons, not the most secure basis.
   
2. With a film M, your thumb would then reach diagonally up and to the left, able to press firmly on the back of the top plate more or less below the shutter speed dial and a little way away from the wind lever. If you do this on the M8, you can't get a decent grip because the Menu button and monitor surround push your thumb away from the back of the top plate. Even without it's surrogate wind lever, the Thumbs-Up fixes this by giving you something to push on.
   
3. On most 35mm rangefinders and SLRs, there's a self-timer, slow speed dial, battery cover, DOF preview lever, rewind lever, or some such on the right front panel of the camera, and your (or at any rate my) second and ring fingers get a lot of anchorage from these. The M8 has a big empty space.
   

After those, the thicker body (relevant thickness includes the control wheel and buttons) and smoother cover are IMHO comparatively minor factors.

[gwelland]

Interesting I did not know that. Can anyone explain why that might be? How many pixels do they need along the edge anyway? If for sake of argument it requires an about 10 pixels wide band on all sides that would reduce the frame by a horrendous 160 micrometers H and V, or a crop of 0.99.

 

 

Btw, if the frame was smaller by a few pixels it would be 1.01 or so, not 0.99.

 

Oh and I bet you'd get a bunch of complaints about a 1.01x crop camera from the FF zealots. They'd feel cheated by their loss of pixels. It still wouldn't be good enough.

[adan]

Here's a link to a picture of a digital sensor (Nikon D3). It's on Ken Rockwell's site, so I guess, if you're among those who hate Ken Rockwell, you'll have to hold your nose while looking - or skip it. Sorry! (i'm neutral myself)

 

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d60/images/sensor.jpg

 

The actual image area is INSIDE the blue border - minus a thin black rim that is the "masked" pixels. The blue border has gold wire leads out to the surrounding area.

 

Note that the glass cover over the sensor - which is what has to fit into the opening of the shutter in order to get the silicon image plane into the right place where film useta been - is substantially larger than the image area, because it also protects all that other real estate.

 

And that doesn't even include the heavier black rim with the big gold pins.

 

I.E. there is a large amount of real estate on a sensor package beyond the "sensor" itself.

 

Here's the Canon 1Ds sensor: A little more efficient use of space, but there is still about a 1.2x "crop factor" - that is, the shutter needs to be about 28 x 40mm to accomodate a 24 x 36 sensor.

 

http://a.img-dpreview.com/news/0209/canon/eos1ds/canonsensors.jpg

 

D90 sensor: Nikon does love those thick borders! http://img.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/D90/ZD90SENSOR_LG.JPG

 

Sony A900 sensor plus a generic cropped sensor - dark green area is what captures image: http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3157/2842403505_7d0cb798dd_o.jpg

 

Kodak CCD (I'm not trying to swamp you - just showing that ALL camera sensors use a lot more area than just the image area)

 

http://www.univie.ac.at/brite-constellation/pics/KODAk-CCD.jpg

 

and here's Kodak's gem for the Leica S2 - still a lot of "border" to accomodate - and if Leica's plan is to "trickle down" S2 technology to the M and R lines, this is the grandpappy for a 24 x 36 M sensor if Leica does one.

 

http://blogs.pcmag.com/miller/images/Kodak%20KAF-37500%20Image%20Sensor.jpg

 

Off the subject of sensor size - but on-topic for a full frame M - here's a cross-section of a couple of single Dalsa pixels, with and without a microlens (they label it a "reflow lens"). It really does look like a city street with tall buildings either side - and if the light comes in at too low an angle from the side (RF lens as seen from the corners of the frame), those walls will cut off the light from hitting the sensitive area, and cause vignetting.

 

http://www.dcviews.com/press/images/dalsa/DALSA-sensor.jpg

Edited March 18, 2009 by adan

[guywalder]

Off the subject of sensor size - but on-topic for a full frame M - here's a cross-section of a couple of single Dalsa pixels, with and without a microlens (they label it a "reflow lens"). It really does look like a city street with tall buildings either side - and if the light comes in at too low an angle from the side (RF lens as seen from the corners of the frame), those walls will cut off the light from hitting the sensitive area, and cause vignetting.

 

http://www.dcviews.com/press/images/dalsa/DALSA-sensor.jpg

 

if the height and width are to scale, then a 9 micron pixel will be much more suburban street than city street

[adan]

True - but the M8 (e.g.) has 6.8-micron pixels. If they are just as deep, the shading potential will be 1.33x as bad (funny how that number keeps popping up!)

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[SJP]

Adan,

As far as I can see all the sensors you show have a flat glass surface covering both the sensor and the edge with the contacts reference pixels etc. There does not seem be anything "sticking up". If the sensor is bigger then more of the stuff at the edge will be outside the opening covered by the shutter. I do not see why that would not work to capture all or or most of the surface of the shutter opening. Some of the images you show clearly show a sensor where the stuff at the edge is masked out.

For instance http://www.univie.ac.at/brite-constellation/pics/KODAk-CCD.jpg

and the two on the right of the EOS sensors http://a.img-dpreview.com/news/0209/canon/eos1ds/canonsensors.jpg

 

Mark Nortons dissection shows that the sensor is well below the shutter (as you can also see in sensor cleaning mode) and the sensor is bounded by what looks to be a foam rectangle which seals the edge when it is pressed against the shutter assembly. This rectangle is appoximately FF size to match the shutter boundaries so if the active surface of the sensor would cover all or most of that surface the FF sensor would fit perfectly well. As far as I can see it is only if reference edge pixels are required to fall inside the frame that you would lose some of the surface as discussed above leading to a crop factor of 1.01 or 0.99 depending on how you care to define that number.

 

So technically it would fit unless you really need all the contacts to be exposed which I doubt based on the use of a mask with some sensors.