John Thawley Posted July 3, 2009 Share #1 Posted July 3, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) Well Twitter is all a buzz with the rumor that Leica is negotiating with Canon to use 5D MK11 full frame sensors in the next generation "M" (9?) - Anyone know if it is more than a rumor? Does it make sense? Would this be a good thing? Or.... could there be any logic behind using this sensor in a new generation of DSLR, that would use "S" lenses and have an adapter for "R" lenses? ... an "S" junior if you will. To me, the latter would make more sense. Any thoughts? JT Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted July 3, 2009 Posted July 3, 2009 Hi John Thawley, Take a look here Any truth... I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
andybarton Posted July 3, 2009 Share #2 Posted July 3, 2009 Who knows. Nothing would surprise me any more... I read this a couple of days ago on Twitter myself. Why leave the Kodak sensor behind, though, especially if that's about to come with the S2? I don't think it's the sensor that's holding up a FF M*, it's the challenge of the M optics working properly with a sensor. Again, an S-junior would just use the same sensor as the S, but smaller. Surely it makes a lot of sense to keep the sensor from the same family, so that firmware etc can be shared across product lines? Given that the R10 has just been canned, I'd put this rumour on a very high shelf. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob_x2004 Posted July 3, 2009 Share #3 Posted July 3, 2009 Who actually built the DMR? Shouldnt someone with a shotgun and a baseball bat front Leica and get them to crawl across broken glass to get that sort of sensor in whatever they do next? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted July 3, 2009 Share #4 Posted July 3, 2009 It was a Kodak sensor in the DMR. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted July 3, 2009 Share #5 Posted July 3, 2009 This load of baloney is over at RFF as well. No way can a 5D sensor work on an M camera. The R solution might, but three weeks ago Stefan Daniel called any cooperation with the Japanese giants " utterly impossible". No offense meant to John, he is just the bearer of the tidings:) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gfspencer Posted July 3, 2009 Share #6 Posted July 3, 2009 If Leica did get the Canon sensor we would all be complaining about it. This comes from a person who has and still does own a few Canon DSLRs and Point & Shoot cameras. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
guidomo Posted July 3, 2009 Share #7 Posted July 3, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) Does anyone know whether the microlenses that make the M8 set-up work are part of the sensor or an extra layer on top that comes from a separate supplier? If the latter was the case I guess the sensor itself could be relatively standard, but I doubt it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Thawley Posted July 3, 2009 Author Share #8 Posted July 3, 2009 This load of baloney is over at RFF as well. No way can a 5D sensor work on an M camera. The R solution might, but three weeks ago Stefan Daniel called any cooperation with the Japanese giants " utterly impossible".No offense meant to John, he is just the bearer of the tidings:) No offense taken. I found it curious (and philosophically not unreasonable) having just received a 5D MK11 that I'm putting through some paces. So far, it's pretty impressive. FWIW. Here's a gallery of samples I've shot. http://www.johnthawley.com/canon-5d-mk11-samples [Note: give a second click on each image for larger lightbox view] As a disclaimer, the first shots from the beach represent about 1/2 hour of shooting and the last few shots of blossoms were literally a 10 minute walk around the back yard. So, I haven't really logged a lot of time. I'm impressed with the color... and, you have to love 16mm full frame. Oh my. JT Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted July 3, 2009 Share #9 Posted July 3, 2009 Baloney is an accurate description. 'Full frame' sensors are by now at least moderately old hat, and can in theory be had from many sources -- including Kodak. If Kodak can make a S2 sensor, why can't they make a smaller M sensor? The problem is the very small back focus distance of the M, 27.8mm as compared to around 40mm for SLR cameras. This means that rays coming from the lens hit the outer areas of the sensor at a very oblique angle. Film can handle this, but a digital sensor can't. Hence the offset microlenses over the pixel wells of the M sensor (other cameras also have them, but the M8 needs them more). Increasing the size of the sensor from 18x27 to 24x36mm will also increase the obliqueness of the rays, too much for the technology used in the M8. I thought this was pretty well known by now, at least around this forum. Other technologies are being developed to deal with this vignetting, including Fresnel plates. One problem is that an absorption-type IR blocking filter over the sensor has to sit under the microlenses or Fresnel plate, directly on top of the pixel 'wells', because rays passing very obliquely through such a filter will suffer absorption not only of IR but also of much red, leading to a colour shift. I doubt that it is even theoretically possible to develop a sensor which is inherently immune to IR. So if there is a full frame M, then I suspect that it may completely lack an over-sensor IR filter and rely exclusively on filters on the lenses. The internal filter is in any case superfluous on the M8, as the lens filters block IR completely all by themselves. Bu these troublesome facts do not trouble the professional rumour-mongers of course. The old man from the Age of Glass Plate Negs Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Thawley Posted July 3, 2009 Author Share #10 Posted July 3, 2009 Baloney is an accurate description. 'Full frame' sensors are by now at least moderately old hat, and can in theory be had from many sources -- including Kodak. If Kodak can make a S2 sensor, why can't they make a smaller M sensor? The problem is the very small back focus distance of the M, 27.8mm as compared to around 40mm for SLR cameras. This means that rays coming from the lens hit the outer areas of the sensor at a very oblique angle. Film can handle this, but a digital sensor can't. Hence the offset microlenses over the pixel wells of the M sensor (other cameras also have them, but the M8 needs them more). Increasing the size of the sensor from 18x27 to 24x36mm will also increase the obliqueness of the rays, too much for the technology used in the M8. I thought this was pretty well known by now, at least around this forum. Other technologies are being developed to deal with this vignetting, including Fresnel plates. One problem is that an absorption-type IR blocking filter over the sensor has to sit under the microlenses or Fresnel plate, directly on top of the pixel 'wells', because rays passing very obliquely through such a filter will suffer absorption not only of IR but also of much red, leading to a colour shift. I doubt that it is even theoretically possible to develop a sensor which is inherently immune to IR. So if there is a full frame M, then I suspect that it may completely lack an over-sensor IR filter and rely exclusively on filters on the lenses. The internal filter is in any case superfluous on the M8, as the lens filters block IR completely all by themselves. Bu these troublesome facts do not trouble the professional rumour-mongers of course. The old man from the Age of Glass Plate Negs Jesus Lars. Doesn't take much to twist your knickers, does it? It was a question. "Any truth?" Thanks for your centuries of knowledge, but I don't think biting peoples heads off is a reasonable response. Let's not forget how financially fragile Leica is. One of these Japanese mega-conglomerates could easily swallow them up by digging out a little couch change... so, I'd suggest to you Old man of glass... or whatever, ANYTHING is plausible if not possible. Keep an eye on that blood pressure. LOL Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
offshore Posted July 3, 2009 Share #11 Posted July 3, 2009 Baloney is an accurate description. 'Full frame' sensors are by now at least moderately old hat, and can in theory be had from many sources -- including Kodak. If Kodak can make a S2 sensor, why can't they make a smaller M sensor? The problem is the very small back focus distance of the M, 27.8mm as compared to around 40mm for SLR cameras. This means that rays coming from the lens hit the outer areas of the sensor at a very oblique angle. Film can handle this, but a digital sensor can't. Hence the offset microlenses over the pixel wells of the M sensor (other cameras also have them, but the M8 needs them more). Increasing the size of the sensor from 18x27 to 24x36mm will also increase the obliqueness of the rays, too much for the technology used in the M8. I thought this was pretty well known by now, at least around this forum. Other technologies are being developed to deal with this vignetting, including Fresnel plates. One problem is that an absorption-type IR blocking filter over the sensor has to sit under the microlenses or Fresnel plate, directly on top of the pixel 'wells', because rays passing very obliquely through such a filter will suffer absorption not only of IR but also of much red, leading to a colour shift. I doubt that it is even theoretically possible to develop a sensor which is inherently immune to IR. So if there is a full frame M, then I suspect that it may completely lack an over-sensor IR filter and rely exclusively on filters on the lenses. The internal filter is in any case superfluous on the M8, as the lens filters block IR completely all by themselves. Bu these troublesome facts do not trouble the professional rumour-mongers of course. The old man from the Age of Glass Plate Negs Not to mention that Canon relies heavily on its processors to tweak images that have passed through all the filters on their sensors something Leica decided not to do early on opting instead to rely on the sensor to capture the image in a film like manner. It has been argued ad nauseum on this forum whether that was a correct decision by all the arm chair engineers and designers but the point is that it works for Leica given the restrictions Lars has stated. Personally a Leica M with the plasticky Canon color look does not intrigue me at all. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted July 3, 2009 Share #12 Posted July 3, 2009 Dear John. My doctor tells me that my blood pressure is under good control. My concern was not what is financially possible, but what is technically or even scientifically possible. And that is the real limitation. No amount of dollars, yen or euros will build a perpetual motion engine. And I am not interested in biting people's heads off either. It is just that I have short patience with nonsense. No doubt a character fault, but one that does keep debates sensible. The old man from the Age of Evidence Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
zlatkob Posted July 3, 2009 Share #13 Posted July 3, 2009 The challenges with full-frame are well known, so the rumor is likely untrue. However, if Kodak can custom-build a sensor for Leica, so can another manufacturer, including Canon. Canon sensors are phenomenal. A customized 5DII-based sensor in an M9 would be fantastic; hopefully not a pipe dream. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
J_Thompson Posted July 3, 2009 Share #14 Posted July 3, 2009 Canon sensors are phenomenal. A customized 5DII-based sensor in an M9 would be fantastic; hopefully not a pipe dream. Yeah, and maybe Canon will use that sensor and build a rangefinder body with autofocus. Geez. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterP Posted July 3, 2009 Share #15 Posted July 3, 2009 No offense taken. I found it curious (and philosophically not unreasonable) having just received a 5D MK11 that I'm putting through some paces. So far, it's pretty impressive. FWIW. Here's a gallery of samples I've shot. thaw_6190.jpg - Canon 5D MK11 Samples - Motorsports Photographer ~ John Thawley :: Photography of American Le Mans, Grand Am, SPEED World Challenge [Note: give a second click on each image for larger lightbox view] As a disclaimer, the first shots from the beach represent about 1/2 hour of shooting and the last few shots of blossoms were literally a 10 minute walk around the back yard. So, I haven't really logged a lot of time. I'm impressed with the color... and, you have to love 16mm full frame. Oh my. JT Nice shots John! I am a big fan of this camera also, and Canon in general. Although I try to use my M's as much as possible certain situations and/or assignments call for different equipment. Cheers Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcuthbert Posted July 3, 2009 Share #16 Posted July 3, 2009 Well it seems that Phase One doesn't fancy a grope or two with Leica, so can't really see Canon putting on some aftershave and doing a strut over to Solms... British Journal of Photography - Phase One and Leica scrap 10-month old partnership Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wparsonsgisnet Posted July 3, 2009 Share #17 Posted July 3, 2009 Is there some reason the sensor can't be bowl shaped? A slight curl up at the corners might assist the oblique rays to get to their destination. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted July 3, 2009 Share #18 Posted July 3, 2009 Yes. The plane of focus is flat... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
zlatkob Posted July 3, 2009 Share #19 Posted July 3, 2009 Yeah, and maybe Canon will use that sensor and build a rangefinder body with autofocus. Geez. The 5DII sensor is fantastic, as are the Nikon D3X, D3 and D700 sensors. See dxomark.com for ratings based on color depth, dynamic range and low-light ISO. Having a great sensor is critically important at Leica's price level. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterP Posted July 3, 2009 Share #20 Posted July 3, 2009 Well it seems that Phase One doesn't fancy a grope or two with Leica, so can't really see Canon putting on some aftershave and doing a strut over to Solms... British Journal of Photography - Phase One and Leica scrap 10-month old partnership Not a big loss as far as I'm concerned, never found C1 appealing. But, on your other point - that so called strut might be in the other direction (but not necessarily Canon). cheers Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.