How has Leica acheived a full frame sensor solution?

[michael friedberg]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Greetings,

 

I've been lurking, and following the M9 discussions with interest, and even some amusement regarding all the speculations. But now that the cat is, more or less, out of the bag, I'd be interested in figuring out how Leica has accomplished what it apparently has. Specifically, how did Leica get to full frame?

 

In a review of the M8 shortly after it came out, it was explained that Leica didn't use a full frame sensor because, in 2006 "it would be cost prohibitive and too complex to produce a sensor which can cover the entire 36x24 mm frame and still work with rangefinder lenses". It was explained then that "the angle of incidence of light coming from the rear of the lens is so severely off-perpendicular that they would not pass equally through the microlenses above the sensor leading to fairly strong vignetting. Even a modest wide angle lens at this kind of distance could produce a difference of a stop or two between the center of the frame and the edges using a standard CCD sensor."

 

For that reason the M8's sensor measured 27x18mm, which resulted in a 1.33x crop factor.

 

So --for the M9, how did Leica achieve a full frame sensor that works with rangefinder lenses?

[Advertisement]

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

[el.nino]

three years of evolution

[wildlightphoto]

In a review of the M8 shortly after it came out, it was explained that Leica didn't use a full frame sensor because, in 2006 "it would be cost prohibitive and too complex to produce a sensor which can cover the entire 36x24 mm frame and still work with rangefinder lenses". It was explained then that "the angle of incidence of light coming from the rear of the lens is so severely off-perpendicular that they would not pass equally through the microlenses above the sensor leading to fairly strong vignetting. Even a modest wide angle lens at this kind of distance could produce a difference of a stop or two between the center of the frame and the edges using a standard CCD sensor."

 

For that reason the M8's sensor measured 27x18mm, which resulted in a 1.33x crop factor.

 

So --for the M9, how did Leica achieve a full frame sensor that works with rangefinder lenses?

 

I suspect you can thank the S2 for this development. While developing the S2's sensor Kodak found a way to put the IR filter between the sensor and the microlenses. Toward the edges of the sensor, the M's offset microlenses re-direct the light path so that the incident angle is more perpendicular to the plane of the sensor. If this is the technology Kodak is using, an IR filter between the microlenses and the sensor the IR filter will be more effective away from the central area.

[ennjott]

At the M8 release event at Meister, someone asked the Leica rep why there was an M8 now after it was said it was not possible to develop a sensor for it.

The rep said something like "if you had asked me two years ago, that statement would have been correct".

 

It's probably just normal evolution.

[offshore]

Wildlightphoto has it right it is possible due to the advances in microlens technology that redirects the light to the sensor plain. It would also be interesting to see into the processor for this camera as Canon uses microlens with heavy processing to sharpen and balance their images.

[SJP]

Technology - unlike bacteria - does not evolve without somone putting a hell of of lot of work and dedication into solving the problems, to be better than everyone else was before.

 

Sensors do not evolve - you need to redesign and build them, in multiple iterations.

 

Evolution of technology is so far besides reality it is nearly perverse.

[diogenis]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

This is not evolution.

This is solving the problems and pure engineering where it matters, and not in micromotors and integration.

 

Edit: and don't forget innovation

[ljclark]

Technology - unlike bacteria - does not evolve without somone putting a hell of of lot of work and dedication into solving the problems, to be better than everyone else was before.

 

Sensors do not evolve - you need to redesign and build them, in multiple iterations.

 

Evolution of technology is so far besides reality it is nearly perverse.

 

To retool Arthur C. Clarke:

 

"Any sufficiently advancing technology is indistinguishable from evolution."

[chuckw]

Just guessing of course: I would say the full frame sensor is the result of improvements in micro lens technology and improvements in software processing within the camera. With reference to the software we may find that the M9 is even more reliant on using coded lenses, on the wide end of the spectrum, than the M8.

[sandymc]

Probably a good idea to hold off on the speculation till we actually see corner performance with an uncoded wide.

 

Just a thought.

 

Sandy

[darvin2138]

I think 3 years is more than enough to study, review,test on how they can achieved it..

[t024484]

And I think that Leica did a hell of a job, and they deserve a big compliment.

A relatively small company introducing an innovative S2 and at the same time a FF M9, that I had thought would be almost impossible.

 

But like Sandy mentioned already, I am anxious to see the corner performance.

 

Hans

[Bo_Lorentzen]

3 years is enough for a lot of development... but they HAD to make the M8, Leica had to come out with a digital system camera back then. Im glad they did and am looking forward to the M9.

 

.

[diogenis]

I bet they have maintained their standards, or else they risk their fame.

This is not just an achievement: its a feat. Imagine some years back when they introduced that M3 and later models upto M6, competition was pretty close with mechanical SLRs compact in sizes. Now with a FF dSLR even bigger to the size of even their S2, and the whole world to complain about huge and heavy cameras, I can imagine how our Japanese friends are sweating, and it shows as Mark showed us the trends on google searches