Old 10-26-2016   #41
Huss
Registered User
 
Huss is offline
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Venice, CA
Posts: 4,136
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaapv View Post
Sorry, you have it completely wrong. The thickness of the body is given by the fixed mount-sensor distance which is determined by the lenses plus the thickness of the sensor-motherboard-LCD. There is no technological way out of that predetermined distance..
So why is the full frame Q thinner?

Oh yeah, software that wasn't around in 2006.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-26-2016   #42
Huss
Registered User
 
Huss is offline
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Venice, CA
Posts: 4,136
Roger.

You obviously have a handle on this. Please explain why the full frame Leica model Q, with built in image stabilization, is thinner than the M.

Please, really. Try.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-26-2016   #43
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
 
jaapv's Avatar
 
jaapv is offline
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Hellevoetsluis,Netherlands
Posts: 8,290
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huss View Post
So why is the full frame Q thinner?

Oh yeah, software that wasn't around in 2006.
Because the lens-sensor assembly uses a shorter register distance. No way could the Q be designed to take an M lens. /full frame has nothing to do with this.
__________________
Jaap








jaapvphotography
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-26-2016   #44
Huss
Registered User
 
Huss is offline
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Venice, CA
Posts: 4,136
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaapv View Post
Because the lens-sensor assembly uses a shorter register distance. No way could the Q be designed to take an M lens. /full frame has nothing to do with this.
And how did Leica get it to work with a shorter register distance?

It's funny, you and Roger apparently live in a world without software.
Have you ever seen what an image from the Q looks like when the software correction is turned off? It has massive distortion.

Software. Don't fight it. Embrace it. Leica already has.
Let's see if they are willing to move on from the pudgy M240 and make something slim again.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-26-2016   #45
Lss
Registered User
 
Lss is offline
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,754
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huss View Post
And how did Leica get it to work with a shorter register distance?
Again, what is your definition of an M camera?
__________________
Lasse
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-26-2016   #46
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
 
jaapv's Avatar
 
jaapv is offline
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Hellevoetsluis,Netherlands
Posts: 8,290
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huss View Post
And how did Leica get it to work with a shorter register distance?

It's funny, you and Roger apparently live in a world without software.
Have you ever seen what an image from the Q looks like when the software correction is turned off? It has massive distortion.

Software. Don't fight it. Embrace it. Leica already has.
Let's see if they are willing to move on from the pudgy M240 and make something slim again.
By the optical design. Software has absolutely nothing to do with it. It is a physical distance which defines the sensor plane in relationship to the mount. Distortion has nothing to do with it either.
__________________
Jaap








jaapvphotography
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-26-2016   #47
Huss
Registered User
 
Huss is offline
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Venice, CA
Posts: 4,136
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaapv View Post
By the optical design. Software has absolutely nothing to do with it. It is a physical distance which defines the sensor plane in relationship to the mount. Distortion has nothing to do with it.
Without the software corrections the optical design would be worthless.
Software has everything to do with it as it corrects the distortion inherent in the lens.
Why do you think Leica is correcting for it with software?
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-26-2016   #48
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
 
jaapv's Avatar
 
jaapv is offline
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Hellevoetsluis,Netherlands
Posts: 8,290
Errr-- what has that to do with the sensor distance? How is software going to alter the 27.80 mm that every M lens needs to be in focus.
So unless you can come up with software to shrink physical distances your ideas make absolutely no sense. Wait- I have the solution: make sure the camera i moving at the speed of light...


Hybrid lens design is not about correcting a poor design. I is about integrating optical and digital corrections to get a better result. Take away the d
igital part and you have an incomplete lens, worse than it would be if corrected optically only.
__________________
Jaap








jaapvphotography
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-26-2016   #49
Livesteamer
Registered User
 
Livesteamer is offline
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Winston Salem North Carolina
Posts: 1,282
In an effort to lend clarity, see if I understands this. A lens designed for digital is different from classic lens designs as all the light rays strike the sensor at a 90 degree angle. With classic lens design only in the center does the light strike the film at 90 degrees; on the edges and corners it strikes at a much different angle causing problems for modern digital sensors. Software can help and also micro lenses. But I may be wrong as I just stick with film and my IIIc. Joe
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-26-2016   #50
mpaniagua
Registered User
 
mpaniagua is offline
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Tijuana, Baja California, Mexico
Age: 44
Posts: 689
I suppose one should begin with the definition about "M camera". For me, it is a camera that can take M mount lens. Plain as that. Those lens are designed for a certain Flange focal distance (or register). You certainly can design a camera with shorter (or longer) focal distance (even without sofware) and you certainly can design a smaller interchangeable camera (as Olympus did with the OM system) but you can hardly change the focal distance of an already designed lens system. I think that one of the reason Leica hasnt designed a smaller M camera.

Also, why fix something that isnt broken umm?

Besides:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pioneer View Post
The last time Leica tried a major change to the M body it almost ended in bankruptcy. I think that has left a very long standing memory in that company, and not a good one. ...:
I think Pioneer pretty much nailed it with that. Why risk an already succesful design with something that may be succesful. Lets remind that we arent talking about tech. performance but aesthetics here.

Just my lunch time rambling which could be absolutely wrong.

Cheers

Marcelo
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-26-2016   #51
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 23,354
Quote:
Originally Posted by mpaniagua View Post
I suppose one should begin with the definition about "M camera". For me, it is a camera that can take M mount lens. Plain as that. Those lens are designed for a certain Flange focal distance (or register). You certainly can design a camera with shorter (or longer) focal distance (even without sofware) and you certainly can design a smaller interchangeable camera (as Olympus did with the OM system) but you can hardly change the focal distance of an already designed lens system. I think that one of the reason Leica hasnt designed a smaller M camera.

Also, why fix something that isnt broken umm?

Besides:


I think Pioneer pretty much nailed it with that. Why risk an already succesful design with something that may be succesful. Lets remind that we arent talking about tech. performance but aesthetics here.

Just my lunch time rambling which could be absolutely wrong.

Cheers

Marcelo
Dear Marcelo,

Not just aesthetics, but as you and Pioneer point out, also commercial common sense.

Cheers,

R.
__________________
Go to www.rogerandfrances.eu for a whole new website
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-26-2016   #52
mpaniagua
Registered User
 
mpaniagua is offline
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Tijuana, Baja California, Mexico
Age: 44
Posts: 689
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huss View Post
Without the software corrections the optical design would be worthless.
what about pre software lens design?
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-26-2016   #53
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
 
jaapv's Avatar
 
jaapv is offline
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Hellevoetsluis,Netherlands
Posts: 8,290
Quote:
Originally Posted by mpaniagua View Post
what about pre software lens design?
An interesting question. Some aberrations are more easily corrected in software, like distortion, so the designer is free to correct aberrations like for instance chromatic aberration, astigmatism and coma better in the optical design by allowing more distortion, which is then compensated perfectly in software. Also spherical aberration, which is aperture-dependent, can be handled more effectively. So the net result is a better corrected lens, which the Q lens is, it is amongst the absolute top in image quality.
__________________
Jaap








jaapvphotography
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-26-2016   #54
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
 
jaapv's Avatar
 
jaapv is offline
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Hellevoetsluis,Netherlands
Posts: 8,290
Quote:
Originally Posted by Livesteamer View Post
In an effort to lend clarity, see if I understands this. A lens designed for digital is different from classic lens designs as all the light rays strike the sensor at a 90 degree angle. With classic lens design only in the center does the light strike the film at 90 degrees; on the edges and corners it strikes at a much different angle causing problems for modern digital sensors. Software can help and also micro lenses. But I may be wrong as I just stick with film and my IIIc. Joe
Basically you are right, but the M240 and SL sensors have pretty much solved the problem.
__________________
Jaap








jaapvphotography
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-26-2016   #55
mpaniagua
Registered User
 
mpaniagua is offline
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Tijuana, Baja California, Mexico
Age: 44
Posts: 689
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaapv View Post
An interesting question. Some aberrations are more easily corrected in software, like distortion, so the designer is free to correct aberrations like for instance chromatic aberration, astigmatism and coma better in the optical design by allowing more distortion, which is then compensated perfectly in software. Also spherical aberration, which is aperture-dependent, can be handled more effectively. So the net result is a better corrected lens, which the Q lens is, it is amongst the absolute top in image quality.
Yeah, I get your point jaap, but worthless? Thats a bit of a strech there.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-26-2016   #56
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
 
jaapv's Avatar
 
jaapv is offline
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Hellevoetsluis,Netherlands
Posts: 8,290
Of course not worthless, Leica could have designed a purely optically corrected lens and it would have been pretty good. But at the same time bigger, heavier, not quite as good and more expensive. That said, the present Q lens without its "digital lens element" in not that bad at all, just quite strongly distorted and probably marginally more CA.
All lens/camera makers are introducing hybrid designs wherever possible for these reasons, although Leica appears to have a lead. The SL lenses are made without real size restriction, but still hybrid, and are absolutely superb. The new Summilux 50 SL is said to be stunning.
__________________
Jaap








jaapvphotography
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-26-2016   #57
ferider
Registered User
 
ferider's Avatar
 
ferider is offline
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 11,213
It's not just software (and I'm a software developer). Enter the most unappreciated piece of hardware of any digital camera, the image processor. As I wrote in one of the early Leica Q threads:

Quote:
Originally Posted by ferider View Post
Let's assume the distortion correction is done for every frame, both when emptying the buffer, and when showing it at > 40 Hz in the LCD. Say the camera can manipulate 5 frames per second (just picking a realistic number).

For a color 24 MPixel image, this means the camera needs to process 360 Million 14bit values per second. Say you pick a modern Intel CPU to do that in software (at 3.4 GHz); that CPU would have less than 10 cycles to manipulate a grey pixel. Even if you pick the most simple distortion algorithm, that would not be enough "just to do in software". Also note, that the CPU has to do other things in parallel, like DNG encryption, etc.

Most of the distortion correction must be done in hardware. Enter the camera's image processor; I read that the Maestro II was built together with Fujitsu. The latest Fujitsu Image processor specs I could find included this:

Fujitsu MB86S22AA:
  • CPU: ARM Cortex-A5MP (see also http://www.arm.com/products/processo.../cortex-a5.php)
  • Maximum image processing speed equivalent to12fps at 24M pixels
  • Hardware assist capable of feature extraction
  • Improved lens correction, lens distortion correction, lens resolution correction
  • Accelerated multi-frame operation
  • High speed and intelligent bus arbitration

I assume the Maestro II has similar technology. Maybe the Fuji Finepix cameras, too ? (the X100 also does in camera distortion correction)

So, Leica picked an algorithm that they could execute on the Maestro II at 360 MHz per 14bit grey pixel. Then they optimized the 28/1.7 lens to be as well corrected as possible with that algorithm....
At 5 Mpixel and 8bit / color, the iPhone 4 has a much easier time doing corrections .....

Roland.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-26-2016   #58
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
 
jaapv's Avatar
 
jaapv is offline
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Hellevoetsluis,Netherlands
Posts: 8,290
Quote:
Originally Posted by ferider View Post
It's not just software (and I'm a software developer). Enter the most unappreciated piece of hardware of any digital camera, the image processor. As I wrote in one of the early Leica Q threads:



At 5 Mpixel and 8bit / color, the iPhone 4 has a much easier time doing corrections .....

Roland.
Yes. But the camera does not do the correction itself. It attaches the distortion correction algorithm in a sidecar file that is written into the DNG. The corrections themselves are executed by the software that processes the image in the computer. The only corrections the camera has to execute itself are on the much smaller embedded JPG thumbnail, which is used to feed the LCD.
__________________
Jaap








jaapvphotography
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-27-2016   #59
ferider
Registered User
 
ferider's Avatar
 
ferider is offline
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 11,213
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaapv View Post
Yes. But the camera does not do the correction itself. It attaches the distortion correction algorithm in a sidecar file that is written into the DNG. The corrections themselves are executed by the software that processes the image in the computer. The only corrections the camera has to execute itself are on the much smaller embedded JPG thumbnail, which is used to feed the LCD.
Interesting. Don't you have the option to save full resolution, corrected JPG files only ? (don't have a Q myself, only a 240)
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-27-2016   #60
jkjod
Registered User
 
jkjod's Avatar
 
jkjod is offline
Join Date: May 2013
Age: 32
Posts: 233
I could be off base here, but aren't the Q and RX1 series poor choices of comparison to the M? Yes they are smaller, but as a fixed lens camera those lenses/bodies were designed for that specific sensor. I would think, optically, you have a lot more play with lens design and size when designing a body and fixed lens around a sensor. Plus if I recall the RX1 lens protrudes far into the body, so the "size" is not as it seems. It doesn't make sense how "software" is going to make the register distance any different. If "software" was the solution, wouldn't it be possible to mount any lens on any camera and fix it later?
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-27-2016   #61
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
 
jaapv's Avatar
 
jaapv is offline
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Hellevoetsluis,Netherlands
Posts: 8,290
Quote:
Originally Posted by ferider View Post
Interesting. Don't you have the option to save full resolution, corrected JPG files only ? (don't have a Q myself, only a 240)
Simple answer, I don't know how the corrections are handled in the full-res JPG.
__________________
Jaap








jaapvphotography
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-27-2016   #62
SaveKodak
Registered User
 
SaveKodak is offline
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: New York City
Posts: 513
"Physics" my rear end. There are no unbreakable scientific laws here, just a matter of emerging design and technology.

They could simply but the M mount on a slight pedestal while shrinking the surrounding camera housing. Worked great for an FM/FE line of Nikons. I don't see how the sensor design comes into it because the flange distance had to remain the same as film.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-27-2016   #63
Pioneer
Registered User
 
Pioneer's Avatar
 
Pioneer is offline
Join Date: Dec 2011
Age: 63
Posts: 2,757
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaveKodak View Post
"Physics" my rear end. There are no unbreakable scientific laws here, just a matter of emerging design and technology.

They could simply but the M mount on a slight pedestal while shrinking the surrounding camera housing. Worked great for an FM/FE line of Nikons. I don't see how the sensor design comes into it because the flange distance had to remain the same as film.
Sure. You could also mount the lens and shutter on the end of a bellows that could be extended to the right distance...

...that's right, that has already been done.

But so has your idea. But neither of these designs look like an M.

Leica has chosen to continue the basic M design forwards into the future rather than create a completely different design. So far that decision seems to have worked out pretty well for them since they are making money while lots of others aren't. In a couple years they may read this thread and decide to try your idea...

...or not.
__________________
You gotta love a fast lens;

It is almost as good as a fast horse!
Dan
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-27-2016   #64
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
 
jaapv's Avatar
 
jaapv is offline
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Hellevoetsluis,Netherlands
Posts: 8,290
Yes, I mentioned that possibility before. However the protrusion would need to accommodate the rangefinder coupling anf frameline linkage as well, so it would have to be quite pronounced and not that pretty.
__________________
Jaap








jaapvphotography
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-27-2016   #65
Huss
Registered User
 
Huss is offline
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Venice, CA
Posts: 4,136
The RF coupling can be dropped if Leica decides to use a hybrid optical VF. The focus would be read from the sensor, as cameras do with EVFs, and a digitally simulated rangefinder patch could be used in the optical VF.
No more RF drifting, no more focus shifts from aperture changes, no more needing to calibrate lenses to the camera etc. But you still have the optical finder.

Frame line linkage can also be removed as the frame lines can be digitally displayed as a result of the camera recognizing what lens is mounted via the 6 bit coding.

Heck, even the LCD panel on the back can be dropped as with the new MD. Almost everyone carries a smartphone with them, and so if exposure or focus or composition needs to be checked, the camera can use WIFI to connect to the phone to seamlessly bring this up if needed. You could even use a smart watch!

There are so many possibilities for the M in the future, it just depends on in which direction Leica decides to go.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-27-2016   #66
mpaniagua
Registered User
 
mpaniagua is offline
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Tijuana, Baja California, Mexico
Age: 44
Posts: 689
Quote:
..There are so many possibilities for the M in the future, it just depends on in which direction Leica decides to go...
which probably will be the same direction so far, which is making money for Leica.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-27-2016   #67
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
 
jaapv's Avatar
 
jaapv is offline
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Hellevoetsluis,Netherlands
Posts: 8,290
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huss View Post
The RF coupling can be dropped if Leica decides to use a hybrid optical VF. The focus would be read from the sensor, as cameras do with EVFs, and a digitally simulated rangefinder patch could be used in the optical VF.
No more RF drifting, no more focus shifts from aperture changes, no more needing to calibrate lenses to the camera etc. But you still have the optical finder.

Frame line linkage can also be removed as the frame lines can be digitally displayed as a result of the camera recognizing what lens is mounted via the 6 bit coding.

Heck, even the LCD panel on the back can be dropped as with the new MD. Almost everyone carries a smartphone with them, and so if exposure or focus or composition needs to be checked, the camera can use WIFI to connect to the phone to seamlessly bring this up if needed. You could even use a smart watch!

There are so many possibilities for the M in the future, it just depends on in which direction Leica decides to go.
Fortunately Leica will not commit harakiri by producing a sonyfied M. If you wish for such a camera, look elsewhere, for instance an A7R or RX.
Consider that Leica is about the only camera maker actually turning a profit.
__________________
Jaap








jaapvphotography
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-27-2016   #68
Huss
Registered User
 
Huss is offline
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Venice, CA
Posts: 4,136
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaapv View Post
Fortunately Leica will not commit harakiri by producing a sonyfied M. If you wish for such a camera, look elsewhere, for instance an A7R or RX.
Those don't have optical VFs. This would remove hardware that drifts and causes inconsistencies in focus and framing, and would be transparent to the end user.

It could look and operate just like a traditional M, but with the latest technological advances. Leica is already making digital Ms. So why not make the best one possible?

And how would this be a Sonyfied M? It would still have the Leica look, and build. It would still have the Leica viewing mechanism. It would still have the simple Leica menus (if it has an LCD panel). It would still have the Leica control layout.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-18-2017   #69
Huss
Registered User
 
Huss is offline
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Venice, CA
Posts: 4,136
It was nice to see that Leica saw this thread, agreed with me, and made the new M10 smaller.
Now that is a company listening to their customer base!
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:47.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.