Old 4 Weeks Ago   #81
CameraQuest
Head Bartender
 
CameraQuest is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: over the hills from Malibu
Posts: 5,208
Quote:
Originally Posted by willie_901 View Post
But the most important component - the sensor technology is identical.
?

I was under the impression it would most likely have the Q's sensor.

Stephen
  Reply With Quote

My Error
Old 4 Weeks Ago   #82
willie_901
Registered User
 
willie_901's Avatar
 
willie_901 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 4,294
My Error

Then I stand corrected. Thanks for setting the record straight.

This is a much greater change than I realized. In terms of DC-signal noise levels the Q's data stream out performs the M240/262... except at ISO 200 . And the M240/262 has better analog dynamic range at ISO 200. Something odd is going on with the Q at ISO 200 (??).

Here's a comparison of the two sensors' dynamic range vs ISO.

Here's data for their read noise vs ISO with no light present (a measure of the photo sites' signal-to-noise ratio independent of ISO signal amplification after the shutter closes.

And, noise vs ISO results in raw-file digital numbers (a measure of noise added by ISO signal amplification in between photo sites and the ADC input).

I would rather have the Q sensor if the only consideration for IQ was their data streams' signal-to-noise ratios. Of course, there are other technical factors that influence IQ... mainly the IR filter layer's and color-filter array's characteristics.

Equally important are aesthetic and other subject differences when actually using different camera bodies.

PS These data are from statistical analyses of un-rendered raw file data.
__________________
"Perspective is governed by where you stand object size and the angle of view included in the picture is determined by focal length." H.S. Newcombe

williamchuttonjr.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 4 Weeks Ago   #83
LightBender
Registered User
 
LightBender is offline
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by CameraQuest View Post
?

I was under the impression it would most likely have the Q's sensor.

Stephen
It is not going to have the sensor from the Q
  Reply With Quote

Old 4 Weeks Ago   #84
uhoh7
Registered User
 
uhoh7 is offline
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,705
M10 is going to be a big hit, you watch.

But they are well behind the latest sensors. Genius would be to follow the M10 with "modern" body, new from the ground up with the latest Sony BSI 42 mp, 4K as the "interchangeable" Q. Such a camera could easily have AF for M lenses as well. Techart has already shown this works quite well on the Sonys.

The real Leica secret is that unlike all other Digital camera makers, they put the IR cut in the base coverglass and leave out the sensor stack altogether. Canikon and Sony use clear hard glass in the coverglass and put the IR cut in the stack. RF wides don't like that. But there is nothing stopping anyone from doing exactly the same thing to a Sony BSI sensor and like magic it would shoot all M glass potentially BETTER than M240, since there are newer slimmer IR cuts which get even closer to film in how sharp rays angles are handled.

Of course we all know no way in hell Leica is buying Sony sensors, but maybe a strong kick in the Panasonic butt could result in something similar.

Not just a interchangeable Q but a state of the art field platform for M, smaller and lighter than the SL with all modern options included, even "eye-AF", which is quite a feature if you try it sometime.

Here you can see M/LTM glass AFing great.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pOgpf09y44M
Now of course, the last thing most M10 buyers want is AF. The optical RF is so sweet. But in the wider market and for working pros this would be huge, and tied to 4k, 42mp great high ISO....Leica would be at the leading edge of the whole industry.

But that would be alot of work
  Reply With Quote

Old 4 Weeks Ago   #85
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: NYC
Age: 43
Posts: 17,516
Quote:
Originally Posted by LightBender View Post
It is not going to have the sensor from the Q
and you know this how?
  Reply With Quote

Old 4 Weeks Ago   #86
brennanphotoguy
Registered User
 
brennanphotoguy's Avatar
 
brennanphotoguy is offline
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: NYC
Age: 26
Posts: 594
Quote:
Originally Posted by LightBender View Post
It is not going to have the sensor from the Q
Well that's what all the rumors say from every source right now so I'm gonna say yes, it will have a slightly altered version of the SL/Q sensor.
__________________
M3 / IIIg / Rollei 3.5E3
www.instagram.com/brennan_mckissick
  Reply With Quote

Old 4 Weeks Ago   #87
brennanphotoguy
Registered User
 
brennanphotoguy's Avatar
 
brennanphotoguy is offline
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: NYC
Age: 26
Posts: 594
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsrockit View Post
and you know this how?
+1

10 characters.
__________________
M3 / IIIg / Rollei 3.5E3
www.instagram.com/brennan_mckissick
  Reply With Quote

Old 4 Weeks Ago   #88
LightBender
Registered User
 
LightBender is offline
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by brennanphotoguy View Post
Well that's what all the rumors say from every source right now so I'm gonna say yes, it will have a slightly altered version of the SL/Q sensor.
I'm going to say no. It will have a different sensor. Besides, the Q/SL sensor was already behind current tech. at the time Leica used it in those cameras.
  Reply With Quote

Old 4 Weeks Ago   #89
faberryman
Registered User
 
faberryman is offline
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Nashville, TN USA
Age: 61
Posts: 349
Quote:
Originally Posted by LightBender View Post
Besides, the Q/SL sensor was already behind current tech. at the time Leica used it in those cameras.
And therefore?
__________________

  Reply With Quote

Old 4 Weeks Ago   #90
LightBender
Registered User
 
LightBender is offline
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 38
The M10 will not have the old sensor.
  Reply With Quote

Old 4 Weeks Ago   #91
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: NYC
Age: 43
Posts: 17,516
Quote:
Originally Posted by LightBender View Post
... the Q/SL sensor was already behind current tech. at the time Leica used it in those cameras.
Yes, but Leica doesn't really concern itself with Sony.
  Reply With Quote

Old 4 Weeks Ago   #92
pechelman
resu deretsiger
 
pechelman is offline
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 256
While I can't speak as definitively as Lightbender, there might be a chance that something would be different between Q & M10 sensor, if for no other reason than to compare what happened with the M-D 262 and the M240 sensors, supposedly being slightly different as well since the M-D had no need to support LV or Video.

Either way, I think it's optimistic / foolish for anyone to claim they know what the new camera will or wont have before the actual announcement, unless they happen to have some reliable & verified inside information.
__________________
Phil
flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 4 Weeks Ago   #93
brennanphotoguy
Registered User
 
brennanphotoguy's Avatar
 
brennanphotoguy is offline
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: NYC
Age: 26
Posts: 594
Which is what the rumor sites get. And let's be real, Leica is always behind in sensor tech. AND they won't release a sensor that's better than the SL since that's their "pro" flagship camera.
__________________
M3 / IIIg / Rollei 3.5E3
www.instagram.com/brennan_mckissick
  Reply With Quote

Old 4 Weeks Ago   #94
LightBender
Registered User
 
LightBender is offline
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by pechelman View Post
While I can't speak as definitively as Lightbender, there might be a chance that something would be different between Q & M10 sensor, if for no other reason than to compare what happened with the M-D 262 and the M240 sensors, supposedly being slightly different as well since the M-D had no need to support LV or Video.

Either way, I think it's optimistic / foolish for anyone to claim they know what the new camera will or wont have before the actual announcement, unless they happen to have some reliable & verified inside information.
The sensor is not going to be slightly different. The sensor is going to be completely different and that is all I can say and know. The camera is going to be quite refined in the way the Q and SL are. It is going to be more focused as to what a traditional M is.
  Reply With Quote

Old 4 Weeks Ago   #95
brennanphotoguy
Registered User
 
brennanphotoguy's Avatar
 
brennanphotoguy is offline
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: NYC
Age: 26
Posts: 594
ok

10 characters
__________________
M3 / IIIg / Rollei 3.5E3
www.instagram.com/brennan_mckissick
  Reply With Quote

Old 4 Weeks Ago   #96
pechelman
resu deretsiger
 
pechelman is offline
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 256
Quote:
Originally Posted by LightBender View Post
The sensor is not going to be slightly different. The sensor is going to be completely different and that is all I can say and know. The camera is going to be quite refined in the way the Q and SL are. It is going to be more focused as to what a traditional M is.
That's all well and good, and all of us can respect the fact that you cannot say anymore, but you should also realize, that without any reference as to how or why you know this and are so certain in this, it's is also our job to call this information into question. So dont be surprised when someone doesnt blindly accept your statement as fact. That was the original point I was making.

To be clear, I'm not calling you a liar or anything, but without anything else to corroborate your assertion, as they say, "I'll believe it when I see it". You may find this frustrating, but it's just the reality of the situation. I might also add, I am hopeful and optimistic that you are correct.

Thanks for your post
__________________
Phil
flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 4 Weeks Ago   #97
CameraQuest
Head Bartender
 
CameraQuest is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: over the hills from Malibu
Posts: 5,208
Quote:
Originally Posted by LightBender View Post
The sensor is not going to be slightly different. The sensor is going to be completely different and that is all I can say and know. The camera is going to be quite refined in the way the Q and SL are. It is going to be more focused as to what a traditional M is.
I hope times proves your prediction correct.

That would be great for Leica fans, but even better for Leica in the face of tough competition.

Stephen
  Reply With Quote

Old 4 Weeks Ago   #98
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: NYC
Age: 43
Posts: 17,516
Unless the M10 is a CCD and / or CMOSIS has something up its sleeve, it'll be hard to put something so different into the camera I would imagine. Of course, there is this:

http://leicarumors.com/2016/11/07/cm...s-sensor.aspx/

While it doesn't appear to be for a Leica... it could an indication that CMOSIS has other items in the pipeline.
  Reply With Quote

Old 4 Weeks Ago   #99
brennanphotoguy
Registered User
 
brennanphotoguy's Avatar
 
brennanphotoguy is offline
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: NYC
Age: 26
Posts: 594
Quote:
excels in automated optical inspection systems, machine vision uses and prosumer video applications
Quote:
The CMV50000 is a medium format 48Mpixels sensor with 7920 x 6002
Quote:
The CMV50000 provides detailed views of a large surface area required in factory automation applications such as automated optical inspection (AOI) systems and systems for the inspection of displays of mobile phones, tablets, laptops and TVs. The combination of high frame rate and high re-solution allows further increase of the already high throughput rates at consumer product assembly plants.
And most importantly,

Quote:
Unit pricing is €3,450.
I mean, maybe they could shrink it down but I don't think it's destined for any Leica products anytime in the near future.
__________________
M3 / IIIg / Rollei 3.5E3
www.instagram.com/brennan_mckissick
  Reply With Quote

Old 4 Weeks Ago   #100
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: NYC
Age: 43
Posts: 17,516
brennanphotoguy, I do believe I said it wasn't for a Leica... but perhaps you just were frothing at the mouth to discredit the rumor.

I included it more as an indication that the company does have other sensors in the works.
  Reply With Quote

Old 4 Weeks Ago   #101
brennanphotoguy
Registered User
 
brennanphotoguy's Avatar
 
brennanphotoguy is offline
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: NYC
Age: 26
Posts: 594
Guess you missed my last sentence as well.
__________________
M3 / IIIg / Rollei 3.5E3
www.instagram.com/brennan_mckissick
  Reply With Quote

Old 4 Weeks Ago   #102
LightBender
Registered User
 
LightBender is offline
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by CameraQuest View Post
I hope times proves your prediction correct.

That would be great for Leica fans, but even better for Leica in the face of tough competition.

Stephen
I wish I could say more (I only know a little bit more). But, I can tell you that I am excited about the M10 and already have my name down at my dealer. This is going to be a really nice little camera and the Leica M fans I believe are going to be very happy.
  Reply With Quote

Old 3 Weeks Ago   #103
willie_901
Registered User
 
willie_901's Avatar
 
willie_901 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 4,294
Quote:
Originally Posted by LightBender View Post
I'm going to say no. It will have a different sensor. Besides, the Q/SL sensor was already behind current tech. at the time Leica used it in those cameras.
The CMOSIS sensors are a bit behind in signal-to-noise ratio and dynamic range. However the difference is not significant... for the most part less than a stop.

Here are some comparisons:

Dynamic Range (Dynamic range is primarily determined by the signal-to-noise ratio of the camera's data stream)

Read Noise In Between Sensor and ADC

Sensor Read Noise

I think these data show CMOSIS and Leica have no significant disadvantage in terms of how SNR alone limits image quality. CMOSIS/Leica's main disadvantage is banding in shadows starts to show up about a stop before others at high levels of under exposure (ISO above 3200 and above).

PS These data are estimated from statistical analysis of un-rendered raw files.
__________________
"Perspective is governed by where you stand object size and the angle of view included in the picture is determined by focal length." H.S. Newcombe

williamchuttonjr.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 3 Weeks Ago   #104
giganova
Registered User
 
giganova is offline
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 718
Excuse my ignorance, but why is Leica so behind in sensor technology? Aren't all camera makers purchasing their sensors from third parties, so why can't Leica purchase the latest & greatest sensors from them, too, especially if they produce cameras in such low quantities?
  Reply With Quote

Old 3 Weeks Ago   #105
Dante_Stella
Rex canum cattorumque
 
Dante_Stella's Avatar
 
Dante_Stella is offline
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,475
Quote:
Originally Posted by LightBender View Post
The sensor is not going to be slightly different. The sensor is going to be completely different and that is all I can say and know. The camera is going to be quite refined in the way the Q and SL are. It is going to be more focused as to what a traditional M is.
I am very much enjoying what a traditional M is apparently not supposed to be. As someone with long fingers, I have never found the M240/246 form factor to be an issue for ergonomics, the body balances and grips very well for heavy lenses like the 75/1.4, and apparently I lack the gene that would cause me to accidentally press the movie button. I am worried that a thinner body would actually be harder to hold (my brother's M7, for example, is only slightly smaller but feels like it needs a grip).

Could the M be better? Yes; the electronics could deal with self-formatted SD cards a little more smoothly, and the EVF refresh rate could be better. But those are actually pretty small things compared to the price tag of a new camera.

I think the bar would be even higher for a Monochrom 246, which can shoot in pretty much any light in which humans can see and never breaks a sweat in terms of noise.

But I'd love to see what they come out with. I'll probably buy it anyway. Just making a record of token resistance for now.

Dante
  Reply With Quote

Old 3 Weeks Ago   #106
ferider
Registered User
 
ferider's Avatar
 
ferider is offline
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 11,033
Quote:
Originally Posted by giganova View Post
Excuse my ignorance, but why is Leica so behind in sensor technology? Aren't all camera makers purchasing their sensors from third parties, so why can't Leica purchase the latest & greatest sensors from them, too, especially if they produce cameras in such low quantities?
1) there is only one sensor maker that's slightly ahead of cmosis and that's Sony
2) cmosis offers custom sensors (micro lenses, ir filter, etc)
3) cmosis is European which adds research funding opportunities

Roland.
  Reply With Quote

Old 3 Weeks Ago   #107
tom.w.bn
Registered User
 
tom.w.bn is offline
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Germany
Posts: 2,599
Quote:
Originally Posted by giganova View Post
Excuse my ignorance, but why is Leica so behind in sensor technology? Aren't all camera makers purchasing their sensors from third parties, so why can't Leica purchase the latest & greatest sensors from them, too, especially if they produce cameras in such low quantities?
If you have ever experienced how bad Leica lenses sometimes work together with a standard sony sensor, then you are probably happy that Leica does use a sensor thats made for this camera and these lenses.
  Reply With Quote

Old 3 Weeks Ago   #108
CameraQuest
Head Bartender
 
CameraQuest is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: over the hills from Malibu
Posts: 5,208
I was very disappointed Leica did not introduce a new M family at Photokina,

and so am very happy that it will probably appear early 2017.

With a new sensor, it seems to promise a major improvement - we will see.

Leapfrogging technology is a fact of life in digital sensors.
Debating which is THE best is a bit of a waste of time, because next week, next month etc there will be a better sensor.
  Reply With Quote

Old 2 Weeks Ago   #109
anselwannab
Registered User
 
anselwannab's Avatar
 
anselwannab is offline
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 454
I have wanted a slimmer body- I really want something as close to a digital CL as we can get. Slimmer body is ok, but if the lens flange stand proud, the max overall depth sounds like it will be the same. Now if you can do one with out a rear screen, that might give you enough depth, but that is moving a lot of internal around.

So if this comes out now, the monochrom version should be out by next Christmas?
__________________
My Gallery

Zorki 6 with 50/3.5 Industar
Leitz Minolta CL with 40/2 M-Rokkor
Digital and Film SLRs

Every real Black&White picture has silver lining.

It's not the size of the camera, it's the emotion in the emulsion.

Reality is just a shadow of four-dimensional space-time.
  Reply With Quote

Old 2 Weeks Ago   #110
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
 
jaapv's Avatar
 
jaapv is offline
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Hellevoetsluis,Netherlands
Posts: 8,164
The screen does not really affect the thickness; the 1.5/2 mm it takes is about the amount it protrudes from the body. The real culprit is the filter array/sensor/motherboard assembly which takes up about 5 mm. The real way to get it to be thinner is to replace the sensor by film. Or thin the electronics down.
__________________
Jaap








jaapvphotography
  Reply With Quote

Old 2 Weeks Ago   #111
LightBender
Registered User
 
LightBender is offline
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 38
Notice that in the photos the tripod mount is moved back. The nodal point is moved back. The thiner design is in a large part due to the electronics Jaapv has mentioned.
  Reply With Quote

Old 2 Weeks Ago   #112
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
 
jaapv's Avatar
 
jaapv is offline
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Hellevoetsluis,Netherlands
Posts: 8,164
Quote:
Originally Posted by ferider View Post
1) there is only one sensor maker that's slightly ahead of cmosis and that's Sony
2) cmosis offers custom sensors (micro lenses, ir filter, etc)
3) cmosis is European which adds research funding opportunities

Roland.
Actually the sensors in the Q and SL are made by TowerJazz, a Panasonic subsidiary. They are slightly more advanced than the Cmosis one in the M240.
Whether that difference is visible on a print is highly doubtful. In fact, it is next to impossible to see any difference in sensor quality between the results from the higher-level offerings by all major camera makers. Usually the Internet raves are about insane enlargements (ever calculated the size of a print that corresponds to a 100% view of a 50 MP sensor? ) or about a placebo effect.
Don't forget that nearly all sensor fabs use the same ASML machines to print their sensors.

We have, IMO, reached a plateau where "improvements" in sensor technology -which will certainly come, after all, new cameras must be sold- have become largely irrelevant.
We are back in the days of film, where the emphasis is on the quality of lenses, build, ergonomics, concept and general perception of the camera.
__________________
Jaap








jaapvphotography
  Reply With Quote

Old 2 Weeks Ago   #113
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
 
jaapv's Avatar
 
jaapv is offline
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Hellevoetsluis,Netherlands
Posts: 8,164
Quote:
Originally Posted by LightBender View Post
Notice that in the photos the tripod mount is moved back. The nodal point is moved back. The thiner design is in a large part due to the electronics Jaapv has mentioned.
A good argument, but we cannot be sure that the tripod mount corresponds to the nodal point.
Unfortunately many Leica cameras lack a film/sensor plane indication.
__________________
Jaap








jaapvphotography
  Reply With Quote

Old 2 Weeks Ago   #114
LightBender
Registered User
 
LightBender is offline
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaapv View Post
A good argument, but we cannot be sure that the tripod mount corresponds to the nodal point.
Unfortunately many Leica cameras lack a film/sensor plane indication.
True, the tripod mount may simply be placed further back because, that is where it fits. But, hopefully the placement represents thinner sensor/board/display technology which allowed the M10 to be thinner rather than primarily relying on increasing the mount flange.

Certainly, the entire decrease in thickness won't be from some funky Sony-like adaptor looking flange.
  Reply With Quote

Old 2 Weeks Ago   #115
anselwannab
Registered User
 
anselwannab's Avatar
 
anselwannab is offline
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 454
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaapv View Post

We have, IMO, reached a plateau where "improvements" in sensor technology -which will certainly come, after all, new cameras must be sold- have become largely irrelevant.
We are back in the days of film, where the emphasis is on the quality of lenses, build, ergonomics, concept and general perception of the camera.
I wonder of this is the next step- a new emphasis on ergonomics and interface. There are other sensor techs out there, but to me, the current tech so far outstrips film, that new advances would be welcome, but not needed for what I want. I don't need 4K for a TV, but it is coming.
__________________
My Gallery

Zorki 6 with 50/3.5 Industar
Leitz Minolta CL with 40/2 M-Rokkor
Digital and Film SLRs

Every real Black&White picture has silver lining.

It's not the size of the camera, it's the emotion in the emulsion.

Reality is just a shadow of four-dimensional space-time.
  Reply With Quote

Old 2 Weeks Ago   #116
uhoh7
Registered User
 
uhoh7 is offline
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,705
Quote:
Originally Posted by tom.w.bn View Post
If you have ever experienced how bad Leica lenses sometimes work together with a standard sony sensor, then you are probably happy that Leica does use a sensor thats made for this camera and these lenses.
Leica lens problems on Sony A7 have nothing to do with the sensor. It's the glass and filters placed on top of the sensor in the A7 design. That is simply a design spec. Nothing to stop a sony sensor customer from asking to spec the schott BG55 .8mm coverglass be placed on the sony sensor and then leave out the filter stack, which is how Leica has gotten better performance with the sensors they have chosen.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jaapv View Post
The screen does not really affect the thickness; the 1.5/2 mm it takes is about the amount it protrudes from the body. The real culprit is the filter array/sensor/motherboard assembly which takes up about 5 mm. The real way to get it to be thinner is to replace the sensor by film. Or thin the electronics down.
This is misleading. In fact it's possible to contain the thickness under a circular flange while making the majority of the body extremely thin. Or adding space for the battery by putting a "grip" there. While this camera is APS-C it could just as easily be FF.


DSC01161 by unoh7, on Flickr

In the case of the M10, I think they are trying to make a digital M6. That's why it's in the foot print it is, not because it's impossible trim the camera further. It's very smart, since the M6 is really an icon.

I just wish they would add another body and pull out all the stops to make a modern ergonomic Barnack FF.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dante_Stella View Post
I am very much enjoying what a traditional M is apparently not supposed to be. As someone with long fingers, I have never found the M240/246 form factor to be an issue for ergonomics, the body balances and grips very well for heavy lenses like the 75/1.4, and apparently I lack the gene that would cause me to accidentally press the movie button. I am worried that a thinner body would actually be harder to hold (my brother's M7, for example, is only slightly smaller but feels like it needs a grip).

Could the M be better? Yes; the electronics could deal with self-formatted SD cards a little more smoothly, and the EVF refresh rate could be better. But those are actually pretty small things compared to the price tag of a new camera.

I think the bar would be even higher for a Monochrom 246, which can shoot in pretty much any light in which humans can see and never breaks a sweat in terms of noise.

But I'd love to see what they come out with. I'll probably buy it anyway. Just making a record of token resistance for now.

Dante
I also have the 75 Lux and a M9 and a M6. I'm 6'1" and don't have small hands. The Lux is a real monster in M terms, a major outlier. It does not hold well in either camera body without a thumbs up, or a half case or the grip. All my other M lenses hold much better in the M6. Keeping a body large because some claim that makes it easier to hold is silly IMHO. There are far more people who would like as small a body as possible. They know they can add aids to hold a heavy lens.


75 Lux and Canon 85/1.5 by unoh7, on Flickr

Quote:
Originally Posted by brennanphotoguy View Post
Which is what the rumor sites get. And let's be real, Leica is always behind in sensor tech. AND they won't release a sensor that's better than the SL since that's their "pro" flagship camera.
Let's be real, Leica is whatever they choose to do. What is the most advanced EVF ever placed in digital camera? The SL's EVF. In fact the SL has a number of ground breaking features. It's also too big. But a beautiful thing in many ways. That they would not put a better sensor in the M10 because they don't won't to undercut the SL? Ridiculous. The SL has it's own niche based on all the things it can do, shoot S, R and M lenses.

It sounds like the M10 will be 24mp. So that leaves two key variables. ISO/DR performance, and its handling of highly varied ray angles from M wides. We won't have a clue how it really does before it gets in many hands. Simplistic stereotypes are like broken clocks. Right every so often
  Reply With Quote

Old 2 Weeks Ago   #117
ferider
Registered User
 
ferider's Avatar
 
ferider is offline
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 11,033
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaapv View Post
Actually the sensors in the Q and SL are made by TowerJazz, a Panasonic subsidiary.
If you mean TPSCo, they are 51% owned by TowerJazz, 49% by Panasonic. TowerJazz is public and in Israel does participate in EU R&D funded projects. So all I wrote about CMOSIS does apply to them too.
  Reply With Quote

Old 2 Weeks Ago   #118
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
 
jaapv's Avatar
 
jaapv is offline
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Hellevoetsluis,Netherlands
Posts: 8,164
Quote:
Originally Posted by uhoh7 View Post


This is misleading. In fact it's possible to contain the thickness under a circular flange while making the majority of the body extremely thin.
Possibly. But it will take quite some engineering to fit a rangefinder coupling and frame selector mechanism in.
__________________
Jaap








jaapvphotography
  Reply With Quote

Old 2 Weeks Ago   #119
tom.w.bn
Registered User
 
tom.w.bn is offline
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Germany
Posts: 2,599
Quote:
Originally Posted by uhoh7 View Post
Leica lens problems on Sony A7 have nothing to do with the sensor. It's the glass and filters placed on top of the sensor in the A7 design. That is simply a design spec. Nothing to stop a sony sensor customer from asking to spec the schott BG55 .8mm coverglass be placed on the sony sensor and then leave out the filter stack, which is how Leica has gotten better performance with the sensors they have chosen.
Technically speaking you may be right but for normal guys like me it's the sensor. I even say "I'm cleaning the sensor" and not "I'm cleaning the schott BG55 0.8 covergalss in front of the sensor".
  Reply With Quote

Old 2 Weeks Ago   #120
tom.w.bn
Registered User
 
tom.w.bn is offline
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Germany
Posts: 2,599
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaapv View Post
Usually the Internet raves are about insane enlargements (ever calculated the size of a print that corresponds to a 100% view of a 50 MP sensor? ) or about a placebo effect.
You don't need big enlargement to benefit from a high resolution. When I walk in the mountains my longest lens is normally a 50mm or the 75mm. I normally need 6-8MP for printing so I have lot's of room for using the resolution as a tele lens. With the M240 sensor you can easily use 100 percent crops because you get all the fine details in the files, that's what you can't do with an Xtrans sensor because it messes up nature details. I use the digital zoom quite often. 24MP is good for that but If I had a 5DSR with 50MP I'm sure I could make use of that extra "tele reach". The only thing you have to do, is take micro vibrations into account and use faster exposure times.

Of course digital zoom can't replace a f2.8/300mm lens (or a portrait lens) and that look.... if you need this.

Of course a purist that never crops will almost never need such a high resolution.
  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 00:01.


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.