Jump to content

Leica, is there a problem?


Recommended Posts

"All I want is a 35/50/90 Tri-Summicron. Is that too much to ask for? 8-)"

 

Yes. They told us that at the 2003 annual meeting. But I think a 35/50 bi-Elmarit could be made that would not stick out so far, be an f/2.8, would balance better, and not block the finder frame so much.

 

As to settling for a 16.7MP DM7, I would settle for an 8MP one, at the right price. That would still beat the RD-1 with its 6MP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a bright future for humane photo mosaics, like those used in Olympic opening ceremonies. The future mosaics will be printed on hundreds of tshirts out of one JPG file from a xxxxMegapixel consumer digital.

 

Pro DSLR's will be used to create mosaic images on the moon so that their true potential is realized.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think one of the biggest problem Leica faces is the difference between full frame SLR

sensors and full frame rangefinder sensors. People see full frame SLR digital sensors and

say: "Well, it is possible, so lets do it in the M". But it is not that simple. The rear lens

element to sensor distance on an EOS SLR is far greater than it is on an M leica with a wide

angle lens. The issue is getting the light rays to hit the sensor more or less dead on, or

otherwise creating a sensor that can deal with oblique angle light. Both are easier said

than done. So while a full frame 22 mp chip may be feasible <i>right now</i> for an SLR,

it is not feasible <i>right now</i> for a rangefinder with the lenses we now have. This is

the real problem. I really hope they can solve it soon, but it seems pretty likely to me that

at this point the first digital M is going to use a sensor that is a direct descendent of the

sensor in the DMR. So it will probably be a 1.3-1.4 crop with 10-13 mp. Personally, that is

both good news and bad news. The good news is that the sensor takes fantastic pictures.

The bad news is the crop factor, and the comparitively poor high iso performance. I don't

mind an SLR that I can only use at ISO 100-400, but in a digital M I would definitely want a

completely usable ISO 800, if not 1600.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One solution I can think of is to take a calibration shot for each lens of a white surface, and

have the camera store the proper vignetting correction in firmware and apply it on the fly as

images are taken. The user could select between stored correction settings via the menu or

even with a 'frameline / lens selector' doohickey.

 

There. One solution on the table. If Leica wants to use it, they can pay me $10,000,000 as I

have thought it up first and as it's prior art they can't patent it or defend a patent if they DO

manage to file(and by US law, I 'own' the idea unless they patented or mentioned it first).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are correct Andrew what the world really needs right now is a "full frame" 700

mega pixel (noiseless of course) digital M7 at a $300 USD price point. It should also

feature an ISO range from 12 through to 64000 and produce perfect imagery

throughout.

 

Fact is Leica came to the conclusion that 10 mp was more than sufficient to deal with

the resolution Leica optics are capable of, for both the DMR and future M7d. They

could have just picked the 10mp number out of a hat of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A sensor tuned for all lenses also would need to make minute adjustments to account for the change in distance between the rear element and the sensor. However, this shouldn't be a problem as there should be plenty of storage capacity to hold these calculations.

 

Perhaps Leica should take the approach of the SLR manufacturers, independent lens makers and Carl Zeiss and develop a line of lenses that would be good for both digital and film.

 

That would have the dual effect of boosting sales of its lenses as well as addressing the light falloff issue.

 

In fact, if I were Leica, I would develop a full frame sensor and new digital-compatible lenses. The camera would accept older wide angles but with a sensor crop. With 50mm and longer (actual focal lengths would be determined through testing), the user could opt for a sensor crop or full-frame.

 

Newer digital-compatible lenses could be used either full or with a sensor crop.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

craig hoehne , mar 13, 2004; 07:44 a.m.

An M7d with a 35mm CCD (23.8x35.9mm), as opposed to the APS C size CCD for the

Epson, now that is interesting! Even with advances in microlenslet technologies, how will the

CCD sensor cope with M lenses and their particularly short rear lens element to film-plain

distance?

 

I explained above. You are either more close minded than you were 18 months ago, or

drunk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oooh....Andrew Robertson stop it....I'm beginning to like you.

 

Everybody around here knows I have the cognitive development of a 6 year old. And I am as it happens, only after encountering this erudite and worth while "all I want for Xmas" thread, seriously considering getting drunk.

 

Michael should have taken the Archive route, we and other PN fora have covered this territory over and over and over.

 

Tim you stop it too, you're making way too much sense.

 

C.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<I>"Fact is Leica came to the conclusion that 10 mp was more than sufficient to deal with the resolution Leica optics are capable of..."</I>

<P>

I'm betting the "fact" is that the 10Mp number was guided by price-point first and image quality second.

<P>

And back OT, why not a curved sensor?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...