brennanphotoguy
Well-known
Guess you missed my last sentence as well.
LightBender
Member
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.
willie_901
Veteran
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.
giganova
Well-known
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? 
Dante_Stella
Rex canum cattorumque
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
ferider
Veteran
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.
user237428934
User deletion pending
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.
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.
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.
anselwannab
Well-known
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?
So if this comes out now, the monochrom version should be out by next Christmas?
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
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.
Or thin the electronics down.LightBender
Member
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.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
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.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
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.
LightBender
Member
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.
anselwannab
Well-known
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.
uhoh7
Veteran
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.
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.
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.
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
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
ferider
Veteran
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.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Possibly. But it will take quite some engineering to fit a rangefinder coupling and frame selector mechanism in.
user237428934
User deletion pending
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".
user237428934
User deletion pending
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?
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.