New DRF's via rumour mill

dazedgonebye said:
I wonder if people would mind? I supposed they would.

I wonder how far you could chop down a D700 if you chose to convert it to a rangefinder?
Click to expand...

Now there's an idea for a new Leica: viewfinder camera, R-mount lenses, 1.5x crop factor, focus confirmation (not true RF).

Easy, cheap, and lots of Leica R-mount glass out there.

Also easily customizable for any other manual focus reflex mount.

Cheers,

R.
 
Roger Hicks said:
WTF is a 'technology generation', especially in the context of the laws of physics, digital RF cameras and telecentric requirements for digital sensors?
Click to expand...

Thanks for the kind words, Roger.

Technology generation is 18 months in the semiconductor business. Kindly google for "Moore's law".

Meaning new sensors can have more bits per pixel. Increasing the dynamic range.

Each additional bit allows for one additional stop of vignetting that can be corrected in software.

Building a full frame 1600 ASA DRF sensor using a 32000 ASA DSLR sensor is possible.

A 32000 ASA DSLR sensor did not exist when the M8 was designed. Now it does.

Roland.
 
Last edited:
This is getting humorous. I'll let Roger give the physics/optics lesson while I get myself some popcorn, an ale & comfy chair to watch from... ;)

William
 
Vignetting is gradual, Ray, it increases with the cos of the angle of light falling on the sensor. The sensor can correct for it if it's sensitive enough.

I rest my case.

Roland.
 
ferider said:
Thanks for the kind words, Roger.

Technology generation is 18 months in the semiconductor business.
Google for "Moore's law".

Meaning new sensors can have more bits per pixel. Increasing the dynamic range.

Each additional bit allows for one additional stop of vignetting that can be corrected in software.

Roland.
Click to expand...

Dear Roland,

I am aware of Moore's law -- which is empirical, and a wild generalization, and subject to interpretation.

I am also aware of the size of the M8 market.

Moore's law applies only if there is a big enough market for a substantially generic semiconductor product.

The M8 sensor is not a generic semiconductor product. As far as I an aware, it is a complex optical hybrid. I could be wrong, but if it isn't, there's not much reason for Leica not to use an FF sensor. As they would dearly like to have an FF sensor, I suspect there may be good reasons why they haven't yet.

Would you like to bet that a full-frame sensor with a flange-to-film distance of <30mm obeys Moore's law?

'Cos I wouldn't.

That's quite apart from the laws of physics. I am not a good enough physicist to know -- maybe you are -- but I vaguely recall that without the micro-lenses we are looking at Snell's Law (the fourth power of the cosine of the angle of incidence), so quite small increases in sensor area imply significant increases in vignetting.

Cheers,

R.
 
CEO Kaufmann in a May interview with popphoto:

"Kaufmann: The Kodak CCD sensor presently used in the Leica M8 is of exceptionally high quality and using a CMOS sensor would be problematic for us because the firmware and software to support it would have to be completely redesigned. From an engineering point of view it doesn't make sense for us, and neither does using a full-frame CCD sensor.

The reason we settled on a slightly smaller sensor with a 1.33 conversion factor is due to the short back-focus of Leica M lenses. By using micro lenses and a very thin sensor cover glass we get excellent off-axis performance with this system without resorting to extensive software."
 
Double Negative.

Whay are you "sure it can be done" I hate it when physics (or any other science) becomes a matter of opinion rather than fact. Are you an optical or electronics engineer?

When will people accept the physics on full frame.

Light can hit film at any angle and record an image.

Sensors have depth created by the micro lenses on them and they rely on light hitting them as perpendicular to the sensor plane as possible.

Move off centre and the image corners becomes darker.

Move the lens closer to the sensor and the image corners become darker

Increase the sensor size and the corners become darker.

These are not easy issues to sort out and Leica don't have the resaerch budgets of Sony and Canon. Nikon don't make their own full frame sensor. They buy from Sony, probably because they can't afford the development costs.

Just because we've moved on a few years doesn't make things suddenly possible.

SR
 
Double negative, Leica needs a full-frame sensor M camera right now. They desperately need it. M digital users (and want-to-be users) are begging for it. If it were doable in some rational sense, Leica would have one on the market. That the CEO is saying it doesn't make sense is a pretty good indication it's not soon in the cards.
 
The desire for bigger pixel counts is the biggest hurdle.

If people would accept a 6 or 8 megapixel snesor, it would be a lot easier.
The pixel war is doing no one any favours.

Take the Canon 1Ds Mk3. 21 megapixel which out resolves most of Canons glass. File sizes are huge. Okay its a pro camera, but consumer cameras such as the Pentax K20 are at 14 megapixel. How many amateurs need that?

Sony developed a 24 megapixel sensor at the same time as the 12 megapixel full frame version for Nikon. They are expected to release a camera with the 24 megapixel sensor at Photokina.

How many propsective Leica buyers want that?

How many need it?

But if Leica did release an 8 megapixel full frame M, there would be howls of derision.

They can't win.

My guess is not within 5 years for a full frame M

SR
 
I want one, too, Leica or Nikon or whatever. I was looking at my Digilux 2 the other day and thinking, they could do something else with this body. It's got plenty of room in there, I imagine.
 
SR1 said:
Double Negative.

Whay are you "sure it can be done" I hate it when physics (or any other science) becomes a matter of opinion rather than fact. Are you an optical or electronics engineer?

When will people accept the physics on full frame.

Light can hit film at any angle and record an image.

Sensors have depth created by the micro lenses on them and they rely on light hitting them as perpendicular to the sensor plane as possible.

Move off centre and the image corners becomes darker.

Move the lens closer to the sensor and the image corners become darker

Increase the sensor size and the corners become darker.

These are not easy issues to sort out and Leica don't have the resaerch budgets of Sony and Canon. Nikon don't make their own full frame sensor. They buy from Sony, probably because they can't afford the development costs.

Just because we've moved on a few years doesn't make things suddenly possible.

SR
Click to expand...

Hey! No fair bringing the real world into this!

What's wrong with Leica-Euros at $0.25 each when the real Euro is $1.47? Pr repealing Snell's Law (democracy versus science)? Or The Talented Amateur Who Knows Nothing About The Subject showing up the errors of The German Professor With The Ph.D. And 30 years' Experience In The Field?

We probably both agree with Dr. Kaufmann that an FF sensor for the M-serie WILL happen. Just not soon, and not in a sub-$2000 body...

EDIT: Having just read your guess of 'not within 5 years', Leica's view is 'We would certainly hope within 10 years'. Given the speed of progress I'd be pleasantly surprised at 3 years (2011) and not surprised at all at 7+ years. But as you say, which is more important: the laws of physics, or 'if wishes were horses, then beggars might ride'?

Cheers,

R.
 
Last edited:
I have resisted buying a digital Rf for several reasons. One of the main one is that if I use a 35mm lens -thats the angle of view I want! Not some 41,4mm or crop factors! If Nikon manages to produce a DRf with a D700/D3 sized sensor and 15-16Mp capacity - I am buying one. ANY digital RF with smaller sensor is of no interest to me.
The D3/D700 sensor is quite incredible. The high speed capacity is nothing short of phenomenal. I have seen images - RAW, shot at 4000 iso that look like 400 iso on film!
As for the "how to do this" - thats up to the Sony/Nikon team. The physics is interesting, but it can be solved. Why Nikon would do it? It is bragging rights - they are looking at a line-up of high performance cameras, from the D700 (or maybe even a simplified $15-1700 "lesser" version), the D3, The D3x and a Drf. All based on the same platform too.
I only hope that they can build-in a good bl/w program into it too. Now at 2500-3200 iso - who needs a Noctilux, just use the Summilux 50f1.4 Asph or the Zeiss C Sonnar 50f1.5 instead! Saves a lot of money!
 
Double Negative said:
No reason you couldn't stuff a full frame sensor into an RF.
Click to expand...

I thought a FF sensor was unfeasible, due to the angle in which light hits the sensor when a wide angle lens is used. The angle of incidence would be too severe for pixels in the corners and on the edges to read the light properly.

Hasn't Leica themselves said this?

Edited: I hadn't noticed the second page to this thread, on which my questions had alreadly been answered).
 
Last edited:
Double Negative said:
So when, exactly, did I say to either of you that Leica could - or would - release a full frame RF tomorrow?

All I said is "there's no reason it can't be done." Sure - with current technology and economics maybe not. But with the proper funding and research it very likely WILL be done. Maybe not tomorrow and maybe not by Leica - but it will. ;)
Click to expand...

First para: You didn't. I was responding to SR1.

Second para: No-one argues that it will be done. As you say, not tomorrow. And if it can't be done tomorrow (or before photokina 2010) then maybe the M8 makes sense.

Probably, though, the first (and only) FF RF will come from Leica. Yes, Canon could probably do it, quite quickly -- and destroy Leica. Which would do wonders for their reputation when they dropped the camera 3 years later.

Camera (and lens, and film) manufacturers cooperate more than most people realize. They even manufacture components for one another. What is NOT in their interest is to destroy niche 'competitors' who take maybe 0.01% of their business. They need 'competitors', if only to avoid accusations of being an arrogant monopoly (Kodak's fate for many years).

Cheers,

R.
 
Tom A said:
I have resisted buying a digital Rf for several reasons. One of the main one is that if I use a 35mm lens -thats the angle of view I want! Not some 41,4mm or crop factors! If Nikon manages to produce a DRf with a D700/D3 sized sensor and 15-16Mp capacity - I am buying one. ANY digital RF with smaller sensor is of no interest to me.
The D3/D700 sensor is quite incredible. The high speed capacity is nothing short of phenomenal. I have seen images - RAW, shot at 4000 iso that look like 400 iso on film!
As for the "how to do this" - thats up to the Sony/Nikon team. The physics is interesting, but it can be solved. Why Nikon would do it? It is bragging rights - they are looking at a line-up of high performance cameras, from the D700 (or maybe even a simplified $15-1700 "lesser" version), the D3, The D3x and a Drf. All based on the same platform too.
I only hope that they can build-in a good bl/w program into it too. Now at 2500-3200 iso - who needs a Noctilux, just use the Summilux 50f1.4 Asph or the Zeiss C Sonnar 50f1.5 instead! Saves a lot of money!
Click to expand...


TomA - are you at liberty to speculate on how much such a Nikon dRF will cost???
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom