monochromejrnl
Well-known
you can keep the' signature'... i'll keep the $4000 price differential for a nice vacation!...
J J Kapsberger
Well-known
Busted. You caught my post before I'd deleted it. (I felt it was off topic).
J J Kapsberger
Well-known
J J Kapsberger
Well-known
How much more easily could Leica develop a FF RF sensor for BW only? Would a camera with such a sensor sell?
dazedgonebye
Veteran
and in there remains the rub. While leica’s finest scientists in the field of digital imaging are feverishly slapping red dots on Panasonic digicams the rest of the digital camera world is shooting with FF sensors @ iso 6400
Ow. That's going to leave a mark.
tomasis
Well-known
I'd go for mono camera. MPd with no LCD, haha
highest available DR, 3-10x more than D3, Fuji
highest available DR, 3-10x more than D3, Fuji
Tom did you happen to see any of these prototypes when you were in Tokyo a few months ago?
fortynine
Member
Tom, do u think it will come with a EVF or Contax-G style optical viewfinder ? An EVF would kill the whole picture taking experience
Roger Hicks
Veteran
I can agree with all of this. Leica has the most to gain in seeking a RF format camera that's full frame. It's their niche. Canon on the other hand, and even Nikon - I don't see the push as much except for "bragging rights" as mentioned earlier. For one thing, Leica has the reputation in the RF format and secondly, a ton of LTM/M mount lenses out there. Canon and Nikon have both been off the scene for some time and would need to come up with new lenses to go with their new baby.
The recent rumblings about the Micro 4/3rds format lenses is interesting for several reasons indeed. Personally, unless they move away from the current 2x crop factor of regular 4/3rds, I don't know that I'd really be interested. I've done the 1.6x thing, and it's not my thing (I lean towards wide angles) and am currently enjoying 1.3x as a reasonable compromise against FF. I'd love a FF DSLR but as also mentioned above, the file sizes are insane and the resolution is overkill - at least for MY needs, anyway. So 1.3x it is. The RF format is typically centered around wide-to-normal focal lengths, so the advantage of high crop factors would be somewhat lost here, IMO. While it's great for birders, it doesn't help wide angle junkies like myself.
My original point in this thread was just that it would suck in the sense that you'd have to buy into yet another lens system. Like I said earlier, I've already got M mount lenses, FD mount lenses, EF mount lenses... With a lot of focal lengths (e.g. 50mm) in all three! I don't care for a fourth.
We seem to agree pretty much on this -- a rarity on the internet when two people start out by expressing different viewpoints!
Cheers,
R.
pevelg
Well-known
I'd love to see a new dRF and would likely get one if:
1. Priced below Leica
2. M-mount or adapter available to use M-mount/LTM lenses.
Along with that, it would be exciting if someone developed a film canister w/ sensor that allowed to turn your film camera into a digital.
1. Priced below Leica
2. M-mount or adapter available to use M-mount/LTM lenses.
Along with that, it would be exciting if someone developed a film canister w/ sensor that allowed to turn your film camera into a digital.
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
A lot of people will believe in anything without proof.
Bigfoot, the Earth is Flat, Intelligent Design, the infallibility of government's handling of your privacy, Josh Groban is a singer... oh, so many items, so little time.
I will reconfirm my lack of confirmation announcing my run for President. Or not. Maybe.
Bigfoot, the Earth is Flat, Intelligent Design, the infallibility of government's handling of your privacy, Josh Groban is a singer... oh, so many items, so little time.
I will reconfirm my lack of confirmation announcing my run for President. Or not. Maybe.
summilux
Well-known
hope cosina will release some adapters so we can use the old RF nikon and contax lens as well, that will be fun.
digital SP sounds, and looks, cool.
digital SP sounds, and looks, cool.
Jerry Thirsty
Member
The comments about the immutability of the "physics" with respect to light fall-off in the corners of a larger sensor are fine and dandy, except that they rely on an unspoken set of assumptions:
1) that the sensor is flat
2) that the sensor is rigid
So how about a curved, flexible sensor:
http://www.crunchgear.com/2008/08/07/eye-shaped-camera-uses-curved-sensor/
Get the pixels small enough to be useful, and then the obvious next step: control the shape of the sensor with nano-actuators. Optimize the image for a particular lens and focus distance. Warp the sensor in ways that would make a view camera enthusiast green with envy. My guess is, commercial practicality is about 10-15 years off. Although by then, maybe glass lenses will be obsoleted by metamaterials, and we'll be measurebating over whose lenses have the more negative index of refraction.
1) that the sensor is flat
2) that the sensor is rigid
So how about a curved, flexible sensor:
http://www.crunchgear.com/2008/08/07/eye-shaped-camera-uses-curved-sensor/
Get the pixels small enough to be useful, and then the obvious next step: control the shape of the sensor with nano-actuators. Optimize the image for a particular lens and focus distance. Warp the sensor in ways that would make a view camera enthusiast green with envy. My guess is, commercial practicality is about 10-15 years off. Although by then, maybe glass lenses will be obsoleted by metamaterials, and we'll be measurebating over whose lenses have the more negative index of refraction.
JohnL
Very confused
Bits per pixel determines the number of levels within the dynamic range. DR is a function of the sensor - the number of stops between zero signal and maximum white (blow out). They are not related.
ferider
Veteran
They are in an efficient sensor architecture. For cost reasons.
PS:
[GEEK ALERT]
- in signal processing, given a black box, its dynamic range (also the "signal/noise ratio") is the ratio of largest to smallest signal that can be processed. In analog systems measured in "deciBel (dB)", in digital systems measured in bits.
- in signal processing and information theory, #bits is only a unit to measure information quantity.
- if you look at the entire sensor chip as black box (light in, digital bus out), the sensors DR is indeed the #bits, including possible control bits used to add/subtract sensor gain. To be more precise, the #bits needed to represent all possible sensor outputs with a uniform binary code.
- if you split the sensor into image input device (for example CCD or CMOS transistors), A/D converter and digital output processing, the system better be balanced, with the input device, A/D converter and output logic having similar DR. Otherwise components of the architecture are either over or under-designed.
[/GEEK ALERT]
Last edited:
Paul T.
Veteran
We've been here before. Sadly, this wouldn't work - M lenses direct light beams to focus on a flat sensor, ie film.
Yes, you could have curved sensors, but you would need lenses specifically designed for them - and defeat the point, namely of having a camera that works with the vast existing base of M and LTM lenses.
kevin m
Veteran
Right, him too!
NIKON KIU
Did you say Nippon Kogaku
I doubt that, since Leica did manage to survive after the introduction of Nikon F...and their own M5
Photokina is next month.
Kiu
Last edited:
NIKON KIU
Did you say Nippon Kogaku
Gaby,
what if they produce such a camera?
will you sell your Leicas and leave the Dark side?
Kiu
ampguy
Veteran
I think one solution for a DRF sensor is to use 2 APS-C sensors, rotated. You then get the coverage (and a bit more) of FF, can leverage existing peripherals and firmware, just need to add some plug-in values for vignetting with very wide lenses, or let uses do it in photoshop from the raw data depending on their lens and correction wanted on the edges. You can also get 2 half frame images per click, if you're running low on batteries or want to save file space, and not need to crop in photoshop later.