hxpham
Established
Yeah. Hopefully the next Leica M is more of a workhorse/practical camera with a Sony CMOS sensor. From what I've seen the D7000/K5 sensors are amazing.
user237428934
User deletion pending
The only thing that will happen beyond doubt at that date/time is the beginning of the fifth season (Karneval) where I live.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
I think it definitely needs a sensor change to allow it to have live view for critical focusing without relying on a mechanism that was developed in 1954 and is prone to innacuracy if abused!
That said ... would I really want to read/suffer the endless lens tests that would obviously result from such an upgrade!
That said ... would I really want to read/suffer the endless lens tests that would obviously result from such an upgrade!
hxpham
Established
I think it definitely needs a sensor change to allow it to have live view for critical focusing without relying on a mechanism that was developed in 1954 and is prone to innacuracy if abused!
That said ... would I really want to read/suffer the endless lens tests that would obviously result from such an upgrade!
I would be more interested in lens tests that sought to objectively compare the different bokeh characteristics of lenses, especially with regards to busy backgrounds and specular highlights. All these sharpness tests bore me too, Keith! Almost any modern lens is "sharp enough."
axiom
Non-Registered User
so the new Kodak interline isn't an option?
gavinlg
Veteran
Could you elaborate on this interline thing? Never heard of it!
So as it stands the Kodak CCD is the most popular option! From this small online community, it appears leica is doing the right thing with their sensor tech...
Harry Lime
Practitioner
All I want is a fully useable 14 stops in 16bit....
Leica should talk to Arri or whoever designed the sensor that is in the Alexa.
Leica should talk to Arri or whoever designed the sensor that is in the Alexa.
FrozenInTime
Well-known
That would do the trick
Even sacrificing up to 50% of the pixels - to make space for the extra capacitors/transistors needed for interline transfer CCD/CMOS global shutter, would be fine.
Result 100% silence as the is no longer a need for a mechanical shutter.
No mechanical shutter = slimmer M2..M7 thickness body.
bfffer
Established
Foveon X3 for sure.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Not really- it is an industrial sensor that is not designed for use in consumer imaging applictions.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
For sure- until one has a look at at the limited acceptance angle which makes it useless for short regisyer cameras like rangefinders....
kbg32
neo-romanticist
One has to remember that the GXR and the NEX do not contain full frame sensors. The problems inherent with a full frame sensor rangefinder, do not exist for "cropped sensor" cameras, with, or without micro lenses.
animefx
Established
I would like to see a Kodak CCD once in the Leica M10. I think they are more than capable of giving us a solid 2 stop improvement in ISO noise while giving us even more megapixels to take advantage of our wonderful glass, or some cropping power to make up for the minimum focusing distance in the Leica rangefinders.
I'm mostly in support of CCD over CMOS mostly because I've been spoiled by the dynamic range in my M8, especially shadow details. Forget all the of tests, in real world use I get better usable dynamic range than my 5D2 does. I know the M9 is slightly better, so hopefully the M10 takes this a step further, maybe a small improvement in the shadows and the highlights over the M9 would be nice.
Anyway, If we could get a 2 stop improvement in ISO noise vs. the M9, then I think Leica should limit the M10's maximum to ISO 5000, which would hopefully look like iso 1250 on the M9.
The Sony NEX focus peak option looks nice, but I'm not sure I want that in my rangefinder cameras, especially if it means sacarficing CCD for CMOS. The better option is the simply buy a Nex 7 or 5n as a secondary camera.
I'm mostly in support of CCD over CMOS mostly because I've been spoiled by the dynamic range in my M8, especially shadow details. Forget all the of tests, in real world use I get better usable dynamic range than my 5D2 does. I know the M9 is slightly better, so hopefully the M10 takes this a step further, maybe a small improvement in the shadows and the highlights over the M9 would be nice.
Anyway, If we could get a 2 stop improvement in ISO noise vs. the M9, then I think Leica should limit the M10's maximum to ISO 5000, which would hopefully look like iso 1250 on the M9.
The Sony NEX focus peak option looks nice, but I'm not sure I want that in my rangefinder cameras, especially if it means sacarficing CCD for CMOS. The better option is the simply buy a Nex 7 or 5n as a secondary camera.
Last edited:
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
If the Kodak CCD could do that, the M9 would have it, as it has a Kodak CCD... More megapixels=more noise so this is rather contradictory. And what would you need more pixels for? According to Zeiss, leica and Erwin Puts, anything over 40 Lp/mm is meaningless for image quality, so 18 Mp on a 24x36 sensor is the sweet spot.
animefx
Established
The Kodak CCD in the M9 is the best they could do at the time, the sensor is now over 2 years old. Advancements in sensor technology make it credible that the M10's sensor could be an improvement in several areas including ISO noise, dynamic range, and even megapixels.
More megapixels does not always mean more noise... For example, look at the original Canon 5D vs. Canon 5D mk II... The mk II has 9 more megapixels and 2 stops better ISO noise. Another example is the Canon 1D mk4 vs. mk3, same story, the mk4 has more megapixels and lower noise.
I'm not saying 18 mp is bad, I'm just saying there is nothing wrong with having more if anything for cropping power. With prime lenses the extra megapixels are often a god send. Heck I prefer using my M8 over my 5D2, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't be useful having extra megapixels to play with.
More megapixels does not always mean more noise... For example, look at the original Canon 5D vs. Canon 5D mk II... The mk II has 9 more megapixels and 2 stops better ISO noise. Another example is the Canon 1D mk4 vs. mk3, same story, the mk4 has more megapixels and lower noise.
I'm not saying 18 mp is bad, I'm just saying there is nothing wrong with having more if anything for cropping power. With prime lenses the extra megapixels are often a god send. Heck I prefer using my M8 over my 5D2, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't be useful having extra megapixels to play with.
hxpham
Established
Have you seen the DR of the new Sony sensor used in the K5/D7000? Better than the M9
rogerzilla
Well-known
The software is getting better at reducing noise, however horrid such an idea seems to we film users. The M9 software is often reported as being poor when it comes to making JPG files and there is huge scope for improvement there.
Then they need to put in a manual shutter cocking mechanism (for quiet operation) and offer some VF magnification choices. They could even (sacrilege!) offer a zoom viewfinder for the different focal lengths and banish all those difficult .85, .72 or .58 choices completely.
Then they need to put in a manual shutter cocking mechanism (for quiet operation) and offer some VF magnification choices. They could even (sacrilege!) offer a zoom viewfinder for the different focal lengths and banish all those difficult .85, .72 or .58 choices completely.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Even cropping won't change things like the Nyquist frequency and the relationship between lens resolution and sensor resolution. I think that in the M9 and S2 sensor the CCD technology has reached its pinnacle. CMos is moving quite slowly nowadays as well, the 5Dii sensor is not that different from the 10D. The main progress is in the incamera processing, Nikon especially has it down to a fine art. The world is waiting for new technology. Both CCD and CMos have reached the stage of diminishing returns. And technology runs up against the biological barrier. The human eye has it limitations too, and though imaging may have the potential to become much better with new technology - if you cannot see it it makes no sense to implement.