Home · Register · Search · View Winners · Software · Hosting · Software · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username   Password

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  

FM Forums | Alternative Gear & Lenses | Join Upload & Sell

1       2       3              6      
7
       8       end
  

Archive 2013 · New M240 Delayed
  
 
edwardkaraa
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.7 #1 · New M240 Delayed


douglasf13 wrote:
Joe, Rich has a ton of R lenses, and he still shoots film, so switching to Leitax mounts apparently isn't an option. You can adapt to Canon, though, pretty easily.

I agree that a Zeiss/Sony digital rangefinder would shake things up. That's what I'd like to see, personally.


As much as I would like to see a Zeiss Ikon digital RF, I don't think Zeiss would be ever interested. They have repeatedly stated this.

Judging from my experience with Leica M and ZI film cameras, I must say that the ZI was great in whatever parts designed by Zeiss, namely the amazing bright contrasty and large VF, but sucked in everything else. The RF mechanism went out of calibration every time I changed lenses and back into calibration at the next lens change. It was flimsy and cheaply made and fragile. I am not sure I would like to own a digital version of it.





Feb 18, 2013 at 04:57 AM
mawz
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.7 #2 · New M240 Delayed


douglasf13 wrote:
I don't know, mawz, I've not seen anything indicating a difference in the A99 and VG-900 sensor. Dpreview's announcement implies that they share the same sensor.


I'm pretty sure the base design is the same (ie at the sensor sites), but that there's two different revisions with a different set of optimizations, one for video (long record times at lower data rates) and one for stills (short record times at high data rates). It may be that the sensors are the same and the support circuitry handles the differences.



Feb 18, 2013 at 05:08 AM
douglasf13
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.7 #3 · New M240 Delayed


Yeah, I would guess different support circuitry, too.

Good to know about the Ikon, Edward. I've never used one, although I have used some poorly built rangefinders.



Feb 18, 2013 at 05:57 AM
_julian_
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.7 #4 · New M240 Delayed


Could SONY develop a fullframe mirrorless? The statements I've read don't lend any confidence to the idea that such a camera would be optimized for use with high-incidence M lenses.

Phil Molyneux, President Sony Electronics had this to say,

MW: The VG900 demonstrated that the E-mount lens mount can support a full frame sensor. Building the lenses that can cover a full frame imaging circle at that flange back distance is another matter. We'll see. The benefits of making a smaller camera with a full frame sensor and interchangeable lenses are clear. The E-mount that could do that would be a little different than the E-mount that we know today. But it is possible. Much of the lens geometry you see in the RX1 is what it would take to realize that design.

The takeaway is that, although high-incidence lenses can be mounted on a fullframe camera (eg. M lenses on the VG900), the approach is flawed because of the absence of corrective elements (as found in the RX1) that would allow the sensor to perform optimally.

And this poses a sufficient challenge that SONY are forced to entirely reconsider their design away from E-mount. A 'different' geometry that would permit enough space in the throat of the mount for image-space telicentric lenses to be employed rather than symmetrical designs as used in the rangefinder world.

Mark Weir, (Senior Manager of Technology and Marketing for Sony Electronics) hints at the same thing - look at the RX1 approach and the engineering implications, rather than the E-mount for fullframe mirrorless.

the product in the context of the VG900 was already announced. We have them on display here. But I think what those who are suggesting that a full-frame E-mount camera be developed is a full frame E-mount camera together with E-mount lenses that would operate with it and offer full frame coverage. And all one has to do is to look at the RX1 disassembled model and see the optical challenge that would represent.

Given that SONY are the anticipated sensor target for any Zeiss Ikon, fullframe Ricoh or SONY camera, the situation is not that positive.



Feb 18, 2013 at 07:19 AM
edwardkaraa
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.7 #5 · New M240 Delayed


Well said Julian. Leica is sparing no efforts to make the M lenses work with FF sensors, first with the M9 and the offset microlenses, which works reasonably well, but still requires cornerfix or in camera lens profile corrections to remove the occasional color shift, then with the M 240 with the new flat microlens design that does not require any microlens shifting nor software correction. Indeed, it has been confirmed that no evidence of color shift has been noticed by at least one of the beta testers so far. I wonder why Sony is not able or willing to go that way, and maybe it could be the reason why Leica decided to work with an unknown manufacturer instead of with an obvious choice as Sony.


Feb 18, 2013 at 08:44 AM
thrice
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.7 #6 · New M240 Delayed


Just a minor correction Ed, they're more pointy, less flat microlenses.
The sensor package (CFA/wiring/photosites) is flatter/shallower.

Sony designed the A99 sensor package to also be flatter to lessen vignette at large apertures. I would say the secret lies in the microlenses and photosite layout.



Feb 18, 2013 at 09:03 AM
edwardkaraa
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.7 #7 · New M240 Delayed


Thank you for the correction Daniel! I was not aware that the microlenses themselves were actually higher or pointier.


Feb 18, 2013 at 09:15 AM
melcat
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.7 #8 · New M240 Delayed


michaelwatkins wrote:
At the very least from generation to generation the programming interface would probably be kept fairly consistent because to do otherwise would discourage adoption of new CPUs.


But according to Wikipedia's article on Milbeaut the architecture (instruction set) did change in 2011 from Fujitsu's own to ARM. If that means a change in development tools or even just a new version of the same tools, and they're using C++, I can well understand that they could have got caught out with some of the subtle (and IMO pointless) changes made to the C++ standard, and changes in the way the tools enforce the standard. It is very easy to do.

At that point, you do get to choose between features (keep the old CPU) and performance (rework code just to stay in the same place functionally).

This is quite apart from the possibility that they may have some assembler in there that would have to be rewritten.



Feb 18, 2013 at 10:03 AM
artur5
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.7 #9 · New M240 Delayed


_julian_ wrote:
Could SONY develop a fullframe mirrorless? The statements I've read don't lend any confidence to the idea that such a camera would be optimized for use with high-incidence M lenses.

Phil Molyneux, President Sony Electronics had this to say,

The takeaway is that, although high-incidence lenses can be mounted on a fullframe camera (eg. M lenses on the VG900), the approach is flawed because of the absence of corrective elements (as found in the RX1) that would allow the sensor to perform optimally.

And this poses a sufficient challenge that SONY are forced to entirely reconsider their design away from E-mount.
...Show more
You're probably right with Sony but I wouldn't say the same concerning Ricoh.
If Leica can make a M mount FF camera well corrected for RF wides, Ricoh should be able to do the same ( at a much lower price ) with an hypothetic M mount FF camera or GXR module. They did it very well with the current A12 M mount in APS-C ( better than the Leica M8 ).
The question is if Ricoh will awake any time soon from their hibernation, restarting/updating the GXR system or if, instead, they will revert all the resources to the Pentax line.
I'd bet for the second option, but with Ricoh you never know.



Feb 18, 2013 at 05:14 PM
douglasf13
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.7 #10 · New M240 Delayed


artur5 wrote:
You're probably right with Sony but I wouldn't say the same concerning Ricoh.
If Leica can make a M mount FF camera well corrected for RF wides, Ricoh should be able to do the same ( at a much lower price ) with an hypothetic M mount FF camera or GXR module. They did it very well with the current A12 M mount in APS-C ( better than the Leica M8 ).
The question is if Ricoh will awake any time soon from their hibernation, restarting/updating the GXR system or if, instead, they will revert all the resources to the
...Show more

There's a big difference between making an aps-c sensor capable with M lenses vs. a FF sensor. It's a much easier job with aps-c, comparatively.



Feb 18, 2013 at 06:08 PM
 

Search in Used Dept. 



Tariq Gibran
Online
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.7 #11 · New M240 Delayed


It also remains to be seen with the M240 just how much improvement with M/ rangefinder semi-symmetrical wides there is over the M9...and how much of that is due to software correction (ala m9) and how much to actual sensor hardware improvements.


Feb 18, 2013 at 06:24 PM
Emacs
Offline
• •
Account locked
p.7 #12 · New M240 Delayed


edwardkaraa wrote:
Well said Julian. Leica is sparing no efforts to make the M lenses work with FF sensors, first with the M9 and the offset microlenses, which works reasonably well, but still requires cornerfix or in camera lens profile corrections to remove the occasional color shift, then with the M 240 with the new flat microlens design that does not require any microlens shifting nor software correction. Indeed, it has been confirmed that no evidence of color shift has been noticed by at least one of the beta testers so far. I wonder why Sony is not able or willing to
...Show more
This microlens design causes light loss due to high angle of incedence and thus high amount of reflection. So, I'm not sure if it is really good solution. I believe there are better ways.



Feb 18, 2013 at 06:54 PM
douglasf13
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.7 #13 · New M240 Delayed


Tariq Gibran wrote:
It also remains to be seen with the M240 just how much improvement with M/ rangefinder semi-symmetrical wides there is over the M9...and how much of that is due to software correction (ala m9) and how much to actual sensor hardware improvements.


I think Jono has spoken a bit about how the color corrections are better, but I can't find the link at the moment.



Feb 18, 2013 at 06:57 PM
edwardkaraa
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.7 #14 · New M240 Delayed


douglasf13 wrote:
I think Jono has spoken a bit about how the color corrections are better, but I can't find the link at the moment.


Too lazy to find the link, but he was asked about color shift on LUF and he was very clear he has not seen any color shift in any of his photos and the vignetting was minimal.



Feb 18, 2013 at 07:06 PM
rscheffler
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.7 #15 · New M240 Delayed


edwardkaraa wrote:
Too lazy to find the link, but he was asked about color shift on LUF and he was very clear he has not seen any color shift in any of his photos and the vignetting was minimal.


This is the link in which he refers to the CV15, which on the M9 has quite strong color shift.

He says there is some vignetting, but hasn't noticed any color shifts, which is precisely what I want to hear.



Feb 18, 2013 at 07:09 PM
Tariq Gibran
Online
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.7 #16 · New M240 Delayed


edwardkaraa wrote:
Too lazy to find the link, but he was asked about color shift on LUF and he was very clear he has not seen any color shift in any of his photos and the vignetting was minimal.


That sounds great. Do we know if that is with lens detection set to Auto/ on or Off. It would be interesting to know how much is due to software optimization and how much to actual sensor improvement.



Feb 18, 2013 at 07:11 PM
Tariq Gibran
Online
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.7 #17 · New M240 Delayed


rscheffler wrote:
This is the link in which he refers to the CV15, which on the M9 has quite strong color shift.

He says there is some vignetting, but hasn't noticed any color shifts, which is precisely what I want to hear.


Nice! Thanks.



Feb 18, 2013 at 07:14 PM
rscheffler
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.7 #18 · New M240 Delayed


From the link I posted above, it sounds like he was using in-camera lens coding, which one assumes would make some corrections. But, the preliminary information is not very definitive or helpful, IMO. My feeling from this is the in-camera corrections might be more related to vignetting adjustment than color shift, but I would also be surprised if color shift was entirely absent. The greater likelihood is that it is less of a problem than with the M9, which probably means that in 'normal' use it won't be noticeable if lens coding is turned off.

Of the officially released images so far, I believe the widest angle lenses used have been 35mm, so there is not much to go on at the moment. There are also the Jean Gaumy images from Kyrgyzstan, which are all shot on wide angle, but it appears 28mm is the widest he used (images retain EXIF, so you can double check if you like). There doesn't appear to be any edge color issue with his images, which can be seen here.



Feb 18, 2013 at 07:25 PM
uscmatt99
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On
p.7 #19 · New M240 Delayed


The relative absence of edge color shift on this newer sensor, for me at least, goes a long way towards mitigating against the other issues discussed in the thread. One thing that has kept me from going the M9 route was the lens coding and how it affects the RAW output. Hopefully the new sensor is truthful to the vignetting characteristics of most lenses as well. The ultimate test will be a ZM 21/4.5!

On the new M, will there be a way to store at least focal length and max aperture info for lens swaps, similar to what Nikon does for non-CPU lenses? If not, I'll have to adopt the Douglas method. Thanks for that tip by the way! Plan to use it for my Ricoh GXR and NEX-6. At the rate things are going, I won't lay eyes on the new M until 2014 anyway. I am looking forward to seeing what the outer realms of the image circles look like on my current lenses (CV15, CV35/1.2, ZM25, ZM35/2.8).



Feb 18, 2013 at 07:35 PM
douglasf13
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.7 #20 · New M240 Delayed


If the new M doesn't need software correction at all for color shift, that would be cool for me, because I'd turn off correction altogether, since I'm not a big fan of vignetting correction. If the camera does still provide even a little color shift correction, it won't really be any advantage for me over the M9, because I'd have to use the Adobe flat field plugin, anyways.


Feb 18, 2013 at 08:26 PM
1       2       3              6      
7
       8       end




FM Forums | Alternative Gear & Lenses | Join Upload & Sell

1       2       3              6      
7
       8       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username   Password    Retrive password