mapgraphs wrote:
I'd have to agree about the sensor. Since Leica went to CMOSIS with a specific design for the microlens and well configuration, why go with something stock, which I'd have to assume is not designed to Leica sensor needs or specifications... And if Sony is fabricating a Leica design, it still wouldn't be a Sony sensor... Ah, the interwebs...
One thing seems to be clear, whoever built the sensor built it with thin cover glass to work well with Leica lenses. So it isn't an off the shelf sensor in that respect at least. So whoever built it, built it custom for Leica with the thin cover glass. We haven't heard much about micro lenses and I suspect (note this is mere speculation) that is because with a BSI sensor micro lenses are less important. As I understand it at least one function of micro lenses was to provide better periphery illumination, and with a BSI sensor that will be needed less.
Fae59 is a good reviewer. In this case, you can easily translate the conclusion with deepl or google but it says that this is a very efficient M but quite expensive.
Nothing new compared to what we already read.
Steve Spencer wrote:
One thing seems to be clear, whoever built the sensor built it with thin cover glass to work well with Leica lenses. So it isn't an off the shelf sensor in that respect at least. So whoever built it, built it custom for Leica with the thin cover glass. We haven't heard much about micro lenses and I suspect (note this is mere speculation) that is because with a BSI sensor micro lenses are less important. As I understand it at least one function of micro lenses was to provide better periphery illumination, and with a BSI sensor that will be needed less....Show more →
Correct my interpretation if need be but I think a Back Side Illuminated sensor wafer simply moves the electronics to the back, reducing reflections. As far as I understand it, a BSI wafer is not some cure-all for every possible design issue. The specific microlens and well design manufactured by CMOSIS (now owned by AMS) to Leica's M MAX Sensor specifications dealt with other issues.
According to Guy Meynants
"For CMOSIS it began with a study of the specifications, which, may I say, were very strict and, from Leica’s side, virtually written in stone (…) We deliver the chips to Leica — based on a tailor-made design optimized for the new Leica M."
So my question, and this is probably only to myself, is why would Leica go to an off-the-shelf design?
Jan 16, 2022 at 04:20 PM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
mapgraphs wrote:
Correct my interpretation if need be but I think a Back Side Illuminated sensor wafer simply moves the electronics to the back, reducing reflections. As far as I understand it, a BSI wafer is not some cure-all for every possible design issue. The specific microlens and well design manufactured by CMOSIS (now owned by AMS) to Leica's M MAX Sensor specifications dealt with other issues.
According to Guy Meynants
"For CMOSIS it began with a study of the specifications, which, may I say, were very strict and, from Leica’s side, virtually written in stone (…) We deliver the chips to Leica — based on a tailor-made design optimized for the new Leica M."
So my question, and this is probably only to myself, is why would Leica go to an off-the-shelf design? ...Show more →
My understanding is that BSI wafers transduce the light with fewer electronics in the way and therefore less shading by those electronics making microlenses less necessary, but I could be wrong. Here is the wikipedia link which seems to show just that:
I believe this phrase from the article: "Other advantages of a BSI sensor include wider angular response," suggests that micro lenses are less needed or could be made with less correction, but again I could be wrong.
Leica did not go off the shelf. I think there is little question that whoever produced the sensor produced it specifically for this camera.
^ Lloyd Chambers is reporting improved M lens performance on the M11. He speculates they may have made the cover glass even thinner, but I think it's more likely the BSI tech at work. Some on l-camera-forum.com are reporting less vignetting.
There is something odd about the Leica M11—the lenses do not look right. Don’t panic—I mean that in a good way: there seems to be less degradation of lens performance (ray angle effects). The new sensor is surely involved, but perhaps the sensor cover glass could have been thinned-out and thus reducing the 'hit' to optical performance? I don’t know, and it’s still clear that some M lenses are really not up to the 60MP challenge.
The pixel-binning modes are interesting. Is it a necessary feature? Are they concerned about people's continued pleasure with their beloved film-era lenses on such a high resolution sensor that they felt they had to offer lower res options? Otherwise, I'm not seeing the up-side given the amount of engineering it took to integrate it.
mapgraphs wrote:
So my question, and this is probably only to myself, is why would Leica go to an off-the-shelf design?
Imo ... they wouldn't.
Leica designs their lenses to their parameters for the M ... the "off-the-shelf" design would not be optimized for the light projections in the ethos of the M lenses. While not all lenses would be subject to the differences, I'd be hard pressed to think that Leica would abandon the excellent engineering that went into the faux curved sensor via the differing height elliptical micro lenses.
There might be adjustments for the BSI, but I think the concept of the the micro-lens variation as the angle of incidence changes, moving outward is something that Leica would certainly retain. If they don't employ that engineering excellence, then it begins to beg certain questions regarding the engineering excellence diff, for the $$$ diff?
It was learning of this microlens design diff (addressing the nature of ISL / incidence angles), that prompted me to get my first "M".
I think it speaks well to the level of engineering that Leica puts under the hood.
Rather, it wouldn't surprise me if the optical oriented engineering advances have continued to improve / refine the concept of the "curved sensor" via differing micro-lens height / shape design relationships ... regardless of what sensor it is playing with. Raise the bar on both ends, and the whole may be greater than the sum of its parts, particularly when dealing with trigonometric vector forces.
freaklikeme wrote:
The pixel-binning modes are interesting. Is it a necessary feature? Are they concerned about people's continued pleasure with their beloved film-era lenses on such a high resolution sensor that they felt they had to offer lower res options? Otherwise, I'm not seeing the up-side given the amount of engineering it took to integrate it.
This seems built on the myth of "lens can't handle resolution".
Fred Miranda wrote:
Leica M11 shutter sound. (same for both rangefinder or Live View mode)
It's very similar to how my M10-R sounds in LV mode. Personally I much prefer the sound of the M10-R in rangefinder mode. What do you think?
I don't hear the loud live view "clunk" of the M10-R, but the M10-R when using the rangefinder mode is much nicer. But then again, sometimes I had to hear the M10-R rangefinder mode shutter twice in a row to get the exposure right
So I have been trying to see what differences occur in C1 processing an M10R file with the M10R profile and an M11 file with the generic dng profile.
The image is of a rusted and encrusted old anchor. It was very rusted. The top image is the M10R and the bottom image is the M11 with the red channel taken down slightly since it exhibited too much magenta. Keep in mind there is no specific C1 profile for the M11 camera as yet. I am using my MBP Max 16" set to P3 Photographic display preference setting. The other day I was using my 32" NEC which I only realized then has seen its better days when compared to this new MBP.
Nothing extreme done in either image except for h/l down 100, shadows +18, mid levels -.30 (M11) and -0.15 (M10R) and haze +10.
freaklikeme wrote:
Nope, just trying to figure out the point of the feature.
1 more EV of dynamic range and smaller files, i.e. less SD card space, disk space and computer power to process images when one does not need 60 Mpix.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Leica M11 shutter sound. (same for both rangefinder or Live View mode)
It's very similar to how my M10-R sounds in LV mode. Personally I much prefer the sound of the M10-R in rangefinder mode. What do you think?
Well, the M11 is effectively always shooting in live view because of the new metering system. Sounds to me like my M240, actually. Would have been a more interesting video with the M11 beside an M10-R.
rscheffler wrote:
Well, the M11 is effectively always shooting in live view because of the new metering system. Sounds to me like my M240, actually. Would have been a more interesting video with the M11 beside an M10-R.
I'm sure someone will post it soon. I think it's a negative among so many positives.
