Leica S lens image circles

[BJL]

Well the downside is that we know for sure, that for S2 lenses we will always need a S2 camera or a smaller sensor camera. There will never be the chance for a full 645 to use these lenses :-(

Yes, as I said, adopting a larger format right from the start might have been another viable option: maybe using the recent 36x54mm Dalsa sensor to stay with "Barnack shape" of 3:2! What makes no sense to me is the idea of starting out with the wrong sensor size for a brand new high quality lens system.

But with about 99.9% of digital camera sales destined to be in formats smaller than 30x45mm, it is not at all clear to me that looking to a larger format is looking in the right direction ... at least if the goal is the profitability and survival of the system, rather than just impressing forum connoisseurs.

[bradleygibson]

Yes, as I said, adopting a larger format right from the start might have been another viable option: maybe using the recent 36x54mm Dalsa sensor to stay with "Barnack shape" of 3:2! What makes no sense to me is the idea of starting out with the wrong sensor size for a brand new high quality lens system.

But with about 99.9% of digital camera sales destined to be in formats smaller than 30x45mm, it is not at all clear to me that looking to a larger format is looking in the right direction ... at least if the goal is the profitability and survival of the system, rather than just impressing forum connoisseurs.

Good points.

They clearly thought about this.  The performance of the lenses definitely got my attention.  Bottom line is that lesser lenses in front of of a larger, higher resolution sensor aren't necessarily going to make me happier (probably the opposite, actually)--so I am open to Leica convincing me that 45x30 is "all I'll ever need"...

[photo570]

Can anyone, perhaps Michael, summarize the lenses that have been "mentioned".

I know that Leica won't talk about future products, like most other companies, but they have publicly mentioned several future lenses they intend to build, including a zoom. The 24mm is mentioned in the video. Any others?

Cheers,
Jason.

[georgl]

It's only important to use the given sensor-size efficiently: designing a compact body, SLR-system and lenses for this sensor-size. That's why so-called full-frame-systems are superior to crop-solutions, not necessarily because of the larger sensor itself, but because of a whole system which is designed to match this sensor-size perfectly. On the other side, you and your clients have certain requirements regarding IQ/quality in print and Leica seems to think that recent state-of-the-art 33-40MP-backs deliver enough megapixels to begin with (new sensors will achieve higher resolutions anyway) and so they asked Kodak how far they  can push the pixel-pitch today (6µm as it seems) and then calculated the necessary sensor-size.

Of course a bigger sensor has advantages regarding IQ, but the cameras/systems will always be bigger and I don't think any of these lens-designs (like the 2.5/35mm) would have been possible (not at this price with this IQ and size) with an image diameter of 70mm (645) instead of 54mm, you would have propably lost a stop of lens-speed and less DoF so you'll have to push ISO again and at one point, you're turning in circles - so it's always a compromise - otherwise we would all end up with 8x10"...

[PeterAit]

It struck me as curious that the Leica's new S system considers the 70mm lens the normal lens, when the S2's sensor has a 58mm diagonal.

Does anyone know if the S lenses actually have a 70mm image circle, perhaps sufficient to cover 645 (56x42mm) (or since Leica likes 3:2, 58x28mm or 56x37mm, if sensor manufacture is limited to 645 sizes)

Even looking at the MTF graphs Leica published it seems they're easily able to substitue a new value on the X-axis, the way they're written...

Overactive imagination?  Or has Leica left themselves some room for expansion for later generations of the S family?

Take a ruler and a piece of white paper. Use the lens to project an image on the paper. Measure.

Peter

[uaiomex]

My experience:
I've done this before with viewcamera, Pentax 67 and Hasselblad glass. You have to focus the image at infinity, of course. The image is really deceiving. It will look very big because you are seeing the whole entire circle. Once you measure the diameter, look for heavy vignetting. This usually cuts a few milimeters off. Also important, many projected images really degrade image quality towards the end of the circle, making them in effect much smaller than measured. One way to get to a conclusion (close) would be to attach the lens @f8 to a view camera and load a 4x5 holder with a 4X5 cutoff piece of silver paper. Expose and develop. Then inspect with a good magnifier. Good luck
Eduardo

 

Take a ruler and a piece of white paper. Use the lens to project an image on the paper. Measure.

Peter

[bradleygibson]

Take a ruler and a piece of white paper. Use the lens to project an image on the paper. Measure.

Peter

Even assuming these lenses were readily obtainable, you'd need to hold the lens at the system's mount flange distance; and the edge of illumination is not really the useable image circle.  On high performing lenses, the image circle is often quoted much more conservatively to maintain a certain minimum resolution across the frame, or maximum amount of vignetting...  This exercise would put an upper bound on the figure (assuming correct flange distance, of course..)

Peter Karbe has given the definitive answer in Michael's video of 54mm--it's designed for the 45x30 sensor and "no larger" (his own words).

Thanks Michael, for posting the video.  It was really interesting to watch.

Best,