Kodak Sells Image Sensor Business!

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi Ray,

The only measurements I have seen were on DxO-mark. When the 645D arrived I got the impression that it handled read noise really well. My understanding is that DR that DxO-mark measures is dominated by read noise. It is also my understanding that with CCDs analog readout is not integrated on the chip but is on a separate PCB and I got the impression that the Pentax solution is really good. Since than DxO mark republished data on the P40+ and it seems be even better than the Pentax 645D.

I have played around with raw files from Pentax 645D (from Imaging Resource and Miles Hecker) and Leica S2 (with kind permission of Lloyd Chambers) I was not impressed by shadow noise on the S2.

The Leica S2 stuff is here: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/38-observations-on-leica-s2-raw-images

The Pentax article is not about DR, but it's here: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/51-a-closer-look-at-pentax-645d-image-quality

Your idea on MFD read out noise data base is very interesting. My impression is that MFDBs are surrounded with a lot of mythos, but I guess that only benefit of MFDBs over DSLR sensors is larger size. A larger sensor collects more photons, holds more electron charges and so on. A larger sensor may also have advantage in resolution and allow higher MTF on a given structure size. So no doubt that there are many benefits to MF digital.

Do you have any ideas about sample variation?

Best regards
Erik

Hi Eric,

Have you seen any measurements? I'd like to compare its actual readnoise to the Kodak spec.

[bcooter]

I don't wish any company or person bad, but I'm glad the sensor business is gone from Kodak.

I mean Kodak's business decisions in the last decade and a half have been awful, so if larger Kodak sensors are to be sparred it's probably best they went to a company that will actively pursue a profit and hopefully more innovation.

IMO

BC

[eronald]

Come to think of it, you're right. The S2 focuses, has good battery life and is ruggedly weather sealed. Clearly not MF  

What will be interesting to see is the management team the buyers put in place. That will give us a good sense of where they're taking it.  Not a play I'd want any part of, but may the force be with them. Contrary to what their name might suggest, Platinum Equity appears to be a bona fide outfit, and not some sort of massage parlour conglomerate. Curious to see what they will do with this acquisition.

Nick,

At this point Leica and a massage parlour seem to have in common that customers keep coming back because they enjoy the experience.   

Edmund

[framah]

Betterlight and Creo both use Kodaks sensors.

[EricWHiss]

Both HP and Kodak seem to be learning their moves from the same play book.  What a shame because both companies had some real excellent products that they've let go of or killed off.    In this case I hope the
acquiring company extends the sensor line and technology.  Even though I use a dalsa chipped back now, the kodak chipped backs have been my favorites.

[Ray]

Perhaps a quote from Buddhism is relevant here. There is no permanence in anything. Everything is subject to change. It's a reality of existence.

We may cling on to things, ideas and persons in an emotional fashion, and decry their passing. But such passing is always inevitable, eventually, and should be accepted as the natural process it is.

[Josh-H]

The S2 focuses

Not wishing to hijack the thread; but...S2 Focusing Fact and Fiction

If you are a subscriber you can read all the minutia - if not the executive summary linked too pretty much says it how it is.

Perhaps the Leica qualifies as MF after all 

[BJL]

Creo's Leaf backs always used Phillips/Dalsa sensors, even during the time that Kodak owned that business before on-selling to Phase One. Kodak bought Creo for assets other than the Leaf MF part.

And while people are worrying about new ownership emphasizing markets like military rather than MF:
- Dalsa was acquired by Teledyne a while ago
- scientific, industrial, medical and military usage have long been the dominant market for large CCD sensors from both Kodak and Dalsa. To get an idea of product emphasis, just see what the companies say:
http://www.kodak.com/ek/US/en/Image_Sensor_Solutions/Applications.htm
http://www.teledynedalsa.com/corp/markets/products.aspx
http://www.teledyne.com/

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I don't know...

Nick Devlin and Mark Dubovoy don't have a similar experience. I have great respect for Lloyd's testing, and he has images to show.  On the other hand I also have great respect for Nick's and Mark's testing.

Best regards
Erik

Not wishing to hijack the thread; but...S2 Focusing Fact and Fiction

If you are a subscriber you can read all the minutia - if not the executive summary linked too pretty much says it how it is.

Perhaps the Leica qualifies as MF after all 

[Josh-H]

Hi,

I don't know...

Nick Devlin and Mark Dubovoy don't have a similar experience. I have great respect for Lloyd's testing, and he has images to show.  On the other hand I also have great respect for Nick's and Mark's testing.

Best regards
Erik

Erik, I can't say I have first hand experience with the S2 (other than fondling one lovingly in the camera store) on a shoot; so I am certainly not qualified to make a judgement on the S2 focusing. I have to take the word of Nick, Mark and Lloyd in relation to the S2.

What I would say is that Lloyd is the only one of the bunch to actually have made public an extensive test on the S2 in relation to focusing. And that carries more weight for me than flowery statements like 'deadly accurate'.

I suspect (and only suspect) that perhaps Mark finds the S2 'deadly accurate' because he doesn't shoot with high end DSLR's - which really are without question at the top of the 'deadly accurate' focus heap. Mark's dslr equivalent is a micro Panasonic isn't it? (I think thats what he took to Africa when he wrote up his return editorial - I would have to go back to be 100% certain) Not exactly top end auto focus compared to a 1D MKIV or Nikon D3S. I wonder if his 'deadly accurate' statement is more born out what he is used to shooting, rather than what really rules the roost in terms of auto focus.

I would really like to see some more s2 focus testing - its still very high on my list for purchase consideration. Really, I should just go borrow one and shoot over a weekend with it.  Perhaps when more lenses become available

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

On the other hand Mark has shimmed his Alpa back within 10 microns, has a special focusing ring that takes three turns to cover the focusing range and uses a laser rangefinder from Leica, AFAIK, so he knows a few things about focusing.

My own view? In my view live view is optimum.

Best regards
Erik

Erik, I can't say I have first hand experience with the S2 (other than fondling one lovingly in the camera store) on a shoot; so I am certainly not qualified to make a judgement on the S2 focusing. I have to take the word of Nick, Mark and Lloyd in relation to the S2.

What I would say is that Lloyd is the only one of the bunch to actually have made public an extensive test on the S2 in relation to focusing. And that carries more weight for me than flowery statements like 'deadly accurate'.

I suspect (and only suspect) that perhaps Mark finds the S2 'deadly accurate' because he doesn't shoot with high end DSLR's - which really are without question at the top of the 'deadly accurate' focus heap. Mark's dslr equivalent is a micro Panasonic isn't it? (I think thats what he took to Africa when he wrote up his return editorial - I would have to go back to be 100% certain) Not exactly top end auto focus compared to a 1D MKIV or Nikon D3S. I wonder if his 'deadly accurate' statement is more born out what he is used to shooting, rather than what really rules the roost in terms of auto focus.

I would really like to see some more s2 focus testing - its still very high on my list for purchase consideration. Really, I should just go borrow one and shoot over a weekend with it.  Perhaps when more lenses become available

[Josh-H]

On the other hand Mark has shimmed his Alpa back within 10 microns, has a special focusing ring that takes three turns to cover the focusing range and uses a laser rangefinder from Leica, AFAIK, so he knows a few things about focusing.

Insert the word 'manual' before focusing and I would agree with you.

BTW: I agree with you. In my own experience, Live View is optimum

[eronald]

In my experience close AF and long distance AF quality have no relation on an SLR. My last test on an H4 with a 100/2.2 gave very good 3-meter AF, and mediocre long-distance AF in twilight.

No problem believing Mark about landscape, but I'll believe him about beauty or runway when he has published beauty or runway.

Edmund

Hi,

On the other hand Mark has shimmed his Alpa back within 10 microns, has a special focusing ring that takes three turns to cover the focusing range and uses a laser rangefinder from Leica, AFAIK, so he knows a few things about focusing.

My own view? In my view live view is optimum.

Best regards
Erik

[Nick Rains]

I have all the S2 lenses and have worked with two different bodies. I simply have not had the problems Lloyd has had. Maybe I have been lucky but my recent trip to China using it as a 'travel' camera yielded excellent results. Or maybe people who own the camera are just more familiar with it than Lloyd and have learned to work with it in real situations better than he. All cameras have their idiosyncrasies and no camera is perfect - it's just that I just have no trouble getting sharp images with the S2. I guess YMMV.

Erik, I can't say I have first hand experience with the S2 (other than fondling one lovingly in the camera store) on a shoot; so I am certainly not qualified to make a judgement on the S2 focusing. I have to take the word of Nick, Mark and Lloyd in relation to the S2.

What I would say is that Lloyd is the only one of the bunch to actually have made public an extensive test on the S2 in relation to focusing. And that carries more weight for me than flowery statements like 'deadly accurate'.

I suspect (and only suspect) that perhaps Mark finds the S2 'deadly accurate' because he doesn't shoot with high end DSLR's - which really are without question at the top of the 'deadly accurate' focus heap. Mark's dslr equivalent is a micro Panasonic isn't it? (I think thats what he took to Africa when he wrote up his return editorial - I would have to go back to be 100% certain) Not exactly top end auto focus compared to a 1D MKIV or Nikon D3S. I wonder if his 'deadly accurate' statement is more born out what he is used to shooting, rather than what really rules the roost in terms of auto focus.

I would really like to see some more s2 focus testing - its still very high on my list for purchase consideration. Really, I should just go borrow one and shoot over a weekend with it.  Perhaps when more lenses become available

[eronald]

I have all the S2 lenses and have worked with two different bodies. I simply have not had the problems Lloyd has had. Maybe I have been lucky but my recent trip to China using it as a 'travel' camera yielded excellent results. Or maybe people who own the camera are just more familiar with it than Lloyd and have learned to work with it in real situations better than he. All cameras have their idiosyncrasies and no camera is perfect - it's just that I just have no trouble getting sharp images with the S2. I guess YMMV.

I got reports of a landscape test here in Paris which indicated the same infinity focus issues as Lloyd found. Lloyd is a landscape guy basically, so I would respect him when he talks about landscape; he doesn't bother with stuff like focus speed and focus target discrimination, which is what SLR focus is all about, but then landscapes don't usually run away or wave their arms.

Edmund

[EricWHiss]

Hi,

I don't know...

Nick Devlin and Mark Dubovoy don't have a similar experience. I have great respect for Lloyd's testing, and he has images to show.  On the other hand I also have great respect for Nick's and Mark's testing.

Best regards
Erik

I agree with what you are saying and I'll add that I never get the feeling from Lloyd's reports that he's selling anything.  I've had issue with Mark's multishot review, Imageprint review, and several others - maybe half had statements that I felt wouldn't hold up under any 3rd party testing and they always come off as an informercial.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

My impression is that Mark is a bit enthusiastic in his reviews. He wants to share experience. I'm pretty sure that he knows what he is doing.

It is not always easy to detect inaccurate focus. To begin with, all sources of image degradation add up. So to judge focus we need to have an absolutely stable setup with mirror lockup and vibration free shutter release. Stopping down reduces the need of focusing accuracy. Normally we strive for maximum image quality and that usually ends in the camera on tripod, MLU and medium aperture formula.

For some reason, Lloyd seems to be interested in shooting at full aperture which is most demanding on optics. This perhaps comes from his testing work.

It is easy to misjudge sharpness, I once tested a camera with and without mirror lockup. All pictures were sharp (at actual pixels). I also measured MTF on slanted edge using Imatest on the same series of exposures. Half the resolution was lost without MLU! Rechecking the images I could see the difference! Halving resolution essentially reduced camera resolution from 6 MP to 1.5 MP, but I could barely see the difference!

Another observation is that Leica plays it very smart. They are good at communicating with customers (or at least reviewers) it seems that Mark got a lot of good information from Leica on the workings of the AF system but he may get far less information from other vendors. The kind of openness Leica seems to have certainly works in their favor.

It would be nice if the departure of Kodak would lead to Leica and Pentax working with a CMOS vendor instead. It is my firm belief that live view is ideal for tripod mounted landscape shooting.

Best regards
Erik

I agree with what you are saying and I'll add that I never get the feeling from Lloyd's reports that he's selling anything.  I've had issue with Mark's multishot review, Imageprint review, and several others - maybe half had statements that I felt wouldn't hold up under any 3rd party testing and they always come off as an informercial.

[TH_Alpa]

I can confirm this, he should know a few things about focus.

Thierry

On the other hand Mark has shimmed his Alpa back within 10 microns, has a special focusing ring that takes three turns to cover the focusing range and uses a laser rangefinder from Leica, AFAIK, so he knows a few things about focusing.
Erik

[ondebanks]

Hi Ray,

The only measurements I have seen were on DxO-mark. When the 645D arrived I got the impression that it handled read noise really well. My understanding is that DR that DxO-mark measures is dominated by read noise. It is also my understanding that with CCDs analog readout is not integrated on the chip but is on a separate PCB and I got the impression that the Pentax solution is really good. Since than DxO mark republished data on the P40+ and it seems be even better than the Pentax 645D.

I have played around with raw files from Pentax 645D (from Imaging Resource and Miles Hecker) and Leica S2 (with kind permission of Lloyd Chambers) I was not impressed by shadow noise on the S2.

The Leica S2 stuff is here: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/38-observations-on-leica-s2-raw-images

The Pentax article is not about DR, but it's here: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/51-a-closer-look-at-pentax-645d-image-quality

Your idea on MFD read out noise data base is very interesting. My impression is that MFDBs are surrounded with a lot of mythos, but I guess that only benefit of MFDBs over DSLR sensors is larger size. A larger sensor collects more photons, holds more electron charges and so on. A larger sensor may also have advantage in resolution and allow higher MTF on a given structure size. So no doubt that there are many benefits to MF digital.

Do you have any ideas about sample variation?

Best regards
Erik

Hi Eric,

I'm glad you can see the merit of my MFD read out noise database idea. The first results are coming in, and I will share them in due course. Interesting things are also emerging about how some manufacturers are treating their raw data! 

I strongly encourage other MFD shooters to contribute as well. I omitted one instruction in my original post up this thread: without this I can get the noise in ADU, but that's useless unless I can also get the conversion factor to electrons. So the full instructions are:

- Take two frames at each ISO setting, with the lenscap ON, at the shortest shutter speed on your camera
- Take two frames at each ISO setting, with the lenscap OFF: camera on tripod, aimed at a white wall/ceiling, telephoto (or failing that, normal) lens set to f/16 and INFINITY focus, exposure set to give a bright but unsaturated/unclipped image (metered exposure + 1 stop compensation should be about right; check the LCD histogram)
- Put the RAW files on somewhere like Dropbox, where I can download them.

This assumes that the black point is not being clipped by the Manufacturer's firmware. If my initial work reveals that it is being clipped in some cases, I'll have to ask those contributors for some more data (basically the white wall shots again, but this time at a large range of exposure times). I am not asking for that at this stage, as I don't want to put busy people (including myself!) through extra work unless it's really needed.

You raise a good point about sample variation. Here's where strong community involvement can help. If more than one person sends me samples from the same model of camera, we can start to assess variations like this.

Look at it this way - every contributor will get a sort of custom analysis report on their sensor. For free.  I'm sure that manufacturers and repair houses would charge a lot for that sort of thing. 

Ray

[theguywitha645d]

I can confirm this, he should know a few things about focus.

Thierry

But actually not that much. He has an article here on LL where he states focus tolerance is a product of focal length. Which if you understand the problem, focal length has nothing to do with it. Tolerance is a product of the f-number of the system--regardless of focal length, if focus is off x mm, the amount of defocus is based on the f-number of the system. (Talking about front focus or back focus misses the entire problem as it is an image space issue, not an object space one.) Also in the Mamiya/Pentax shoot out article, he suggests (actually, claims) the the problem with edge sharpness is unaligned sensors--it could not be user error (after all it was two guys doing informal testing) or even the wall might not be flat--not that old buildings are not level and plumb. Occam's razor would throw that conclusion into doubt. And he shimmed his back 10 microns? Exactly what back is he using that would have a 2 micron CoC, assuming he is shooting at about f/4.5.

I would not consider this gentleman a great authority on focus.

From what I understand, Mr. Chambers is a pixel peeper. There are real flaws with evaluating images at 100%.

The problem I find with many reviews/claims is that they are extreme. That every slight flaw or perceived flaw (found in single samples most of the time) are grossly exaggerated.