M9

[telyt]

And nothing I can see anywhere refers to adopting sensor technologies developed for the S2, despite what I have read in various forum posts.

Apparently your sources aren't as good as mine  

[BJL]

Apparently your sources aren't as good as mine  

Well, that is a thorough demolition of my facts and arguments.

May I remind you that your sources' first claim is outright nonsense, since putting IR filters on the sensor is not an idea "developed for the S2", but which has been in use for years!


My source is a very lengthy PDF brochure from Leica (or an amazingly good fake). And if Leica has more to say, such as about technology developed for the S2, I would expect that to be said proudly in that brochure. Instead, it talks more about Cuban boxers than about new sensor technology.

Do you care to identify your sources, and/or explain why you consider them to be more reliable that what Leica says in the brochure? Hopefully you have something better to offer that claims made in various other forums!


My confidential source [meaning my wild guesses] says that the main innovation is that the offset microlenses already used in the M8 have been enhanced a bit, to handle the greater incident angles near the edges of the larger sensor.

[Slough]

May I remind you that your sources' first claim is outright nonsense, since putting IR filters on the sensor is not an idea "developed for the S2", but which has been in use for years!

He said that the filter is between the microlenses and the sensor pits. The traditional location for filters is the cover glass, is it not. Not that I know anything about this silly argument as I am not an internet expert.

[telyt]

Well, that is a thorough demolition of my facts and arguments.

May I remind you that your sources' first claim is outright nonsense, since putting IR filters on the sensor is not an idea "developed for the S2", but which has been in use for years!

The new development was not putting the IR filter on the sensor, it's sandwiching the  IR filter between the microlenses and the photosites.  Go back to reading comprehension 101.

My source is a very lengthy PDF brochure from Leica (or an amazingly good fake). And if Leica has more to say, such as about technology developed for the S2, I would expect that to be said proudly in that brochure. Instead, it talks more about Cuban boxers than about new sensor technology.

My sources are Kodak's public documents in the last year or so related to sensor development for (quoting the Kodak documents) "a partner with very high image quality requirements".  This at a time when it was known that Kodak was developing the S2 sensor.  I put two and two together and guessed that this partner Kodak was referring to is Leica - which has been confirmed to me privately.  Do you believe that all the technical details will be spilled in a PDF document?  What matters to most potential customers is the results.  Do Canon or Nikon explain how they accomplish the high ISO performance of their most recent cameras?

Do you care to identify your sources, and/or explain why you consider them to be more reliable that what Leica says in the brochure?

Not until after September 9th.  Do you like your words with salsa?

[BJL]

My sources are Kodak's public documents in the last year or so related to sensor development for (quoting the Kodak documents) "a partner with very high image quality requirements".

We are getting somewhere; can you give me links to those public documents? My request for sources is a real question, not rhetorical, since a great number of claims stated as facts in forums are nothing more than speculations or "imaginative interpretations" of the facts. Do you not think it possible that Kodak might refer to Hasselblad as "a partner with very high image quality requirements"? I agree Leica is also a good candidate for that description.

As to my reading comprehension, I can only comprehend what is available for me to read, which so far is still only the M9 brochure, which says only the following about the following about the IR filter:
"A newly developed sensor filter ensures the suppression of undesirable infrared light."
Nothing there about new IR filter technology developed specifically for the S2, or specifically for Leica.

[eronald]

As to my reading comprehension, I can only comprehend what is available for me to read, which so far is still only the M9 brochure, which says only the following about the following about the IR filter:
"A newly developed sensor filter ensures the suppression of undesirable infrared light."
Nothing there about new IR filter technology developed specifically for the S2, or specifically for Leica.

Nothing said about UV light either. Although newer Leica lens designs might have some UV-filtering built into the glass, I would carefully test the old lenses for the need of a filter.

Edmund

[telyt]

We are getting somewhere; can you give me links to those public documents? My request for sources is a real question, not rhetorical, since a great number of claims stated as facts in forums are nothing more than speculations or "imaginative interpretations" of the facts. Do you not think it possible that Kodak might refer to Hasselblad as "a partner with very high image quality requirements"? I agree Leica is also a good candidate for that description.

As to my reading comprehension, I can only comprehend what is available for me to read, which so far is still only the M9 brochure, which says only the following about the following about the IR filter:
"A newly developed sensor filter ensures the suppression of undesirable infrared light."
Nothing there about new IR filter technology developed specifically for the S2, or specifically for Leica.

Sorry, I don't collect documents for the sake of winning arguments on the internet.  That the partner is Leica was confirmed to me privately, I do not feel comfortable revealing the source.

[simplify]

The M9 is an exciting small camera, and if the sensor resolves in the same way the M8 sensor did, then I reckon the enlargments made from the M9 will be similar to if not better than a 25 megapixel canon or nikon dslr.

[EricWHiss]

Anyone know why the S2's high ISO limit is 1250 instead of the 1600 or higher number bounced around at PMA?
And if the the M9 uses similar sensor technology will it also only go to ISO 1250?

Sorry just read the M9 pdf brochure that's floating around -  this indicates high limit of 2500.  So if true, then why can't the S2 do this and what are the differences between their sensors?

[bcooter]

The M9 is an exciting small camera, and if the sensor resolves in the same way the M8 sensor did, then I reckon the enlargments made from the M9 will be similar to if not better than a 25 megapixel canon or nikon dslr.

That's all well and good, but a note to Leica.  For this or any camera they introduce to have any real professional validity, they must address the past issues with the M-8, IR, focus, white balance, tethering software that works, etc. etc. etc.

I love my M-8 but would never, ever, ever rely on it solely for a paying project, because I know what it can do, I also know what it might do and the might is the problem.

I love that Leica continues, I like the fact that a real camera maker is in charge of making real cameras, but if they want to make a product that people take to war, even if that war is a white studio with problematic celebreties, then they need to address usability and reliability and do it in an upfront manner.

BC

[Slough]

That's all well and good, but a note to Leica.  For this or any camera they introduce to have any real professional validity, they must address the past issues with the M-8, IR, focus, white balance, tethering software that works, etc. etc. etc.

I love my M-8 but would never, ever, ever rely on it solely for a paying project, because I know what it can do, I also know what it might do and the might is the problem.

I love that Leica continues, I like the fact that a real camera maker is in charge of making real cameras, but if they want to make a product that people take to war, even if that war is a white studio with problematic celebreties, then they need to address usability and reliability and do it in an upfront manner.

BC

There is a steep learning curve with digital technology especially when compared to film, and that punishes small companies such as Leica, despite the excellence of their past products, and many current ones. I guess tests will show how much Leica have learnt, and how much they still have to learn. And it can't be easy having to partner with another company to both design and manufacture the sensor.

[BJL]

[Speaking of Leica] And it can't be easy having to partner with another company to both design and manufacture the sensor.

I think this "problem" is often overstated; sometimes it makes sense to do what you do best, and outsource the rest. For example, Nikon does quite well using outsourced sensors in most of its DSLRs, and even Canon outsources most of it sensors, the ones in most of its compacts.

[pschefz]

That's all well and good, but a note to Leica.  For this or any camera they introduce to have any real professional validity, they must address the past issues with the M-8, IR, focus, white balance, tethering software that works, etc. etc. etc.

I love my M-8 but would never, ever, ever rely on it solely for a paying project, because I know what it can do, I also know what it might do and the might is the problem.

I love that Leica continues, I like the fact that a real camera maker is in charge of making real cameras, but if they want to make a product that people take to war, even if that war is a white studio with problematic celebreties, then they need to address usability and reliability and do it in an upfront manner.

BC

i believe leica has learned their lesson with the m8....and it seems now that the m9 has been out in the wild (in the hands of photographers) for quite some time....i guess they were waiting to announce it on the magic date?!....either way....
also consider that the first sensor they used was an older kodak model which i doubt they had made for them....many first cameras had problems like these....an none had some many obstacles.....first of which is size of the body......

the m9 is truly a miracle....olympus has been very proud about their ep1.....nothing compared to the m9....at almost the same size....

but as a m8 owner i tend to agree with you....in the beginning it was an adventure....towards the end though they had it all worked out...mine worked perfectly (with the right filters...)

also: aperture worked great tethered with the m8....

i am pretty sure we will see reviews and raw dngs tomorrow.....and i am prepared to be blown away.....my only real problem with the m8 was the crop factor and the just a little too small pixel count....18mpix and a couple of years in sensor technology later....

hey but maybe they will blow it with the price....

[Slough]

I think this "problem" is often overstated; sometimes it makes sense to do what you do best, and outsource the rest. For example, Nikon does quite well using outsourced sensors in most of its DSLRs, and even Canon outsources most of it sensors, the ones in most of its compacts.

There is a difference between buying someone elses sensor, and outsourcing the manufacturing. Nikon designs its own sensors, possibly with input from Sony, we just don't know, and then outsources manufacturing.

[BJL]

Nikon designs its own sensors, possibly with input from Sony, we just don't know, and then outsources manufacturing.

Most Nikon DSLR's use sensors designed primarily by Sony, though in some cases with input from Nikon. In current models, only the 12MP FX D3/D700 sensor is a pure Nikon design, while the D3X, D300, D90, D5000 etc. use Sony sensors that are also used in Sony (and sometimes Pentax and now Leica) cameras. That outsourcing is probably a cost advantage, increasing total sales of the sensor and so improving economies of scale. Canon also exploits the economies of scale of outsourcing most of its compact camera sensors, thus sharing R&D costs will all other users of those sensors.

The Leica X takes the same cost saving route of using an existing relatively high volume sensor. The M9 and S2 use unique and inherently expensive sensors, but they still share the costs of the basic sensor cell design with many other Kodak sensors made for Hasseleblad etc. This is probably far less expensive than Leica setting up its own sensor design capabilities.

[Slough]

Most Nikon DSLR's use sensors designed primarily by Sony, though in some cases with input from Nikon.

What is your source for that statement? I think the current cameras use basically the D300 sensor (which I understand to be a Sony-Nikon collaboration made by Sony) and the D3x sensor (same thing) and the D3/D700 one which is a Nikon design outsourced to an unknown chip fab.

Note: Minor edit to correct facts.

[teddillard]

Most Nikon DSLR's use sensors designed primarily by Sony, though in some cases with input from Nikon. In current models, only the 12MP FX D3/D700 sensor is a pure Nikon design, while the D3X, D300, D90, D5000 etc. use Sony sensors that are also used in Sony (and sometimes Pentax and now Leica) cameras. That outsourcing is probably a cost advantage, increasing total sales of the sensor and so improving economies of scale. Canon also exploits the economies of scale of outsourcing most of its compact camera sensors, thus sharing R&D costs will all other users of those sensors.

The Leica X takes the same cost saving route of using an existing relatively high volume sensor. The M9 and S2 use unique and inherently expensive sensors, but they still share the costs of the basic sensor cell design with many other Kodak sensors made for Hasseleblad etc. This is probably far less expensive than Leica setting up its own sensor design capabilities.

Maybe all this sensor talk is interesting, but frankly I'm more concerned with the files.  As I said to a friend of mine lately, I've seen 6 different companies process files from the old Phillips 6MP CCD, and I saw 6 different results.  It's not the sensor.  It's how you process the data.  Also, now that we know the Leica is a Kodak sensor (for sure), the fact that it is truly a proprietary sensor is a little suspect, too.  It could well be that the microlens shift they do is enough to claim it's a Leica-designed CCD, on a fairly standard configuration chip.  

What.  

Ever.  

I just got done processing some shots from the M9, shot today, by me, at ISO 800.  Whoever makes the sensor, and whoever is building the processing, it doesn't matter.  I find the files unacceptable.  If you want to see them, screen shots at 100% are here.

I'm sorry, normally I try to temper my statements a bit more, but this entire hoopla over this camera is simply a joke, and a very expensive one.  To top off the release webcast with a statement from a musician...  that did it for me, and I LIKE Seal.  I'd LOVE for Leica to put as much time and money into making a good file as they do selling sizzle.

[BJL]

What is your source for that statement? I think the current cameras use basically the D300 sensor (which I understand to be a Sony-Nikon collaboration made by Sony) and the D3x sensor (same thing) and the D3/D700 one which is a Nikon design outsourced to an unknown chip fab.

Correct on those models, but you are overlooking the less expensive models that are the vast majority of DSLR's made by Nikon! Never heard of the D5000, D3000, D90, D60 or D40?

A. Sensors designed entirely by Sony or by Sony with input from Nikon:
D3X --- Sony sensor as in A900, A850
D300, D300s, D90, D5000 --- 12MP Sony EXMOR CMOS (possibly with some Nikon input, but I have not read that claimed by Nikon)
D3000, D60 --- 10MP Sony CCD (possibly with some Nikon input) as in Sony A230, A330, and various older models.
D40: 6MP CCD, designed by Sony with some Nikon input as far as I know, previously used in various Konica-Minolta and Pentax bodies and a lot of Nikon models.
[Earlier models D100, D70, D50: as for D40, while the D1, D1H and D1X used CCDs of Sony/Nikon designs, I believe.]

B. Sensor designed by Nikon alone
D3/D700 --- Nikon CMOS
[Earlier model D2H use a Nikon design neither CMOS nor CCD.]

Fairly clearly the vast majority of Nikon's current (and past) DSLR sales come from list A, using Sony or Sony/Nikon designs.

[Slough]

Correct on those models, but you are overlooking the less expensive models that are the vast majority of DSLR's made by Nikon! Never heard of the D5000, D3000, D90, D60 or D40?

A. Sensors designed entirely by Sony or by Sony with input from Nikon:
D3X --- Sony sensor as in A900, A850
D300, D300s, D90, D5000 --- 12MP Sony EXMOR CMOS (possibly with some Nikon input, but I have not read that claimed by Nikon)
D3000, D60 --- 10MP Sony CCD (possibly with some Nikon input) as in Sony A230, A330, and various older models.
D40: 6MP CCD, designed by Sony with some Nikon input as far as I know, previously used in various Konica-Minolta and Pentax bodies and a lot of Nikon models.
[Earlier models D100, D70, D50: as for D40, while the D1, D1H and D1X used CCDs of Sony/Nikon designs, I believe.]

B. Sensor designed by Nikon alone
D3/D700 --- Nikon CMOS
[Earlier model D2H use a Nikon design neither CMOS nor CCD.]

Fairly clearly the vast majority of Nikon's current (and past) DSLR sales come from list A, using Sony or Sony/Nikon designs.

"but you are overlooking the less expensive models "
No. I said "I think the current cameras use basically the D300 sensor " which means the D300, the D90 and the D5000 and maybe others, I lose track. I thought that was so well known it was not worth writing it out in full.

Otherwise your information is incorrect, and without sources.

The D3x sensor is manufactured by Sony, but results from a collaboration between Nikon and Sony. You have no knowledge about who did what, unless you can cite sources, which I doubt.

The D300 and many other cameras (which you list) use a sensor manufactured by Sony, and designed by Sony and Nikon. That is well known, though no-one outside the design teams knows how much each partner contributed. You claim to know, but you do not cite sources. There are statements online that indicate that Nikon supplied key design skills. But quite what, I know not.

I have no idea about the D40 sensor.

Earlier professional Nikon digital cameras used Nikon designs. You forget that Nikon was one of the first companies to commercialise digital SLR cameras, until Canon overtook them for many years. It is quite possible that they lacked some key expertise which was later supplied by Sony. Again, we do not know. And nor do you.

I have no idea what each partner contributes, although Sony does the fabrication. The fact that Sony do not supply anyone else surely tells us a lot.

Regarding the idea that it is best to outsource design, the truth is that if you can design in house, you have more freedom, rather than having to rely on others. It means that you can invest on the long term and innovate based on your own needs. You don't have to wait until a third party produces something. If you look at the latest Leica M9 examples, ISO 1600 is awful. (I accept that the first images might not be representative.) The hard bit to get, and which differentiates is intellectual capital.

[Slough]

Maybe all this sensor talk is interesting, but frankly I'm more concerned with the files.  As I said to a friend of mine lately, I've seen 6 different companies process files from the old Phillips 6MP CCD, and I saw 6 different results.  It's not the sensor.  It's how you process the data.  Also, now that we know the Leica is a Kodak sensor (for sure), the fact that it is truly a proprietary sensor is a little suspect, too.  It could well be that the microlens shift they do is enough to claim it's a Leica-designed CCD, on a fairly standard configuration chip.  

What.  

Ever.  

I just got done processing some shots from the M9, shot today, by me, at ISO 800.  Whoever makes the sensor, and whoever is building the processing, it doesn't matter.  I find the files unacceptable.  If you want to see them, screen shots at 100% are here.

I'm sorry, normally I try to temper my statements a bit more, but this entire hoopla over this camera is simply a joke, and a very expensive one.  To top off the release webcast with a statement from a musician...  that did it for me, and I LIKE Seal.  I'd LOVE for Leica to put as much time and money into making a good file as they do selling sizzle.

Hello Ted. In general what you say makes sense. But I do think the sensor matters i.e. the actual physical hardware, as that determines the base noise level and so on.

How come you got to play with an M9? Sorry if you said this elsewhere.