matt mikulla: Don't like it? Don't buy it.
This lens could be a lot of fun. Fun like: put it on your camera and go make some images!
Not sure why they would release this for just Leica right now. Why not Sony, Olympus and Fuji X mount?
@Papi61,You're right. And there are so many cheap tricks to make weird images rather than buying such expensive gadgets that will end into a drawer after a dozen of shots. But these guys at Lomography surely know there are enough people that are pleased and proud to shoot crap with expensive gear to make business with. I do shoot crap usually (see my gallery) but with cheap gear so I have no regrets... ;-)
bigdaddave: Yuck, rich man's plaything gets an upgrade
If "Go to luxury" means rebranding an ordinary product with a prestigious name, then it can be a disaster. But if that means designing high-end products requiring a high level of know-how and expertise, then it will be harder for the competition to follow...However I am wondering, when Leica asks for more than $7000, what is the price to pay for the Leica logo ? 2/3 of the overall price ?
Papi61: Cut the bottom of a Coke bottle and fix it to your lens hood via rubber bands. You'll get the very same results.
I just saved you $350. You're welcome. :)
No need to carry this equipement in the field. Just look at your pictures through a Coke bootle when you are at home.
WARNING ! : do not forget to drink the Coke first, damages may occur to your pants...
Karroly: Is this oil spots ?Did not Canon infringe a Nikon's patent on using lubricated sensors ?
I feel free to laugh off ANY QA problems as long as they do not affect my camera... ;-)
PhotoKhan: Given how visually obvious the problem seems to be, I have only one question:Are there ANY quality control checks at Canon?
One should read "may look" in my comment above...
If it is a contamination issue, the sensor may lock clean when controlled at the end of the manufacturing process. Normally, contamination issues should be seen when performing environemental tests during the qualification phase of the design.But no environemental tests are done on all the units that are to be sold because it takes to much time...and the units are no longer new ! From time to time, a sample may be picked up on the production line to check if it passes environemental tests, but I must say that in my company we do not do that...So, something wrong may have happened on the production line AFTER the qualification tests... And unfortunately, the consequences will be seen in the field.
Is this oil spots ?Did not Canon infringe a Nikon's patent on using lubricated sensors ?
Karroly: You forget to say that increasing the diameter of the "tubes" is like waiting longer under the rain : this will increase and make more equal the number of raindrops caught by each tube, thus reducing the "signal-to-noise" ratio. For sensors, it means, putting aside electronic noise, bigger pixels will catch more photons and average the random nature of light you are talking about here.
This is why, given the same resolution, a big sensor with big pixels will ALWAYS be better in (extremely ?) low light than a small sensor, even though there were no electronic (or thermal) noise at all...
However, in practice, the true question is, and your article does not give an answer, under which pixel size and scene brightness, does a pixel catch too few photons so that the difference between adjacent pixels becomes noticable ?Is this "noise" greater or smaller than the electronic or thermal noise ?In other terms, do we really have to care with the random nature of photons with today sensors ?
Maybe... ;-)I would like to clarify two things.- I never said it is nonsense to compare SENSORS with different resolution but PICTURES which is not the same. You are free to compare whatever sensors you want as long as you use a rigorous comparison protocol producing meaningful results.- Thus, when downsampling picture B in my example above, there are several algorithms available (bilinear, bicubic, weighted average, nearest, Lanczos, Hanning, Gaussian, etc...). Some are better for upsampling, some for downsampling, some produce unwanted artifacts, and all of them a more or less sharp picture, all this may have an impact on the perceived noise. So you have to choose the one that produces a result as close as possible to picture B, in terms of sharpness and resolution, before comparing the noise.
@ HumanTarget,I exactly said this "And comparing the noise level of two pictures that do not have the same resolution, in other words the same level of details is just nonsense."You have to carefully read every word, please...If the result of such a comparison shows that picture A with the low resolution has less noise than picture B with the high resolution what can you concluse ? Which camera is better in low light ? You cannot tell it... This is exactly why I say it is nonsense. You have to change your comparison protocol.You have to downsample (and not downsize) the picture B down to the detail level of picture A to tell it.... And the downsampled picture may then be less noisy than picture A... or not ! But finally you will know which camera to take to shoot in low light as long as the resolution of camera A is enough for you.
@ HumanTarget,Whatever the size of sensor A and sensor B, if they have the same resolution, then combining pixels with sensor B will produce a lower resolution picture than sensor A uncombined. Is it that hard to understand ?
"Do you always view/print images in proportion to their resolution?"
I have never said that the print must me done proportional to their resolution. I said exactly the opposite : at the same elargement (that is to say paper size).
"You never resize images for a particular output?"
And what is an enlargement if not a resize for a particular output ?So please, before commenting, read carefully...and think
"I think you mean increasing the signal-to-noise ratio?"Yes, you are right.
"But there are more of the smaller pixels, so they can be combined,..."No, you are wrong because you do not compare apple with apple. And the apple here is resolution. My hypothesis was : "given the SAME RESOLUTION, a big sensor with big pixels..."So combining pixels with the small sensor will decrease the resolution compared to the big sensor... And comparing the noise level of two pictures that do not have the same resolution, in other words the same level of details is just nonsense.
@ Richard Butler,"Using a larger test tube is just like adding together all the water collected in the smaller tubes. From a shot noise point of view there's no difference."You are right if we compare two sensors of the same size with a different pixel count and thus a different resolution. But this is not my hypothesis here...
Karroly: "As a result, when you shoot two different sized sensors with the same shutter speed, f-number and ISO, the camera with the smaller sensor has to produce the same final image brightness.. from less total light."
I am sorry, I do not agree at all.
Please, let me put this another way. If I use an F:2.8 FF lens on a APS-C body, it is still an F:2.8 lens and the picture taken (at same aperture/speed/ISO AND PIXEL SIZE) is just a crop of the FF sensor. The APS-C area of the FF sensor gets the same amount of light (either total or per area unit) than the APS-C sensor and thus the signal-to-noise ratio is the same...
@ Matthew Gore,We are right from a technical point of view, but I am afraid we are not from a photographer's one. Assuming we have an FF camera with a 28mm lens to compare to an APS-C one with a sensor that is a crop of the FF one (same pixel size, technology, and pixel-to-pixel noise) fitted with a 18mm lens (28mm FF equivalent). I take a shot of the same scene (same location, field of view and camera parameters) with each camera and then, as a photographer, I print the shots on the same type/size of paper. The FF shot will be downsized more than the APS-C one to fit the paper, leading to more pixel merging/binning, resulting in lower visible noise when viewed at the same distance.With an equivalent workflow, the FF camera produces a cleaner result. Moreover, should the FF camera have the same pixel count than the APCS-C one, the result is the same because then, the bigger pixels will collect more photons and the noise will be partially averaged by the FF sensor itself.
riman: I do believe this is a true statement of what is happening as I have seen a huge amount of noise in underexposed shots at very low ISO
So can you just go to the answer section in the back of the book and tell us,,,if we want less noise in our shots should we shoot raw and add an additional F stop of exposure..half stop or what? or is this something we should do only in low light situations?
I am happy you tried it for me. I am lazy too... ;-)
Are you lazy ? ;-)The answer is at your reach : just try ! It is safe...
@ Richard Butler,I don't know if you will talk about dynamic range later, but the analogy of the tubes and rain shows that a tube with a smaller aperture will not overflow quicker because the volume of the tube is proportional to the aperture. Only the depth sets the overflow threshold. Thus a small photosite should not blow highlights quicker than a big one, am I wrong ? Or, unlike the tubes, is the "depth" of a photosite linked to its area ?
@ Richard Butler,This was just a misunderstanding. I made the comparison at pixel-level, a rather "technical" approach (I am an engineer before being a photographer, you know...) when you make the comparison at the same enlargment size, which I did not catch at first : this is the photographer (and right) approach.. ;-) Then, the sensor size matters more than the pixel size.However, as sensors are not gapless, given the same sensor size, increasing the pixel size reduces the area used by gaps and increases the active area of the sensor and its ability to collect more photons. This should produce a cleaner image for the same print size. Is it something that you have observed ?
You forget to say that increasing the diameter of the "tubes" is like waiting longer under the rain : this will increase and make more equal the number of raindrops caught by each tube, thus reducing the "signal-to-noise" ratio. For sensors, it means, putting aside electronic noise, bigger pixels will catch more photons and average the random nature of light you are talking about here.
"As a result, when you shoot two different sized sensors with the same shutter speed, f-number and ISO, the camera with the smaller sensor has to produce the same final image brightness.. from less total light."
justmeMN: For Nikon, Sony makes customized sensors with preinstalled oil spots. :-)
Nikon knows sensors need to be lubricated for better results...
Roland Karlsson: Hmmmmm ... I was naive enough to assume the conventional BSI sensors were stacked like it is described in the article. I thought that was the entire idea behind BSI, not to let the circuitry decrease the real image area.
Me too...Did we miss something ?