[Leica] The T Stops here

[jhnichols at lighttube.net (Jim Nichols)]

Mark,

The same argument holds for some of us who still prefer the Oly E-1, which 
uses a 5MP CCD, even though it is 4/3 format.  It produces great color and 
matches up quite well with older Leica-R glass.

Jim Nichols
Tullahoma, TN USA
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mark Rabiner" <mark at rabinergroup.com>
To: "Leica Users Group" <lug at leica-users.org>
Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2010 1:47 AM
Subject: [Leica] The T Stops here


> The notorious D40 and the D40x my primary side camera for the past 3.3 
> years
> uses a CCD not a CMOS sensor as has been impugned. Nikon Was slow to 
> CMOS.*
> THE D60 is or was also CCD sensed.
> In my past 4 days with my new nefarious D700 I'm given my first taste of
> CMOS sensing. the format size I sense is the main influence in the results 
> I
> seem to be getting but I've severely cropped images smaller than the 1.5
> crop format and seen huge advantages anyway. Also the thousand natural
> setting on this camera which I try to figure out every day of which I've
> been previously unfamiliar. Its like I'm still unboxing the camera with
> every setting I figure out what it does.
> 4 years in digital R&D is a lifetime.
>
> On a slightly related note if anyone is interested the configuration of 
> the
> older cheaper Nikon D40 (not X) 6 mp camera gives an unexpected benefit..
> Here is the cheaper camera in the Nikon and whole camera case a few years
> back of starter DSLR's (no live view) but the lower MP's of 6 instead of 
> 10
> gave it unexpected flavors.
> It made for bigger pixel sites which made for higher usable ISO's with 
> less
> noise... Explaining why it went to 3200 the D40x which came later and more
> wildly used only went to 1600.
> More pixels make for more noise. In effect more pixels can more for less
> functionality.
> The D40 synced at an amazing 1/500th of a second. I think that's a side
> note.
> Its worth finding now as with every year the photodiode sites just get
> smaller and smaller the the dumbly jacked up MP's. Perhaps Leitax a 
> smaller
> wide R lens to a D40 if there is one. You cant automatically focus most
> Nikon glass with it anyway its the first with no internal focusing motor.
> The Leitax ring would probably cost you the price of the used camera 
> itself.
>
> So a conservative choice in MP megapixel choice can be smart and can be 
> more
> a defining thing than what the myriad issues under the hood might 
> indicate.
> We pay more for the newer jacked up pixel count camera out in time for the
> holiday and suffer. If our output is mainly uploading jpegs to online
> galleries 10 mp's is overkill as is 6 mp's. What you will see on the 
> screen
> is noise. And a lower mp sensor design with bigger sites gives you less
> noise. And I'm sure a richer fuller nicer happier result.
> Less down rezzing makes Jack a happier boy.
> ___
>
> *
> People think when they see "EXPEED image processor" that it is paired 
> along
> with a CMOS sensor; it ain't true.
>
> The image processor is the Hippo in the kitchen in discussions about CMOS
> vs. CCD as its the second third of the equation of the total cameras
> electronic design. The sensor choice is dependent on its harmony with the
> image processing electronics able to back it up in effect like a backing
> layer. Not literally.
>
> Complicating sensor issues is the fact that there are other layers in play
> affecting the total effect notably the unglorified Bayer Patter filter 
> which
> we dare not mention.
> - the layer under that is the Micro lens layer which is a double layer on 
> my
> camera but I think that's common. How these twin micro lenses are 
> converged
> above each photodiode  to gather light and focus it in there is a major
> contributing factor to the quality of the final image file, and its one of
> many.
> And positioned in FRONT of the sensor is the inglorious optical low pass
> filter. I OLPF. Lowering the resolution so a balance must be struck - the
> sampling frequency of the imager has to be matched correctly - moir? in 
> most
> cases is just not an option. The OLPF layer has a nefarious number of non
> sequitur coated layers which do any number of unrelated things. So its a
> many layered layer with a coat of many coatings.
> An anti static layer made from Indium tin oxide; certainly impervious to 
> all
> the solvents you guys are squirting on it; that's one.
> An anti reflective coating to deal with flare effects and ghosting that's
> two. IR and UV balancing coats of many colors that's three. Three coating
> layers.
>
> When shall we three meet again in thunder lighting or in rain!
>
> Check out
> http://www.dalsa.com/corp/markets/CCD_vs_CMOS.aspx
> " Both CCD's and CMOS imagers can offer excellent imaging performance when
> designed properly. CCD's have traditionally provided the performance
> benchmarks in the photographic, scientific, and industrial applications 
> that
> demand the highest image quality (as measured in quantum efficiency and
> noise) at the expense of system size. CMOS imagers offer more integration
> (more functions on the chip), lower power dissipation (at the chip level),
> and the possibility of smaller system size, but they have often required
> tradeoffs between image quality and device cost. "
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --------------------
> Mark William Rabiner
> Photography
> http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/lugalrabs/
> mark at rabinergroup.com
> Cars:   http://tinyurl.com/2f7ptxb
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>
>