Sunday, June 30, 2024

LEICA – MAKER OF THE FIRST EVER SLR AUTOFOCUS SYSTEM


Early autoficus test module from 1963


By Heinz Richter

Leica is often criticized for not offering autofocus for the Leica M.  Many feel that this is really the final step necessary to make the M fully competitive with the top models from other manufacturers.  However, that issue is covered by several other cameras within the Leica system.  It is doubtful that there will ever be an autofucus Leica M camera, because the heart of the M system has always been the rangefinder.

It is a actually a little known fact that Ernst Leitz Wetzlar GmbH (the name Leica Camera used to be called) was the first company to develop a working autofocus system.  Between 1960 and 1973 the company patented a number of autofocus technologies, and then showed that technology at the Photokina in 1976 and 1978 as the Leitz Correfot.  A completely operational prototype was shown to the public at the Leica Historical Society of America (LHSA) meeting in Minneapolis in Fall of 1980. 

I had the opportunity to see some of these early autofocus cameras during my recent visit to Leica in Wetzlar during a private tour of the Leica archives.

 

The common CdS light meter cells at that time proved to display also a sensitivity to variations in contrast.  It is a known fact that an image displays the highest contrast when in focus.  By using two CdS cells it was possible to accurately determine the highest contrast level and thus accurate focus.  The system was somewhat similar in concept to today's phase-detection systems - except that it required a vibrating diffraction grating to work accurately.

Early test module from 1963

The first completely operational test model built into the shell of a Leicaflex SL2, renamed CK1.  All sensors necessary for the automatic focusing were part of the camera.  It was designed to use the conventional Leica R lenses on the market at that time.  The system required the lenses to be focused manually with the help of focus verification via two LEDs on top of the viewfinder.  But like the camera shown at the LHSA meeting in Minneapolis, the Leicaflex SL2 was also shown with a servo motor equipped 50mm f/1.4 Summilux R which provided true autofocus operation and made electronics-aided manual focusing unnecessary.

Very early Model "Electronic Working (But not OK)"

 

The servo motor was connected to the lens via a gear that engaged with the ridges engraved in the focusing ring of the lens.  With other words, it actually turned the conventional focusing ring to effect automatic focusing.  Leica chose this approach at the time because they felt it was necessary to utilize their very precise focusing mounts to maintain the mechanical and optical integrity of their lenses.

At that time it was generally thought that autofocus systems suffered from low-light insensitivity.  I  was able to use the camera and I can verify that the system worked perfectly in even very low light conditions and no manual refocusing was necessary at all.  However, the camera did display one serious drawback, very high power consumption.  The prototype’s servo motor used lots of energy which was supplied by a battery pack attached to the bottom of the camera.  It was made from the housing of a Leica R3 motor drive unit.  The six batteries proved to be good for only one hour of operation.

Later 19180 test model based on a Leica R4 MOT

Careful inspection of the lens revealed meter couplings for the Leica R3 and R4 cameras.  These were utilized in a follow up model, based on the Leica R4 Mot prototype with special Correfot prism. The Leica R4 Mot prototype was replaced by the R4 Mot CK3 for which Leica also produced an auto-focus prototype lens Summilux 1.4/50mm

In 1983 Nikon presented an evolution of its flagship camera, the Nikon F3AF with its viewfinder DX1 and its two lenses, AF 80mm f2.8 and AF 200mm f3.5 ED.  Although never officially confirmed, it is generally assumed that Nikon purchased the manufacturing rights for the Correfot prism from Leitz  to develop the F3 AF. 

 

We must applaud Leitz’ decision not to forego their standard focusing mount for the flimsy autofocus systems that were marketed in the 80s and 90s.  Virtually without exception, those were so loose that the moving section of any of those lenses could easily be wiggled back and force by a considerable margin.  That of course is far removed from the 1/100mm (1/2500 inch) precision of the Leica focusing mounts.  Other companies chose that approach because it was the only means at the time to make the focusing parts of their lenses move easily enough to allow the use of rather small autofocus motors with low enough power consumption to make them practical with common use.

Unfortunately Leica never marketed their autofocus cameras thus missing out on having been the first company to do so.  That honor goes to Minolta, who introduced the Minolta 7000 in 1980.


At that time Leica had a technology exchange agreement with Minolta.  The Minolta 7000 would have never seen the light of day without the Leitz Correfoot technology.

Although it never made it into production, it appears that the Correfot serves its duty in the German Leopard tanks to this day.


For other articles on this blog please click on Blog Archive in the column to the right

To comment or to read comments please scroll past the ads below.


All ads present items of interest to Leica owners.

_______________________________________________________________________

EDDYCAM - the first and only ergonomic elk-skin camera strap     
 www.eddycam.com        

      


Click on image to enlarge
Please make payment via PayPal to GMP Photography

Click on image to enlarge
Please make payment via PayPal to GMP Photography

Click on image to enlarge
Please make payment via PayPal to GMP Photography


Wednesday, June 26, 2024

WHAT DO WE GAIN WITH A HIGH RESOLITION SENSOR - ARE THEY NECESSARY?


 


By Heinz Richter

A few years ago camera manufacturers created the impression that a higher resolution (more pixels) sensors would automatically result in better photographs.  That, however, ignored other important aspects of a high quality digital file, like noise, ISO range, dynamic range, exposure latitude, color accuracy and more.

It became obvious that a higher pixel count would inevitably need to be paid for with a whole lot of shortcomings and the pixel race definitely slowed down.  Most manufacturers settled on a full frame resolution of about 25 megapixels.

But a few camera manufacturers have introduced cameras with a higher pixel count, the latest example being the Leica M11 with its 60 megapixel sensor.  Obviously it cannot be argued that a higher resolution sensor will result in sharper images, as long as there are no other, image degrading side effects and as long as the lens on the camera is capable of dealing with that high a resolution.  With other words, if a lens is only sharp enough to adequately deal with 25 megapixels, then all else is a waste.

But what is possibly gained by a higher resolution sensor?  The main advantage lies in the fact that it allows for bigger enlargements or more severe cropping, both without loss of detail in the resulting image.  It allows to take full advantage of the capabilities of our Leica lenses.

 
Full frame

 
Cropped section of the above image
Leica M8 (10.3 megapixel), 28mm f/2.8 Elmarit

Special applications notwithstanding, how big an enlargement or how much cropping capabilities do we really need?  This is a question everyone has to answer for him/herself.

So what are different camera sensors actually have to offer in this respect?  Just some simple math offers some insight here.

It is generally accepted that with perfect vision, the human eye can resolve 10 lpm (lines per millimeter).  However, that is under ideal conditions and a figure of 7 lpm is the generally accepted more realistic figure.

The sensor in the Leica M10 has a resolution of 5952 x 3992 pixels while the Leica M10-R resolution is 7864x5200.  That means, without any other resolution deteriorating factors, the M10 can render enlargements of 85 x 57 cm (33.5 x 22.5 inch) based on the more realistic resolution of 7 lpm for the human eye.  With the M10-R that increases to 112 x 74 cm (44 x 29 inch) and with the M11 135 x 90 cm (53 x 35 inch).  Those are impressive figures and they bring up the question of how much do we need.

 
Full frame

 
Cropped section of the above image
Leica M8, 28mm f/2.8 Elmarit

 
Full frame

 
Cropped section of the above image
Even a relatively low resolution of 5 megapixel can render quite acceptable results
Leica Digilux 2

The biggest enlargement I have hanging in my house is 28 x 22 inch.  That is quite an exception.  The limiting factor for me is available wall space.  After all, why make an enlargement if it is not displayed?  The capabilities of the Leica M10 would have been capable of making that enlargement, as a matter of fact, another aspect of this discussion must be viewing distance.

The more realistic figure of 7 lpm is based on a viewing distance of approximately 12 inches.  While that is realistic for small prints, like the common 8 x10 inch enlargement, that is unrealistic for much larger prints.  There we usually view a picture from a greater distance which further reduces the resolution requirements.  With other words, an even bigger enlargement would look perfectly sharp, even is the resolution was less than 7 lpm.

Of course cropping requires greater care if the resulting enlargements are of a more reasonable size.  These are viewed at a closer viewing distance and thus would reveal any shortcomings in resolution a lot sooner.

Full frame of raw image file

 
Cropped section of the above image
Leica M240, 28mm f/2.8 Elmarit

I rarely use image files straight from the camera.  I have found that most images can be considerably improved by post processing.  Subsequently another limiting factor might be the capabilities of our computer systems.  If it becomes difficult for a computer to handle the much larger files of a higher resolution camera, and if the higher resolution is rarely, if ever fully taken advantage of, it becomes further questionable if it is worth to consider such a camera.

Full frame

 
Cropped section of the above image
Leica M240, 28mm f/2.8 Elmarit

 
Full Frame

Cropped section of the above image
Leica M240, 50mm f/2 Summicron

 
Full frame

 
Cropped section of the above image
Leica M240, 28mm f/2.8 Elmarit

Full frame

 
Cropped section of the above image
Leica M240, 50mm f/2 Summicron

Of course, other individuals’ mileage might vary in this respect, but for me, the 24 megapixel resolution of my camera has served me quite well and I see little reason to change.  On the other hand, M10-R and the M11  have definite advantages in terms of cropping.  Being that the Leica M rangefinder cameras don't offer zoom lenses, cropping to the field of view of longer lenses instead of changing to a different lens, can be done to quite an extend without sacrificing overall quality of the results.  This has allowed me to substantially limit the need to change lenses while shooting.  It also allows to overcome the relatively limited close up capabilities of the Leica M cameras to some degree.

But is that enough to warrant the purchase of the M10-R or M11?   If it was just the higher resolution, that is not enough for my needs.  However, the M10-R has proven to offer some other advantages.   Due to a new, exclusive sensor architecture, per-pixel light sensitivity has been enhanced, resulting in an improvement to dynamic range and high ISO performance of around one full stop versus the M10 and M10-P.  This has been further improved with the M11. It impresses even more when it comes to dynamic range. Like most Leica cameras there is massive amounts of shadow detail, especially at lower ISO settings. But unlike those other cameras, the M11 can extract details from some extremely bright highlights.


Original shot, underexposed to retain highlight detail in the bright sky.
Photograph by David Farkas, Leica Store Miami

Same file as the first, after processing in Adobe Lightroom. The highlights have been pulled down to enhance 
cloud detail  while the dark foreground has been lightened to open up all the shadow information. 
Photograph by David Farkas, Leica Store Miami

The Leica M10-R and the M11 have undergone considerable testing and their advantages are well documented.  If those are sufficient to warrant switching to the M10-R or m11 is a decision that everyone has to make him or herself. I still occasionally use my Leica Digilux 2 which, even with its 5 megapixel sensor, is still capable to render quite acceptable results.  Of course my Leica M240 is lightyears ahead and I can well wait what the Leica future beyond the Leica M11 will look like.


For other articles on this blog please click on Blog Archive in the column to the right

To comment or to read comments please scroll past the ads below.


All ads present items of interest to Leica owners.

_______________________________________________________________________

EDDYCAM - the first and only ergonomic elk-skin camera strap     
 www.eddycam.com        

      


Click on image to enlarge
Please make payment via PayPal to GMP Photography

Click on image to enlarge
Please make payment via PayPal to GMP Photography

Click on image to enlarge
Please make payment via PayPal to GMP Photography