I could find no Leica-provided information on the topic. Lots of speculative discussion by Joe Average and his cousins.
I did find this information just now https://www.overgaard.dk/leica_S2_dSLR.html
...mentions 'sensor bit = 16'
If it truly carries 16 bit data width, the importance of employing ETTR would be lessened, but nevertheless it would mamimize data content for detail in the shadows.
It’s interesting you mentioned that.
Using the ETTR method isn’t as pronounced as I thought it would be…
I think the reason is that once converted to JPG, the ability to reproduce more subtelties of shade in the shadow areas of the scene are inherently limited by the JPG and also by our monitors and display hardware in our PC. The LED monitor is typically limited at 10 stops.
The MD just shoots RAW…
The MD just shoots RAW…
It’s interesting you mentioned that.
Using the ETTR method isn’t as pronounced as I thought it would be…
But RAW files are of no use except for viewing on your own monitor. They must be converted to a different format to print or insert into a page layout program (such as for making a book).
Say you quantize the value of the pixel in many bits but if your sensor is noise then the least significant bits values are not good.
And if you have an LCD monitor, it only can reproduce a DR of 9 stops, compared to recent LED monitors, further masking anything your camera might be able to record within its RAW file.
Not absolutely sure about this, but I believe the sensors are designed in Belgium (Antwerp--home of de Koninck Beer!) but manufactured in France (Grenoble).Hopefully Leica knows what they’re doing having their sensors made in Belgium…
Interesting…
Home of French fries.Not absolutely sure about this, but I believe the sensors are designed in Belgium (Antwerp--home of de Koninck Beer!) but manufactured in France (Grenoble).
The Nikon Z7ii shoots RAW and JPEG. I save both but only use RAW and archive the JPEG.
how does the SAME PRODUCT description from the same company have two different specifications both for number of bits allocated and in the Dynamic Range?!
It's of course unfortunate that such inconsistencies exist, but hey, they're sales brochures. I don't expect much technical accuracy from those. It's not like we're discussing a datasheet.
such stuff gets reviewed, lest errors creep in
View attachment 383515
View attachment 383516
My guess is that one source is optimistic w.r.t. DR - note the 'up to'. Measurement differences/criteria can play a role here as well. And one source refers to real bit resolution while the other mentions nominal data width.
It's of course unfortunate that such inconsistencies exist, but hey, they're sales brochures. I don't expect much technical accuracy from those. It's not like we're discussing a datasheet.
Sadly, DNA sometimes mutates. I am reminded of Volkswagen who published emission specifications for their diesel cars sold in the USA which turned out to be neither precise nor conservative. But then, it sounds like Volkswagen did not exactly let those errors "creep in" to their specifications... :-(Both sheets carry the label "Technical Data" I spent a lifetime involved in Product Marketing of high tech products, in several industries and product areas and such stuff gets reviewed, lest errors creep in. If such inconsistency got thru a German company offering a super premium product, that would surprise me ...not in the DNA of Germans in technical areas to be not precise, and be somewhat conservative in their claims. My German car tests by Car & Driver to be almost 1 second faster 0-60 mph than published spec.
Sadly, DNA sometimes mutates. I am reminded of Volkswagen who published emission specifications for their diesel cars sold in the USA which turned out to be neither precise nor conservative. But then, it sounds like Volkswagen did not exactly let those errors "creep in" to their specifications... :-(
Sadly it was not simply 'Marketing errors' but outright fraudulent misrepresentation of products to regulatory goals.
- VW equipped many of its diesel-powered vehicles with software that turned off emissions controls during normal driving conditions, but turned them on during emissions tests. This allowed the vehicles to pass emissions tests, but emit 40x more NOx emissions while driving.
Sadly, DNA sometimes mutates. I am reminded of Volkswagen who published emission specifications for their diesel cars sold in the USA which turned out to be neither precise nor conservative. But then, it sounds like Volkswagen did not exactly let those errors "creep in" to their specifications... :-
I’ll never send my Leica to a shop…I had a 1985 VW Scricroco and everytime I had an inspection I had to pay the shop twice. Once to tune it so that it would pass the inspection and then once afterward to make it runs right.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?