This is NOT surprise. While Konika-Minolta HAS stopped MAKING their own lenses they still are in the business to design lenses for others! And a brand new Japanese patent spotted by Egami shows how they are working on a 20mm f/2.8 lens designed for a small-sized curved 1/3.2 inch sensor. I guess that kind of sensor will find his way in future iPhones as first. Just recently Sony also patented a 35mm f/1.8 lens for a Full Frame sensor. I guess we are now really close to see such kind of sensors used on smartphones and high-end cameras.
The advantages of having a curved sensor is that lenses do not have to correct for corner issues. It means lenses can be smaller and/or brighter compared to classic lenses designed for flat sensors.
29 Responses
So why would you limit the lens to f2.8 only?
… when there are already f/1.8 smartphone lenses out there. I am asking the same.
Probably to keep the size small. If the sensor is good enough, no need for a wider aperture, there’s gonna be a huge DOF anyway with such a small sensor, so no bokeh benefit of having a larger aperture.
is that how you compare a lenses for 3mm sensors and 35mm sensors?
I think he was referring to the comment about allowing lenses to be brighter as a consequence.
Of course, f1.8 is f1.8, irrespective of sensor size, but total light and DOF will be different. I’m not going to open that can of worms, though…!
when you say “really close to seeing such kind of sensor on smart phones and high-end cameras” do you have a guess on what really close is? 🙂
Since Panasonic managed to put Sony’s excellent 1″ sensor in a very slim smartphone, such a small 1/3.2″ sensor would be too disapointing for what’s expected from the curved sensor tech.
How did Panasonic/Leica manage such a slim 20/2.8 lens for the 1″ sensor?
If the new curved sensor does not allow for more compact and faster lenses, what is the point of using it?
Everything is a trade in optical design. If you don’t know all the constraints, you can’t draw any conclusions.
I agree that quality-size in optical design is just a compromise/choice that has to be made. The said CM1 camera phone does perform anywhere near RX100 even if it has the same sensor, but my disapointment was that we are not getting considerably smaller lenses with the supposedly revolutionary change to curved sensors.
I believe your disappointment stems from haven fallen victim to believing what “people say the way things should be.” Such as “curved sensors make smaller systems.”
Curved sensors are just coming to be (and 10 years from now will be commonplace) and so there’s lots of open space for exploration; new styles of designs. But it’s just +1 variable where sometimes dozens already exist. Usually it’s a fractional improvement. (Though, I have seen unusual situations demonstrate 5x resolution compared to planar sensors.) But the geometry of the ray bundles are still taking up the space they take up.
– Bert
While I am not an optical engineer, I am an engineer, and have some basic idea about optical design.
I understand why lenses need so many elements to correct optical abberations and while I definitely need to learn more about optical abberations I expect that a lot of them would be caused or emphasized due to projecting from lens elements with spherical surfaces (majority) to flat imaging sensor.
As a result my expectation is that curved sensors will allow simpler lens designs, say 1-3 elements for a prime lens instead of 6-7, resulting in higher transmission, contrast, resolution, lower cost and smaller size.
If curved sensors are not going to bring many of the above benefits, better not migrate to curved sensors at all.
They add a lot of complexity to lens design because new systems with curved sensors will not be defined only by the flange distance but the sensor curve radius as well.
Designing such a system is much more complex, because you need to partially design many of the future lenses before hand, so that you pick the most beneficial sensor curvature when coming up with the system.
OK, granted, curved sensors are no use when designing for existing lenses. These are for custom lens-matched systems, natch. I have also previously said curved sensors are probably not apropos for an interchangeable of wide-zoom lens system. They are a tool (which will become more and more common), and like all tools are very useful when used correctly.
And, yes, the curve *may* allow for less lenses with comparable image quality vs same with a planar sensor, but (again, with clarity) that does not necessarily imply a more compact system; You can get a lot of elements into a small space, or few elements in a large space. I empathize with your expectations expressed above, and an trying to gently readjust these.
Interesting that no one has mentioned the amazing surfaces on the molded elements — These are by far the more interesting design variable! (and contributing to improved lens performance.) High-order aspheres have certainly been around, but more general “freeform” optics are also starting to show their viability.
You would be very interested in articles on computational optics which include all these design aspects and more. (Kevin Thompson & Jannick Rolland gave a great paper on the field this last summer.)
– Bert
I don’t know how you can call it thin… Its 21.1mm think, nearly 3x thicker than most smartphones on the market.
To have the lens, sensor and screen, front to back, in a 2 cm package is quite an achievement for a large 1″ sensor.
If you know of any other such camera please tell me.
And 2 cm is at the widest point, the rest of the body appears to be 15mm. Only the latest iPhones are less than 7mm, but this is without the camera protrusion! Even with this tiny sensor they couldn’t fit the lens in 7mm, so the CM1 is exceptionally compact for what it is.
It was you, who said “very slim smartphone”. You didn’t say very slim, considering the camera, or anything of that nature, so based on your general statement, you’ve got a general reply…
It is a very slim smartphone, this guy shows it next to an iPhone 5 at 1:35 and it is definitely wider than the iPhone, but still a slim phone and comparable to the iPhone.
At the end of the day iPhone 5 was the slimmest phone in the world just a couple of years ago. I didn’t say the slimmest, but only slim and the CM1 is a slim phone.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGypwEYfUWA
Again, its not comparable to iphone 5 or any other current top end smartphone. Iphone 5 was 7.6mm deep, LG G3 is 9mm, S5 is 8.1mm, Note 3 is 8.6mm, HTC One M8 is 9.4mm. As you can see, all of them are under 10mm deep.
The CM1 is 15.2 at the body, making it 1.5x-2x thicker than most phones, while 21.1 at the camera. And unlike every other smartphone, the camera protrusion isn’t exactly insignificant, meaning that it must be taken into account as well. The target phone for this model is not a generic smartphone, but rather the likes of Nokia Pureview 808 and Samsung Galaxy K Zoom. And while the K is the same size as the CM1, it’s a different class smartphone, zoom with small sensor vs no zoom with a large sensor. The 808 is a much closer match with it’s 0.75″ Sensor, and guess what, it’s as slim at the camera protrusion point as CM1 thickness at the body. So lets not kid ourselves here into thinking that its thin. Rather it is probably the first phone that truly aims at the Compact and Advanced Compact P&S market.
Sorry, but are you r.e.t.a.r.d.e.d ?!?
It looks like you make no difference between ‘slim’ and ‘thin’ !!!
Definition of ‘slim’ – small in girth or thickness in proportion to height or length.
Slim is about the proportion of dimensions, not the absolute values of its dimensions !
I never used the word ‘thin’ in my three posts above, don’t put words in my mouth that I’ve not used !
The CM1 is definitely small in thickness in proportion to its height and length. It is thicker than iPhone 5/6, but it is also longer and wider. You can calculate the ratios, if you don’t have anything better to do, and it might not be as slim as the latest iPhones, but I’ve not claimed it is the slimmest phone and is definitely slim. Plain and simple.
My bad. Have you ever read one word and thought of the other? That’s exactly what happened here 😉
No problem, many people mix the two.
I am not even planning to buy the CM1, because I have the RX100 and its not much of a problem to carry as addition to my phone.
But I think Pana did an excellent job managing to put this large sensor and a lens for it in a phone. I really wish Sony/Zeiss did it first, perhaps even better, without the IQ compromises (Pana made in CM1) by using a curved sensor.
i bet knoica used computer asysted lense design
same software that was designed for flat sensors
could you see the 3rd elementent, thats glass for flat imagery
dis you see the ridicously fifth element (not the movie)
i guess the software where adapted for curved sensors and this is the ugly result
its like getting the real world image, converted it to a flat one and then converted it again for a curved sensor, lol looks who its reinventing the whel
great design konica, looking at your great work i wondering why you stop making lenses in the first place
This was also my impression.
These lens elements seem to have complex convoluted shapes.
I am very skeptical that this would be iether practical or desirable…especially considerin that curved sensors allow for simple lens desighns.
I do not expect this lens desighn to be built.
Because these are tiny aspherical lenses for tiny sensors, they can be molded. This is super-common. Chances are your camera-equipped smartphone, Blu-ray drive, etc. already include these convoluted aspherical elements.
When we get to sensor sizes for serious cameras, that’s when just molding is insufficient, and other more-traditional optical manufacturing techniques (grinding, polishing) have to be involved.
Great reply Panacea! – Bert
Smaller sensor and apperture. Not for iphone.
Can anyone tell me why Sony did not want to use the best and latest camera technology on Xperia?
They were quite successful in the past with the Cybershot phones.
But somehow now it seems they do not want their mobile division to be successful.
Hi everyone, I’m back!
Yes, ALL lenses are computer-designed (I know someone who’s “computers” in the 60’s were the women sitting at rows of tables in a room with slide rules.) And, yes it’s a great design. Can’t help you with your other statements. – Bert