View Full Version : 1.33x factor: is it really an issue?
Ponsoldt
10-07-2006, 06:00
Like everyone else I have been looking at the M8 as a potential acquisition. I have seeen some complaints regarding the lack of a full frame sensor and I just wanted to make sure I understood the issue. As I understand it, the 1.33x factor will make my existing 35mm sumicron a 46.55mm sumicron. I guess I do not understand why this matters. My understanding is that the frame lines on the m8 will come up for the 35mm lens. I assume that the photo will correspond to these frame lines. Am I incorrect?
The way I see it is that my 35mm is a 50 and my 90mm is a 135. I guess the only downside is that now I have to buy a 28mm and a 75mm to get what I had before.
I would appreciate comments on this analysis so that I know if I am making any incorrect assumptions.
Bill
J. Borger
10-07-2006, 06:11
Your assumptions are completely right!
You've got it right. Put a 35mm lens on the M8 and a frameline will come up that corresponds approximately to the field of view of a 50mm lens on a film M.
Pherdinand
10-07-2006, 06:17
Knowing how much argument there is about the 35mm vs 50mm focal lengths, I think in the case of Leica users the cropping factor IS a big issue.
That, and the $5,000 price tag, guess that frees up the one with my name on it.
1.33x factor: is it really an issue?
It never was but people made it one.
I think it's an issue. The main issue is now you need to get 28mm lens to get 35mm FOV, but the fastest 28mm is f1.9. It might be fast enough for you but not for others.
If you wanna go wider, the fastest is f2.8, and they're expensive.
The crop factor does NOT change the focal length of the lens. It changes the field of view, i.e., the sensor only "sees" the central part of the image the lens can project. This changes not only what is recorded, but apparent perspective. I.e., a 35mm lens now seems to "draw" in the same way as a 46mm lens, so depth of the depth of field you "normally" get in a 35mm full frame is now what you get from a 46mm lens.
Does any of this "matter"? To me, yes and no. Just go with it and get used to the differences.
These are factors that you need to consider when you are coming from a different format, but it is the same when moving between different film formats for any other camera systems. Only with 35mm vs. 120, you can rarely, if ever, use the same lenses. I can do it with the lenses for my 4x5. I have a 120 roll film back for the Toyo, so my 90mm wide angle becomes a near-normal lens when I use roll film, the 150 becomes a telephoto, and the 400 becomes a super telephoto. And no, I don't have a WA for the roll film; I would need maybe a 50mm, and to get a good one that could also cover 4x5 wouldn't be cheap. Same thing.
The crop factor does NOT change the focal length of the lens. It changes the field of view, i.e., the sensor only "sees" the central part of the image the lens can project. This changes not only what is recorded, but apparent perspective. I.e., a 35mm lens now seems to "draw" in the same way as a 46mm lens, so depth of the depth of field you "normally" get in a 35mm full frame is now what you get from a 46mm lens.
Does any of this "matter"? To me, yes and no. Just go with it and get used to the differences.
.
I am not sure the right way to say it, but Trius has pointed to the only real PERSPECTIVE difference in lenses. It is what makes long telephotos put the fans into the lap of those football players :-)
What will happen here (and it seems more the reverse of the way Trius said it) the foreshorting that the longer 46mm WOULD give you for the croped 35mm lens will not be seen, only the field on view, willlook like the 46mm. In this case you will get 46mm FOV but the DOF AND the perspective will remain 35mm since that is driven by focal length.
In the extreme, if you blow up a 35mm to zoom in on a sports play you will NOT see the same foreshortening that you see with a 280mm lens, because the 280mm is farther away.
Sorry, probably confusing it more !! :-)
Victor
ZeissFan
10-07-2006, 08:06
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that it depends on the photographer. A longtime photographer who's been shooting with a 28 or 35 or 50 and knows what to expect might have the most difficult time adjusting to a narrower field of view from their lenses.
Of course, if the viewfinder reflects this, that helps. Even so, I think there will be an adjustment period and possibly the need to purchase new lenses so they can achieve what they had expected with film.
Be it an SLR or rangefinder.
J. Borger
10-07-2006, 08:20
I have shot full frame cameras and several cameras with 1,33 and 1,5 cropfactor ...... the timeperiod to get used to and addapt to the differences is about .... 1/2 hour :)
In fact i never found it problematic to use cameras with and without crop together during one shoot .... never found the full frame an advantage nor the crop a limitation.
I's nothing more than a theoretical issue without any practical relevance.
I used to have a digital slr with 1.6 crop.
If you are using a 35 summilux as a standard lense then you will have a problem because there is no summilux 24 or 28. If 50 is your lens you will be fine.
I think maybe the m9 will have already full format sensor.
I general I think a 1.33 crop on a camera system that is mostly built for wide angle lenses is a big problem.
But I hope the m8 is going to be a big seller, just to put the company out of their recent troubles.
Fabian
Like everyone else I have been looking at the M8 as a potential acquisition. I have seeen some complaints regarding the lack of a full frame sensor and I just wanted to make sure I understood the issue. As I understand it, the 1.33x factor will make my existing 35mm sumicron a 46.55mm sumicron. I guess I do not understand why this matters. My understanding is that the frame lines on the m8 will come up for the 35mm lens. I assume that the photo will correspond to these frame lines. Am I incorrect?
The way I see it is that my 35mm is a 50 and my 90mm is a 135. I guess the only downside is that now I have to buy a 28mm and a 75mm to get what I had before.
I would appreciate comments on this analysis so that I know if I am making any incorrect assumptions.
Bill
With regard to field of view only. FOV is not the only item which seperates the various lenses.
It is an isue, but not a big one, and one which can be circumvented by different lenses and maybe some rethinking.
The crop factor may even result in better pics, as it will encourage many to fill the frame, a common error of many even experienced folks.
For me, there are other reasons not to go digital, but that's another can of worms.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that it depends on the photographer. A longtime photographer who's been shooting with a 28 or 35 or 50 and knows what to expect might have the most difficult time adjusting to a narrower field of view from their lenses.
Of course, if the viewfinder reflects this, that helps. Even so, I think there will be an adjustment period and possibly the need to purchase new lenses so they can achieve what they had expected with film.
Be it an SLR or rangefinder.
Yes, very true. Some lenses are easy to see with -- a 21mm lens is everything you can see including your peripheral; a 50mm lens isw basically what you see with your two eyes with blinders; a 90mm is one eye, ect., and this is all thrown out the door with a crop factor.
But the crop factor, per se, is not a determinative reason not to get an M8, because you can get used to anything. Cost may be an issue: We're talking about the cost of the body and maybe one additional lens to account for the crop factor.
It seems to me that the M8 is designed for all those film M users who want to go digital and still use a rangefinder.
I'm not sure a digital rangefinder makes much sense, but maybe that'sa subject for a new thread.
John Shriver
10-07-2006, 12:01
Leica could have had Kodak make them a full-frame sensor, no problem. They would be smaller than the ones they make for the Hasselblad H-series digital backs.
First problem would be price. The CF-39 back is $29,995. Now, sensor price is highly non-linear with overall size. But the M8 today as a full-frame camera could easily have been a $10,000 camera. That would have tanked Leica, rather than save them.
Second problem is the light falloff issue that Leica has talked about. See Kodak's data sheet on the KAF-10500, light falloff due to angle of incidence is a real problem with this sensor, even with the offset lenses. The slope of the falloff increases rapidly at the corners for the current sensor size. It's already a stop in the corners. It could well really be unacceptable at full frame with today's sensor technology. I'm sure that Leica did some prototyping with the 48mm sensors used in the Hasselblad, to see what was feasible. (Heck, just buy an astro-camera with that sensor, and make a lens adapter.)
The sensor vendors all would like to be have the angle of incidence problem improved, and they will make progress over time. The M9 probably awaits a combination of new sensor cell design, and price drops due to Moore's Law.
AndyPiper
10-07-2006, 13:04
On my M4-2 my main shooting lenses were 21/28/35/75/90/135.
On my M8 my main shooting lenses (effectively) will be "21/28/35/70/120" and maybe "180".
Don't see what I lost - net.
For those who are all so concerned about DoF and the "look" of this lens or that lens - here's a portrait. Can you identify which focal length, maximum aperture, and shooting aperture were used? (It was a Leica lens)
Options: 50/75/80/90/100/135/180, f/1.4/2/2.8, f/1.4/2/2.8, film, full-frame digital, cropped digital.
Ponsoldt
10-07-2006, 14:04
So does this mean that the numbers on the lens for DOF will be inaccurate?
willie_901
10-07-2006, 14:04
It's an issue for me because I could afford a M8 and I would probably buy one if it didn't have a crop sensor.
It's an issue for me because I could afford a M8 and I would probably buy one if it didn't have a crop sensor.
So what exactly IS your problem with a different format?
John Camp
10-07-2006, 15:42
The 1.33 is not too important, IMHO. DSLR users readily adapted to 1.5. And there are some upsides. I personally am greatly looking forward to a short tele f1.0.
JC
RichardJ
10-07-2006, 15:46
Quote ..... "For those who are all so concerned about DoF and the "look" of this lens or that lens - here's a portrait. Can you identify which focal length, maximum aperture, and shooting aperture were used?".......
Andy, That's easy: 50mm, f2.8 and film (!!?)
I understand that your question was rhetorical and I agree with your sentiments. Why the fuss? We all know that film produces beautifull images but digital capture is the future, and the advent of the digital rf age does not suddenly steal from us the freedom of choice. If you prefer life where lenses behave "normally" then, fine, remain with film and a 24 x 36mm format.
We all have a favourite prime lens (28, 35 or 50) so, with the advent of DRF we have four options:
A) Buy a new prime lens (ie your favourite divided by 1.33)
B) Take a few steps back
C) Stick to film,or
D) Wait (years probably) for a full frame sensor.
DSLR users are light years ahead of us; I'm sure they are not having these kind of debates anymore. They're probably too busy, out taking photographs.
Yours, too exhausted waiting for the "full frame" techno thingy and too excited by the (RF) future
Richard
(ps. I met a pro commercial photog last week who told me that none of his colleagues (as far as he was aware) used film any more. This was not, in his opinion, a choice relating to speed of post production nor a desire to "keep up" with changing times or editorial needs but merely a choice based upon preference. Even though his opinion is not necessarily a representative sample I was, nevertheless, slightly taken aback.)
So does this mean that the numbers on the lens for DOF will be inaccurate?
Not as far as I know. Consider that the lens focuses the image independent of the size of the film or sensor. The issue would be that someone used to a certain depth of field at a given aperture with a 50mm on film will be using a 35mm as a digital "normal," and the depth of field will be greater. Thus making it harder to isolate a face in a crowd, for instance.
It's basically a half-frame-type camera, with all the obvious drawbacks of moving to a smaller format. Contrary to (what seems to be) popular belief, going digital doesn't negate the quality hit you take when you decrease the size of the captured area. There's a limit to what a lens can resolve. The film or sensor has no affect on this limit, it just records what detail the lens is capable of transmitting. If you currently run a half-frame mask in your M, you'll be right at home with what the camera can do. It's extrememly unlikely that anyone is going to find they get more detail out of the digital M than the same lens on a film body. Essentially, you are just going to blow up your shots more than you would with film.
So does this mean that the numbers on the lens for DOF will be inaccurate?
In general, for the same field of view, the DOF goes up a little. On the other hand, for the same lens, the DOF would be the same, the crop is just tighter. In any case the effect is pretty minimal for a 1.33X sensor. I notice it a little bit with a 1.6X sensor and compensate by opening up the aperture by one stop (if I want a thin DOF). For the M8, the difference will be to small to matter much
What is missing from the lens lineup is a fast, wide. Below 28mm, there is nothing faster than F2.8 . This is a problem that needs to be remedied. Someone need to introduce a 21mm/2.0
Rex
Not as far as I know. Consider that the lens focuses the image independent of the size of the film or sensor. The issue would be that someone used to a certain depth of field at a given aperture with a 50mm on film will be using a 35mm as a digital "normal," and the depth of field will be greater. Thus making it harder to isolate a face in a crowd, for instance.
It's basically a half-frame-type camera, with all the obvious drawbacks of moving to a smaller format. Contrary to (what seems to be) popular belief, going digital doesn't negate the quality hit you take when you decrease the size of the captured area. There's a limit to what a lens can resolve. The film or sensor has no affect on this limit, it just records what detail the lens is capable of transmitting. If you currently run a half-frame mask in your M, you'll be right at home with what the camera can do. It's extrememly unlikely that anyone is going to find they get more detail out of the digital M than the same lens on a film body. Essentially, you are just going to blow up your shots more than you would with film.
Err.. This post disregards that Leica M lenses outresolve film or sensors considerably... The limiting factor is not the lens but the film. And if you do your math, the difference in DOF will be about 1/2 a stop for a 1.33 sensor, or, if you prefer, 2/3rds of a step in focal length. Not really enough to matter in real life. What will be noticable though is that DOF and Bokeh will be more defined on a sensor than on film. As another poster mentioned, DSLR users are beyond this discussion by several years.
BTW, Rex, wouldn't a 1.8 18 be nicer? It would be quite a feat to squeeze such a lens into a RF mount, but if anybody can do it, it would be Leica.
Err.. ...... Leica M lenses outresolve film or sensors considerably... The limiting factor is not the lens but the film.
That's what gives the M8 the real possibility of outresolving the 5D. Also, the M8 will not be hobbled by the presence of anti-aliasing filter and the attendant in camera sharpening software required to mitigate its blurring effect. Clean, sharp, unprocessed RAW files is a major benefit of the Leica approach.
Rex
.............. wouldn't a 1.8 18 be nicer? It would be quite a feat to squeeze such a lens into a RF mount, but if anybody can do it, it would be Leica.
jappv
Yes, a 18mm/f1.8 would be a perfect lense for the rangefinder existing light light guy. And it would be possible, but not easy or cheap. That's why I suggested a 21mm/2.0 I keep harping on the fact that Olympus already offered such a lens for their OM system over 30 years ago. Not only was it fast, it was also very compact, smaller than the Leica 21mm/2.8 ..... and it was a retro-focus design for christ sake!!
Come on Leica, Zeiss, and Cosina. You can do it!!
Rex
Err.. This post disregards that Leica M lenses outresolve film or sensors considerably... The limiting factor is not the lens but the film. And if you do your math, the difference in DOF will be about 1/2 a stop for a 1.33 sensor, or, if you prefer, 2/3rds of a step in focal length. Not really enough to matter in real life. What will be noticable though is that DOF and Bokeh will be more defined on a sensor than on film. As another poster mentioned, DSLR users are beyond this discussion by several years.
All I was trying to say was the lens focuses at the film plane, regardless of the size of the film format/sensor. What is or is not in focus is not determined by the recording medium. Maybe I'm missing something? Is the depth of field different on the edges of an image vs. the center?
I was also trying to indicate that a smaller format is not the direction most go in order to increase detail in an image, for good reason.
As far as lenses exceeding the capacity of film, well, yes they do. To exploit the maximum resolution the film (say, 100 Lp/mm for TMax100), apparently you need a lens capable of 3 to 4 times the resolution. Now, whether this math applies with digital sensors is a subject for someone else, but clearly you need enough pixels per millimeter to surpass the ability of film, which would be more than 200 pixels per mm. In an 18X27mm sensor like the M8, this would require a ~19.5 million pixel sensor. So obviously, no matter what lens you put in front of the sensor, you aren't going to surpass available films until you greatly increase the density of pixels in the sensor.
If you could increase the size of the sensor and project a larger image onto it, you could capture more detail from a scene, similar to going to a larger format film. For a given target, put more pixels under it than film can resolve line pairs, if you simply wish to surpass the theoretical limit of films. The lens is immaterial until you have a sensor capable of capturing the details.
This discussion is simply silly idle chatter, I'll happily admit :)
The bottom line is digital cameras take as good a picture as anything else. Some people prefer the look of certain mediums over others. It matters little which system is best at capturing test patterns. All that matters is what you do with it.
Cropping is only an issue if you make it one. If your stuck on the crop factor why not shoot a 6X7 rangefinder, a 40 is like a 20 on 35mm. If the camera make sense to you, digital without having to buy a bunch of new lenses in a compact package, buy it. If you're going to cry that your 20mm only covers 24mm then plunk down$7,000 for a Canon EOS-1DS Mark II which weighs 42.9 ounces for just the body. It's a tool, adapt and over come or wait for your film to get processed and printed and scanned before it gets to your computer.
Matthew Runkel
10-07-2006, 21:04
Of course crop factor is an issue. Whether it is a gating issue depends on personal preferences and resources. The original poster, who imagines "everyone" is weighing the purchase of a $5000 camera, does not consider the issue significant because all that is required to approximate his film setup is the purchase of two new Leica lenses. Others would find it a hardship to add two new lenses on top of an expensive body.
When the crop factor discussion occurs on SLR forums, most posters ignore that the standard range of prime lenses and their fields of view was not chosen at random. Leica's 1.33 crop factor honors the established sequence of fields of view, which is nice. Still, not everyone already owns the lenses whose cropped FOVs correspond to those of their preferred film lenses. Some people only own their favorite film lenses and, like the original poster, will need to think about additional purchases.
On SLR forums, a significant subset of users who favor long lenses rejoice about the crop factor extending the reach of everything. By contrast, very few rangefinder users would consider everything getting "longer" as an unmitigated good.
Although the 1.33 cushions the blow to the lens lineup by ratcheting existing lenses up to different recognizable FOVs, this mapping is imperfect. The 135mm lenses are out, too "long" for accurate focusing. And I'm pretty sure there are good answers to rhetorical questions like "why don't they just make a 24/1.4?" I believe that as focal length decreases, the difficulty of creating fast lenses increases greatly, which is why you just don't see things like 21/1.4 lenses. Probably it would be easier to create fast wide lenses with image circles that don't cover the 35mm frame, but that goes against Leica's philosophy that every lens should generally be usable with every body.
Mark Norton
10-07-2006, 22:05
Good comments; I've never understook why dSLR users get all enthusiastic about the increased reach of their long lenses; they gain nothing that they could not have got by cropping a full-frame image.
Right now, 1.33 is all we can have, if you want the image quality to be good, the camera to be compact, the battery life to be reasonable and the cost to be below stratospheric.
As regards lenses, it would be nice to have a faster wide-angle, but as Leica prices show, going faster tends to be more expensive than going wider. I'm sure we'd like a 28mm f1.4 or a 24mm f2, but I think they would be expensive. In the dSLR world, Nikon have a 28mmf1.4, a bit long in the tooth now, which is big, heavy and expensive.
....... all that is required to approximate his film setup is the purchase of two new Leica lenses. Others would find it a hardship to add two new lenses on top of an expensive................. And I'm pretty sure there are good answers to rhetorical questions like "why don't they just make a 24/1.4?" I believe that as focal length decreases, the difficulty of creating fast lenses increases greatly, which is why you just don't see things like 21/1.4 lenses. Probably it would be easier to create fast wide lenses with image circles that don't cover the 35mm frame, but that goes against Leica's philosophy that every lens should generally be usable with every body.
Yes, you hit the real dilema for the new 1.33x sensor user. There is a definite "lens gap" in the wide, fast range. And this is supposed to be the heart of rangefinder territory. However, you are going a little far in suggesting that a 21mm/1.4 would be needed to fill a gap in the film range. After all, the fastest 28mm (film equvalent of 21mm) is Leica's f2.0 and Cosina's F1.9 Not that I wouldn't luuuv a 21mm/1.4!!
The other "gap" is any affordably lens to replace a 21mm?2.8 focal length. About the only thing out there is the 15mm heliar. Its a nice lens but very slow. At least its cheap! Well I guess you could always spring 4K for the Zeiss 15mm/2.8:eek:
I think the key is going to be your last point. That is to create a fast wide lens that just covers the 1.33X sensor. That would be make the design of a 18mm/2.0 a lot easier, compact and affordable. However, the film people would come out of their tree.
Rex
I'm a film guy too but really wouldn't need a 18mm/2.0 for FF. The Heliar is OK for that role.
As regards lenses, it would be nice to have a faster wide-angle, but as Leica prices show, going faster tends to be more expensive than going wider. I'm sure we'd like a 28mm f1.4 or a 24mm f2, but I think they would be expensive. In the dSLR world, Nikon have a 28mmf1.4, a bit long in the tooth now, which is big, heavy and expensive.
Mark
Actually, the Canon is a 24mm F1.4 . I have one and, let me tell you, it is big and heavy. But it is also one of the most incrediable low light experience you can have. On my 20D it is equivalent to the legendary 35mm/1.4 But on the 5D it has no equivalent. Now if Leica would just come up with a 18mm f1.4 :) !!!
Rex
- I would think that 1,33 crop factor will be less of an negative issue on a Leica Rangefinder. My first reason to have a FF-DSLR (1Ds II) is the viewfinder which is the largest and brightest in the business. I can't use crop factor SLR's if sharp pictures are to be expected of me. Their viewfinder is all too small and dark for my aging eyes.
When shooting with the 1Ds II and extreme wide angle, I stop the lense down to get rid of soft corners and light fall off. So, a 'fast' wide angle on a M8 is not on my wish list. You will soon find out that it is easer and better to compensate by turning the ISO knob,- a mind boggling thing for anyone who have done photography for 30 years. - I will never be spoiled by this opulent luxary.
The 1Ds II produces some awsome high quality - noice free - pictures on high ISO that has changed my photography totally. In the analogue world I was a '100ISO guy'. Not anymore. Now I am not afraid of using 1600ISO at available light.
Super fast super wides for available light photography? Forget it! They will produce some awfull pictures on a digital camera with curved lines and dark corners. It is far more important how M8 is performing regarding noice on high ISO and how it can be corrected. If at all.
'That is the question', to site Hamlet.
To what I have heard is that M8 is far from 1Ds II's noice free high ISO performance in this respect. That is far more worrysome, - and dissappointing. I am looking forward to see sample pictures of M8's performance in this respect. There will soon be a call for a M9 with, not neccessarily more pixels, but lower high ISO noice.
Further; I will go for the new zoom 16-18-12 mm 4,0 - which I, most likely, will stop down even further, to get rid of light fall off, which I will compensate will higher ISO. Most likely, this lense is probably one of the poorest on the MTF chart bench of the Leica range, but that does not matter. The sensor will not outperform the lense anyway. Far from it.
- I am more conserned on how much distortion it produces on the M8 and how it can be corrected. Has anyone seen any sample pictures from this 12-16-18 mm 4,0?
I think you might be pleasantly surprised, as the issue of light fall-off is exactly what Leica adressed. And geometrical distortion? That doesn't even begin to be an issue with Leica wide-angles. Forget about your Canon stuff. They make very good tele lenses, but their wide-angles seem to be designed by the Coca-Cola company, in comparison to Leica and Zeiss. As for ISO performance, yes, the Canon files will be more noise-free at high ISO. But you will be able to hand-hold your M8 at least two to three shutterspeeds slower than your bulky Canon, gaining you two or three ISO steps. And if you go a bit longer, what about the Noctilux?
John Camp
10-08-2006, 09:20
Good comments; I've never understook why dSLR users get all enthusiastic about the increased reach of their long lenses; they gain nothing that they could not have got by cropping a full-frame image.
They get more pixels and better resolution. If you take a FF Canon 1Ds2 200mm and crop it to a 300mm FOV, you have fewer pixels across the FOV than you do with a 200mm Nikon D2x (which gives you an effective 300mm FOV), even though the D2x has fewer total pixels. If you use a 300mm Canon to put all available pixels across the FOV, the lens costs more , is heavier and is usually slower.
JC
photogdave
10-08-2006, 09:27
Aha! But the Canon's pixels are bigger with deeper pixel wells!
...I could really care less!
To answer briefly the question posed in the original subject line:
No.
At least, it's not an issue to people who simply want to use a camera to take pictures. You put whatever lens on the camera that produces the field of view you want to include and you frame your pictures accordingly.
People who make "crop factor" an issue seem to fall into two categories: (1) people who don't like the whole digital "thing" and are looking for reasons to be critical; and (2) people who have made major investments in Canon's 24x36mm-sensor DSLRs and feel the need to produce rationalizations for their decision.
Nobody else seems to care. For example, Hasselblad just announced a new camera, the H3D, which has a 36mmx48mm sensor. Are Hasselblad loyalists complaining that it's not a "full frame" camera because it doesn't cover the classical ~57mm x ~57mm image size of Hasselblad film cameras? Not that I've noticed.
mauro scacco
10-08-2006, 09:44
I think maybe the m9 will have already full format sensor.
I general I think a 1.33 crop on a camera system that is mostly built for wide angle lenses is a big problem.
But I hope the m8 is going to be a big seller, just to put the company out of their recent troubles.
Fabian
Completely agree
I think however an m8 without full frame is an error , also because Epson could exploit this lack to product in advance an RD2 M leica mount with full format ...:bang:
What a pity, old Leica ...
rogue_designer
10-08-2006, 09:50
My problem comes in with already owning fine lenses, who's FOV I like. Especially since I shoot a lot of available darkness.
If I want to use my 50 1.2 on an M8, It no longer acts like a standard - so I have to buy a new 35 1.2 to get an equivalent fast normal. And if I want a truly fast wide? My options are very limited. (Nobody makes a 21 f1.8 or faster that I know of - which is what I would need to approximate a 35mm on the M8).
If I'm shooting both cameras - I'd have to factor in that difference every time I swapped lenses. Much easier and better for me, if they act the same. Much Much better if I don't need to buy additional lenses to get a equivalent to the kit I already carry.
I think you might be pleasantly surprised, as the issue of light fall-off is exactly what Leica adressed. And geometrical distortion? That doesn't even begin to be an issue with Leica wide-angles. Forget about your Canon stuff. They make very good tele lenses, but their wide-angles seem to be designed by the Coca-Cola company, in comparison to Leica and Zeiss. As for ISO performance, yes, the Canon files will be more noise-free at high ISO. But you will be able to hand-hold your M8 at least two to three shutterspeeds slower than your bulky Canon, gaining you two or three ISO steps. And if you go a bit longer, what about the Noctilux?
- A D-SLR is far better starting point than an oldfashioned rangefinder design when it comes to designing low light fall off. That Leica has adressed this is natural; for them it's live or die.
It is not as simple as you state that Canon is designing 'bad' wide angle lenses. When and if you are willing to pay what the most expensive of them costs, they are very good and fully up to be compared to any Leica R. Like the 35 mm 1,4L and even the 24 mm 1,4L. Even the extreme zooms like 16-35 mm 2,8L and 17-40 mm 4,0L are among the best on the market. But on all profesional FF D-SLRT cameras, Canon or Leica, these wide angle lenses must be stopped down to perform the best.
With all it's mass,- more tha 2 kilos with batteries a high quality lense, and mirrow/shutter dampening there is few cameras that I have had that makes it possible to shoot hand held at long exposure times like the 1Ds/1Ds II. I hardly think that M8 will match that either at less than half the weight. Further; the files from high ISO settings on 1Ds II are far beond anything from film or other digital cameras I have tried. Exept for it's threatening size, - some children start to cry when they see it, the 1Ds II is 'the' available light camera.
I have a 50 mm 1,0L that I haver used a lot with my analogue EOS3. That too is a powerful available light tool. But with the change of ISO settings at your fingertip it is dusting down. On the 1Ds II it is producing files with corners that is 2 - 3 stops darker than the center at max aparture. Guess the Noctilux will perform even worse on the M8, uncorrected. Like all large aparture lenses do on large sensor cameras. These lenses have lost much of their value in the digital world. - At least on a camera that produces so bright and noice free files as the Canon EOS 1Ds II.
The Leica M8 will be lighter and more compact. Even cheaper. That is a lot.
John Camp
10-08-2006, 12:33
Aha! But the Canon's pixels are bigger with deeper pixel wells!
...I could really care less!
You sound like another veteran of the pixel-well wars. I could also care less...but I couldn't resist Mark's bait. 8-)
JC
jlw, there's a third category. Those that like wide angles.
Take Nikon for example. The 1.5 crop makes it tough to get the same wide-angle coverage one had with film. I shot mostly with a 24. The new lenses that cover that range are plastic zoom pieces of junk with few or no DOF marks. The old, brass lenses I like in that size are big, heavy and/or slow, compared to my 24/2.8 Nikkor. And don't get me started on a replacement for my 20/2.8 Nikkor.
To a certain degree I have the same problem with Leica. Although I shoot longer lenses with my M4 than with my Nikons that's mostly because there aren't framelines for wider lenses and I don't want to use a separate finder. With the M8, to get the FOV of my 28/2.8 I have to use a 21 which is bigger, heavier and way, way more expensive. AND there are no framelines.
That won't stop me from getting and using an M8, but there is still not a digital camera on the market that really makes me happy. The M8 IS the closest yet, but not the be-all-end-all.
willie_901
10-08-2006, 14:42
So what exactly IS your problem with a different format?
My problems are:
I enjoy the FOV on the lenses I own.
I enjoy using fast (F 2.0 or less) 35 mm FOV lenses.
I like the idea that I can try a great variety of 35 and 50 lens types and still retain the FOVs I trained my eye with.
I really don't want my 85mm FOV lens to have a 113 lens FOV.
$5,000 for a camera that works the way I enjoy using a camera is one thing. Having to spend at least $1,000 (or more) on a relatively limited selection of examples with a FOV of 28mm or less simply to stop using film is not acceptable.
Of course 1.33 is much better than 1.5 or 2. But for $5,000 I feel 1.33 is simply not worth the money. I get to spend at least $6,000 just so I can join the digital club with a real RF. No thank you.
This purely subjective view. But it is no less valid than the opposite conclusion.
When 35 mm cameras replaced medium format cameras in the market place, the lenses were not an issue at all because the MF lenses could not be used on the new format. You were starting from scratch.
I think the industry will have things sorted out in 8-10 years. My lenses will last that long. Who knows, I may even last that long.
willie
My problems are:
I enjoy the FOV on the lenses I own.
I enjoy using fast (F 2.0 or less) 35 mm FOV lenses.
I like the idea that I can try a great variety of 35 and 50 lens types and still retain the FOVs I trained my eye with.
I really don't want my 85mm FOV lens to have a 113 lens FOV.
$5,000 for a camera that works the way I enjoy using a camera is one thing. Having to spend at least $1,000 (or more) on a relatively limited selection of examples with a FOV of 28mm or less simply to stop using film is not acceptable.
Of course 1.33 is much better than 1.5 or 2. But for $5,000 I feel 1.33 is simply not worth the money. I get to spend at least $6,000 just so I can join the digital club with a real RF. No thank you.
This purely subjective view. But it is no less valid than the opposite conclusion.
When 35 mm cameras replaced medium format cameras in the market place, the lenses were not an issue at all because the MF lenses could not be used on the new format. You were starting from scratch.
I think the industry will have things sorted out in 8-10 years. My lenses will last that long. Who knows, I may even last that long.
willie
My solution is to simply use another lens. I'm not really bothered by the orange number on the barrel. But I'm convinced that in another five to ten years your wishes will be fulfilled. A matter of personal choice and inclination.I can respect that.
Completely agree
I think however an m8 without full frame is an error , also because Epson could exploit this lack to product in advance an RD2 M leica mount with full format ...:bang:
Could, but apparently cannot or will not....
Matthew Runkel
10-08-2006, 16:05
My solution is to simply use another lens. I'm not really bothered by the orange number on the barrel. But I'm convinced that in another five to ten years your wishes will be fulfilled. A matter of personal choice and inclination.I can respect that.
I think this was a sincere response, but it strikes me as slightly flippant too, along the lines of saying "my solution is to simply buy a Rolls-Royce" (or Hasselblad H2D-39, or whatever). Is it really so difficult to imagine that most people don't already own all the appropriate other lenses and some might be bothered by the black four-digit numbers on the boxes? I think it is a limitation of the 1.33 crop that it prevents users with limited resources from using a thoughtfully-assembled group of lenses in the ways they intended when they originally chose those lenses. A lot of Leica users probabaly only have one lens, a 35 or a 50.
Good thinking, Matthew Runkel.
A hearty "two."
Then again, if Leica lenses were as cheap as Canon lenses are, it might be easier to slide from one field of view to another, with as little as $300 (USD) on the counter.
Ah, well. The Noctilux at fourty degrees across the frame is heaven. Any less would take some stepping back, and a reduction of intimacy with my subjects.
Good thinking, Matthew Runkel.
Ah, well. The Noctilux at fourty degrees across the frame is heaven. Any less would take some stepping back, and a reduction of intimacy with my subjects.
jdos2
Here's where I have a problem with your logic. It seems to me that if I had the Noctilux and wanted a Noctilux type portriat, I could either
1) step back a foot or two
OR
2) use my 40mm/1.4 Nokton or 35mm/1.4 sumilux
I'd stay with the Noctilux myself. The slightly closer perspective will be interesting. I look forword to using my old lenses in a different way. I think that there is a trememdous amount of creative opportunity to explore with this new format.
What I really don't get is the attitude that anything that causes one to change is bad. It seems that some of us are so comfortable in our old shoes that anything new causes alarm, even repulsion :eek:
In any case, what is, is. Nobody's going to come out with a full frame sensor anytime soon, certainly not the only one that makes them, Canon. And you can bet your booty that Canon isn't going to sell it's monopoly to anyone else.
If you want full frame I would suggest that you get a very large freezer. ;)
Rex
..arf, arf
newyorkone
10-08-2006, 19:52
I think however an m8 without full frame is an error , also because Epson could exploit this lack to product in advance an RD2 M leica mount with full format ...:bang:
What a pity, old Leica ...
I completely disagree. But, you're entitled to your wrong opinion. The 1.33x M8 will bring Leica back into the game so that there can even be the possibility of a full frame M9, or whatever they call it.
People like you would run Leica into the ground. All talk and I want this and that, wah wah wah, and absolutely no logic or business sense.
And as far as a full frame RD2...maybe eventually but certainly not any time soon or which could affect M8 sales. Even the full frame sensors for SLR's are still too expensive for mass adoption (hence Nikon is sticking to 1.5x APS size sensor) and Canon uses CMOS because it is cheaper and not without compromises - serious vignetting. Making a full frame sensor for RF is much harder and requires tons of money spent on R&D from scratch because you can't just borrow from SLR sensor technology.
What a pity, you'll never get to enjoy the M8 because you're too busy crying about wanting a full frame sensor. That's fine...more for those of us that get it.
I think this was a sincere response, but it strikes me as slightly flippant too, along the lines of saying "my solution is to simply buy a Rolls-Royce" (or Hasselblad H2D-39, or whatever). Is it really so difficult to imagine that most people don't already own all the appropriate other lenses and some might be bothered by the black four-digit numbers on the boxes? I think it is a limitation of the 1.33 crop that it prevents users with limited resources from using a thoughtfully-assembled group of lenses in the ways they intended when they originally chose those lenses. A lot of Leica users probabaly only have one lens, a 35 or a 50.
No- it was not meant to be flippant, in fact, I'm surprised that that was read into it. I fail to see how one could afford to buy a 5000$ body and not be able to spend around 500$ for a CV lens or between 200$ and 1000 $ for one of the many interesting used Leica lenses out there,or even 1500$ for that beautiful new 28 mm.:)
Matthew Runkel
10-09-2006, 03:38
No- it was not meant to be flippant, in fact, I'm surprised that that was read into it. I fail to see how one could afford to buy a 5000$ body and not be able to spend around 500$ for a CV lens or between 200$ and 1000 $ for one of the many interesting used Leica lenses out there,or even 1500$ for that beautiful new 28 mm.:)
A fair point, and I didn't take your comment as "let them eat cake." However, these things do add up and I suspect many real-world buyers will already be stretching just to add the $5000 body. My point really goes to the original question of whether the crop factor is an issue. If it requires you to buy new lenses, I think that means it's an issue. Someone who favors a 35/1.4 for film may think crop factor is an issue when his best option is to purchase a $1000+ ZM lens (or a $3000 Leica) that will replicate that FOV . . . and when the "best option" is four times slower than the 35/1.4. So crop factor is likely to be an issue for many who are not indifferent to spending money or to the speed of their lenses.
Good thinking, Matthew Runkel.
A hearty "two."
1)
Then again, if Leica lenses were as cheap as Canon lenses are, it might be easier to slide from one field of view to another, with as little as $300 (USD) on the counter.
2)
Ah, well. The Noctilux at fourty degrees across the frame is heaven. Any less would take some stepping back, and a reduction of intimacy with my subjects.
1)
- The good Canon glas costs as much as the equaliant Leica glas, or even more, - but with Canon glas you get AF included...
2)
- Which will make it a weird short tele with dark corners and deeper DOF and less bokeh.
But that was my point, Olsen, sir!
1) Yup. Favorite Canon glass: 85mm f1.2. Very expensive. Once every couple of years kind of expensive.
2) Step back: I was going to put it another way---I was going to say "step back a couple steps into intimacy, but sarcasm is lost in this media.
At this point, I'm going to concede that this argument is very much an "angels on the head of a pin" type argument. I like full frame sensors. Others don't care, or others see as more important the very real advantages of smaller sensors. None of us are going to change each other's minds here.
Never been a fan of the crop factor. I buy the best glass in the world to be used full frame, right to the corners and to savor the often incredible peripherial bokeh that accompanies them.
For example, much of my paid work is with a pair of Canon 5D's with incredible primes like the 24 1.4, 35 1.4, 24 tilt/shift & 85 1.2L. If I cropped them, the incredible style they afford me would be toast, the look would be gone.
For what I need in my style of shooting, that would be a huge loss and is not at all acceptable. For my M6, I have two lenses: The 50mm 1.4 aspheric and the 28mm 2.0 aspheric. These two lenses are tack right to the corners, to see them constantly cropped is totally insane to me, not gonna happen.
There are *very* valid reasons for not wanting to deal with the crop factor, extremely valid in fact.
I hope the M8 does really well, many are OK with the crop factor so it would be great to see the M8 keep Leica in the game. Just because I am going to pass does not mean that everyone should.
Dear Bill
I have some news, but before I share it, I want to thank Bill for starting this thread with the right spirit., that is, asking why the M8 has the size sensor it does.
However, the number of FF discussion threads is really getting ludicrous, esp those that try to violate the laws of, physics, econoics and marketing.
Oh, my news??
yes, it was here somewhere,,,,,
oh Here!
"The IHWA is formally considering "Full Frame Forever" for its new motto" UPI
I think that's International Hand Wringers Association...
Better get back in my shelter here, I hear the mortars flying already...:p
Victor
35mmdelux
10-10-2006, 09:34
"I guess the only downside is that now I have to buy a 28mm and a 75mm to get what I had before."
Per your words I guess it does matter, no. Unless one is flush with yen, that is.
mauro scacco
10-10-2006, 13:12
I completely disagree. But, you're entitled to your wrong opinion. The 1.33x M8 will bring Leica back into the game so that there can even be the possibility of a full frame M9, or whatever they call it.
.
Yes, but in the past LEICA is always been innovative, always in advance , now has produced a camera that is a sort of compromise (while full frame just from long time exist for market competitors ) no to the full frame, obliging all leica fans to change their superlative 50 millimeter summicron or summilux ( the lens for excellense, the favourite lens of Henri Cartier Bresson ) because fitted with M8 is changed in a too enclosed 75 millimeter ...:bang: :bang:
"...always been innovative, always in advance..."
- When was that?
Leica has always been sagging behind the others. They still have no AF on their cameras and came with automatic exposure control came first some 35 years after the rest of the business hade made it a standard. Leica even lounched aspherical optics several years after Canon lounched their's.
The M8 makes Leica a survivor. Not bad in a market where one competitor takes 80% of the total business profit; Canon.
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.