M9 M9 M9 M9 M9

[jaapv]

Originally Posted by Richard Marks

I cant understand the second argument but them I am probably not clever enough!

Regards


Richard

Clever enough to drive a Morgan I like your avatar. I drove one for nearly twenty years.

[Ben Z]

Originally Posted by JoeV

Correct. But also: with the 35mm lens the background will diminish in size more as compared to the scene through the 50mm, even though the foreground composition may be the same.

A 35mm on an M8 effects to only a 46.5mm lens on FF. Put a 40mm on an M8 (equates to 53mm, closer to a 50...remember, differences in focal length equate to larger differences in FOV as the focal length decreases) and compare the DOF to a 50, and you'll see less of a difference in DOF.

[JoeV]

DOF is related to absolute focal length and focal ratio. The size of the field of view doesn't matter. It's a property of the lens/aperture, not the film plane size (other assumptions remaining unchanged, like enlargement factor and print viewing distance.)

And the manner in which the background recedes from the foreground is dependent on lens focal length, a physical property of the lens.

These are some of the reasons why, comparing medium format with 135 for instance, you can have the same angle of view, but different perspective and DOF properties between the formats. Because for the same angle of view between both formats the focal lengths are different.

The point being that different format sizes offer different optical properties at the film plane that cannot be duplicated by scaling a smaller format. And hence if those properties are important for a photographer's image-making art, then the choice of format size is also important.


~Joe

[Kevin]

Thanks for clarifying that, Joe.

Personally I like the FL, FOV and DOF of fast 35mm lenses on my 24x36mm format cameras and would not be satisfied with a 24/25mm lens on a 1.33x cropped camera digital sensor.

That is why suggestions made in this thread that I simply buy a 24/25mm lens and M8 camera are not good ones for me.

[jaapv]

Now those are exactly the three paramaters that are unchanged (or only minimally changed (DOF)) on an 1.33 sensor. The only thing that does change is the angle of view.
As such it is not much of an argument against a cropped sensor digital camera.
The whole discussion is just about the angle of view, subject distance, perspective and enlargement.

[Ben Z]

I'm still waiting to see some photographic examples to support these elaborate theoretical arguments why not to buy an M8. It's very hard to convince me when I have thousands upon thousands of photos that disprove it, but a couple of actual photos might help

[Paddy C]

Originally Posted by jaapv

The only thing that does change is the angle of view.

I thought the angle of view is determined by the lens. IE, a 35mm lens will have the same angle of view on an M6 as it will on an M8. The difference being the M8 captures a smaller portion of the image circle.

Am I mistaken?

[jaapv]

No, that is the field of view, the angle is the actually captured piece. But that is just semantics. We clearly mean the same.

[jaapv]

Anyway, let's wait until September. There is a buzz in the air...

[axiom]

September.....
seems like a long wait
after a potential announcement in sept, I need to wait for the date of actual release, after then I need to wait till some wealthy dudes to buy them and resell them into the used market, then I need to wait till the price of a used m9 falls into my budget range. Things don't stop there yet, I need to create a new M lens lineup for my new 35mm sensor.

I think I will just settle with my R-D1 + 2 lens setup and go take some pics.

Thanks!

(just an off topic thought, no offence)
Cheer for the good hint on M9

[Kevin]

Unless you're making up some new axiom here, nowhere has it been implied that waiting for an affordable full-frame rangefinder precludes using what you have now to make images.

If you have an R-D1 and lenses for it already, why would you even think about wanting to complain about having to wait for a better digital rangefinder?

[jaapv]

It is well known that as soon as a new model digital camera is announced all previous models instantly crash and become utterly unusable.

[spikey]

Originally Posted by jaapv

It is well known that as soon as a new model digital camera is announced all previous models instantly crash and become utterly unusable.

Maybe off topic - but is this the same for film cameras or does this only hold true for digital (or is the effect magnified in digital, not necessarily in proportion with sensor size)??

[jaapv]

Only digital - it is one of the great and revolutionary advances of the last ten years.

[Ben Z]

I remember a fair number of people thought the same thing back in the film days (I still remember when the Nikon F5 was released for sale, the local camera shop had a wait-list of people ready to plunk down $2995 --that was in 1996 IIRC--and there was soon a display case filled with "obsolete" F4s's). Today since digital though, it's really gotten ridiculous. Ironically, since buying the M8 and 5D I've grown even more admiring of IQ:cost of my 20D.

[axiom]

jaapv, you wouldn't happen to be CR's new source, would you?
http://www.canonrumors.com/2009/07/l...ith-canon-cr1/

[Pickett Wilson]

5DII sensor in the M9? Ummm, that's unlikely. If Canon could produce a FF sensor that would work in an M Leica, why would they sell it to Leica? They could produce a FF compact camera of their own.

[axiom]

time will tell

[ethics_gradient]

Originally Posted by Pickett Wilson

5DII sensor in the M9? Ummm, that's unlikely. If Canon could produce a FF sensor that would work in an M Leica, why would they sell it to Leica? They could produce a FF compact camera of their own.

RF's aren't really Canon's ken these days, it'd likely do a lot better as a Leica camera (plus, would Canon copy the M-mount, or come out with its own line of RF lenses, or what?). It probably wouldn't be competing directly with the 5D2 or Canon's other cameras, so I don't see why not.

[Pickett Wilson]

I'm not talking about a rangefinder. If they have solved the short lens-to-sensor problem with a FF sensor, they could put it in a compact autofocus camera. It would simply blow everyone else out of the water. Why sell it to Leica who might produce 10,000 cameras in five years?

[Wiyum]

Originally Posted by jke

This would be, I think, the primary conundrum that faces Leica, whose products have been sold on the basis of their extended durability. A digital, because the life of the technology is significantly shorter than the lifetime of the mechanical aspects, doesn't necessarily need to be as durable as an M2. It may need to be durable enough to withstand the demands of professional use, if it is indeed a professional tool, but it doesn't need to last 40 or 50 years because the technology inside will only last 5 at most. But durability is one of the keystones of Leica sales, so creating a camera that would allow them to offer timely upgrades in keeping with changes in technology ala Nikon & Canon would inevitably affect that keystone and thus the company philosophy.

In other words, put a Leica M mount on Panasonic G1 technology stuffed into a rectangular body & you'd sell a stack of them. Plus you could upgrade to better faster more beautiful technology every 2 - 3 years with a G2, G3, G4... without your customer base having to swallow a $4, 5, 6, 10,000 price tag.

But you wouldn't necessarily be the same company either.

I'm glad I am not trying to run that company.

That's one possible solution, and one that I'd not entirely be opposed to. However, the other solution is that Leica simply needs to get some rock solid sensor tech into their next camera. The fact is, the m8 uses a sensor that has many faults that make newer cameras seem more attractive. It has the build quality and construction of a Leica, though, so it has a "timeless" build. My D700, though, gives me images that I honestly have a hard time faulting, right on up to ISO6400. 12MP is enough for me, and ISO6400 is enough for me. While I can't say that I'll *never* be swayed by more pixels or even better high ISO performance, I can see myself skipping several generations (a decade, maybe?) with my D700. It does everything I want a DSLR to do, gives me results I can't match on film, and I own the damn thing outright and sink no money into image-making with it (only print-making). To play it safe, I think Leica needs to introduce the m9 with ISO performance of the D700 and resolution in the 15-20MP range. That's a camera that I honestly *can* see being used decades hence. Maybe that's shortsighted, and maybe it isn't. Even when cameras regularly shoot 30MP, will there be any real reason for it?

The point is that the reason I can't imagine anyone using an m8 a decade from now is that I find a number of faults with the images it makes that I'd personally want to see corrected, or that could sway me to leave the camera behind for another system. I'm not in that boat with the D700.

[Pavel+]

You guys are all talking about the sensor, as if that was the only challenge. The electronics are as influential as the silicone, and for that matter the software that runs the whole dang show.

I for one like the 1.3 crop. I've had just about every digicam out there. Crops of 1.3 (actually it is 1.25 to be precise on the 1D) FF, 1.5, 1.6 and the sigma's foveon had 1.7 if I remember right. It is a little like making the transition from medium format to large or down to 35. It just takes a slight change in approach and on the whole can be invigorating.

What the heck is this thing about needing some exact duplication of some old arbitrary standard. Heck the 35 standard was only put into place because they used stock from movie film. Now it is some kind of holly grail? I don't get that mind set. Every different format is a new challenge and opportunity - mostly, I see, to argue.

[dfoo]

I hate the crop. My wides are no longer wide. Why would I want to shoot any format for which my lens was not designed? The image circle is for 35mm, and that is what I want to shoot!

As for solving the light falloff problem, what is the percentage of falloff? Does anyone know?

[Gabriel M.A.]

I've been reading about the M9 since before the first M8 was shipped, that I'm wondering already about the M10.

[Riccis]

Originally Posted by axiom

jaapv, you wouldn't happen to be CR's new source, would you?
http://www.canonrumors.com/2009/07/l...ith-canon-cr1/

Not true... I'd like to know where jaapv got the other bit of info