Full frame digital RF

[Bill Pierce]

I can understand why folks want a full frame digital Leica (bigger pixels, less noise). But, even with a 1.3 sensor and angled pixels, the M8 has problems at the edge of the frame with steeply angled edge rays from an extreme wide angle. (A wide-angle lens on a film Leica will actually produce a bigger frame than a 90 because of the steeply angled rays at the edge of the frame.)

My guess is It would be easy to make a full frame digital Leica if it had newly designed retrofocus wides and normals whose rays didn’t hit the edge of the frame at a steep angle. What do you think? Would you be interested in a full frame digital Leica if you had to buy some new lenses to get the optimum performance?

(And, also, is my technical think about edge rays correct?)

[kshapero]

sure. GAS people never care about spending money.

[bmattock]

Originally Posted by Bill Pierce

My guess is It would be easy to make a full frame digital Leica if it had newly designed retrofocus wides and normals whose rays didn’t hit the edge of the frame at a steep angle. What do you think? Would you be interested in a full frame digital Leica if you had to buy some new lenses to get the optimum performance?

It is true that a 'full-frame' digital sensor could present less noise and that the edge focus issues exist with current technology. It is also true that a larger sensor allows more use of selective focus effects.

However, one of the major advantages of a so-called 'full-frame' sensor is to keep compatibility with existing lenses that one may possess; particularly the quite expensive ones.

If one were to posit a new FF camera, but which needed a new crop of lenses to make use of, I'd suspect many people would see less reason for it.

However, as stated, the well-heeled Leica collector may stop at nothing to to possess one of everything Leica makes.

From my point of view as a lowly Pentax SLR and dSLR user, a full-frame sensor would be nice to have so that I could keep my existing lenses and once again enjoy a 28mm lens as a 28mm lens. If Pentax were to release a FF camera that required new lenses? No interest from me.

[Brian Sweeney]

I believe it would have been a better move for Leica to bring out a Full-frame M-mount camera with some redesigned super-wides rather than the new DSLR system. The full-frame camera would not have problems with the majority of lenses.

Of course, I would also like to see a true monochrome Leica M-Mount digital. Dump the Mosaic filter and the depth that it brings, get rid of fringing.

[35mmdelux]

Hi Bill,

I got my staple of lenses, aint buying any more.

Regards -

[Dunk]

Originally Posted by Bill Pierce

I can understand why folks want a full frame digital Leica (bigger pixels, less noise). But, even with a 1.3 sensor and angled pixels, the M8 has problems at the edge of the frame with steeply angled edge rays from an extreme wide angle. (A wide-angle lens on a film Leica will actually produce a bigger frame than a 90 because of the steeply angled rays at the edge of the frame.)

My guess is It would be easy to make a full frame digital Leica if it had newly designed retrofocus wides and normals whose rays didn’t hit the edge of the frame at a steep angle. What do you think? Would you be interested in a full frame digital Leica if you had to buy some new lenses to get the optimum performance?

(And, also, is my technical think about edge rays correct?)

Considering only ultrawide lens digital cameras - Didn't Minox solve a similar problem decades ago with a curved film plane? Maybe a compact, fixed ultra wide lens, F/F camera could be designed with a curved sensor? There are some quality fixed lens digital compact cameras eg Sigma and Ricoh so there is a market for them. However, who needs rangefinder focusing with an ultrawide lens?

Cheers

dunk

[flip]

Originally Posted by Dunk

Considering only ultrawide lens digital cameras - Didn't Minox solve a similar problem decades ago with a curved film plane? Maybe a compact, fixed ultra wide lens, F/F camera could be designed with a curved sensor? There are some quality fixed lens digital compact cameras eg Sigma and Ricoh so there is a market for them. However, who needs rangefinder focusing with an ultrawide lens?

Cheers

dunk

I have also pondered this and believe that it's only a matter of time. If we can have cloth that distorts light to make the wearer nearly invisible, then I think we have the creative capacity to solve this hurdle.

[DGA]

I too agree that it's just a matter of time till it'll be commercially available.
My only wish is that when it comes, I will be able to finance me a copy.

[Paul T.]

Originally Posted by flip

I have also pondered this and believe that it's only a matter of time. If we can have cloth that distorts light to make the wearer nearly invisible, then I think we have the creative capacity to solve this hurdle.

We always have this point about a curved film plane - and it won't work! The existing lenses focus the light rays to a flat plane.

I think the proposed solution is the most plausible one. Either buy new wides, or suffer vignetting with older ones. Zeiss implied that their WA ZM lenses were designed with digital in mind, presumably with less oblique exit rays, or the rear lens group further away from the film/sensor.

[Nikon Bob]

I think FF DSLRs have a similar problem with ultra wides, especially older ones not designed for digital, but in most cases in camera software takes care of it.

Bob

[digitalintrigue]

I don't see the point in redesigning RF lenses so they are retrofocus SLR lenses. To go to all that trouble they should have just continued the R line. If a full frame M9 is on the horizon it needs to use the same micro lens sensor technology as the M8 so it works with existing lenses.

[Rayt]

My guess is that it will be a software fix sort of like a built-in Cornerfix solution and will only work with 6 bit coded lenses.

[Keith]

The M8 is a good camera unless you want a fast lens at a genuine 35mm, or close, focal length. I use my 35mm Nokton a lot for the events I shoot and I would like wider than the 50mm odd that the lens becomes with the 1.33 crop factor.

I'd settle for the new Summilux 24mm because at f1.4 my problems would probably be solved for the conditions I shoot in... but at $6000.00 ... you have to be kidding!

Someone needs to bring out a full frame M mount digital rangefinder aside from Leica if I'm to go that direction because I'm not about to part with the sort of money that the Solms thugs are going to ask for ... so whether they can sort the sensor issue out or not doesn't matter to me. I suspect I'll eventually wind up with a full frame DSLR and be a trillion (slight exageration) dollars better off!

[Tom Diaz]

Originally Posted by flip

If we can have cloth that distorts light to make the wearer nearly invisible, then I think we have the creative capacity to solve this hurdle.

Sorry, what? I may be behind on something... what is the cloth to which you refer? Sounds interesting!

Meanwhile, folks, count me as one who wants to go on using the Leica lenses he has. Bill et al.: What focal length do people think would start to show the degraded edges?

[back alley]

Originally Posted by Double Negative

I don't know, as "natural" as full frame might be, I don't see the big draw. Sure, your 50mm lens will now be a 50mm again. You may or may not gain some resolution with the bigger sensor, but it's the size of the pixels that's more important in the end. And because of the geometry you get a different DoF effect. The big draw is that your wides are going to be wides again. But by now everyone's pretty much adjusted to dealing with a crop factor. If you shoot wildlife and sports, the crop factor is even a benefit.

Would I start over with having to get new/different/more lenses? Hell no. I've got enough glass to last several lifetimes. I try to buy my systems carefully so I can use them with film and digital, and try to keep the different systems to a minimum.

Full frame does add some issues. Your lenses need to be better, especially out at the edges where softness and vignetting become a real issue. Canon, for example, has been updating a lot of their glass now that full frame, 21MP DSLRs are really pushing the limits... But oddly, those "old" lenses worked fine on film (I know, angle of light rays and sensor designs)...

I don't know. I'm not as hyped up about full frame as some might be. If I really need it, I can just shoot film with what I've got already and my photography hasn't suffered because of any crop factor thus far.

i agree. i don't see a great need for full frame other than what the marketing departments are trying to sell us. my rd1 with a 15 makes for a great 23 mm lens if we're talking equivalents, and my 50 makes a very nice 76 mm sonnar. i look forward to a 130 mm lens if i can ever scrape the money together to get the zm 85.

[Roger Hicks]

Why 24x36? Habit.

I like 35/1.4 + 75/2 on film.

The closest I can get with the M8.2 is 24 (at f/1.4) and 50 (at whatever speed I like or can afford): 32/67 equivalent.

When you've been shooting real (film) Leicas for decades, 32>35 and 75>67 are surprisingly big changes.

As for non-compatible telecentric lenses, forget about it, and even with compatible telecentrics, telecentricity brings its own drawbacks.

Cheers,

R.

[Nikon Bob]

The debate is not whether anyone can see the need for FF or not but can it be done in a RF. From where I sit the smaller than FF senor was a stop gap measure put out by manufacturers as larger sensor sizes were too expensive. People who wanted to go digital and use a DSLR could then do so at a reasonable price point. It had the added benefit of allowing new lenses to be made and more importantly sold to those same people who wanted wides. At the time of the introduction crop sensor DSLRs most proponents of it scoffed that a FF sensor was either too expensive or impossible to do technically and would remain so. We are now at a point where FF is becoming economical to produce at price points that will sell. The attraction is to make use of the lenses you already have without the imperative to buy a whole new set of lenses. FF works for me and my 20 to 30 year old ultra wides work as they did on film cameras. I hope Leica succeeds and it will hopefully encourage other manufactures to bring out a FF DRF at a price the average joe might just be able to afford.

Bob

[Roger Hicks]

Originally Posted by nikonhswebmaster

Roger, with the body at a minimum of $2500 these days, that 24 1.4 is really expensive @ $5,995, and big as a Blad lens (72mm filter!!). The 50 of course much easier for you, both in size, and price.

In fact this is where any crop camera really shines, long fast lenses. My brother who only shoots wildlife loves the Olympus because his fast 300 turns into a 600, small super fast and light. But this is not an advantage on the M8, unless you want to use viso lenses (which I actually like).

Dear Fred,

Yes and no. Yes, the price is high, but no, the 24 really isn't very big: I use the Series VII (drops straight into the hood). What's that: about 55mm? Or even 52? Can't be arsed to measure it.

Absolutely right about long, fast lenses, and about Viso, though I need to make a proper mask.

I am assuming there will be an FF M9 -- both Leica and Kodak have said so -- and if/when there is, I'll probably buy the current 35/1.4 unless there's a new one by then...

Cheers,

R.

[charjohncarter]

Sure, just make a proper adapter (one with rf link) so I can use my SLR wides.

[BillBingham2]

Bill,

Not at the Leica price. Many of the new ZI lenses I believe were designed with such a camera in mind. The ZI 25 is much bigger than the CV. If CV and ZI came out with a set of lenses I might. But quite frankly I'm thinking I'm going to e more happy with the GRD III with a 28/1.9 lens.

I went to RF for a small camera, physically long lenses on a small body do not meet my needs. When I look at the zooms that come with the EP-1 I want to barf, I've been spoiled with my Nikon RF.

Never at a Leica price, maybe at a CV ZI price but quite frankly it's as big as a D3000 and a CV SLII Prime.

B2 (;->

[flip]

Originally Posted by Paul T.

We always have this point about a curved film plane - and it won't work! The existing lenses focus the light rays to a flat plane.

I think the proposed solution is the most plausible one. Either buy new wides, or suffer vignetting with older ones. Zeiss implied that their WA ZM lenses were designed with digital in mind, presumably with less oblique exit rays, or the rear lens group further away from the film/sensor.

And this, of course makes sense. I stand corrected.

[Tom Rymour]

I have wondered if the newer Leica wide angles were computed with a full frame in mind. In the pictures, the rear element of the 21, for example, seems to sit farther from the film plane than my old Super Angulon or my beloved Canon 19mm. The light comes out of these lenses at such an oblique angle that the format is actually bigger than 36x 24. On a roll of negs shot with these optics the margins between frames are much narrower than with, say, a 50mm Summicron. And on a roll from my CV 12mm, the frames actually kiss! There's about a millimetre between pix, and I have to be careful with the scissors.
Has anyone actually played with the new wides, or the WATE, who can tell us how narrow the margins are? If they're broader than those left by a non-retrofocus lens, it might give us a clue to Leica's way of making FF work.

[JNewell]

Originally Posted by digitalintrigue

I don't see the point in redesigning RF lenses so they are retrofocus SLR lenses.

Most, possibly all current, Leica wides are retrofocus.