Crop factor here to stay?

Who are digital rangefinders for? Professionals don't care if it an M or not. The motor could be in the body or move the focal plane as on the Contax SLR. This could also give stabilization.

If Leica only makes digital Ms for those of us who owned film Ms, they will soon go out of business. They need a how new group of customers.
 
jaapv said:
More and more reports are coming in that Canon FF users are not happy with the corners of the sensor and wideangles. That technology appears not to have ripened fully.
Click to expand...


Why don't you just stick to commenting on your M8 and quit flaming the canons? Where do you get such nonsense? Canon's FF sensor has no problems at the corners but some of the non L glass and the older version of the 16-35 show some softness in that area when enlarged to 100%. Canon has never had a good 20mm but the 24 1.4 ( where's Leicas 24 1.4???) and 35 1.4 are spectacular and they are 1:1 with no crop factor. Remember the 1DsII when enlarged to 100% is roughly the equivalent of 70 inches on the long side. When you view almost any 35mm image enlarged to that size at a distance of 12 inches you'll see softness at the corners. I can assure you from 4 years of FF canon use that the technology has matured.
 
x-ray said:
Why don't you just stick to commenting on your M8 and quit flaming the canons? Where do you get such nonsense? Canon's FF sensor has no problems at the corners but some of the non L glass and the older version of the 16-35 show some softness in that area when enlarged to 100%. Canon has never had a good 20mm but the 24 1.4 ( where's Leicas 24 1.4???) and 35 1.4 are spectacular and they are 1:1 with no crop factor. Remember the 1DsII when enlarged to 100% is roughly the equivalent of 70 inches on the long side. When you view almost any 35mm image enlarged to that size at a distance of 12 inches you'll see softness at the corners. I can assure you from 4 years of FF canon use that the technology has matured.
Click to expand...

Right on Ray! Who cares about a little softness in the corners? Pixel peepers, not photographers!
I just went to the Fred Herzog exhibit here at the Vancouver Art Gallery and it really hit home how so many people on this and other forums are so caught up in niggly little technical matters like corner sharpness, bokeh, vignetting etc., when they should be out shooting more.
Herzog's photos document the changing personality of Vancouver from the late 50s through the present. He shot everything hand held on Kodachrome so he was dealing with ISO 25-64. Not all the images are tack sharp but they still present well at approximately 20x24" print sizes. Sure they were scanned and printed on inkjet paper and if you look close enough you can see some scanner noise etc. Who cares? They are fantastic images, they are on display in a major gallery and he's had them published in a very nice book!
End of rant, but I may make a seperate post on this! 🙂
 
I have a hard time understanding the brouhaha about full-frame sensors. The "standard" lens on a 4 x 5 camera is 150mm. On a 35mm camera that same focal length would be a "telephoto" lens. On a "full-frame" 35mm camera the "standard" lens is 50mm. On most DSLRs, which use the Nikon DX 23.7 x 15.7 sensor or close to it, a 35mm lens gives you a field that's pretty close to a"standard" lens on a "full-frame" 35mm, and a 50mm lens gives you somewhere around the right setup for portraiture. So what's all the fuss about? The digital, be it SLR or RF is a different camera, just as the 35mm camera is a different camera from a 4 x 5 or an 8 x 10 or an 11 x 14 or a Hasselblad or a Rollei. If you don't have a lens for your digital wide enough to do what you want to do, get a wider lens, just as you'd get a wider lens if a 35mm lens weren't wide enough on a 35mm camera. The "full-frame" cult seems to be based more on religious belief than on objective observation.
 
Last edited:
rsl said:
I have a hard time understanding the brouhaha about full-frame sensors. The "standard" lens on a 4 x 5 camera is 150mm. On a 35mm camera that same focal length would be a "telephoto" lens. On a "full-frame" 35mm camera the "standard" lens is 50mm. On most DSLRs, which use the Nikon DX 23.7 x 15.7 sensor or close to it, a 35mm lens gives you a field that's pretty close to a"standard" lens on a "full-frame" 35mm, and a 50mm lens gives you somewhere around the right setup for portraiture. So what's all the fuss about? The digital, be it SLR or RF is a different camera, just as the 35mm camera is a different camera from a 4 x 5 or an 8 x 10 or an 11 x 14 or a Hasselblad or a Rollei. If you don't have a lens for your digital wide enough to do what you want to do, get a wider lens, just as you'd get a wider lens if a 35mm lens weren't wide enough on a 35mm camera. The "full-frame" cult seems to be based more on religious belief than on objective observation.
Click to expand...

How do I replicate my 35mm f1.7 lens on a 1.5x crop camera?
How would I replicate the 28mm f1.9 lens I'd like to have?

I'm not very religious.
 
rsl said:
More to the point, why do you want to replicate them? You can't "replicate" a Hasselblad 50mm lens on a 35mm camera either. Who would want to?
Click to expand...

You're losing me....😕

I like the field of view of a 35mm lens 35mm film. I want a fast lens with that field of view.
How can I accomplish that with a 1.5x crop?
 
Anything you read here is pure speculation.

We all know everyone who currently uses an M camera would like to see a reasonably priced full-frame digital-M out on the market. Prospective producers of such a camera all know that.

That means someone, if not Leica, is trying to work it out. Recall, just weeks prior to the PMA show in Las Vegas where Cosina/Epson displayed their new R-D1 for the first time just a few years ago, Leica was saying the digital M concept was "impossible" - it was then Leica announced they would have theirs out within 24-months. Well, it's late, but now it’s here.

Folks will keep saying the crop factor is "here to stay" - until someone produces a full-frame model that works.
 
photogdave said:
Right on Ray! Who cares about a little softness in the corners? Pixel peepers, not photographers!
I just went to the Fred Herzog exhibit here at the Vancouver Art Gallery and it really hit home how so many people on this and other forums are so caught up in niggly little technical matters like corner sharpness, bokeh, vignetting etc., when they should be out shooting more.
Click to expand...

I just sit back an laugh. We have the best selection and quality tools in the history of photography and we have an entire culture of internet whiners bitching about this kind of stuff. There's an entire culture around bokeh. How absolutely funny this is. I'm finding these folks would rather sit at their computers and find fault with everything they use as an excuse for their work rather than take their equipment in hand and spend the time they would be whining and learn how to make better images. I've found the best photographers that I've known could'nt give a flip about bokeh and all the other niggles. They just take what they have and make it work.
 
It is ridicluous to think that a "normal" lens on a digital camera with a tiny sensor is the same as a "normal" lens on a 35mm. It is NOT really relative.

Depth of field is the one thing that changes EVERYTHING. Just take a look at photos taken from the first 100 years of photography: even cheaper Kodak cameras had lenses with very limited depth of field (e.g. 80mm f4), and those pictures exhibit a very pleasing soft blur in the background. Contrast that with the garish 21st century, and you get ugly digital photos in which every single thing is sharp from your nose to the sky.

35mm was the standard for 50 years for a reason: flexibility. You can shoot with a normal lens and decide to lose detail (by using the aperture) at your choice. There is no way I can get this effect on a cropped sensor.
 
x-ray said:
I just sit back an laugh. We have the best selection and quality tools in the history of photography and we have an entire culture of internet whiners bitching about this kind of stuff. There's an entire culture around bokeh. How absolutely funny this is. I'm finding these folks would rather sit at their computers and find fault with everything they use as an excuse for their work rather than take their equipment in hand and spend the time they would be whining and learn how to make better images. I've found the best photographers that I've known could'nt give a flip about bokeh and all the other niggles. They just take what they have and make it work.
Click to expand...

I'm actually at the point where I don't bother with film or camera.
I just imagine what I would have gotten if I knew what I was doing.
You should see the results!

Oops. 🙄
 
dazedgonebye said:
You're losing me....😕

I like the field of view of a 35mm lens 35mm film. I want a fast lens with that field of view.
How can I accomplish that with a 1.5x crop?
Click to expand...

For the M8 you buy a 28mm f/2.0 Leica lens. That gives you the equivalent of a 37.24mm lens on a "full frame" sensor. You can get it from B&H. It's even six-bit coded. If you're shooting with a Nikon DSLR you buy a 24mm f/2.8 lens. That gives you the equivalent of a 36mm lens on a "full-frame" sensor. Better yet, you learn to use the lenses at hand for your current camera. Once more with feeling: digital cameras are not 35mm cameras any more than a Hassy is a 35mm camera.
 
justins7 said:
Depth of field is the one thing that changes EVERYTHING. Just take a look at photos taken from the first 100 years of photography: even cheaper Kodak cameras had lenses with very limited depth of field (e.g. 80mm f4), and those pictures exhibit a very pleasing soft blur in the background. Contrast that with the garish 21st century, and you get ugly digital photos in which every single thing is sharp from your nose to the sky.
Click to expand...

I agree that depth of field changes everything, but an 80mm f/4 lens at f/4 on a cheap Kodak will give you almost exactly the same depth of field as it will on a "full frame" 35mm camera or a D2X -- soft blur in the background and everything. The field of view will be smaller but it's the size of the hole that determines depth of field.
 
Last edited:
rsl said:
For the M8 you buy a 28mm f/2.0 Leica lens. That gives you the equivalent of a 37.24mm lens on a "full frame" sensor. You can get it from B&H. It's even six-bit coded. If you're shooting with a Nikon DSLR you buy a 24mm f/2.8 lens. That gives you the equivalent of a 36mm lens on a "full-frame" sensor. Better yet, you learn to use the lenses at hand for your current camera. Once more with feeling: digital cameras are not 35mm cameras any more than a Hassy is a 35mm camera.
Click to expand...

Well, we still have a minor problem or three to be addressed:
One, I can't afford an M8, so I was thinking (and wrote about) a 1.5x crop camera. That'll require something around 24mm at f2.
Two, I also can't afford a Leica 28mm f2...but since I can't afford a M8, maybe I shouldn't count this one?
Three, you're still short a 18mm f2 to help me out with the 28mm equivalent.

I'm quite aware that digital cameras are not 35mm cameras. You needn't waste any more of your "feeling" emphasizing the point.

At the current state of digital rangefinder technology, I am forced to accept reduced capability (regarding available fov and control of dof) at a super-premium price. I'm unwilling to do that.
With a FF sensor, I'd be able to go as wide as I want, enjoy the same control of dof, and the price premium would be reduced because of the availability of affordable lenses to cover my desired fields of view.

For those who don't have the same fov, dof intersts that I have, or just have enough money not to consider the cost of a less than ideal solution...their ship has arrived. Congratulations. Enjoy your M8. I envy you your disposable income.

For the rest of us...we'll just have to wait for the technology to mature to the point that they can offer us our prefered solution at a more affordable cost.

I'm confident this will happen because companies hoping to remain profitable are in the business of meeting the customer's needs and desires. Not just settling for things as they are and telling the customer to "learn to use the lenses at hand."
 
BTW...considering this is the M8 board, and not just a general discussion on digital RF...I think it only polite that I add the following:

I think the M8 is about a cool a camera as can be. It is obvioulsy the state of the art in digital RFs. If I had the money, I'd own it and every great lens available for it.

My point in this thread is only that the "state of the art" has a way to go before it will be a mainstream solution. I believe that will happen when FF sensors arrive in the RF world.
 
dazedgonebye said:
Well, we still have a minor problem or three to be addressed:
One, I can't afford an M8, so I was thinking (and wrote about) a 1.5x crop camera. That'll require something around 24mm at f2.
Two, I also can't afford a Leica 28mm f2...but since I can't afford a M8, maybe I shouldn't count this one?
Three, you're still short a 18mm f2 to help me out with the 28mm equivalent.

I'm quite aware that digital cameras are not 35mm cameras. You needn't waste any more of your "feeling" emphasizing the point.

At the current state of digital rangefinder technology, I am forced to accept reduced capability (regarding available fov and control of dof) at a super-premium price. I'm unwilling to do that.
With a FF sensor, I'd be able to go as wide as I want, enjoy the same control of dof, and the price premium would be reduced because of the availability of affordable lenses to cover my desired fields of view.

For those who don't have the same fov, dof intersts that I have, or just have enough money not to consider the cost of a less than ideal solution...their ship has arrived. Congratulations. Enjoy your M8. I envy you your disposable income.

For the rest of us...we'll just have to wait for the technology to mature to the point that they can offer us our prefered solution at a more affordable cost.

I'm confident this will happen because companies hoping to remain profitable are in the business of meeting the customer's needs and desires. Not just settling for things as they are and telling the customer to "learn to use the lenses at hand."
Click to expand...

Steve, You don't have to learn to use the lenses at hand. You can keep on shooting film until they stop making it. I don't know how old you are, but I expect they'll still be making film when I'm on my way out. Somewhere down the line the kind of film we're familiar with is going to be as hard to get as wet plates, but that's pretty far down the line. So, don't "compromise" with digital. Shoot film.

As far as a full-frame sensor for a rangefinder is concerned, if you've been reading the threads on the forum you know what the technical difficulties are. Even with the M8's moderately large sensor we're having to make all sorts of compromises. Yes, again, somewhere down the line it may be possible to put a full-frame sensor on a Leica rangefinder, but don't hold your breath.
 
Last edited:
dazedgonebye said:
BTW...considering this is the M8 board, and not just a general discussion on digital RF...I think it only polite that I add the following:

I think the M8 is about a cool a camera as can be. It is obvioulsy the state of the art in digital RFs. If I had the money, I'd own it and every great lens available for it.

My point in this thread is only that the "state of the art" has a way to go before it will be a mainstream solution. I believe that will happen when FF sensors arrive in the RF world.
Click to expand...

I think whatever we have in hand will become the "mainstream solution" when the people who've been shooting 35mm film most of their lives and who insist that any camera they pick up ought to be a full-frame 35mm or its equivalent begin dropping by the wayside, and people who are brought up on digital cameras, in all their glorious variety, take over from their predecessors. Wow! How's that for a sentence?

I agree that the M8 seems a really cool camera, but if we ever do see a full-frame rangefinder, I doubt it'll look much like a Leica M.
 
Don't worry, it's not stopping me from shooting.
I'll go out on a limb and say that FF rangefinder cameras will come before the demise of film...but that's more wishful guessing than any real knowledge of how things work.
I have tremendous faith in technology. The only factor that may ruin my lovely dream is the market. Will there be enough of a market for RF cameras in general and a FF sensor RF camera specificaly to drive that technology? Again, I'm betting yes.
So, every day I pray for M8 sales to go through the roof and for Leica to thrive as proof and power for the market I need to exist, so it can eventually give me what I want.
In the mean time, it's a R3A for me, and I'm having fun while it lasts.
Cheers,
 
dazedgonebye said:
Don't worry, it's not stopping me from shooting.
I'll go out on a limb and say that FF rangefinder cameras will come before the demise of film...but that's more wishful guessing than any real knowledge of how things work.
I have tremendous faith in technology. The only factor that may ruin my lovely dream is the market. Will there be enough of a market for RF cameras in general and a FF sensor RF camera specificaly to drive that technology? Again, I'm betting yes.
So, every day I pray for M8 sales to go through the roof and for Leica to thrive as proof and power for the market I need to exist, so it can eventually give me what I want.
In the mean time, it's a R3A for me, and I'm having fun while it lasts.
Cheers,
Click to expand...

Steve, You pretty much said it all😉 And I hope you're right. I have the same kind of faith in technology you have., though I don't give a hoot about "full-frame." I've been shooting everything from 4 x 5 view cameras to Rolleis to Leicas, both M's and IIIf's, to Nikon DSLRs to the R-D1. Every time I pick up a different camera the situation is different and I need to use a somewhat different approach. But underneath, photography is still photography. If you just put down a Rollei and picked up a Bessa, you're facing a "crop factor." So what? The image is still there in the viewfinder, and depth of field still obeys your use of aperture. You just have to approach it a little differently.
 
As much as I can appreciate the fact that (some? most?) people do give a damn about what lens they shoot with, I don't. I've shot every 50 I have on my R-D1 (J8, I-50, I-26, I-61, CZ T*) and a bunch of other lenses as well. Some even with an M42-LTM & LTM-M adapter. I can't be bothered by the crop of the R-D1. So my 50's now give me a 75's VoF. As if it matters. All it matters is that I have to step back a few paces.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom