1.33x factor: is it really an issue?

P

Ponsoldt

Established
Local time
1:58 PM
Joined
Nov 24, 2005
Messages
75
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Trius said:
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.

.
Click to expand...

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
 
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.
 
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
 
Ponsoldt said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
ZeissFan said:
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.
Click to expand...


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.
 
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.
 
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.
 

Attachments

  • lindaewood.jpg
    lindaewood.jpg
    39.9 KB · Views: 0
willie_901 said:
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.
Click to expand...

So what exactly IS your problem with a different format?
 
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
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom