1.33x factor: is it really an issue?

[John Camp]

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. 😎

JC

 

[gdewitt]

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]

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

 

[jaapv]

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.

 

[jaapv]

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]

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.

 

[jdos2]

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.

 

[rvaubel]

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 😱

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]

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.

 

[jaapv]

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]

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.

 

[Olsen]

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.

 

[jdos2]

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.

 

[KM-25]

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.

 

[gogopix]

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...😛

Victor

 

[35mmdelux]

"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]

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:

 

[Olsen]

"...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.