Crop factor here to stay?

D

drjoke

Well-known
Local time
6:22 PM
Joined
Apr 12, 2007
Messages
217
This will affect my lens purchase decision. I want to invest in some nice glasses. I currently use film, but may one day switch to digital once it is good enough for b/w. Film is full frame, but M8 has crop factor. I wonder if M9 or new revision of M8 will remain having crop factor. Zeiss's introduction of the new 18mm and 21mm appears to confirm that they believe crop factor is to stay (for quite sometime). Canon already has a full-frame DSLR. I know that eventually full frame digital will be easier, but if Leica and Zeiss releases more lenses supporting crop factor, will they lock themselves and the digital line into having crop factor even after full frame has become reasonable?

Thanks

DrJoke
 
I'm not sure that you can translate the viability of a full frame dSLR into the possibility of a full frame rangefinder. The wide angles for the Canon are retrofocal, allowing for clearance of the mirror box. Hence the light rays hit the dSLR sensor somewhat head on. That's not the case in most RF wide angles where light hits the film plane at oblique angles, and the question is whether that will ever be solvable with uniform microlens arrays over the sensors like they now have..
 
drjoke said:
This will affect my lens purchase decision. I want to invest in some nice glasses. I currently use film, but may one day switch to digital once it is good enough for b/w. Film is full frame, but M8 has crop factor. I wonder if M9 or new revision of M8 will remain having crop factor. Zeiss's introduction of the new 18mm and 21mm appears to confirm that they believe crop factor is to stay (for quite sometime). Canon already has a full-frame DSLR. I know that eventually full frame digital will be easier, but if Leica and Zeiss releases more lenses supporting crop factor, will they lock themselves and the digital line into having crop factor even after full frame has become reasonable?

Thanks

DrJoke
Click to expand...

I currently have one digital SLR (D200) and many more film cameras. I don't own any digital only (Nikon DX) lenses because I don't need anything wider than 18mm (approx 27mm coverage) in digital. And I would like all my lenses to work on my film cameras for as long as film is available. I really don't care much if "full frame" becomes common as each camera's format is full frame for that camera. As far as rangefinder cameras are concerned, I'd love to have an M8, but I'll settle for my M6 for the time being.
Cheers
 
Is the crop factor here to stay? In some form (since there are many different variations) and for some time (since expense and technical hurdles are still factors) the answer is yes.

But it is also assured that there will continue to be technical breakthroughs in imaging technology as the years and decades pass.

I'd say buy what's best for your use today and for the next year and let the future of photography evolve while you are out taking pictures -- which judging by you Flickr gallery is something you do quite well!

The fact is that there are SO MANY digital cameras with crop factors already out there that there will be a market for lenses designed for these cameras for literally decades to come.

JMO.

Oh yes and IRONICALLY I had this one lone 1963 DR Summicron sitting in a closet for 20 years since the rest of my RF gear was stolen in 1988. I get an M8 and guess what? I have one of only three Leitz lenses out of hundreds on models that is incompatible with the M8! So you never really can depend on the idea that lenses bought today really will work on cameras of the future.

Similarly I have a D200 and a terrific 50mm 1.2 Nikkor-S which out of thousands of Nikon lenses is among the handful that can't even be mounted!

For my D200 I have many full frame lenses and 3 DX lenses. The DX lenses allow me to do things with the D200 that would not be possible otherwise. The D200 will be obsolete long before these lenses are obsolete, plus future FF Nikons will virtually certainly include a DX mode to allow that glass to continue to have a life.
 
Last edited:
Today the 35mm film format is de facto just another crop factor when compared to the enormous number of cameras with a non 35mm film format. So, IMO, yes, the crop factors are here to stay.
 
Of course, it's only a crop factor relative to 35mm... Which means, as 35mm film becomes more and more niche, it'll just become "normal".

Edt: RML beat me to it.

Ian
 
I am unsure what you mean by "lenses supporting crop factor" All Leica lenses can be used on film i.e. what Canon Marketing whimsically calls "full frame", so all new Leica lenses will be suitable for a hypothetical M9 with a larger sensor, which, btw, is at least seven to ten years away imo. You cannot use this M9 to take photographs in the meantime, so it might be a good idea to concentrate on the M8. Well worthwhile.:)
 
Note that the newest Canon professional camera, the EOS 1D Mark III has a crop factor. The sensor is also 10 Mpix. Very similar in spec to the M8. I wonder how long Nikon will produce lenses to cover the 35 mm format. Nikon is strickly 1.5 crop factors if I recall correctly. With almost no sales of film cameras, why not go to lenses specifically tailored for its digital SLRs.

I think if the M9 is to be all we would want and what a broader range of professional photographers would want, Leica will need a new series of lenses. To get an interal IR filter, the rays from the lenses will have to hit more perpendicular to the sensor. I'm still not sure the sensor will be 24 x 35 mm. What would be wrong with a 1.3 crop factor with 16 Mpix? Also the lenses would need correct aperture and distance readings and autofocus. The M mount is the oldest bayonet mount design still used I think. Exakta gone, Alpa gone, Contax RF gone. Nikon F is 5 years newer and to say it is the same today is really stretching the imagination. Each different Nikon DSLR has a huge matrix of what lenses work in what modes. Yah, the older lenses will work in a very constrained way.
 
Remember, you need a motor to autofocus. Would you be willing to carry around a rangefinder with the size lens barrel you need for that? If you were working the street with a rangefinder like that, you'd probably be better off with a DSLR. Autofocus would destroy the whole idea of the unobtrusive RF. Besides, as Japp says, it wouldn't be a Leica M any more.
 
Actually I think the future M9 will not be so different from the M8. Same sensor, maybe a few more MP, but not more than 13 and a slightly better DR. The main difference will be a slightly smaller, sleeker camera and a more silent shutter. Mark my words;)
 
If the sensor of a M8 is smaller than a 35mm negative it's just that: smaller. Not inferior.

I think we're likely going to see the sensor size the same but the resolution increase.
 
And an advance in ISO/noise. But nothing earth-shattering. The way the M8 is now makes it an unlikely candidate for an update-race.
 
rsl said:
Remember, you need a motor to autofocus. Would you be willing to carry around a rangefinder with the size lens barrel you need for that? If you were working the street with a rangefinder like that, you'd probably be better off with a DSLR. Autofocus would destroy the whole idea of the unobtrusive RF. Besides, as Japp says, it wouldn't be a Leica M any more.
Click to expand...

My Pentax K10 has internal autofocus, which works with non-motorized lenses, and it's barely bigger than an M8.

JC
 
zeitz said:
Note that the newest Canon professional camera, the EOS 1D Mark III has a crop factor. The sensor is also 10 Mpix. Very similar in spec to the M8. I wonder how long Nikon will produce lenses to cover the 35 mm format. Nikon is strickly 1.5 crop factors if I recall correctly. With almost no sales of film cameras, why not go to lenses specifically tailored for its digital SLRs.

I think if the M9 is to be all we would want and what a broader range of professional photographers would want, Leica will need a new series of lenses. To get an interal IR filter, the rays from the lenses will have to hit more perpendicular to the sensor. I'm still not sure the sensor will be 24 x 35 mm. What would be wrong with a 1.3 crop factor with 16 Mpix? Also the lenses would need correct aperture and distance readings and autofocus. The M mount is the oldest bayonet mount design still used I think. Exakta gone, Alpa gone, Contax RF gone. Nikon F is 5 years newer and to say it is the same today is really stretching the imagination. Each different Nikon DSLR has a huge matrix of what lenses work in what modes. Yah, the older lenses will work in a very constrained way.
Click to expand...

And yet...Canon offers two full frame cameras in their current line up. As prices for FF sensors go down, you'll see the creep down the line up to less expensive bodies.
Even so, crop sensors are plenty good enough for most users and most applications and they will always be cheaper for a given level of technology.

As far as RF cameras are concerned. I think it may be a camera generation or two before the challenges are met for FF. If digital rangefinders still exist when the technology gets there, I imagine you'll see a FF digital rangefinder.
 
>main difference will be a slightly smaller, sleeker camera
>and a more silent shutter

Only then will my dream come true.
 
pvdhaar said:
That's not the case in most RF wide angles where light hits the film plane at oblique angles, and the question is whether that will ever be solvable with uniform microlens arrays over the sensors like they now have..
Click to expand...

You do not need to change the microlens technology. All that is needed
is more bits per pixel. The M8 already uses some of the information captured
for vignetting correction. If you add, say, 5 bits per pixel you can correct
for 5 stops of vignetting in software.

dazedgonebye said:
And yet...Canon offers two full frame cameras in their current line up. As prices for FF sensors go down, you'll see the creep down the line up to less expensive bodies.
Even so, crop sensors are plenty good enough for most users and most applications and they will always be cheaper for a given level of technology.

As far as RF cameras are concerned. I think it may be a camera generation or two before the challenges are met for FF. If digital rangefinders still exist when the technology gets there, I imagine you'll see a FF digital rangefinder.
Click to expand...

Exactly: when the current full frame sensors become cheaper and usable by
consumer grade cameras, and the top of the line FF digital cameras
get sensors with higher dynamic range (more bits / pixel, say 16 MPixel,
24bit each or so), this technology can be applied to a FF RF, to achieve
M8-type dynamic range but at full sensor size.

Roland.
 
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. Given that RF cameras tend to be used with wideangles and the photographic quality obsession with Leica users and designers, the day that the M will become 24x36 is far off... Nikon stays with the smaller sensors for quality reasons as well. I think 18x27 is here to stay and must be regarded as the full frame size for digital sensors. There is no other reason to go larger either, historically speaking. All arguments made by the full-frame wishers are more than half a century old and have been used extensively when the miniature 24x36 started replacing 60x90 as the format of choice. Yet 135 film "won". Those that could or would not accept that went to the medium format film and larger niche. I'm sure the future wil echo the past in this respect.
If we phantasize wildly we might see two M cameras: a 18x27 smaller M9 and a more clunky heavier 24x36 M9G. The R10, however, I am sure, and it is supported by Leica publications, will be 24x36 (or larger:confused: :confused: )
 
Last edited:
The desire for a full frame sensor for me was in being able to use film and digital bodies side by side and have one set of lenses fully interchangeable between the two mediums. I suspect that as 35mm film use is declining the term full frame will become less relevent. Im not sure that I am confortable with this, but it certainly looks likely to me.
 
I just want full frame I’ve spent 40 years getting to know that frame size, and that’s the size I want. I’m happy to cope with different ergonomics but the angle of view the DOF and the look of **mm lens is too ingrained to change now
I had my chequebook out when the rd1 came out until I realised the implication of the crop
My granddad never got on with 35mm, I got his m3 and he went back to a 6x9 Bessa perhaps this is the same thing two generations on, now where did I put that cardigan……….
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom