KM-25
Well-known
jaapv said:
Really?
Where?
dpReview and other amateur based forums?
From the pros I know and my self, there is less and less complaining. Most of the people whining never used a fast prime on a 35mm film camera, ever.
I have two 5D's that I use for the majority of my income. With lenses like the 24 1.4, 35 1.4, 50 2.5 Macro & 85 1.2, the corners are at least as good as when I use film with these lenses. The 24 1.4 has curvature of field, any good pro or advanced amateur knows what that does and how it works. But a dpreview windbag whines that the lens is soft when it is indeed not. It just needs to be focused in the corner correctly. Then, even at 1.4, it is damn sharp!
And that new 16-35...HOLY COW! What a Nikon DX killer. Done, no way I would ever go back to Nikon for digital. That lens is fantastic and for the money, it is a bargain. The thing just don't flare either, insane for a 16-35 2.8!!
Now, back on topic, I will never own a cropped sensor camera, ever. I pay thousands of dollars to see brilliant Leica glass perform right to the very corner. If I want to crop out a lens aberration, I will do it my self, thank you.
I don't ever need a camera to do it for me. The look I go for in fast primes needs to stay at 100% image area for full effect. It is just my style....and no one is to crop that but me.
RML said:
I agree with that, however some photographers like myself use OOF/DOF as their main "trait" a matter of taste but hard to achieve with an M8 in the manner you can achieve this with a film M and a 50 lux, other than going to great expenses.... This is the reason my "Boss" bought me the 5D although I could of chosen for the M8.
KM-25
Well-known
Whew!
....I thought I was the only one that noticed this...
....I thought I was the only one that noticed this...
x-ray said:
x-ray
Veteran
KM-25 said:Whew!
....I thought I was the only one that noticed this...
KM-25:
You and I plus a few select others like Simon L. are the rare forum followers that feel this way and would rather shoot and build our portfolios than sit and bitch about things that don't matter. It's not the talk but the making of images that have emotional depth. You, Simon, myself and a few others could take almost any camera and achieve the same end result. Our choices of equipemnt has nothing to do with name but with the function optically and mechanically and the comfort factor for our particular application. I know you and I both and probably Simon shoot with different systems. No one system is right for everything. Matching the equipment to the job is part of the process that's very important. I had a lunch meeting with the phtogoraphy and exhibition curator for a museum that I'm putting two shows together for. One show will involve images shot on 35mm to 8x10 with prints from 8x10 to 16x20. The second show will be printed to 8x10 feet. Mone of the images will be digital and all on 6x6 cm and 4x5. Digital would'nt do well at all particularly a 10mp camera. Even a 39mp would be a stretch for something like this. With digital extremel enlargements get looking very funky and often plastic. With film you get enlarged grain not fot funky artifacts and plastic looking images.
This really brings me back to the M8 and it's crop factor. I don't think Leica glass or Zeiss for that matter will do any better than anyone elses glass on a full frame sensor. It's just speculation because thare's no FF M camera. I appears to me that Leica like Canon a number of years ago sghould have bitten the bullet and redesigned the entire system including lenses. For the technology today the short backfocus and small exit pupil of the lenses are a serious limiting factor. If you look at the exit pupil of a canon lens like the 24 1.4, 35 1.4 and 85 1.2 you'll see a rear element that's about as large as the sensor. This seems to be one of the secrets to success with FF sensors and if not a large rear element then a greater distance from the rear element to the sensor. This isn't to say that future technology won't make the FF sensor work in the M but for now it probably won't. Leica and Zeiss glass isn't immune from the same abberations that happen with other brands. A FF sensor is brutal on even the best lenses and would be on M glass also.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
x-ray said:
A mild comment like "not quite matured" is a flame? Pretty long toes here
If you think any digital technology is fully matured that is rather naive.
BTW I happily still use a Canon DSLR for professional purposes.
x-ray
Veteran
jaapv said:A mild comment like "not quite matured" is a flame? Pretty long toes here
If you think any digital technology is fully matured that is rather naive.
BTW I happily still use a Canon DSLR for professional purposes.
FF technology has matured to the point it's comperable in performance to 6x4.5 film. Have lenses, film, and cameras reached the final point in matururity? What has reach it's final leven of maturity?
I'm not trying to start something but you're always throwing rocks at canon and nikon with statements like the one you made earlier. No need to attack other companies to justify your love for your M8. You can simply state how much you like it and why without putting down others with such silly statements.
I thought you said in a previous post you're only an amateur. When did you give up dentistry and go pro?
willie_901
Veteran
Unless Canon decides to market a FF camera with the Rangefinder Esthetic[TM], this entire discussion is moot.
If Leica was going to , they would have. If the M8 is a profit center for them, why would Leica make a FF camera? If the M8 is unprofitable, well...
Zeiss has publicly said when the technology is right, they will go full-frame. This may, or may not, be marketing propaganda. But Zeiss certainly is marketing lenses that just happen to add value to crop-factor cameras.
No one else has said anything.
I reread the (Cosina) Herbe Keppler's April 2006 interview with Mr. B. Kobayashi.
"I had what I thought was a brilliant idea for Kobayashi. Just as he had made basic, inexpensive 35mm SLR camera bodies with various lens mounts, why not do the same for digital cameras?
"Look at the short life of digital SLRs and their continuously falling prices," rejoined Kobayashi. "Why should I get into that mess?" "
This exchange does not specifically address rangefinder cameras. Mr. Gandy, who's opinion I respect (even before he owned RRF), predicts Kobayashi will not invest in a digital RF body in the foreseeable future.
So, I believe DrJoke has his answer. The crop factor is here to stay.
So what?
Rangefinder photographers who already own fast wide-angle-of-view M lenses are set.
Those who can afford fast wide-angle-of-view M lenses don't care.
The rest are essentially stuck with slow wide-angle-of-view M lenses, or they must continue to endure the life-crippling inconvenience and and embarrassingly obsolete image characteristics associated with 35mm film.
Of course, impressive images have been and will be made with any type of camera/lens/media you can imagine.
Just do it. Make art. Make memories. Make people think.
Now, I'm off to work on my portfolio (Thank x-ray).
willie
If Leica was going to , they would have. If the M8 is a profit center for them, why would Leica make a FF camera? If the M8 is unprofitable, well...
Zeiss has publicly said when the technology is right, they will go full-frame. This may, or may not, be marketing propaganda. But Zeiss certainly is marketing lenses that just happen to add value to crop-factor cameras.
No one else has said anything.
I reread the (Cosina) Herbe Keppler's April 2006 interview with Mr. B. Kobayashi.
"I had what I thought was a brilliant idea for Kobayashi. Just as he had made basic, inexpensive 35mm SLR camera bodies with various lens mounts, why not do the same for digital cameras?
"Look at the short life of digital SLRs and their continuously falling prices," rejoined Kobayashi. "Why should I get into that mess?" "
This exchange does not specifically address rangefinder cameras. Mr. Gandy, who's opinion I respect (even before he owned RRF), predicts Kobayashi will not invest in a digital RF body in the foreseeable future.
So, I believe DrJoke has his answer. The crop factor is here to stay.
So what?
Rangefinder photographers who already own fast wide-angle-of-view M lenses are set.
Those who can afford fast wide-angle-of-view M lenses don't care.
The rest are essentially stuck with slow wide-angle-of-view M lenses, or they must continue to endure the life-crippling inconvenience and and embarrassingly obsolete image characteristics associated with 35mm film.
Of course, impressive images have been and will be made with any type of camera/lens/media you can imagine.
Just do it. Make art. Make memories. Make people think.
Now, I'm off to work on my portfolio (Thank x-ray).
willie
Last edited:
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
x-ray said:
Photography is not just about making pretty pictures. In other fields it is an important manner of documentation. It is as well, wise for a presentation to have good pictorial material...So yes, I do use photography professionally, without having reached the exalted status of Pro.
As for throwing rocks...well compared to the mountains thrown at Leica, mine are just pebbles.
My main gripe with Canon is the marketing hallowing of the 24x36 format which has some arguments going for it, I am well aware of that, but totally denies the arguments against, which are valid as well. For the rest, my position, had you read my posts, is that the look of Canon files is not to my taste. That is all. As for Nikon, I only posted in a positive way about that brand. Please quote a single negative by my hand.
Last edited:
x-ray
Veteran
jaapv said:
It's not the sensor causing the problem and the problem is minor. Some of the cheaper lenses aren't as sharp as they could be at the corners. FF snnsors are brutally honest about the lenses in front of them. Many of these gripes are coming from amateurs and not experienced pros. They're finding it takes more than a camera to be a pro quality photographer. Too many people think their camera makes them a pro photographer and money can buy anything. Not so! All the leica, Canon or Nikon gear in the world won't make a photographer.
I'll add that most of the files that I dislike are in camera jpg's or folks shooting raw that don't know what they're doing. The classic amateur way to process raw is over sharpen. too much contrast and over saturate. The end result is PLASTIC. It soesn't matter if it's Canon, Leica or Nikon if the photographer doesn't know good from bad. Anyway, if you dislike the look fo Canon files why do you have a 5D?
Last edited:
Richard Marks
Rexel
x-ray said:
Excuse me but this is getting very silly. Why do you say "only" an amateur? This is surely not very professional behaviour.
Best wishes
Richard
photogdave
Shops local
The reason full frame exists and will continue to exist is very simple; real estate.
The bigger the sensor, the bigger each pixel, and the more information it is recording. This is why many MF film shooters now shoot full frame 35mm digital. The well-to-do ones continue to shoot MF digital like Hasselblad H2.
You can cram as many pixels as you like in an APS-C size sensor but that's not going to improve your image quality on its own. As you increase the pixel count, the pixel pitch is reduced and noise is increased Some of the pixel-peepers have already noted that the 10MP Rebel XTi doesn't quite perform as well as the 8MP XT.
This doesn't matter much for most of us, but for the working pro who has to deliver high quality images that can be potentially viewed at large sizes, it is very important. This is why Nikon loses photographers to Canon every day. I wouldn't be surprised if within a few years Nikon totally dropped their professional line of cameras if they can't come up with a full frame sensor. (I'm not Nikon bashing. I own Nikon gear but not Canon.)
So yes, the crop factor is here to stay. But so is full frame. It is not a marketing ploy from Canon but a much needed tool for professional photographers.
Now go take pictures!
The bigger the sensor, the bigger each pixel, and the more information it is recording. This is why many MF film shooters now shoot full frame 35mm digital. The well-to-do ones continue to shoot MF digital like Hasselblad H2.
You can cram as many pixels as you like in an APS-C size sensor but that's not going to improve your image quality on its own. As you increase the pixel count, the pixel pitch is reduced and noise is increased Some of the pixel-peepers have already noted that the 10MP Rebel XTi doesn't quite perform as well as the 8MP XT.
This doesn't matter much for most of us, but for the working pro who has to deliver high quality images that can be potentially viewed at large sizes, it is very important. This is why Nikon loses photographers to Canon every day. I wouldn't be surprised if within a few years Nikon totally dropped their professional line of cameras if they can't come up with a full frame sensor. (I'm not Nikon bashing. I own Nikon gear but not Canon.)
So yes, the crop factor is here to stay. But so is full frame. It is not a marketing ploy from Canon but a much needed tool for professional photographers.
Now go take pictures!
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
x-ray said:
Very simple: It works with a macro lens and a ringflash; the ideal tool for the job I need it for. I don't quite see myself pulling out an M8 and a Visoflex. I'll save that for ladybirds, who have no teeth. And the look is immaterial for my needs there, that is , to use a pretentious term for want of a better, an artistic evaluation, utterly unimportant for the use I put the camera to.
Yes, when I look at my first efforts in digital photography it is a steep learning curve on which I never hope to get stuck halfway, but I'm sure you'll agree that it is not just post-processing but mainly the original file the influences the end look.
Ben Z
Veteran
I have shot extensively with the Canon 5D and remain with the 20D. The differences in image quality between 5D and 20D are noticeable only with magnified inspection and are irrelevant to my needs: I do not print above 16x20 at all and rarely ever above 11x14. I find Fred Miranda's uprezzing plugins more than adequate for those occasions. Coming off decades of shooting 35mm slides for projection, I also rarely ever crop, other than perhaps just a hair off the edges if there's something I inadvertently got that wasn't in the finder. The added DOF by using shorter lenses for a narrower equivalent f.o.v. with a cropped sensor is an asset to my needs, not a liability. Placing the Olympus eyepiece magnifier on my 20D gives me (in side-by-side comparison) the same large finder view as a 5D. A $400 Tokina 12mm-24mm zoom gets me an equivalent 18-35mm in full-frame. DxO v.4 PRO does wonders with "cheap" lenses like the Tokina, and Canon's 28-135-IS and 70-300-IS. On an SLR the crop factor is a non-issue for me. I'm not challenging the "superiority" of the 5D over 20D/30D, but just as it's irrelevant to me that my 6-cyl car has a top speed of "only" 140mph vs 180mph for the 8-cyl version, given I've never driven faster than 90mph in my life, so is it irrelevant that the image quality of my 20D doesn't hold up to that of a 5D in a 40"x60" print or a full-screen magnification of 1/10 of the image.
On the RD1 the crop factor is a major issue. The widest lens with a frameline in the camera is 28mm, and with the 1.5 crop that's like a 42mm. To get a 35mm f.o.v. I have to use an external finder, which is a PITA because unlike a 15 or 21, it needs frequent focusing.
Would I like to see a full-frame Leica M digital? Sure. But considering they couldn't even put an effective IR filter over the cropped sensor, I shudder to think of the "compromises" that would be needed on a FF sensor at present. And I also shudder to think of the cost, given the disparity between similar-level DSLR's with cropped and full sensors, like the 5D and 30D.
On the RD1 the crop factor is a major issue. The widest lens with a frameline in the camera is 28mm, and with the 1.5 crop that's like a 42mm. To get a 35mm f.o.v. I have to use an external finder, which is a PITA because unlike a 15 or 21, it needs frequent focusing.
Would I like to see a full-frame Leica M digital? Sure. But considering they couldn't even put an effective IR filter over the cropped sensor, I shudder to think of the "compromises" that would be needed on a FF sensor at present. And I also shudder to think of the cost, given the disparity between similar-level DSLR's with cropped and full sensors, like the 5D and 30D.
Last edited:
eef
Established
Mafufo Acilu said:
One compensation of the M8 (and any "small" sensor camera) is that since the image has to be blown up more, the effective DOF for a given lens is reduced. It is common when zone focussing to use the DOF for the next lower aperture.
That is, a 35mm lens at f2.0 on the M8 will have the same DOF it would have at f1.4 on a 35mm body. That probably won't match the DOF you would have gotten with the FOV equivalent 50mm on film, but it is closer than you might think.
This picture might give some idea of what I mean:
http://efroymson.com/2007/03/kitty.html
There the eyes and whiskers are in focus, but the back of the head is not. Whether the "bokeh" is pleasing or not is a matter of opinion, as is the over all quality of the picture. I agree that one way to create distinctive photographs is to take more control over the in-focus areas than a P&S would give you. I believe the M8 allows this very well.
TJV
Well-known
I got halfway in this thread and got bored but I will add this.
A crop is not altogether bad but it does change things. My main problem with it is that it changes the appearance of depth, being the backgrounds of shots taken with wider lenses always appear very distant when shooting close subjects. I don't really know how to describe it except to say that I don't like the less compressed look.
Tim
A crop is not altogether bad but it does change things. My main problem with it is that it changes the appearance of depth, being the backgrounds of shots taken with wider lenses always appear very distant when shooting close subjects. I don't really know how to describe it except to say that I don't like the less compressed look.
Tim
x-ray
Veteran
Richard Marks said:
Because that's how he described himself in an earlier post. This simply means he doesn't get paid so relax.
x-ray
Veteran
jaapv said:
I was just curious why you went Canon over Nikon if you like Nikons files better. Nikon files are excellent too but Nikon had a totally different approach to creating that file vs Canon. I agree that they are different in some respects. I'm always curious as to what characteristics lead a person to a specific camera or film. It's probably the same reason we all don't like tha same color film or B&W for that matter. My personal tastes are for a more pastel and softer look much more like Ektachrome GX100. 98% of all the color film I've shot over 42 years has been transparency film. I like Fuji Astia very well and some Provia but I rarely use Velvia due to excessive contrast and over saturation. I like a longer scale of tones and warmer more pastel film for people and neutral for products. I guess this carries over in my digital preferences too. I hate over saturation. over sharpening and contrasty images which seem to be what many people like today. Looking at color neg film and paper it's obvious this is the trend.
I fully agree that it all starts with a well exposed and balanced raw file. If it's not right in the beginning it won't be right in the end. No ammount of photoshop work will make a bad file as good as an excellent file.
charjohncarter
Veteran
It's here for now, and I don't mine. I am, believe me, totally retro, conservative, and a throw back, and I like it. Besides, if you shoot film, too, you get two lens for one.
Richard Marks
Rexel
x-ray said:
My appologies
But I do detect a bit of "Im a pro and this is how it is..." in your post, which does not add any additional weight. (pros dont usually need to say that sort of thing!)
Best wishes
Richard
Digital - Analog discussions allways tend to result in "heated" discussions.
each to his own I say, but cropped digital sensors do not provide a similar quality DOF or OOF as full frame, be it digital or film. It will produce some DOF/OOF but not similar to full frame.
I for one want optimal DOF/OOF it contributes my shooting style, for other like Jaap the DOF/OOF provided with a small sensor might be adaquate .... he apparantly is happy with it ... so fine
each to his own I say, but cropped digital sensors do not provide a similar quality DOF or OOF as full frame, be it digital or film. It will produce some DOF/OOF but not similar to full frame.
I for one want optimal DOF/OOF it contributes my shooting style, for other like Jaap the DOF/OOF provided with a small sensor might be adaquate .... he apparantly is happy with it ... so fine