Does Leica really need a full frame sensor?

[POINT OF VIEW]

Sensor is a state of mind.

Sensor is a state of mind.

Can anybody tell the difference in two 11 X 14 photographs, taken side by side ( all compositions factors the same ). One with full frame sensor and one with a M8?

 

[infocusf8@earthlink.]

This is yesterdays hash and the same answers are given by the same people. M8 owners don't care, they're out shooting, non owners and wanna be's still grumble over a FF M. Non owners and wanna be's will still grumble if a FF M comes out because they won't be able to afford it or will find something wrong with it. If you want a RF digital buy the M8 it is an excellent camera that Leica stands behind with upgrades. I'd rather put $2,000 into my M8 to upgrade it to a FF sensor than see it depreciate $3,000 because Leica came out with an M9 that all non owners and wanna be's think is the answer to a perceived problem. You'll see an affordable baby brother to the M8 before you'll ever see an M9. Can't we let this rest and get on to topics that are useful and helpful on this forum?

 

[Olsen]

Leica's owner Mr. Kaufman and Leica's CEO Stephen Lee have made no secret of the fact that Leica is working on a full frame M camera. And yes, it is needed, for sales and the long term future of the company.

Price and shipping dates are another matter. I am guessing it will be shown at least in prototype form at Photokina next October, and that its pricing will make the current M8 camera Leica's "economy digital M."

Time will tell, it should be interesting.

Stephen

Stephen,

Thanks for your contribution. I 'guess' that you are way too optimistic. - But OK, we'll see.

That Leica makes preliminary studies of how such a camera should look like with battery capacity, computer power, LCD and all that could well be, - and it is smart. But the real issue is the sensor. There need to be a major breakthrough in sensor technology to be able to make FF-M. If such a breakthrough were imminent, then Canon and Nikon would not have bothered to replace their 'fast & wide' lenses.

I have my 2. FF-DSLR, a 1Ds II. Be absolutely certain about it; that's no perfect solution. With 'old' (well, some not at all so old) lenses they show unsarp and dark corners. - And now that Nikon has launched a FF-DSLR we shall see that it is not only a Canon problem. It's a problem with Full Frame digital sensors - of today.

What you use with a M8 is the 'filet mignon' of the lense's optical capability. An advantage, really. A FF-M is going to reveal a lot of hanki panki in the corners. - Unless something big is going to happen in sensor technology in the near future. That I want to see.

I bought my first FF-DSLR, a 1Ds, back in 2003 because it was impossible for my eyes to control focus with a 1,5 crop viewfinder. Today I could have used Canon's 1D III which has a 'full' viewfinder. - The 1D III with crop factor 1,3 is possibly the most sold camera to press photographers here in Norway (the world?). - So, surely, a crop factor of 1,33 is really no problem. The M8 viewfinder is even better than the Canon 1D III. The M8 is a excellent camera. But it is unreliable. Mine is (also) in Solms for fixing of a 'red line'. That Leica offers customers an extended warranty is excellent. (Puh!). Then they will learn how to make a better M9 one day.

I think that Leica also owe their customers a cheaper fixed focal length wide angle lense as a stop-gap measure until a FF-M is available. The WATE is excellent, but forbiddingly expensive. If they don't come up with this, then I can reccommend Voigtländer 15 mm 4,5 which is an extraordinary lense for very reasonable price.

Isn't that so, Stephen?

 

[kevin m]

...M8 owners don't care, they're out shooting...

And your cats and girlfriends have never looked better.

...non owners and wanna be's still grumble...

This "wanna be" owned a kit bag full of M bodies and lenses and made money using them. I won't be doing the same with the M8 because it's a poor value for the money, IMO. It's simply not $5,000 worth of digital camera.

If you're happy with your M8, then mazel tov! I'm happy for you. But I'd like to see Leica address the needs of professional photographers rather than well-heeled amateurs and make a digital rangefinder as functional and as good a value as the M6TTL was. For the price, I expect dual card slots and weather sealing, for starters.

 

[Tuolumne]

This is yesterdays hash and the same answers are given by the same people. M8 owners don't care, they're out shooting, non owners and wanna be's still grumble over a FF M. Non owners and wanna be's will still grumble if a FF M comes out because they won't be able to afford it or will find something wrong with it. If you want a RF digital buy the M8 it is an excellent camera that Leica stands behind with upgrades. I'd rather put $2,000 into my M8 to upgrade it to a FF sensor than see it depreciate $3,000 because Leica came out with an M9 that all non owners and wanna be's think is the answer to a perceived problem. You'll see an affordable baby brother to the M8 before you'll ever see an M9. Can't we let this rest and get on to topics that are useful and helpful on this forum?

In a word, NO! :angel:

/T

 

[Zenjitsuman]

I like the idea of the 5:4 frame 30mmx24mm as on the Nikon D3. This is the same proportions as 8x10 and other similar larger proportioned prints. Composing in this size wastes less pixels/ storage and post processing cropping. For lenses the crop factor is 1.2x. The 35mm lenses designed for the M system will actually show less vignetting and edge softness since the sweet spot is intact and edge size is trimmed.
A 24mm will behave like a 28mm a 75mm will look like a 90mm.

One nice idea I had is if we had the 30x24mm frame and cut the height to 15mm we would have a panarama mode that was 2x1.

 

[johnastovall]

No the digital M's don't need FF.

 

[GeneW]

Wired Magazine classifies electronic technologies into three categories: Wired, Tired, Expired

With Sony introducing a FF (35mm) sensor and OEMing it to other manufacturers, the FF sensor will likely be the norm for all higher-end digital cameras within three years. Smaller sensors are going to look 'tired'. From a marketing perspective, this is not where you want to be.

So I'd say, yes, absolutely. They must offer a FF model. No choice if they want to stay alive.

Gene

 

[Keith]

I personally would prefer that Leica concentrate on a sensor for the M8 that produces less noise at high ISO and leave the crop factor as is. An M9 could be full frame and you would go that way if full frame was important to you ... if not you could stick with your M8 and your chosen lens selection.

I thought the comparison between Nikon's two options was relevant ... being the D3 and D300. 🙂

 

[elmax]

x1.33 sensors etc....

x1.33 sensors etc....

I love my M4 and M6.
I have only once used a borrowed M8 with my own 50 summilux.
The extra bulk was not noticable after a very short while, and I found that it was no real problem later to adjust my framing in photoshop.
When I was just starting out in photography I was advised to fit a 90 and use it exclusively for a while. I have never forgotten the lessons I learned then with a Leica 11 and 90 elmar.
I can accept that some people are really into extra wide angle lenses, but I feel that for the rest of us, well we'd just get used to not having a FF sensor.
The main thing (for me), is to see a frame in the finder, which acurately corresponds to the image left on the film plane/sensor by the lens used.
So, I am now seriously thinking of investing in an M8.

 

[jarski]

I guess the question becomes simply one of money. How many will pay a few thousand dollar premium for a FF M9 (assuming it is made)? Are M digital buyers completely price agnostic?

I'm well aware that once FF M comes out, I need to wait least half or a year before I can get mine (perhaps new, or little used from eBay), just to wait price levels have leveled down least a bit. but I will get mine 🙂

 

[craygc]

I think most people who shoot with Leica Ms are more caught up in having an 'M' in the first place rather than really photographing. The Leica M8 just lets people move into digital and the 1.33x crop factor is far less important to them as compared to having that digital M.

Personally, I invested in the 21mm, 35mm & 90mm, and in their fastest variant possible, because I wanted that specific FoV (I do exactly the same in 6x7 medium format), and speed. Moving to a 1.33x crop factor would, therefore, instantly render all my 3 Leica lenses useless to me. But my views and requirements do not in any way reflect the majority ...and Leica knows that too! Most are just happy to accept that narrower FoV just to have and behold a digi-M

 

[LCT]

I think most people who shoot with Leica Ms are more caught up in having an 'M' in the first place rather than really photographing...

Was the same with previous Ms, nothing new under the sun. What is new is crop factor. As long as they don't need fast wides good photographers will still take good pics with the M8.

 

[craygc]

Was the same with previous Ms, nothing new under the sun. What is new is crop factor. As long as they don't need fast wides good photographers will still take good pics with the M8.

Absolutely, but my point is that most M8 owners were existing M owners and therefore already owned lenses. Presumably one owns a prime (especially at Leica prices) because they want a particular FoV, speed is the next choice. If one then accepts a 1.33x crop on the imaging surface then you either didnt really care too much about why you have the lenses you have in the first place (more likely) or you dont care about another round of lens purchases.

Point being, discussion around crop factors versus FF are merely camp fire topics because for the majority its 90% about the M being digital period.

 

[varjag]

It is interesting how quickly we get into old "Nikon argument": people who say FF is a must vs. folks rationalizing the virtues of crop sensors. Perhaps the answer is the same too: FF is a way to go, and crop sensors are technological kludge to get to that point.

 

[craygc]

It is interesting how quickly we get into old "Nikon argument": people who say FF is a must vs. folks rationalizing the virtues of crop sensors. Perhaps the answer is the same too: FF is a way to go, and crop sensors are technological kludge to get to that point.

Not at all... Its just that the investment in lenses, with specific characteristics, occurred first. Then digi-sensors changed the rules. Even if film had been the size of the current digital sensors and the digi-sensors became full frame size. The same applies, the lenses no longer do what they were originally purchased to do, and with Leica, this represents huge investments.

 

[varjag]

Not at all... Its just that the investment in lenses, with specific characteristics, occurred first. Then digi-sensors changed the rules. Even if film had been the size of the current digital sensors and the digi-sensors became full frame size. The same applies, the lenses no longer do what they were originally purchased to do, and with Leica, this represents huge investments.

Certainly true. If there was no legacy attachment to old 35mm equipment the whole term "fullframe" would've been meaningless.

 

[pizzahut88]

Full Frame sensors for Leica RF is the only way forward.

By the end of this year,
Sony will have full frame 22mp DSLR.
Canon's full frame 5D will be replaced with something equally lethal.
Nikon will spew out another full frame monster.

Leica cannot afford to be stuck with 10mp and a crop sensor.
Kodak made full frame sensors before,
I am sure they could manage something for Leica.

This is a full frame digital war.
This year will be more interesting than any other year before.

Just look at that new Sony Zeiss lens to be release on 15-Feb-08.
It's a Sonnar 24-70. F2.8 all the way . . . full frame, 9 blade aperture.


Can you just feel how intense this is?

The M8 is good, really good.
But the standard is raising really fast.

 

[DelDavis]

At this moment I would consider buying a digital rangefinder when either or both of the following occurs:

1) A full-frame sensor is available (or is guaranteed to be available as an upgrade) and vignetting is not a big issue.
2) Film is no longer being produced.

In the latter case, I'd consider a cropped frame, but it would be a hard sell because I like my current focal lengths. I spent a good deal of time and money -- no doubt more than I should have -- to acquire three lenses that give me adequate coverage over the range of fields of view. I'm a proponent of grabbing a lens and working within the constraints of its FOV, but sometimes a 90mm just ain't appropriate.

I've previously owned a 1.6 crop factor DSLR, so I'm not 100% opposed to the concept, but in that case I constructed a set of lenses appropriate to that camera that wouldn't have worked for me with a full-frame sensor.