FF upgrade possible?

[jaapv]

It is not silly buggers. The focal length remains unchanged, the field of view remains unchanged, the only thing that changes is the angle of view. This is the reason that many M8 users report that, much to their surprise, the character of the lens does not change, or at least not as much as one would expect. The difference in DOF is about 2/3rds of a stop through the crop and that does not make much of a difference either.
The only thing that does happen is that one may have to step back one or two paces from time to time, which can be a bad thing if there is a swimming pool behind you.
For me, I have a 35 on one body and a 75 on the other, just as I had in the film days and there is no real difference in the way I shoot.
Actually I sold my 28 as I found it was not a substitute for my 35 on film. Too wideangly. Much to my surprise as well. If I had known from the beginning I would not have bought it.

 

[bmattock]

It is not silly buggers. The focal length remains unchanged, the field of view remains unchanged, the only thing that changes is the angle of view.

You can play game with words - and you are - but you cannot change the net effect - a 50mm lens does not give the same angle of view on a smaller sensor, and for this reason, those who want a 50mm angle of view would tend to prefer a FF sensor if they already have the 50mm lens in question.

 

[johnastovall]

NO!!! Now move on it's not going to happen.

 

[Ben Z]

For me, I have a 35 on one body and a 75 on the other, just as I had in the film days and there is no real difference in the way I shoot.
Actually I sold my 28 as I found it was not a substitute for my 35 on film. Too wideangly. Much to my surprise as well.

I think that's one reason people are anxious for a 24x36 M9. A photo made with a 35, and an identically-composed photo made by cropping a 28mm shot, do not look identical. It isn't just the [small] difference in d.o.f., it's more in the way the foreground elements relate size-wise to the background elements. Personally though, I kind of like that more pronounced wideangly look you speak of, so for me my basic outfit is 15-28-90. (Conversely, I prefer the slightly more telephotoly look of the 90 to a 75).

 

[jaapv]

True Ben, no dispute, but the fact remains that I take a photograph as I see it now. Changes of perspective are achieved by moving around. If I need a different frame I take a different lens. Nobody will condemn -or like- a photograph because it was made with a 35 and not with a 50 and certainly nobody is going to criticize a print for not using the full field of view of the lens....

 

[ClaremontPhoto]

Calm down, monkey. A little say anything. What's that smell?

Did you drop the camera in the kitty litter again?

It's easy to do.

 

[Ben Z]

True Ben, no dispute, but the fact remains that I take a photograph as I see it now. Changes of perspective are achieved by moving around. If I need a different frame I take a different lens. Nobody will condemn -or like- a photograph because it was made with a 35 and not with a 50 and certainly nobody is going to criticize a print for not using the full field of view of the lens....

Agreed, to me the only 2 drawbacks to "cropped" cameras are 1)loss of absolute wide angle coverage; and 2) shrunken "tunnel" viewfinder. With the M8, 1) is true in theory, because the widest lens for FF is 12mm and that becomes 18mm on the M8, but honestly I never once used my 12 on film, and the slight loss between 15mm and 18mm is not something I cry over. 2), shrunken viewfinder, is not an issue with the M8 like it is with DSLR's.

I wouldn't discourage Leica from developing a FF, but I'm very satisfied with the M8. Frankly, now that I have both a 20D and 5D, I can see for myself that FF isn't a quantum leap. The biggest difference I see is the size of the viewfinder (not an issue on the M8 of course), and with my $50 Olympus magnifier, it isn't all that astounding either.

 

[Michael Brandt]

Crop Factors and random thoughts.

Crop Factors and random thoughts.

I've been using the M8 for over a year now, and I've shot with it every day(some more than others.) During this time, I've grown to appreciate the crop factor. I know this sounds odd, but being able to shoot with a 21mm focal length (using a 15mm voigtlander) gives me way more depth of field than my 21mm lens on a full frame sensor would. This makes it incredibly easy to shoot from the hip.

Also, the fact that Leica among others have been putting out a whole new generation of fast wide angle lenses is, I think, due to the crop factor. I can't wait to get my hands on the 21mm f1.4! That will be the main go to lens for me! Without the crop factor, I wonder if we'd still be putting up with 16mm f8 lenses!

I also wonder if by using the center of the lens instead of the entire glass we are creating sharper images.

When they come out with the M9 (think positive,) I hope they increase the pixels count (as well as the iso quality.) I love my 16x20 prints, but have not been successful in printing much larger i.e. 30x40 for gallery shows. (any tips welcome)

Cheers

Michael

Leica M8, Alpa TC, P45+ Contax 645, Linhof Technika IV, Veriwide 100, Olympus XA & XA4, Ricoh GR1s & d,

 

[Bill Blackwell]

My point is that a full frame M would have to be a little bigger...

There is no reason I am aware of (assuming a working FF digital sensor for Leica RF parameters) that a FF M camera can't be exactly the size of an M8 - or smaller if Leica changes from off-the-shelf circuit boards to those customized to fit into an M body.

... Now is the time to leave the M body behind and do whatever it takes to get the job done!

Not likely! This was Leica's mentality with the M5 and it nearly buried them as a company. They’ll be skittish with any substantial deviation from the current M8 framework.

 

[johannielscom]

There is no reason I am aware of (assuming a working FF digital sensor for Leica RF parameters) that a FF M camera can't be exactly the size of an M8 - or smaller if Leica changes from off-the-shelf circuit boards to those customized to fit into an M body...

You have read that the corner photo diodes on the 1.33x M8 sensor are mounted angling towards the lens? And that the wide angle lenses still vignette? So, you don't mind ending up with a picture with black corners and a nice round circle image when shooting a full frame M9 camera?

You need to redesign the body (add lens-to-sensor depth to it, that is) to get the light from the lens to the corners of the sensor.

Only loopholes are: when a sensor is developed in which the photo diodes have no 'depth' and can take light from each angle, or when the processing capacity of the camera increases highly, it can be done with a body with the current proportions.

But: to recalculate the sensor image before writing the file would still result in much more noise in the corners of the shot.

I would opt for sensor redesign, but Leica is the only company having these problems, all others simply adjust body design. There's no need for other manufacturers to develop a sensor like this, DLSRs do not suffer from this problem and those manufacturers usually set the market course.


Anyway, given the fact that Leica went digital with the M line some ten years after the SLR manufacturers went digital, count on another ten years before a Full Frame sensor emerges on a Leica M. Leica moves slowly, always has been this way.

Happy M8 shooting all!

 

[jaapv]

I love my 16x20 prints, but have not been successful in printing much larger i.e. 30x40 for gallery shows. (any tips welcome)

Cheers

Michael

In that case, THIS THREAD
might be an eye-opener, if you disregard the mindless flak by trolls (who, I might add, are now mostly banned)

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

Not to be rude, but when will these discussions and threads ever end.....

When people learn to use Google or the Search function 😱

::ducks::

 

[Bill Blackwell]

... You need to redesign the body (add lens-to-sensor depth to it, that is) to get the light from the lens to the corners of the sensor.

Only loopholes are: when a sensor is developed in which the photo diodes have no 'depth' and can take light from each angle, or when the processing capacity of the camera increases highly, it can be done with a body with the current proportions.

But: to recalculate the sensor image before writing the file would still result in much more noise in the corners of the shot.

I would opt for sensor redesign, but Leica is the only company having these problems, all others simply adjust body design. There's no need for other manufacturers to develop a sensor like this, DLSRs do not suffer from this problem and those manufacturers usually set the market course...

With all due respect, it isn’t as simple as just redesigning the M body. The problem starts with the M lens design, not the camera body. As you observe, M lenses are designed with a relatively short distance between the rear of the lens and the film plane. SLR cameras have a greater distance because of the room required for the mirror mechanism. The lens formulas take this into account.

The distance between the sensor and the rear lens element is not a variable in camera body design. Otherwise the lenses will not focus properly. This design characteristic in M cameras works fine with film, but is incompatible with current FF digital sensor technology. Again, as you observe, the resulting image, if shot within an M camera, would vignette.

Since M lens formula is the problem, a FF digital sensor (based on current technology) will only work if the lenses are redesigned. And it shouldn't take a rocket scientist to figure out why Leica doesn't want to do that.

So, like it or not, the solution for FF digital sensor in an M body is to redesign the sensor to work within the tight quarters inherent in current M lens design. In the mean time we just have to be satisfied with our 1.33:1 crop factor.