Frames in the M8

A

aton

Member
Local time
8:34 PM
Joined
Aug 30, 2006
Messages
41
Dear Friends,
just a small question: The frames in the M8 will correspond to the lens fitted , for ex 24 mm (even 24 X 1,33 = 31,92mm), or 35 (35 X 1,33=46,55), or will indicate 32mm..47 mm and so on...in reference to the 24X36 format?
As i know that actually in the Leica M there is no indication of the value of the selected frame, don't you think that this can be a source of confusion with the cropped format?
 
How so? The frame will show the actual field of view. The actual numbers are irrelevant, as the focal length does not change, just your FOV.
 
Last edited:
I think Leica will display the actual focal length in use, not the "Full Frame" focal length which gives the equivalent angle of view. So put on a 24mm lens and that is what it will say.

In 3 years time, when the last Kodak film factory closes its doors (Fuji having already coverted theirs into conveyor sushi emporia), no one will remember what "Full Frame" was.
 
To add to the confusion, Mark, Leica has calibrated the zoom lens on the Digilux2 in 35 mm equivalent. :p
 
Mark Norton said:
I think Leica will display the actual focal length in use, not the "Full Frame" focal length which gives the equivalent angle of view. So put on a 24mm lens and that is what it will say.

In 3 years time, when the last Kodak film factory closes its doors (Fuji having already coverted theirs into conveyor sushi emporia), no one will remember what "Full Frame" was.
Click to expand...

Canon makes their own full frame sensor and see Full Frame as their future. Here's where they lay that out. I would love to see a Leica with a full frame CMOS sensor like my 5D plus the usual Leica tweeks.

http://www.robgalbraith.com/public_files/Canon_Full-Frame_CMOS_White_Paper.pdf

People will know what full frame is for a long time.
 
I have to agree, full frame will be around for a while, if not for the the fact that cameras and lenses are still being made for it then for the fact that I dont want to call my 38mm equivalent lens on my gf's panasonic fx9 a 2.136958373828 mm lens
 
Avotius said:
I have to agree, full frame will be around for a while, if not for the the fact that cameras and lenses are still being made for it then for the fact that I dont want to call my 38mm equivalent lens on my gf's panasonic fx9 a 2.136958373828 mm lens
Click to expand...

It will be around- for DSLR I think. I think the size of a RF would be a bit unwieldy - shades of the M5 etc. Your 38 mm lens is probably a 39.8897 mm lens anyway- and different focal length at any distance setting anyway. :p
 
Last edited:
jaapv said:
It will be around- for DSLR I think. I think the size of a RF would be a bit unwieldy - shades of the M5 etc.
Click to expand...

The full frame has its uses in the full size DSLR market. For professionals or serious amatuers, sometimes the versatility of an SLR is hard to beat. Canon seems to own this market and I think Nikon has made a strategic blunder in not persuing it.

However, the real economic market for DSLR's is not with the pros but is with the consumers. In this market the 1.5 to 1.6X sensor will prevail. It's simply good enough for most users including many profesional uses. However, Canon will be looked on as "more" professional because they have a full frame model available. Not good for Nikon's perception in the digital world.

For us rangefinder nuts, the 1.3X sensor hits the sweet spot, at least for awhile. The 10+MP resolution is fine, the form factor is compact, and the price of the sensor is low. If at some time in the future a FF sensor becomes available that is affordable and fits within the constraints imposed by the rangefinder design, there is nothing to stop Leica from introducing an M9. Some proponents of the larger format seem to think that if Leica was to introduce a FF at a later date, that everyone that hade a 1.3x would throw them out. I would no more abandon my 1.3 over a FF in a rangefinder design than I would abandon my 20D over a 5D in the DSLR design. At worst, the older body would serve as a backup.

Anyway, I predict the 1.3X could serve as a permanent preferred sensor size for the rangefinder format. That is if the fast, wide hole is filled in the lens spectrum. But that's another thread.

Rex
 
As Aton says - M framelines are not labeled. With any M lens on the M8 (or any other M body) one will see 2 framelines, and after 5 minutes with the instruction manual, one learns to recognize which line is appropriate for the lens mounted.

If, as it appears, the 35 is now paired with a frame for the 24, it is no harder to remember "big frame - 24mm lens; smaller frame - 35mm lens" than it is to keep track of the 28/90 or 50/75 frames.

But they will not be labelled in the viewfinder.

In the EXIF data - if one uses zebra-code lenses - the actual focal length will be listed. Even my digicams (Digilux 2, Sony R1) list the TRUE focal length used in the EXIF - e.g. 7mm or 14.3mm, rather than the effective "28mm" or "24mm".

So - lens used: 24mm, EXIF data reading "24mm", field of view of the picture 24mm cropped by 1.33x= "32mm" (although that number is basically immaterial to anything).
 
From what I understood 6 bit lenses will "tell" the camera what lens is attached. For non-coded lenses, I am thinking WE tell the camera what lens we are using via the menu.

It is possible the M8 will then display a single set of lines for us. Guess it all depends on what electronics are in the camera. I think the M8 will be a little different in some ways that the emulsion based M7. I some ways it will maybe be real different.

I know one thing, the introduction of the M8 is going to change this forum a little, "maybe alot".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom