Idle musings on the crop factor and Leica marketing

[noimmunity]

The crop factor is at the heart of the GAS the M8 inspires. At the same time, M users value their lenses and continue to shoot film (hence they are generally unwilling to give up focal lengths specific to the 35mm format in favor of equivalents with the 1.33 crop). I guess I am not the first M8 owner who has two sets of lenses corresponding to digital and analogue M platforms.

The fact that Leica put its resources into developing ultrafast super wides before a full frame digital M camera seems consistent with this business model.

Now that the 21/1.4 and 24/1.4 have been released, Leica must have, at least for one or two cycles of product development, less incentive to produce a full-frame digital M platform.

Such is my guess, anyway...

 

[tofsla]

i do agree... i think Leica trying to hide their inability to produce high iso full frame digital camera by introducing high speed wide angle lenses at stupid prices... And if 21 f1.4 lens its true breakthru in design, 21 * 1.33 = 28 f1.4 is just another me-too lens... I am shocked ppl tend to forget that its just another 28 f1.4 lens... whats the big deal?

 

[Tuolumne]

It seems an admission there will be no full-frame digital Leica RF in the future.

/T

 

[jaapv]

i do agree... i think Leica trying to hide their inability to produce high iso full frame digital camera by introducing high speed wide angle lenses at stupid prices... And if 21 f1.4 lens its true breakthru in design, 21 * 1.33 = 28 f1.4 is just another me-too lens... I am shocked ppl tend to forget that its just another 28 f1.4 lens... whats the big deal?

Ummm.. Hide😕 Iirc, they have been constanly hammered in the forums for stating time and time again that there will only be a 24x36 Leica M when technology has advanced to a point that they can offer a sensor that is capable of being used.🙄
And the big deal is that it is not a 28 mm lens but a 24 mm lens. Some people seem to think that to use a camera that crops down the angle of view magically stretches the lens. What about using it on the MP or M7 if you insist on using the full field of view?

 

[chris00nj]

I think the crop factor on the M8 negates a fundamental advantage of rangefinders: wide angles.

The 21/2.8 Elmarit is $4300. The 28/2.8 Elmarit is $1800.

 

[jaapv]

Well, yes. But without the M8 we would probably not have the wide Summiluxes and the Super-Elmarit now.

 

[tofsla]

And the big deal is that it is not a 28 mm lens but a 24 mm lens. Some people seem to think that to use a camera that crops down the angle of view magically stretches the lens. What about using it on the MP or M7 if you insist on using the full field of view?

Jaapv.. not for you. As i know you use M8, so its 24 * 1.33 = 32mm lens. and its huge 32mm lens... But lets try to be constructive. Over last 20yr, image of Leica changed... It use to be small compact camera for HBC moments, not "we produce huge fast/sharp lenses" I want Leica to go back to its roots... May be I am minorty, but I could care less for 21 f1.4. 24 f1.4, 50 f0.95... I want 21 f4 SA, 28 f5.6 Summaron, 35 f3.5 Summaron, 50 f3.5 Elmar, Leica IIIf (or g) digital.. I want small form factor digital range finder with small factor slow digital lenses... I want Leica to go back to its roots...

 

[kully]

tofsla - they still make the M7 and MP. And their Summarit range is 'small', no?

If they ever make a digital IIIf (or g) digital - I will give up drink for one month 🙂

 

[tofsla]

tofsla - they still make the M7 and MP. And their Summarit range is 'small', no?

If they ever make a digital IIIf (or g) digital - I will give up drink for one month 🙂

yeh they do make M7 and MP but not M3 or IIIf (g)... Summarit range is not small.. My 35 Summarit is much bigger then 35 f1.4 Summilux (pre-ASPH) or 35 f3.5 Summaron. Its NOT small lens. Its smaller then 35 f1.4 ASPH Lux or 35 f2 ASPH Cron, but bigger then pre-ASPH version of both...

🙂 I do agree... If they ever make digital III (f or g) I will give up drink 6month!!!! 🙂

 

[Ben Z]

The crop factor is at the heart of the GAS the M8 inspires. At the same time, M users value their lenses and continue to shoot film (hence they are generally unwilling to give up focal lengths specific to the 35mm format in favor of equivalents with the 1.33 crop). I guess I am not the first M8 owner who has two sets of lenses corresponding to digital and analogue M platforms.

I understand that is the opinion of a number of very vocal internet posters, but there's nothing to prove to me that it's the opinion of most M8 users, most of whom don't post on forums. It's certainly not my opinion.

For one thing, I do not continue to shoot film on any regular basis. I shoot b&w film occasionally, not because I think scanned film looks better than converted digital files, but because I enjoy occasionally developing film myself, and I like using the old cameras. Photography to me entails enjoyment of the process and the equipment as much as the end-result photo. It's a hobby. Like building ships in bottles, the doing is as much a part of it as the end product. Others clearly disagree. But when the end result is the only thing that's important to me, I shoot digital.

Second, I do not have 2 sets of lenses. Until recently I shot a Canon 20D exclusively. I bought one wide DX zoom to cover the wide end, but otherwise use the same lenses I did with my Canon film cameras, and now use with the 5D. The same holds true with the M8. I use the same lenses I did with my M6 for years. The only difference is that I rarely if ever used the 12mm Heliar with the M6, but I use it more often with the M8.

In fact, the smallish viewfinder in the 20D is the only downsided evidence of that camera's crop factor that affected me vs the 5D's full-sized view. the M8 has no such disadvantage compared with the M6, as the overall viewfinder is nearly the same magnification.

The difference in DOF due to a 1.3-1.6 crop factor is, in my [now many years] experience far overstated. In fact, given that most lens aberrations tend to more strongly affect the periphery of the image, the crop factor has turned some good lenses into great ones, and great ones into spectacular ones.

That is my opinion, and I am not saying it is the opinion or should be the opinion of the majority.

 

[ferider]

Now that the 21/1.4 and 24/1.4 have been released, Leica must have, at least for one or two cycles of product development, less incentive to produce a full-frame digital M platform.

Such is my guess, anyway...

Unless, once a full-frame camera is released (for > US 10k), the cropped M8 remains alive, as "entry" model for a few thousand bucks 🙄

Roland.

 

[Tom Niblick]

Unless, once a full-frame camera is released (for > US 10k), the cropped M8 remains alive, as "entry" model for a few thousand bucks 🙄

Roland.

With the economy in the sorry state its in (thank you King George and the thieves on Wall Street), I couldn't buy a full frame M9 anyway. So I'm happy to shoot with my M8 that crops the corners off images my lenses produce. So, I get to take a step or two back. Hell, it keeps me from sticking my camera in someone's face.

But things are looking better and sales are inching up. At this rate, I'll be ready to spend some serious cash by summer 2010. Will Leica have a FF M9 by then?

Tom

www.kauaisprintmaker.com

 

[jaapv]

Jaapv.. not for you. As i know you use M8, so its 24 * 1.33 = 32mm lens. and its huge 32mm lens...

Nonsense. it is a 24 mm lens which is used for a smaller sensor resulting in a smaller angle of view. Sensor crop does not affect the focal length, that is a fixed property of the lens. And the crop factor is different when I use it on my M3.

 

[TJV]

I for one am really happy that Leica don't bother to produce "digital crop" lenses and instead concentrate on lenses all platforms can enjoy. Nothing worse than a suite of EFS or DX type lenses going to waste when technology does advance in the future.

It's interesting to note that Olympus' new mFT camera is stirring up a lot of interest at it has got an even smaller sensor!