pizzahut88
Well-known
I have never seen one of these diagrams done for the M8. I just want to know the actual size in comparison.
The value are approximate only.
Gleaned off the internet.
The increase from 1.33 to full frame is quite a big jump!
The value are approximate only.
Gleaned off the internet.
The increase from 1.33 to full frame is quite a big jump!
johnastovall
Light Hunter - RIP 2010
Yup, same size as a Canon 1D 1.3 and the M8 came out close to it's price.
POINT OF VIEW
Established
Thank you
Thank you
Thank you for the sensor scale. Of all the entries regarding this over disused subject, your visual entry makes it much more understandable to a person like me. I am far more visual than technical. This is the reason I like photography so much.
It also brings up the subject for me, no one has given a simple answer that I have seen. That question is what difference does the FFS make to the results, that thing we call the picture. This photo show was taken with a M8. It was enlarged on line from a JPEG file to a 20in. by 16in. Absolutely no editing whatsoever. If you see any artifacts or noise it is because I took the pic. of pic. with a 5 meg. Panasonic. I don’t need a large file for the web. Would somebody please tell me what difference a FFS would make in the photo?
One more thing, if a FFS is so important, why stop at a 35mm size, why not insist on a 2in. by 2in. medium format sensor.
In my opinion the sensor is fine just like it stands. I don’t need a bigger more expensive digital ranger finder. To me it’s all about the glass, the M8 is great. Bill
Thank you
Thank you for the sensor scale. Of all the entries regarding this over disused subject, your visual entry makes it much more understandable to a person like me. I am far more visual than technical. This is the reason I like photography so much.
It also brings up the subject for me, no one has given a simple answer that I have seen. That question is what difference does the FFS make to the results, that thing we call the picture. This photo show was taken with a M8. It was enlarged on line from a JPEG file to a 20in. by 16in. Absolutely no editing whatsoever. If you see any artifacts or noise it is because I took the pic. of pic. with a 5 meg. Panasonic. I don’t need a large file for the web. Would somebody please tell me what difference a FFS would make in the photo?
One more thing, if a FFS is so important, why stop at a 35mm size, why not insist on a 2in. by 2in. medium format sensor.
In my opinion the sensor is fine just like it stands. I don’t need a bigger more expensive digital ranger finder. To me it’s all about the glass, the M8 is great. Bill
pizzahut88
Well-known
POINT OF VIEW said:Thank you for the sensor scale. Of all the entries regarding this over disused subject, your visual entry makes it much more understandable to a person like me. I am far more visual than technical. This is the reason I like photography so much.
It also brings up the subject for me, no one has given a simple answer that I have seen. That question is what difference does the FFS make to the results, that thing we call the picture. This photo show was taken with a M8. It was enlarged on line from a JPEG file to a 20in. by 16in. Absolutely no editing whatsoever. If you see any artifacts or noise it is because I took the pic. of pic. with a 5 meg. Panasonic. I don’t need a large file for the web. Would somebody please tell me what difference a FFS would make in the photo?
One more thing, if a FFS is so important, why stop at a 35mm size, why not insist on a 2in. by 2in. medium format sensor.
In my opinion the sensor is fine just like it stands. I don’t need a bigger more expensive digital ranger finder. To me it’s all about the glass, the M8 is great. Bill
Hi Bill,
You are correct. 10megapixels is in fact enough for almost anything. I have viewed M8 files on 60" HD plama panel. They look absolute fine.
Resolution is enough already.
The only thing I want is for a 50mm to be 50mm,
a 28mm to be a 28mm.
I don't want my 28mm to become a 35mm.
1:1 sensor would be a perfect carry-on or transistion.
Ara Ghajanian
Established
I have to agree with both of you. The quality of the sensor is very good, but the quality of the lenses are remarkable. I used a Canon 5D for about a year at work and even with its FF sensor: if you didn't use top quality lenses, the images looked like shat. My M8 images look excellent. I can't wait to make some C prints.
Ara
Ara
JTK
Established
Here's another sensor-size graphic comparison, along with some noise/resolution comparisons.
http://blog.paran.com/foveon/24785998
A 10mp Leica is 3+mp by one common analysis...in which 14mp is 4+mp.
Sony's 24mp is likely to become everybody's benchmark soon. People shot 120 because it was better than 35 when they wanted the ultimate small film. The same logic will continue to apply with digital cameras.
http://blog.paran.com/foveon/24785998
A 10mp Leica is 3+mp by one common analysis...in which 14mp is 4+mp.
Sony's 24mp is likely to become everybody's benchmark soon. People shot 120 because it was better than 35 when they wanted the ultimate small film. The same logic will continue to apply with digital cameras.
Last edited:
pizzahut88
Well-known
The DP-1 is going the right direction.
If only the lens was faster.
f4 is simply not enough.
A 1/2 stop marginal increase to f3.5 would have been so much better.
Foveon and Leica perhaps?
Of all the sensor technology, Foveon seems to be the most 'correct' approach.
But Sigma lacks the resources to implement this idea to perfection.
The potential are huge . . . and yet so wasted.
If only the lens was faster.
f4 is simply not enough.
A 1/2 stop marginal increase to f3.5 would have been so much better.
Foveon and Leica perhaps?
Of all the sensor technology, Foveon seems to be the most 'correct' approach.
But Sigma lacks the resources to implement this idea to perfection.
The potential are huge . . . and yet so wasted.
JTK
Established
How does Sigma "lack the resources?"
Much bigger than Leica, not slaves to other sensor manufacturers, make many more exotic, high performance lenses (eg autofocus 30mm 1.8, autofocus 20mm 2.8...not to mention zooms), deliver Canon-L-rivaling performance for half the price...
Look how lousy the color is from M-8. No other manufacturer has failed so badly in that respect.
2.O would be nice (like Hexar AF), but think how large even this f/4 28/equiv has to be to cover APS on this camera, smaller than Barnack...it's a 16.6mm after all...compare DP1's sub-$1000 price to anything else of that size that autofocuses. Does anything come close? The sensor on GRDII, for example, vastly underperforms...because it's 1/7 the size.
Why can't Leica produce a winner? Because it's owned and managed by Germans, isn't designed and manufactured in Asia .
Much bigger than Leica, not slaves to other sensor manufacturers, make many more exotic, high performance lenses (eg autofocus 30mm 1.8, autofocus 20mm 2.8...not to mention zooms), deliver Canon-L-rivaling performance for half the price...
Look how lousy the color is from M-8. No other manufacturer has failed so badly in that respect.
2.O would be nice (like Hexar AF), but think how large even this f/4 28/equiv has to be to cover APS on this camera, smaller than Barnack...it's a 16.6mm after all...compare DP1's sub-$1000 price to anything else of that size that autofocuses. Does anything come close? The sensor on GRDII, for example, vastly underperforms...because it's 1/7 the size.
Why can't Leica produce a winner? Because it's owned and managed by Germans, isn't designed and manufactured in Asia .
Last edited:
sepiareverb
genius and moron
Check your junk mail, I think there are several fixes for sensor size not living up to your dreams.
Olsen
Well-known
I have done many comparisons between files from M8 and Canon 1Ds II. It seems to me that the M8 sensor would have been a 16 mill. pixel sensor in full format. Resolution-wise these two sensors are very alike. Like two twins. But the M8 crops the view compared to the Canon.
Tuolumne
Veteran
Why hasn't anyone commented on how much physically larger the FF sensor is than the 1.33x M8 crop? Look down the throat of your M8. Is there room in there for a FF sensor? I rather doubt it.
/T
/T
MartinP
Veteran
If we go on about sensor size, I suppose it comes to whether anyone would really accept a new lens mount for a FF-sensor rangefinder camera . . . . on the other hand, Leica already do make full-frame lenses that would do the job, with the addition of a bit of electronic wizardry for focussing (a simple highest contrast idea?). I'm talking of the R-mount of course.
This might make the r/f camera a bit thicker front to back though, even if only in the mount area, it might look like an "extension-tube" was on there the whole time. Anyone recall what the flange distance is for R-mount, vs the 28,8mm M-mount ?
This might make the r/f camera a bit thicker front to back though, even if only in the mount area, it might look like an "extension-tube" was on there the whole time. Anyone recall what the flange distance is for R-mount, vs the 28,8mm M-mount ?
jarski
Veteran
Tuolumne said:
why wouldnt there be room, if same rather biggish M-body has been used for "full frame" from 1950's ?
Tuolumne
Veteran
jarski said:
Did you look and see?
/T
jarski
Veteran
Tuolumne said:
yup, I sure did. look down the throat of my M3, imagining it to be M8
Tuolumne
Veteran
jarski said:yup, I sure did. look down the throat of my M3, imagining it to be M8
I used to do that as a boy. Unfortunately, none of my imaginings ever became real.
/T
tomasis
Well-known
yeah full frame sensor is so large that makes it worth to dream about digital alternative. you don't need think that it is unrealistic. There are none imposibilities.