M9 M9 M9 M9 M9

Perspective only depends on the distance. It has nothing to do with focal length of a lense. This is a physical/geometrical/optical fact.

So... If you find a close enough lense to compensate the 1.3 crop and frame the same, the images are mostly the same, except for the DOF, which is larger when using a wider lense. Also there might be some distortions, but probably not anything obvious, when a good 35mm lense is cropped.
 
...and yes, the cropped wide angle has more DOF, which very often is not desired. That is why many people prefer FF over the crop sensors also on the DSLR side of the world.

Of course in some applications, a long DOF is good, but mostly people like to get the subject to stand out of the background even a little, rather than have to whole frame sharp.
 
jaapv said:
Not to be pedantic, but a number of the Leica Apo designs come close to 1000 Lp/mm, as do the Summilux 21 and 24 ...... Even the venerable Apo-Telyt 180-3/4 rendered 400 Lp/mm in the centre.

I did some test shots on the Summilux 24, and on the M8 the DOF at 1.4 is sensor-limited, which means it clearly outresolves the sensor.
Click to expand...
Dear Fellow
You are not being pedantic but I think you have an error in the decimal place. Looking at the 90mm APO for example (leica data) that manages 20 to 40 line pairs per mm in the centre at best. Elsewhere it is more like 5 to 10 lp/mm. Interestingly my guestimate for a full frame at 10 mega pix would be 200 to 300 lp/cm (20 to 30 per mm). Its a crude calculation because it does not allow for any space between pixels. Even so if i am even close,in this format we are also at least near to the resolving power of the lenses. It would at least help explain why the M8 images are so good!

Regarding your observations using the 24 at 1.4 you can not say it is sensor limited unless you could show the problem went away with a better sensor!

A rather frustrating days snapping for me. The metering in my Holga outperformed my Spot meter / Hasselblad. Who's fault is that!

Richard
 
Richard Marks said:
Even so if i am even close,in this format we are also at least near to the resolving power of the lenses. It would at least help explain why the M8 images are so good!
Click to expand...
Whatever the numbers, in this we are agreed. Which shows up the nonsense of the megapixel race
Regarding your observations using the 24 at 1.4 you can not say it is sensor limited unless you could show the problem went away with a better sensor!

Richard
Click to expand...

Yes, you can. Enlarging the image to pixel size shows that the DOF is the value it should theoretically be calculating the sensor resolution. I do not regard DOF as a problem;)
 
Reading the above comments, it dawns on me that the primary reason for the high cost of the M8 is the cost of the sensor. Specifically, a sensor designed by Kodak for a camera with a small market, hence, limited number of sales. It the same applies to the M9, then the price has to be high. I don't think the rest of the camera's design would lead to runaway costs. So, the question is whether or no any other camera can use and sell the same Kodak sensor. It the sale of this sensor could reach any kind of scale, then the price could be reasonable. And then the price of the M9. So, let's bet on $7,200. Or something similar the gap, say, between the Nikon D90, D700, and whateve the top of the line D costs that I never look at.
 
jaapv said:
Whatever the numbers, in this we are agreed. Which shows up the nonsense of the megapixel race

Yes, you can. Enlarging the image to pixel size shows that the DOF is the value it should theoretically be calculating the sensor resolution. I do not regard DOF as a problem;)
Click to expand...

I am convinced the magapixel race is pure marketing unless one also increases sensor size significantly (a larger format entirely) and suspect 10 to 12 MP is plenty for current leica m glass. Then we have the other issues of resolution that can be recorded electronically but not displayed, not visualised or printed.

I cant understand the second argument but them I am probably not clever enough!

Regards


Richard
 
JoeV said:
Correct. But also: with the 35mm lens the background will diminish in size more as compared to the scene through the 50mm, even though the foreground composition may be the same.
Click to expand...

A 35mm on an M8 effects to only a 46.5mm lens on FF. Put a 40mm on an M8 (equates to 53mm, closer to a 50...remember, differences in focal length equate to larger differences in FOV as the focal length decreases) and compare the DOF to a 50, and you'll see less of a difference in DOF.
 
DOF is related to absolute focal length and focal ratio. The size of the field of view doesn't matter. It's a property of the lens/aperture, not the film plane size (other assumptions remaining unchanged, like enlargement factor and print viewing distance.)

And the manner in which the background recedes from the foreground is dependent on lens focal length, a physical property of the lens.

These are some of the reasons why, comparing medium format with 135 for instance, you can have the same angle of view, but different perspective and DOF properties between the formats. Because for the same angle of view between both formats the focal lengths are different.

The point being that different format sizes offer different optical properties at the film plane that cannot be duplicated by scaling a smaller format. And hence if those properties are important for a photographer's image-making art, then the choice of format size is also important.


~Joe
 
Thanks for clarifying that, Joe.

Personally I like the FL, FOV and DOF of fast 35mm lenses on my 24x36mm format cameras and would not be satisfied with a 24/25mm lens on a 1.33x cropped camera digital sensor.

That is why suggestions made in this thread that I simply buy a 24/25mm lens and M8 camera are not good ones for me.
 
Now those are exactly the three paramaters that are unchanged (or only minimally changed (DOF)) on an 1.33 sensor. The only thing that does change is the angle of view.
As such it is not much of an argument against a cropped sensor digital camera.
The whole discussion is just about the angle of view, subject distance, perspective and enlargement.
 
Last edited:
I'm still waiting to see some photographic examples to support these elaborate theoretical arguments why not to buy an M8. It's very hard to convince me when I have thousands upon thousands of photos that disprove it, but a couple of actual photos might help :rolleyes:
 
jaapv said:
The only thing that does change is the angle of view.
Click to expand...

I thought the angle of view is determined by the lens. IE, a 35mm lens will have the same angle of view on an M6 as it will on an M8. The difference being the M8 captures a smaller portion of the image circle.

Am I mistaken?
 
No, that is the field of view, the angle is the actually captured piece. But that is just semantics. We clearly mean the same.
 
September.....
seems like a long wait
after a potential announcement in sept, I need to wait for the date of actual release, after then I need to wait till some wealthy dudes to buy them and resell them into the used market, then I need to wait till the price of a used m9 falls into my budget range. Things don't stop there yet, I need to create a new M lens lineup for my new 35mm sensor.

I think I will just settle with my R-D1 + 2 lens setup and go take some pics.

Thanks!

(just an off topic thought, no offence)
Cheer for the good hint on M9
 
Unless you're making up some new axiom here, nowhere has it been implied that waiting for an affordable full-frame rangefinder precludes using what you have now to make images.

If you have an R-D1 and lenses for it already, why would you even think about wanting to complain about having to wait for a better digital rangefinder?
 
It is well known that as soon as a new model digital camera is announced all previous models instantly crash and become utterly unusable.:p:D
 
jaapv said:
It is well known that as soon as a new model digital camera is announced all previous models instantly crash and become utterly unusable.:p:D
Click to expand...

Maybe off topic - but is this the same for film cameras or does this only hold true for digital (or is the effect magnified in digital, not necessarily in proportion with sensor size)??:angel:
 
Only digital - it is one of the great and revolutionary advances of the last ten years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom