Pop photo, puts the FF debate to bed.

P

POINT OF VIEW

Established
Local time
8:49 AM
Joined
Dec 29, 2006
Messages
190
I realize the people who can’t live without a FF sensor on the M8 will never stop the threads.
I for one never thought the added cost to the M8 would justify a FF sensor. Pop Photo writer, Dan Richards does a in depth study, comparing the differences in sensor sizes and the results might surprise you.
I like the M8 as it stands and I’d be willing to bet all the folks demanding the M9 FF will never pay the ten grand plus if the camera is ever made. The reason that is true is because the same people that complain about the M8 sensor size also complain about the price.
Here is the PoP thread http://www.popphoto.com/Features/The-Full-Frame-Decision
 
Labs results or no, people will believe what they want. I think you'd have an easier time proving (a) God exists than settling the sensor debate :p
 
I think sensor size will always be a debate to some. I am happy with the M8 as it is. It's a great tool.

Anyway, it ain't the size that counts!
 
Hi, don`t know what Pop Photo is (maybe a popular magazine?), but it's not only about the size... It's more a question of having a lens that behaves in the way it was designed in terms of focal distance.
 
The article was a summary of points all well known to most here. May have been useful to the unwashed masses. It doesn't settle anything. As mentioned above, most people want their lenses to behave the same way on a digital camera as they did on a film camera. This is especially true for fixed focal length primes, where field of view, depth of field, and speed are all equally important. Given how well the canonical set of primes perform on 35mm film, it's almost as if "full frame" 35mm were the Golden Mean, or given by G-d from the beginning of creation.

/T
 
Yet he doesn't mention DOF? How is a 12mm @ f4 on a smaller sensor equivalent to a 17mm @ f2.8 on a FF one?
 
Last edited:
So let's discuss whether the 127mm Wollensack Raptar has better corner sharpness and has less off axis coma than the 127mm Kodak Ektar when used on 4 x 5? Yes, I know that they were really designed for 3.25 x 4.25, but what if they come out with a new Speed Graphic with a REAL "full frame" sensor and I want to use my "legacy" glass??????
 
Al Kaplan said:
So let's discuss whether the 127mm Wollensack Raptar has better corner sharpness and has less off axis coma than the 127mm Kodak Ektar when used on 4 x 5? Yes, I know that they were really designed for 3.25 x 4.25, but what if they come out with a new Speed Graphic with a REAL "full frame" sensor and I want to use my "legacy" glass??????
Click to expand...

Now that is the kind of debate that shaped modern photography!:p

The only response that makes any sense, Al! Thank you!

The answer to your question ofcourse is simple (just elaborating for those who do not get it): Just shoot with what you have! It's capable as it is, trust me! Use your own creativity, not some camera designer's!
 
There's no mention of tonality or DOF/focal length relationships... which are the main reasons I aim to use full frame. Dynamic range, at least, received a brief mention.

Using what one has access to is always wise, but that doesn't mean one shouldn't aspire to use something better.
 
When anything smaller than a full frame sensor can deliver really clean higher ISO images (ala the 5D), then they can be called equal. That's the only thing holding me back from an M8.
 
didn't they call the first 35 mm cameras the miniature format?
the format that was like a toy and would never compare to yet alone replace large format or even medium format?
 
It's simple- you buy a body to use your lenses on it. If you like the lenses that you bought for your 35mm camera, and want them to behave the same way with a digital camera, you need a full-frame sensor.

My lenses are worth a lot more than $10K.
 
Rather simplistic, to avoid calling it BS. Things like pixel density, noise floor, lens resolution vs sensor resolution etc don't seem to exist in the happy little world of PPh. In this vein it is better to shoot a 12 Mp cellphone than a 5 Mp Digilux2....
 
Yes- 35mm is miniature photography as the size of the image area is so small.

Must make my Nikon D1x a subminiature... Of course, my Nikon E3 is full-frame. And it is about the size of a Speed-Graphic.
 
I just want a FF M9 because I would like the transition between using my film M's and a digital M to be completely seamless. For me, usability is more important than the other benefits (or drawbacks) of an FF sensor. It took me some time to figure out exactly what focal lengths were ideal for me and getting to know the lenses by using them. The last thing I want is to go through that process over again. Personally, I've almost got myself to the point where I only have to look through the viewfinder when I want to shoot. I know that I would have lots of trouble getting used to positioning myself differently when switching from a film-M to a M8.x and vice-versa. That's the primary reason why I haven't bought one.

(BTW, I can pay the 10K+ for a FF M9 and I probably would pay it if Leica backs the camera with a extremely good warranty.)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom