Pop photo, puts the FF debate to bed.

I never care about ff sensors and when I shoot sports with my D300s I actually like that my 300 2.8 "gets me a little closer." With rangefinders I only shoot film in an M3, M6ttl, and a Zeiss Ikon. I would like an RD-1 I just never was able to get one when the prices were lower.
 
POINT OF VIEW said:
The reason that is true is because the same people that complain about the M8 sensor size also complain about the price.
Click to expand...

I see your point but I think (that most) people complain about the price because of the lack of performance. If I was in the market for digital RF, then I would be willing to pay the extra ££ for a proper, well considered camera.

A Leica MP, for example, is expensive but it performs well and thus most regard it highly. I understand of course that digital is a different ball game because the camera has to do somewhat more than just hold your film and open and close when you press the button.
 
Brian Sweeney said:
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.
Click to expand...
I'll grant you that. Never-the-less, it didn't take me that long to figure that my 35mm acts more like a 50mm and my 28mm acts more like a 35mm. Now my 50mm is an okay portrait lens and my 90mm lens is darn near telephoto. :D
 
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...

Seems to me that all 6 of my Rodenstock, Nikkor and Schnider lenses work fine on my 4x5 with my BetterLight Super 6K scanback even though it is merely 3x4 inches and not 4x5. That includes a wonderful old Linhof 127/4.7 Press Xenar, though now it behaves like a 169 mm.

I must confess though, I never worried about corner sharpness or off axis coma with the Xenar but it sure has that "Linhof glow".

Tom
 
Is the M8 shutter mechanism sized for a full-frame sensor?

It will be much cheaper for Leica to drop a full-frame sensor into a body already in production and upgrade the electronics than it would be to redesign and retool for a new camera. The design of the body took a lot of engineering. SO: if the M8 shutter mechanism is ready for a full-frame sensor, I can imagine that Leica did some forward planning for one.
 
Last edited:
Benjamin said:
I see your point but I think (that most) people complain about the price because of the lack of performance.
Click to expand...

This is factually maliciously untrue. The thing that attracts people to the M8 - apart from the DRF concept- is the image quality. There are dozens of posts in the forums of users ditching their high-end DSLR stuff just be
cause they prefer the output of the M8.
The only field that might make one consider using for instance Nikon gear because of image quality would be in low-light situations.
 
The price of a used M8 is less than a used Nikon D3. KEH has two of them for $2,900 each in EX+ condition.

I'm waiting for the FF Leica to come out. I'm betting M8.2's will come into that price range with all the trade-ins.
 
Kevin said:
A full-frame Leica rangefinder is indeed good news for wide-angle shooters like myself.
Click to expand...

Aside from the 12mm Heliar, I can't think of any other focal length for which there isn't an available wider lens that gives back the approximate effective focal length on the M8's cropped sensor. Can you?
 
when they are saying that the wide angle situation on crop is as good as it is on fullframe, they are basically shooting themselves in the foot, and make me, among other, distrust the honesty of the article.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom