sf
Veteran
Good point about "full frame". People just have been using 50mm as "normal" on the 24x36 format for decades, so that is "full frame" by way of habit. Of course, there is nothing inherently "full" about it. Only thing is, we don't have a discrete focal length on a cropped sensor. We have 43.xx or whatever. Only annoying for people who care a great deal about such things.
Me. . . it will not matter because I'd not be buying a $5000 digital rangefinder. Leicas aren't supposed to become obsolete. It's part of their great value. The M8 will change this.
Me. . . it will not matter because I'd not be buying a $5000 digital rangefinder. Leicas aren't supposed to become obsolete. It's part of their great value. The M8 will change this.
tetrisattack
Maximum Creativity!
Those of us who are waiting for full-frame digital to come down in price may well be waiting for a long time. Computer chips drop in price over time because new fabrication techniques allow more chips to be placed on the same size silicon wafer. The physical dimensions change, but the transistor count remains the same.
Digital camera sensors are unusual because the size is a constant but the number of transistors is flexible. Here are some comparison numbers for context: Intel's current top of the line Pentium chip (3.7 ghz "Presler" core) costs about $1050 and has a die size of 162 mm2. The Core Duo chip that's been all over Apple's recent machines has a die size of 90.3 mm2. The die size of a 24x36mm sensor is 864 mm2. That's monstrously huge! Economies of scale can go a certain distance, but you can't get around the fact that the chip fabrication plant has simply got to burn more silicon to produce full-frame photo sensors. Worse, the overall yield of useable chips decreases as sensor size increases due to flaws in the etching process.
As was said earlier, lens resolution is another problem, and is probably a practical reason why the megapixel density of current cameras seems "stuck" where it is.
Anyway, sorry if this post comes off as rant-ish. I'm just bitter that the bottom falling out of the 35mm market is endangering my large-format baby without offering me any sort of reasonable digital replacement.
Digital camera sensors are unusual because the size is a constant but the number of transistors is flexible. Here are some comparison numbers for context: Intel's current top of the line Pentium chip (3.7 ghz "Presler" core) costs about $1050 and has a die size of 162 mm2. The Core Duo chip that's been all over Apple's recent machines has a die size of 90.3 mm2. The die size of a 24x36mm sensor is 864 mm2. That's monstrously huge! Economies of scale can go a certain distance, but you can't get around the fact that the chip fabrication plant has simply got to burn more silicon to produce full-frame photo sensors. Worse, the overall yield of useable chips decreases as sensor size increases due to flaws in the etching process.
As was said earlier, lens resolution is another problem, and is probably a practical reason why the megapixel density of current cameras seems "stuck" where it is.
Anyway, sorry if this post comes off as rant-ish. I'm just bitter that the bottom falling out of the 35mm market is endangering my large-format baby without offering me any sort of reasonable digital replacement.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
As far as I know the largest sensor used mainly in astronomy is 10x10 cm. I fear the price may be astronomical as well.
nrb
Nuno Borges
Actually I don't see any reason to erase my preconceptions about focal lengths from my brain for much the same reason I don't want to erase my present lenses from my bag. They are good, they take good pictures, they cost me much money, buying new lenses would cost me more, and also it's more than probable that in a couple of years new sensors will do justice to their design again.jaapv said:A good argument to ditch 135 film for 120, and only take 6x9...
But I share a lot of your sentiment I must confess. Newer is not always better, not by a long shot. But I love to embrace the future as well and I am prepared to drop old concepts, better to use new developments. So I will erase all preconceptions about focal lenghts from my brain when using a smaller medium and use the lenses in their own context there, and vica versa. It comes from using different formats over time, I guess.
As soon as the current market for APS sized sensors cools off, I'd say.
Last edited:
photogdave
Shops local
jaapv said:Yes Dave, you are partly right about distortion and specifically three-dimensional distortion, but as I recall that is one of the areas where Leica lenses are deemed to be superior. Don't ask me to explain, it is far beyond my capability of understanding, but as far as I know three dimensional distortion is an aberration that can be corrected for in lens design. As far as I have read on Canon forums the lens you mentioned is indeed infamous for its high degree of egg-headedness towards the corners.
Btw, I would have hoped you would have said:" Nikon technical staff" instead of "marketing"
Perspective-corrected lenses are famously expensive and not suitable for shooting people.
I think that Canon lens gets that repuation because most people on those forums have limited experience with ultra-wide lenses. (Many of them have never shot film or "full-frame"). I don't think it distorts any more or less than most lenses of that focal length designed for SLR cameras.
John Camp
Well-known
I have not spent a lot of time testing and working out technical perspective problems, etc.. What I did do was fairly complicated archaeological photography in the desert in the Middle East under severe conditions, using, at the start, F4s, then a combintion of F5s and N90s, then D1x, then D2x, and in between the last two, a couple of Kodak SLRns. They were used to do on-site shots under a wide range of field conditions, ranging from pre-dawn light to stuff shot at high noon (in archaeology, you often don't have a choice; when you shoot depends on when an object comes up.) I also shot publicity photos for brochures and magazines; still life museum-type artificially lit shots of collections of pots and other artifacts; and macros of very small objects down to little-fingernail size (beads.)
I could have cared less about the digital/film argument, except that digital made life much easier; for one thing, you could verify on-site that you actually had the shot, which is important in archaeology, because then you can remove the object from its context and continue working.
Now, to relate that experience to this thread, I never paid too much attention to the change-over from "full-format" film to Nikon's 1.5 crop, although I did have to go out and buy a shorter lens. That was about it. I published a number of full-color photos in Bibilical Archaeology Review, including a double-truck that was actually a cropped shot (cropped down from the 1.5 sensor size), and it looked fine. At the very largest fine-art sizes, maybe a 5D or 1DsII would be marginally better than a D2x, but I have my doubts; at that point, the photos (I think) are becoming more lens-limited than sensor-limited. To put it another way, a Leica 10mp with the best 50mm Leica lens may take better photos than a Canon 16mp, because the lens makes more difference than the sensor. (And I suspect that at the larger fine-art sizes, a MF back would be even better, so if you really worry about this, maybe you should be shooting one of those.)
One thing that I really could have used on site was faster lenses. A summilux would have been a gift from the gods when you're trying to shoot into a hole in the ground in early pre-dawn light. But the format made no difference at all. Zip. Zero. I'd been shooting 35mm film for 40 years, since I went to Venezuela and Colombia as a kid in 1961; I had no trouble in the transition; it was the last thing that I would have thought of as troubling.
I also found a few really interesting things about the small format, like being able to ditch anything longer than a 200, because a 200's angle-of-view gave me a functional 300 with much less weight AND faster speeds AND lower cost -- which is important when you're working in a big pile of dust and sand and you have to change equipment every three or four years.
My feeling about a lot of these format arguments is essentially the same as the guy who suggested that there's a big PR element involved. On a practical level, FF or small frame (up to a point) just doesn't make much difference. I'm a professional writer, and in my experience, changing from FF to 1.5 was like changing my keyboard. I notice, but adaption comes quickly and then I don't notice anymore. The end product doesn't change at all.
JC
I could have cared less about the digital/film argument, except that digital made life much easier; for one thing, you could verify on-site that you actually had the shot, which is important in archaeology, because then you can remove the object from its context and continue working.
Now, to relate that experience to this thread, I never paid too much attention to the change-over from "full-format" film to Nikon's 1.5 crop, although I did have to go out and buy a shorter lens. That was about it. I published a number of full-color photos in Bibilical Archaeology Review, including a double-truck that was actually a cropped shot (cropped down from the 1.5 sensor size), and it looked fine. At the very largest fine-art sizes, maybe a 5D or 1DsII would be marginally better than a D2x, but I have my doubts; at that point, the photos (I think) are becoming more lens-limited than sensor-limited. To put it another way, a Leica 10mp with the best 50mm Leica lens may take better photos than a Canon 16mp, because the lens makes more difference than the sensor. (And I suspect that at the larger fine-art sizes, a MF back would be even better, so if you really worry about this, maybe you should be shooting one of those.)
One thing that I really could have used on site was faster lenses. A summilux would have been a gift from the gods when you're trying to shoot into a hole in the ground in early pre-dawn light. But the format made no difference at all. Zip. Zero. I'd been shooting 35mm film for 40 years, since I went to Venezuela and Colombia as a kid in 1961; I had no trouble in the transition; it was the last thing that I would have thought of as troubling.
I also found a few really interesting things about the small format, like being able to ditch anything longer than a 200, because a 200's angle-of-view gave me a functional 300 with much less weight AND faster speeds AND lower cost -- which is important when you're working in a big pile of dust and sand and you have to change equipment every three or four years.
My feeling about a lot of these format arguments is essentially the same as the guy who suggested that there's a big PR element involved. On a practical level, FF or small frame (up to a point) just doesn't make much difference. I'm a professional writer, and in my experience, changing from FF to 1.5 was like changing my keyboard. I notice, but adaption comes quickly and then I don't notice anymore. The end product doesn't change at all.
JC
rvaubel
Well-known
First, let my say that this is has been one of the most interesting and informative threads about the fuul frame vs APS issue I have ever read. Most interesting is the various positions that people have taken because of the dictates of thier work experience. Most of us made the change from a full frame SLR film camera to a APS sized DSLR. So we were actually making two changes at once. I bought a Canon 20D to replace my Canon AE-1. To be frank, the first difference I noticed was how absolutely inferior the 20D viewfinder was to my old manual focus SLR. But I had autofocus to replace a decent viewfinder, so lets call it a wash. Next, I compared resolution. Again, sort of a wash. It seemed a 8mb sensor was about equivelent to Kodacolor. I 'm not making a fine point here, just close enough.
About the only thing from a operational point of view was, I needed a wider, wide angle lens and my long telephoto was longer than I ever used.
Later I noticed the depth of field issue so I started shooting one stop faster when I was looking for a limited DOF. Which lead me to buy a few faster fixed focus lenses because zooms werent fast enough at F2.8 to get a wide angle limited DOF.
But thats about it . It boiled down to a 35mm f2 and a 24mm f1.4 . And the advantage over film was I could shoot at 1600 ISO.
The big change in going to digital was not crop factors or perspective changes or resolution or dynamic range or DOF or any of that stuff. The really change was I could take a jillion pictures and it didnt cost me anything. And I did take a jillion pictures. I think we new digital junkies with a technical bent have taking more photos of brick walls and their dog or their bookcase or whatever is your favorite test subject. I learned more about the technical side of DOF, distortion, focus accuracey and a hundred other issues that would have been totally impractical to do with film.
And thats was just my first step into the digital jungle. When I discovered rangefinders via the Epson RD1, things really got interesting. But thats another story.
Rex
P.S. full frame film and APS sized digital are functional equivelent. Full frame digital sensors are more like medium format film. That's about it in a nutshell.
About the only thing from a operational point of view was, I needed a wider, wide angle lens and my long telephoto was longer than I ever used.
Later I noticed the depth of field issue so I started shooting one stop faster when I was looking for a limited DOF. Which lead me to buy a few faster fixed focus lenses because zooms werent fast enough at F2.8 to get a wide angle limited DOF.
But thats about it . It boiled down to a 35mm f2 and a 24mm f1.4 . And the advantage over film was I could shoot at 1600 ISO.
The big change in going to digital was not crop factors or perspective changes or resolution or dynamic range or DOF or any of that stuff. The really change was I could take a jillion pictures and it didnt cost me anything. And I did take a jillion pictures. I think we new digital junkies with a technical bent have taking more photos of brick walls and their dog or their bookcase or whatever is your favorite test subject. I learned more about the technical side of DOF, distortion, focus accuracey and a hundred other issues that would have been totally impractical to do with film.
And thats was just my first step into the digital jungle. When I discovered rangefinders via the Epson RD1, things really got interesting. But thats another story.
Rex
P.S. full frame film and APS sized digital are functional equivelent. Full frame digital sensors are more like medium format film. That's about it in a nutshell.
Bob Ross
Well-known
I will second Rex's comment that this is an interesting thread. One thing that I found in myself and in the comments here is that we all have some vested interests in our "habits of the craft" and possibley in our accumulated equipment, too. Over the years I have used various formats 35mm, 6X6, 6X7 and even Minox, so the transition to another few formats (2X in 4/3rds & ASP-C) wasn't too tramatic, though a tad expensive. I have found image quality to be a non-issue for my needs and as a color darkroom hobbiest, I love the digital darkroom. One side benefit is that if you are into gallery prints and shouldn't be using 35mm, you can use digital (APS) and learn to stitch instead of buying a larger format. All the added versatility in digital can sooth a lot of challenged "habit sof the craft".....LOL
Ronald M
Veteran
There will be improvements in chip manufacturing so there is better yield. Also there will be ways to illuminate the "HOLES" in the corners so the receptors located there will get proper light.
When this happens, the M9 will appear or if we are really lucky, you can send in the M8 for an upgrade that will not be cost prohibitive.
For me, I`m sticking with Delta 100 and Portra 160 and my $200 Canon Power Shot 610 if I need a color pic fast and cheap. The Canon is indeed a throw away when technology advances while the M8 is not at the consumer level.
National Geographic can throw them away, I can`t.
When this happens, the M9 will appear or if we are really lucky, you can send in the M8 for an upgrade that will not be cost prohibitive.
For me, I`m sticking with Delta 100 and Portra 160 and my $200 Canon Power Shot 610 if I need a color pic fast and cheap. The Canon is indeed a throw away when technology advances while the M8 is not at the consumer level.
National Geographic can throw them away, I can`t.
nrb
Nuno Borges
When, and if, a digital rangefinder is born that can mount my old 35, 50 and 90 mm Leica mount lenses to make images that are not mere cropples of what that glass can produce when mounted on a film rangefinder, surely I may consider buying one such camera.
And I'm certain that day is not far from us.
Regretfully I can't afford the buying of an exceptionally expensive 1.5 crop sensor rangefinder plus an exceptionally expensive ultra-fast wide-angle, to make do for the loss of the 35 mm lens, only to have it exchanged for a horrendously expensive full frame sensor rangefinder only a couple of years later...
And I'm certain that day is not far from us.
Regretfully I can't afford the buying of an exceptionally expensive 1.5 crop sensor rangefinder plus an exceptionally expensive ultra-fast wide-angle, to make do for the loss of the 35 mm lens, only to have it exchanged for a horrendously expensive full frame sensor rangefinder only a couple of years later...
sf
Veteran
tetrisattack said:
I think LF will hang out a long time after 35mm and MF have hit the road. LF has such a massive benefit over all others that its market will not find even a mediocre digital product for many years. Decades, maybe. Maybe never.
I'm the one that should be worried about this. 35mm is gone. 645 is the next to be swallowed up. We're all just scrambling for higher ground in one way or another. Moving into super-fine Leica bodies or up in format to escape the digital flood. Maybe I'll go to Fuji 6x9 or Alpa 6x9 after things have become unpleasant for 645. . . or not.
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
I think the last time Leica offered meaningful "upgrades" on this scale was during the screw-mount era.
Philipp
ywenz
Veteran
1.33 crop factor is very usable. Canon's 1D series DSLR has been 1.3 for a very long time and it is being used very well out in the field..
I think it's the thought that there are "compromises" with the Leica M8 that is troublesome to certain people.
I think it's the thought that there are "compromises" with the Leica M8 that is troublesome to certain people.
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
Still there are enough Canon users, albeit more in the Rebel and 20D class, who complain constantly about how they needed new wideangle lenses. The 5D is selling rather well, too.
I agree completely. Partly it probably has to do with the peculiarities of the Leica userbase as well. Even if the M8 featured a full-frame 20 MP sensor some people would probably still complain about "compromises", about the "look" not being right, about vignetting in wideangles and so on.
Philipp
Bob Ross
Well-known
I don't share your certainty other than you will stll see that 1.5 factor, except it will be applied to the price....nrb said:
I don't do ultra fast wides, but if you got one (28mm = 37mm on M8) it would still work on the larger sensor. One nice benefit for the 1.33X sensor is with ultra fast lenses. The do tend to be soft in the corners and that part is cropped.
Bob Ross
Well-known
Patrick, I share your observation that chubby photosites do the best, not only in the noise dept., but in the tonal and color gradients of the image. They just seem to provide more image data. I will say that I am amazed at the image quality coming out of the bitsy photosites in the current crop of digi-snappers. The image data depth on them is shallow, so pushing the image around in post processing will produce some very surprising effects...LOL
The Phase One P-30 & P-45 backs share the photosite size of the DMR and hopefully the M8.
The Phase One P-30 & P-45 backs share the photosite size of the DMR and hopefully the M8.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
L'esprit de l'escalier
L'esprit de l'escalier
Or rather de la voiture.
Driving home I realised that focal length cannot have anything to do with distortion. The only two parameters are angle of view and lens correction. Otherwise a 45 mm on 6x6 format would be totally distortion-free. It is not.
To prove my point, I took a test picture with my wife's Leica C-Lux1, at 28 mm equivalent. I was careful to include a ball in the corner and a line at the edge to judge distortion. That makes a focal lenth of 4.6 mm. If focal length were a factor, the result should make Salvador Dali look like a cubist. In reality, it looked like any other wideangle shot,a bit better than average distortion-wise, as the DC Vario Elmarit 4.6-16 asph is rather well corrected. The reason for your experience is that Canons 16-35 EFS is a decent, but rather modest consumer grade lens that has not pretensions to being suited for professional wide-angle group portraits. A 17-40 L would have done considerably better. Having said that, there is a reason that quality-aware Canon DSLR users slip Vario-Sonnars on their camera's.
I am surprised you didn't recover the photograph in post-processing. Usually distortion can be corrected, given a little patience.
L'esprit de l'escalier
photogdave said:
Or rather de la voiture.
Driving home I realised that focal length cannot have anything to do with distortion. The only two parameters are angle of view and lens correction. Otherwise a 45 mm on 6x6 format would be totally distortion-free. It is not.
To prove my point, I took a test picture with my wife's Leica C-Lux1, at 28 mm equivalent. I was careful to include a ball in the corner and a line at the edge to judge distortion. That makes a focal lenth of 4.6 mm. If focal length were a factor, the result should make Salvador Dali look like a cubist. In reality, it looked like any other wideangle shot,a bit better than average distortion-wise, as the DC Vario Elmarit 4.6-16 asph is rather well corrected. The reason for your experience is that Canons 16-35 EFS is a decent, but rather modest consumer grade lens that has not pretensions to being suited for professional wide-angle group portraits. A 17-40 L would have done considerably better. Having said that, there is a reason that quality-aware Canon DSLR users slip Vario-Sonnars on their camera's.
I am surprised you didn't recover the photograph in post-processing. Usually distortion can be corrected, given a little patience.
Attachments
Last edited:
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
Is that a ball or an egg?
fitzihardwurshd
Spiteful little devil
willie_901 said:
Actually the crop from a shorter lens and the shot with the original focal length look the same. Mysterious but true, shot from the same standpoint the crop only makes that feeling of compression, no matter if made with the lens or in the darkroom.
I saw it demonstrated once in a Leica book, and I admit it took some time until my poor little brain had aten this fact.
As for the rest, I agree at all points, it is exactly my sight too on the digital camera, as an amateur. If I would still work as a professional photog I would have to see it from a different POV.
Leaving the controverse about the look of the results off I cannot see any advantage for me, neither at the costs nor at the workflow, tho I really cannot say I would love developing and scanning film. But the handful of rolls I am still doing nowadays won't kill me !
Regards,
Fitzi
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
No, a granfalloon!(with the skin on)Trius said:Is that a ball or an egg?
Last edited: