Shade
Well-known
When its printed and hanged on wall, it's pretty hard to tell wether it's taken by a full frame and then cropped (or perhaps not cropped), or from an APS-C sensor or etc etc.
But that's just me, maybe my eye sucks.
SausalitoDog
Well-known
Roger, I'll grant you that. For some of us geezers the auto focus is a huge help when the eyes get tired. For manufacturers, I bet they find that most of their customers have never manually focused. My one exception to what you state is that AF would mean a larger camera for Leica - if that is true, then Leica really has a bad problem with technology!
YYV_146
Well-known
But the D800(E) is at the summit of 135 digital performance. You can pit the camera against quite a few medium format backs, and it holds solid ground. Lesser cameras, such as the D600 or 5d mk2, are much closer in terms of IQ compared to APS-C bodies.
I have made 20x30 prints from NEX-7 files, some at 800 iso. Things hold together beautifully, although some post production is needed.
YYV_146
Well-known
AF means having a motor somewhere...so either the lens get a lot clunkier, or the body thicker and draw more power. Very fast lens, lens with floating elements all become magnitudes more complicated. Some designs may become physically impossible with the RF form factor in consideration.
I agree that Leica should consider a budget AF lens line, maybe choose one of the existing mirrorless mounts. But I definitely still want the M-mount around, preferably for the next century.
Pablito
coco frío
Well I won't disagree with that, though the D800 is my only FF so I can't compare with the D600 or 5d mk2. I have printed very big with NEX 7 files too and agree they look great.
Pablito
coco frío
It's not about that, it's what you can do with the file to realize your vision...
willie_901
Veteran
No, I wouldn't.
The lenses for medium format cameras combined with the much larger sensor surface areas present a clear advantage when it comes to recording the analog signals from the sensor.
The ratio of sensor areas for APS-C (DX), 24 x 36 and the S2 sensors are:
1.0 : 2.34 : 3.67
So an APS-C lens would have to deliver almost 4 times as much light if the S2 sensor's performance (full-well capacity, quantum efficiency and inherent read noise at base ISO) was equal to the APS-C sensor cameras'. A lens for an APS-C camera would have to be large, heavy and expensive to deliver that much light when subject perspective is held constant.
By contrast some APS-C lenses of a reasonable size and cost can deliver about twice as much light to the sensor as lenses for 24 X 36 mm cameras. A recent example is the excellent Fuji 14/2.8 XF lens which is approximately equivalent to 20/4 lenses for 24 x 36 mm cameras. Of course a 35/1.4 lens for a 24 x 36 mm camera will provide an advantage compared to a 23/1.4 lens on an APS-C camera.
The lens' T-factors, the absence of AA filters and varying read noise characteristics of different generation cameras make direct comparisons of maximum signal capacity complicated. Shadow noise behaves differently in different camera data stream designs too. But a factor of 3.67 more area combined with longer focal length lenses (when subject perspective is held constant) is a significant advantage. I mention the longer focal lengths because fast, short focal-length lenses are expensive to design and manufacture.
Because the signal from the sensor is an analog DC voltage, its signal-to-noise ratio is the first factor in the data stream that affects image quality. This is why SNR is important.
Many other factors affect how those gallery prins' aesthetics. But this does not diminish the impact of SNR and dynamic range on what happens after the signals leave the sensor sites.
j j
Well-known
Great build quality. Unique focus system (for a digital). Superb lenses. Classic design. Leica gets a big tick for all of those. But size? The Leica M system is the biggest and heaviest compact system camera of them all. And that's not a criticism of the cameras – it is nice to have a heftier choice available – it's a criticism of the oft-repeated small size myth.
The small size/high quality goalposts have moved on and on that score the cameras that Bill is talking about are indeed the new rangefinder-type cameras just as the recent Ricoh/Nikon/Sony cameras are the new GR1/Minilux/T3-type cameras.
Lss
Well-known
I'm not much into myths, but the Leica M system is certainly small. It is small, because the lenses are small. There are obviously lenses of many sizes for the M mount, but you can get both speed and optical quality at tiny sizes especially at some key focal lengths (considering frame lines etc.). This is not limited to Leica as a manufacturer. In fact, I am referring to many lenses made by other manufacturers. It is the system that is small. Not small for sake of small, but small for sake of ease of use.
While the Leica M camera body is hardly among the smallest mirrorless, without getting into any sensor size arguments, it is not big and has an excellent form factor that makes it easy to carry and travel with. Again, much of that is due to size of the lenses. I have a Sony NEX-5N, which is a ridiculously small body. As a system its size gets a lot bigger very quickly. It is a small camera pretty much for the sake of being small.
The Leica M system is not particularly light. Any perceived lightness in the system is pretty much due to choice of those smaller lenses and in comparison to (D)SLR gear.
btgc
Veteran
Small large(-ish) sensor cameras certainly lead users away from large'n'heavy cameras, be it [D]SLR or sub-f/2 (thus, with large lenses) film rangefinders. Back then this were regular choices for acceptable IQ but nowadays people don't want expenditures of film (both money. time and/or labour) nor carry extra weight of [D]SLR.
This is evolution, you like it or no, it just ticks on.
This is evolution, you like it or no, it just ticks on.
Kent
Finally at home...
Some years ago, the performance and IQ of digital compact cameras were just not high enough, so they were no real competitors to DSLRs or the first digital RF cams.
If you look at the IQ that a modern digital compact cams, esp. those with bigger sensors, provide, I can understand that many casual photographers consider that to be enough.
If you look at the IQ that a modern digital compact cams, esp. those with bigger sensors, provide, I can understand that many casual photographers consider that to be enough.
j j
Well-known
Lss: Good point well made about the lenses.
And I agree about the small Sony cameras. I went for a Samsung for the little bit larger body with a nice small standard lens. I intended to use it for a wider view on trips when I was carrying my SLR and long lens. Before long the convenience and image quality convinced me to use the Samsung as my carry everywhere camera.
Which, I think, gets back to Bill's initial point about such cameras filling an equivalent niche to that once held by rangefinders. A Leica M is surely more often a luxury system than an everyday one in the current field? More of a Sunday best suit than workshop attire?
And I agree about the small Sony cameras. I went for a Samsung for the little bit larger body with a nice small standard lens. I intended to use it for a wider view on trips when I was carrying my SLR and long lens. Before long the convenience and image quality convinced me to use the Samsung as my carry everywhere camera.
Which, I think, gets back to Bill's initial point about such cameras filling an equivalent niche to that once held by rangefinders. A Leica M is surely more often a luxury system than an everyday one in the current field? More of a Sunday best suit than workshop attire?
RBruceCR
Well-known
What did you do with your Leica treasure chest? Did the Leica bodies went to the selling block or do you keep them and use them for serious jobs? I infer the lenses are still in use, they are a considerable investment!
Range-rover
Veteran
Hi Bill,
I've been using for a while now a Micro 4/3's Olympus, it's just that is small and
light like a rangefinder camera and I can take it everywhere. I still take along my
Nikon S3.
Range
I've been using for a while now a Micro 4/3's Olympus, it's just that is small and
light like a rangefinder camera and I can take it everywhere. I still take along my
Nikon S3.
Range
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
Well, I spent the day with my CLE — but sold my Canonet and my Yaschica TLR.
uhoh7
Veteran
My primary camera is now an M9, in spite of the focusing system.
I love all the Nex cameras and the A7, but they cannot match the results of the M9, in most circumstances.
M9s are now running around 3200, so I could finally afford one. I prefer the M9 "look" to the M240, so I don't need to save any more money for one of those.
Bottom line is really all about the glass and the form factor---M9 is too big but I can handle it now. The good RF glass on the M9 is ridiculous, SEM 21 Cron 28, various 35s, 50 lux and cron etc. No other digital system has that sort of options.
CV 35/1.2 on the M9 tonite
L1008722 by unoh7, on Flickr
Plus people do not mind the camera so much. They think it's cool.
I love all the Nex cameras and the A7, but they cannot match the results of the M9, in most circumstances.
M9s are now running around 3200, so I could finally afford one. I prefer the M9 "look" to the M240, so I don't need to save any more money for one of those.
Bottom line is really all about the glass and the form factor---M9 is too big but I can handle it now. The good RF glass on the M9 is ridiculous, SEM 21 Cron 28, various 35s, 50 lux and cron etc. No other digital system has that sort of options.
CV 35/1.2 on the M9 tonite
L1008722 by unoh7, on Flickr
Plus people do not mind the camera so much. They think it's cool.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
I didn't switched. Not a fan of the crowd movement. For anything.
After I took my friend Olympus digital PEN, for a day, didn't like it due to mess of controls and menus.
After selling of my J-12 to local RFF member, I have enough money to buy x20. Came to the store, they have it in stock, but no permission to sell, yet.
I purchased CV CS 35 2.5 P next day, my first "expensive" lens to use on my first "expensive" RF, Bessa R.
Never looked at those advanced compacts after it.
None of those digital RFs and super compacts near and convinient for my little kid photography, where AF and OVF of DSLR is what I need.
On the street people reaction on film RF is warm. And if it makes me here as "rare species" listed person I don't mind to join rangefinder film elite here with newly purchased M4-2
After I took my friend Olympus digital PEN, for a day, didn't like it due to mess of controls and menus.
After selling of my J-12 to local RFF member, I have enough money to buy x20. Came to the store, they have it in stock, but no permission to sell, yet.
I purchased CV CS 35 2.5 P next day, my first "expensive" lens to use on my first "expensive" RF, Bessa R.
Never looked at those advanced compacts after it.
None of those digital RFs and super compacts near and convinient for my little kid photography, where AF and OVF of DSLR is what I need.
On the street people reaction on film RF is warm. And if it makes me here as "rare species" listed person I don't mind to join rangefinder film elite here with newly purchased M4-2
lxmike
M2 fan.
By the end of the week 99% of my film gear will be gone in truth I am totally sold on the csc, its not the perfect system or indeed a panacea for better images, nor will I head down the debate route over which is, all I can say is that it suits my humble needs, the Fuji X pro 1 has put fresh belief and enjoyment back into my photography. I took up photography in the late 1970s, like many here cameras have come and gone, I'm a late comer to digital, especially csc, I held off because I like the feel and style of Rangefinder cameras, now in the Fuji system I have camera that is built well, feels like an old school camera as it were, and takes good images that make me happy. Forum wise, I used to hang around the scale focus section a lot, now I hang around the Fuji X Pro 1 section. I still however join in and read the threads in the other forum sub sections to
rybolt
Well-known
It's all good. If you're able to shoot film and process it to your standards and like the end product I'm all for what you do. For alot of reasons some of us have migrated to the digital end. When I shot film, which I did between 1967 and 2002, I shot almost only color transparency film in 35mm. I shot almost only black and white in 120 and larger.
When I went to the Nikon DSLR cameras in about 2002, I stopped the black and white and shot only color.
Now, with the Fuji X system I shoot color and, if I want, I convert to black and white with SEFX Pro2. With the Sigma Merrill cameras I only work in black and white. I see them as medium format cameras and the color doesn't interest me for what I use them to shoot.
When I went to the Nikon DSLR cameras in about 2002, I stopped the black and white and shot only color.
Now, with the Fuji X system I shoot color and, if I want, I convert to black and white with SEFX Pro2. With the Sigma Merrill cameras I only work in black and white. I see them as medium format cameras and the color doesn't interest me for what I use them to shoot.
ColSebastianMoran
( IRL Richard Karash )
A Sony NEX is now a favorite portrait camera with a 50mm prime, composing on the LCD panel. It's a nice way of working, and the flip-up LCD gives a point of view I like (below eye level).
For sports or birds, I go back to DSLR.
For sports or birds, I go back to DSLR.