theoretically possibility FF sensor for DRF?

[bullshark]

I saw many threads about the M9, I have a question here:

Is it possible the put a FF sensor inside an DRF theoretically? what's the difficulty? Or it has to be thicker?

 

[Pickett Wilson]

Nah, not going to touch this one. Old, contentious topic. 🙂

 

[Al Kaplan]

It has to do with the angle of the light rays hitting the sensor. With an SLR the lens is located further away from the plane of focus. The rays, even in the corners, aren't hitting the sensor at an extremely shallow angle. Using a full frame sensor the light reaching the corners are at a fairly shallow angle.

A lot of lenses for rangefinder cameras have very little distance btween the rear element and the plane of focus, and the light rays hit it at an extremely shallow angle.

 

[jaapv]

These guys here are even better at chewing old bones than my dogs are.....

 

[axiom]

There should be NO difficulty today

Most of the M lenses manufacturers are renovating their lineups with aspherical elements and retrofocus design, the rear element doesn't stick as deep as it used to, so the light ray angle issue is largely reduced, presumably to a level that those lenses will work well on 35mm sensors

 

[Pickett Wilson]

I'm guessing that if there were no difficulty today, Leica would have a FF sensor digital M.

 

[axiom]

I'm guessing that if there were no difficulty today, Leica would have a FF sensor digital M.

That's what I am thinking too.
so I am guessing a FF digital M isn't too far away

 

[Al Kaplan]

There'll be a LOT of long time Leica fans pissed big time that their classic glass won't work with the new cameras. At current prices there aren't going to be many people ready to buy 3 or 4 lenses and a FF body or two. The traditional pro market of PJ's just plain doesn't have that kind of money.

 

[axiom]

There'll be a LOT of long time Leica fans pissed big time that their classic glass won't work with the new cameras. At current prices there aren't going to be many people ready to buy 3 or 4 lenses and a FF body or two. The traditional pro market of PJ's just plain doesn't have that kind of money.

Very true, but unfortunately that seems to be Leica's answer to (potential) full frame, and frankly my limited knowledge can't suggest a win-win solution that will make symmetrical wide lenses work on 35mm sensors today.
Though, lens redesign being the only potential solution to FF, I don't oppose this idea as a new RF'er. I can certainly smell the bright future of compact digital full frame from Leica, and I am getting rid of my full frame dSLR preping my way into Leica M.

 

[eleskin]

Some classic glass could be used though

Some classic glass could be used though

I would guess any lens 40mm and above will probably do well with a new full frame digital rangefinder. Those who love 50mm should be in good shape i would think (hello 50mm Nokton f1.1). I would also think 40mm should be ok as well. 35mm is stretching it, and 28mm and below would have problems unless the camera would have a crop function so it would only take photos the same size as the M8 if set up in the function setting (the camera would have M8 offset lenses over the entire frame, and would have much better high ISO performance) . The camera would need a clip on lens in front of the viewfinder to give a corrected focal length for classic lenses and an M8 crop (M8 mode). When the new retrofocus lenses are used, the camera could be set to full frame. Ill bet this is what Leica is up to.

Any thoughts on this?

 

[kermaier]

What about angled microlenses to reduce the acuteness of the angle of incidence?
::Ari

 

[Pickett Wilson]

There is no significant pro market for a a FF RF. Pros carry around big honking cameras with big honking stabilized zoom lenses for a reason, and it's not because there isn't an RF alternative available. The digital RF market's target audience is amateurs.

 

[Pickett Wilson]

You can spend millions trying to development a unique FF sensor that you can shoehorn into an M body, or you can develop a different body that will take an off the shelf FF sensor. With the former solution you end up with a $10,000 camera that few can afford. In the latter case you piss off Leica users because they don't want a digital Leica that does not look like an M3. 🙂

 

[axiom]

... The digital RF market's target audience is amateurs.

Recently, I started wondering the sizes of amateur market and pro market today.
I honestly don't know how they compare, however after seeing some highschool kid carrying a 1D mkII in school, horrible n00bs' wedding photog ad on craigslist with their selling point being a 5Dmk2, and my neighbour's great pride on his amount of L glasses. All gets me into thinking whether if a company markets amateurs would be more profitable, in particular the audience also includes tons of loyal fan boys(no offence) who see Leica as Apple (computer inc). Oh! wait a minute, computers are more often refered as "Personal" computer nowadays.

 

[Pickett Wilson]

I love my Leicas. Always have a Leica IIIC or IIIF over my shoulder whenever I leave the house, but there is no way I'd pay even $5,000 for a digital RF. My M's are all used, as well. As a working tool, though, it's 5D's and a 50D. Horses for courses.

It will be interesting to see what direction Leica takes in the future.

 

[eleskin]

I am a pro and I HATE BIG HONKING CAMERAS!!!

I am a pro and I HATE BIG HONKING CAMERAS!!!

Yes, yes, I know the arguments for those big beasts, but I really HATE them!!!

I also HATE their film counterparts!! And I mean when the Japanese did away with traditional dials and f stop rings on lenses!!! I like the M8 for the same reason why I like the M6 and every other M before it. Yes, a rangefinder is not perfect for every situation, but it is one tool in our bag for certain situations. Any pro that limits themselves to DSLR only attitude is missing out on another aspect of photography they otherwise would have explored.

Getting back to my point on design: LCD multi function (F@#KSION) displays, billion function buttons, etc,, drive me nuts and slow me down. I am a creative person with ADD and this stuff drives me NUTS (NVTS NUTS, thanks Mel Brooks). I am much faster with traditional camera layouts, and autofocus and other features is all I will tolerate if it is inttegrated in a traditional design. This is why I have a Pentax 645N.

Voigtlander/Cosina came out with that new 50mm f1.1 because that company listened to what photographers wanted. How many of you out ther would love a DSLR version of the Nikon F3? I/ would love it!!

My choice of the M8 was based not only on the fact that I have collected a large lens assortment, and hated to sell them off or throw them away, but the layout of the camera itself. How many DSLR's are out there where you can pick the thing up and use it right away without reading the giant book that came with it!!! I picked up my M8 and started using it right away without reading a word of the book that came with it.

Remember the days when you could go to a pro camera shop and check out all the cameras, and they all had a similar design? Life was good then. Something today is horribly wrong!!!!

The M8 is not perfect, but at least some camera maker out there cares to make something for photographers like me.

Do Canon and Nikon care? Who knows. They should at least have one DSLR body and lenses that look like what we had before all this multifunction madness took root. At least people like me would have a choice!!!!!