Jump to content

The 1.3 crop factor


pgk

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Whilst I do have an M8 and an M9, both still get extensively used. The full frame camera is used more, but the crop factor of the M8 really isn't as significant as all that and the decreased angle of view is not such a bad thing (using both in effect gives extra focal lengths). So just as a thought, why shouldn't Leica build another 1.3 crop factor M camera with increased MPixels - as it would use a central area of the lenses' projected image, even older lenses with poorer corners would be very usable and it could be priced lower without impinging significantly on full frame cameras. In fact as a cheaper, entry-level M camera it might swell the numbers of M users?

 

And on this note why not introduce updated versions of older 'classic' lenses such as a non-aspheric 35mm Summilux which is designed with modern glass and retains the diminutive dimensions of the original - the 50mm Elmar too could be reintroduced along with a 'thin' Tele-Elmarit to provide a 'classic' and lower priced set which might appeal to photographers for a number of reasons?

Link to post
Share on other sites

How much cheaper do you think a new crop M would be? It might even cost more than FF given that it would take new development and a small production run. Would you pay more for it?

 

I agree about a run of 'classic' lenses. I've been saying for years that Leica should make a few lenses in LTM mount still (look how well Voigtlander have done selling their LTM lenses to us Leica users!).

Edited by earleygallery
Link to post
Share on other sites

How much cheaper do you think a new crop M would be? It might even cost more than FF given that it would take new development and a small production run. Would you pay more for it?

No, less. Leica's pricing is such that M cameras sit price wise, alongside high end cameras from larger manufacturers. Which is in itself not a problem, but other manufacturers do have 'entry level' cameras which are far cheaper and I would suggest that Leica needs to address this with a cheaper, entry level M series camera. Cheaper sensor, minimalist features (forget video, live-view and other frills) and a 1.3 crop factor could reduce cost and importantly, differentiate such a camera from the full-frame M series bodies. Costings I know nothing about, but all components are well established as is the design (the M8) so development cost might just be relatively low, and price would have to be to provide a cheaper, 'starter' RF camera.

Link to post
Share on other sites

True but other manufacturers designed different bodies for their crop cameras. Entry level DSLR's for example have fewer features, usually lack a top plate LCD panel, use penta-mirror finder instead of a prism etc.

 

The Leica rangefinder unit is expensive and I don't see how they could economise on that. They could make a body from plastic instead of brass. But again I think the net result in price would be negligible and people just wouldn't buy it. They'd pay more for FF or go secondhand.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Whilst I do have an M8 and an M9, both still get extensively used. The full frame camera is used more, but the crop factor of the M8 really isn't as significant as all that and the decreased angle of view is not such a bad thing (using both in effect gives extra focal lengths). So just as a thought, why shouldn't Leica build another 1.3 crop factor M camera with increased MPixels - as it would use a central area of the lenses' projected image, even older lenses with poorer corners would be very usable and it could be priced lower without impinging significantly on full frame cameras. In fact as a cheaper, entry-level M camera it might swell the numbers of M users?

 

And on this note why not introduce updated versions of older 'classic' lenses such as a non-aspheric 35mm Summilux which is designed with modern glass and retains the diminutive dimensions of the original - the 50mm Elmar too could be reintroduced along with a 'thin' Tele-Elmarit to provide a 'classic' and lower priced set which might appeal to photographers for a number of reasons?

 

Probably the best answer is that a APS-H sensor is not going to be any cheaper than an M9 sensor.

 

Everything else would be the same as the M9/M-E and then you have two cameras that are almost the same, but would be priced the same and competing at that same price-point.

 

On the other hand, if it was technically feasible to make a low cost M using a hybrid view finder that substitutes an electro-mechanical or electronic range finding mechanism for the mechanical system and a Sony APS-C CMOS sensor like the X2 you might have an entry-level M.

 

Even so, you can't get too much cost out of an M body to make it worth while without sucking the oxygen out of the full-frame line. So, I doubt that Leica sees a profit in that as it will require a lot of engineering cost.

Edited by Loren
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

...

 

During the last years Leica has occasionally stated that it sees a cheaper entry into the M system only about the second hand market.

For the lenses is rather to be feared that the production will be streamlined, instead of old obsolete respected lens calculations are again produced.
How long, for example, the Summicron-2.0-28mm will be made after the new Summilux 1.4 - 28 mm has released now?
Link to post
Share on other sites

[...] the crop factor of the M8 really isn't as significant as all that and the decreased angle of view is not such a bad thing (using both in effect gives extra focal lengths). So just as a thought, why shouldn't Leica build another 1.3 crop factor M camera with increased MPixels [...]

 

And on this note why not introduce updated versions of older 'classic' lenses such as a non-aspheric 35mm Summilux which is designed with modern glass and retains the diminutive dimensions of the original [...]

 

At this stage in the development of sensors, it would probably be better for Leica to improve the T sensor, but there are shortcomings to increasing pixels which might be counter-productive.

 

As for re-manufacturing classic lenses, IMHO Karbe won't hear of it. His goal is to make lenses that exceed performance of any made on earth regardless of the aesthetic downsides.

Link to post
Share on other sites

At this stage in the development of sensors, it would probably be better for Leica to improve the T sensor, but there are shortcomings to increasing pixels which might be counter-productive.

 

As for re-manufacturing classic lenses, IMHO Karbe won't hear of it. His goal is to make lenses that exceed performance of any made on earth regardless of the aesthetic downsides.

I am thinking that Leica will simply buy sensors from Sony or someone else that already has been developed and build their own hardware/firmware engine around that.

 

The risk of sensor obsolescence is a concern, but if you ride the saddle of something the big guys use in volume your odds are better and the cost lower. Right now the world is split between APS-C and Full Frame (ignoring 4/3 and others).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Digital sensors need special microlenses to fit M lenses, especially wides. It is true also for APS-H and APS-C sensors.

 

Not so much as the APS-H and C sensors are smaller than full-frame and use less of the lens area. Its the lens's edges and corners that typically problematic and a smaller sensor dodges most if not all of that. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you had any experience with the Leica M8 or the Epson R-D1? Been using both since 2004 and i can tell you that Leica wides can pose problems to both of them, especially the Epson whose microlenses are less efficient than those of my M8.2. I use M lenses on a modern APS-C camera as well (Fuji X-E2). Works fine with lenses down to 35mm but corners tend to smear at remote distance on 21 and 28mm lenses. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you had any experience with the Leica M8 or the Epson R-D1? Been using both since 2004 and i can tell you that Leica wides can pose problems to both of them, especially the Epson whose microlenses are less efficient than those of my M8.2. I use M lenses on a modern APS-C camera as well (Fuji X-E2). Works fine with lenses down to 35mm but corners tend to smear at remote distance on 21 and 28mm lenses. 

Widest lense I use is a 28mm Zeiss. No problems I have seen on my M8.

Link to post
Share on other sites

AFAIK most of the cost to produce an M body is still in the mechanical/optical part.

Otherwise the film M's would be much cheaper than they are now.

 

So to produce an entry level M body one would be inclined to cut something other than the sensor size...

What part could be missed? 

Viewfinder?

Maybe that makes sense on the CMOS sensors with preview focussing mode.

Its like the M1 or MD camera's of the film era that could only be used with a visoflex or on a microscope.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you had any experience with the Leica M8 ..... i can tell you that Leica wides can pose problems to both of them.

Both my 21/3.4 Super-Angulon and 28/2.8 v2 work surprisingly well on the M8. Another useful attribute of the cropped sensor - older lenses with weak corners aren't so bad.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Another useful attribute of the microlenses of the M8's sensor. APS cameras cannot expect optimal results with Leica wides without those microlenses, that's what i was trying to explain above but i was not clear enough certainly. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Another useful attribute of the microlenses of the M8's sensor. APS cameras cannot expect optimal results with Leica wides without those microlenses, that's what i was trying to explain above but i was not clear enough certainly. 

I got your comment :)  - I'm always amazed that the 21SA works as well as it does on the M8 - its rear element is so close to the sensor. Despite its shortcomings, I see the M8 as quite a classic little camera which addressed many problems and for a first dRF from Leica was a very good first 'try' IMO. Mine's a keeper until something terminal finally does it in which I hope will be a long time off.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...