jaay Posted October 20, 2009 Share #1 Posted October 20, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) Just out of interest Canon today announced a new professional model with a 16MP 1.3 crop sensor. Many people expected them to abandon the APS-H in favour of full frame. So someone else out there still loves this crop even if Leica no longer does! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 20, 2009 Posted October 20, 2009 Hi jaay, Take a look here 1.3x isn't dead. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Walt Calahan Posted October 20, 2009 Share #2 Posted October 20, 2009 The new Nikon D3S has a 1.3 crop mode built-in to the software. Just hoping that Canon get their auto-focus correct on this version. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
delander † Posted October 20, 2009 Share #3 Posted October 20, 2009 Rich, I dont think you can classify those that prefer FF as old fogies. I'm an old fogy and would have been quite happy if the M9 had the same size sensor as the M8 but with 15Mp. It would have made it much easier for me to work with 2 different cameras. On the other hand a lot of younger people would like FF for various reasons. I'm not suprised that Canon has stayed with the 1.3 crop for the 1d4 it makes sense for the type of work that camera is intended for. For the M9 it is the opposite. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jsrockit Posted October 20, 2009 Share #4 Posted October 20, 2009 I can see why if you're used to 35mm film or have certain unusual requirements (e.g. you need to use fast, wide lenses) full frame may be appealing, or if you crop your photos a lot, but the difference between 1.3 and full frame isn't huge (the extra 8 MP of the M9 make more of a difference) - so I've never understood the fuss some people make about full frame. I often borrow my friend's Canon 5D, and I barely notice the difference in format...) Well, with cameras that are built with lenses designed for cropped format, I can understand your point. However, the M8 is flawed because if I already have a 35mm M lens and I want to use it on a M8 as a 35mm lens, I cannot, it'll be a 47mm lens or something like that. That is why people in the leica world are so concerned with full frame. Leica doesn't build their lenses based on a crop factor, they build them based on full frame. Wider Leica lenses are more expensive... so buying a 28mm to get a 35mm lens sucks. With regards to quality, you will not see huge differences on a screen or in small prints...but make some large prints and I bet you will. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrh68uk Posted October 20, 2009 Share #5 Posted October 20, 2009 I can understand that those who have never used film cameras may not identify with "cropped" sensors. When I went from my Nikon D2x to my D700 it was a revelation. Finally, I had all my lenses back to having the characteristics for which they were designed and which they have always displayed with my film Nikons. I still use both media and love the fact that my lenses now behave the same way across both, so that I don't have to re-think focal lengths each time I switch between film and digital. Even if I no longer used film, I'd much prefer the full-format sensor for several reasons. I certainly wouldn't consider myself old or fogey-ish I was thinking the other day how annoying it was that I a) couldn't get the full 21mm angle of view from my 21 Elmarit on my M8, and how annoying it was to have to use the 21 E ASPH to get the same field of view and lens speed as my tiny 28mm E ASPH on my M7, since the 21 is considerably larger and heavier. These lenses were meant to be used in 24x36 format, as others have mentioned. In addition, each has its own character and so, whereas I can approximate my 50 cron on 24x36 with my 35 cron ASPH on the M8, the look is not the same. Sad to say, but the wastage of quality imaging area outside the 1.3 crop of each lens on the M8 irritates me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnalex141r Posted October 20, 2009 Share #6 Posted October 20, 2009 I can understand that those who have never used film cameras may not identify with "cropped" sensors. When I went from my Nikon D2x to my D700 it was a revelation. Finally, I had all my lenses back to having the characteristics for which they were designed and which they have always displayed with my film Nikons. ... Sad to say, but the wastage of quality imaging area outside the 1.3 crop of each lens on the M8 irritates me. Film for me was (and still is) medium format rangefinders; so I just learnt to see angles, not numbers, and bouncing back and forth between the M8 and my Fujicas was relatively easy. I can understand, though, that the Leica lenses are designed to cover more than was shown on an M8; and that is a waste of resources all round. We now know why Leica did not introduce crop-factor lenses... JohnS. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted October 20, 2009 Share #7 Posted October 20, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) ...it's the format that most photographers use now... Because nikanopus build wides for crop cameras but what do you do when you need fast wides for your M8? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_newell Posted October 20, 2009 Share #8 Posted October 20, 2009 Because nikanopus build wides for crop cameras but what do you do when you need fast wides for your M8? (Quick, where's my old Nomex gear?) I am probably the minority, but I don't try to make my M cameras do everything and I don't like accessory viewfinders. I think Leitz had it right when they merged the RF and VF back in 1954. That means that I personally don't miss real wides for the M8. But for those who do, the WATE and the 18mm fixed lenses do offer a pretty wide perspective even after the crop effect. As always, ymmv... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_newell Posted October 20, 2009 Share #9 Posted October 20, 2009 Rich, I think you're both right and wrong. I actually started my serious photo-taking with a 2 1/4 TLR borrowed from my father. When I bought my first 35mm camera, a used M3, in 1972, he yakked at me about the inferiority of the smaller negative. In a way, it all sounds pretty similar to the current debates here and elsewhere. On the other hand, where moving from one format to another then meant changing lens systems, today we have a lot of users with lenses designed for full 24x36mm coverage, who are used to thinking and looking at subjects in terms of traditional 24x36mm terms. The lenses can be mounted on both "crop" sensor bodies and on "FF" bodies and a fair number of people want to go back to their prior mental/visual frameworks. The fact that Leitz/Leica never went down the reduced-coverage path brings the issue (pardon the pun) into even sharper focus for Leica owners. The only real advantage I've seen in the M9 so far is the ability to either print larger or crop the image to a greater degree, compared to the M8, as a result of the larger sensor. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted October 20, 2009 Share #10 Posted October 20, 2009 ...But for those who do, the WATE and the 18mm fixed lenses do offer a pretty wide perspective even after the crop effect.... Hardly fast lenses. Fast wides are clearly a no no with the M8. I don't care either with my Epsons but negating the obvious is not my cup of tea personally. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandokan Posted October 20, 2009 Share #11 Posted October 20, 2009 Rich, I love your viewpoint. It is so different to mine (I grew up on film of course), that it is through provoking to come at it the other way round. Yes, if you go to FF, your 35mm lens will suddenly become a wide angle and you would have to buy a 50 to replace it. So as you say, why do it? Stick to what you like and works for you and ignore us old fogies :-) Actually my favourite is the 50 on the M8, which is better suited for my pictures than the 75 on M7. (see I cant even get a smilie on this damned keyboard thing, but then again, I Can Leave my cup of tea on the left side of it). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
daleeman Posted October 20, 2009 Share #12 Posted October 20, 2009 Like many new photographers (I started in 2003), I've never used film, so crop-factor cameras are what I'm used to. To me, "full frame" seems an arbitrary and alien format, and in which I haven't the slightest interest. Consequently, the M9 has very few advantages, and several disadvantages, over my M8 - hence I'm utterly disinterested in trading up. The M8-2 on the other hand is interesting, and as the M9 was such a damp squib (for me), I'm saving up to get my M8 camera upgraded. I can see why if you're used to 35mm film or have certain unusual requirements (e.g. you need to use fast, wide lenses) full frame may be appealing, or if you crop your photos a lot, but the difference between 1.3 and full frame isn't huge (the extra 8 MP of the M9 make more of a difference) - so I've never understood the fuss some people make about full frame. I often borrow my friend's Canon 5D, and I barely notice the difference in format... Shame Leica didn't keep the 1.3 crop and concentrate on improving image quality such as dynamic range and noise, and add a few more pixels whilst they were at it (say 14 MP) - would have been, I suspect, cheaper and less technologically demanding. Perhaps one day all the old fogies will be gone, and us youngsters who grew up with digital will be given a modern Leica M! (And by that I don't mean looking like a mini dSLR with countless and pointless buttons and geegaws - embracing the 21st-century can still mean a basic, manual camera, and I wouldn't want it any other way! For example, being told the shutter speed in manual mode would be nice, as would reinstating the round LCD (properly this time - not half-arsed like on my M8!) so you know at a glance the status of your camera.) Without Old Fogies, you would not have a Leica in your hands. Or even a digital camera for that matter. I applaud you starting with a Leica. I learned on my father's IIIF red dial. My first camera was the Leicaflex SL, with a 50mm F2. I already owned two zooms, my right and left feet. Lee Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted October 20, 2009 Share #13 Posted October 20, 2009 I can see why if you...have certain unusual requirements (e.g. you need to use fast, wide lenses)... My fast, wide lenses have made more money for me than all other focal lengths combined, and a 20/21 f/2.8 has been my first lens purchase in every system since a Canon F1 in 1978. Not unusual at all. The only real problem with cropped formats has been that no manufacturer has ever really committed to them, including Leica (where's that 16mm f/2.8 or f/1.4??) Or even Olympus (prime lenses, guys! not zooms!). If the cropped format is the standard, fine - but back it up with fast primes going as wide as 20mm equivalent, and magnify the heck out of the viewfinder (with a big prism, not mirrors) so it is as big as the best 24 x 36 viewfinders. Go all the way! Except for the 1D, which uses the nice big EOS-1 finder as a basis, and only crops 1.3x out of that, most SLRs never bothered to change the viewfinder magnification to blow up the screen so that it filled one's field of view - they just used their old film eyepieces to show a tiny little cropped rectangle. If you want a revelation sometime, track down any Olympus OM film SLR. It's like looking at a 20" monitor from 10" away. It becomes your whole world. It makes the current Oly E-3 finder look SO sad. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tbarker13 Posted October 20, 2009 Share #14 Posted October 20, 2009 The crop factor of the M8 has never really bothered me. With my film Ms I never liked shooting wider than 35mm. I put a 28 cron on my M8 and I'm happy. In the very-rare instances when I want to be wider, I can put a 12mm on my D300 and get the job done. But for those who love to shoot wide, I can see why the crop factor would be a major pain. Even if you can find the glass, it's generally going to cost considerably more. Even in my case, a 35 summicron costs much less than a 28 summicron. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mc_k Posted October 21, 2009 Share #15 Posted October 21, 2009 I am always needing a little more DOF, so the difference between 75mm on full-frame and 50mm on 1.3 really matters to me. If the M9 had a couple of stops better ISO it wouldn't matter, but for now I prefer the M8. If your subjects are moving or slightly moving and you're working in low light, you may be in the same club. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jsrockit Posted October 21, 2009 Share #16 Posted October 21, 2009 The crop factor doesn't matter if you already have a wide range of lenses. However, I only have a 35mm M mount lens (my preferred length) and hate that I have to spend a lot more to get a 35mm equivilent on the M8... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thinkfloyd Posted October 21, 2009 Share #17 Posted October 21, 2009 I agree with Rich. Though I started out using film for awhile during high school, I "grew" as a photographer using cropped DSLRs. Using a 16mm on a cropped sensor is wide enough for me, and I am a normal view - short tele kinda guy on an RF. Also, when I tried a FF camera using a 24mm (equivalent FOV for a 16mm), I preferred the wider perspective the 16mm gives. So it depends I guess with what you are used to. Again, to each his own... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.