OhOh, future of CL?

[aksclix]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

17 minutes ago, RM8 said:

A key point IMHO! Am new to Leica cameras  since one year only, chose CL. I never saw a reply to the question why FF has this apparent supreme status for DIGITAL cameras. Surely it has to be more than a marketing thing? Pls enlighten, somebody among you clever people

MF is slowly becoming the new FF.. every other person has a second hand fuji 50r/50s these days.. funny thing is they ask absolutely fundamental questions for someone seeking medium format gear.. 

anyway, bigger the sensor better the image quality.. so FF is considered PRO and APS-C not so much.. but cameras like the D500 really puts everything into a different perspective.. 😀 one thing obvious is the amount of detail captured that is directly proportional to the size of the sensor 

 

Edited November 30, 2021 by aksclix

[Speeding]

15 minutes ago, aksclix said:

A 3.5 aperture should feel more wide open on an aps-c sensor.. an aps-c f2.8 is multiplied by 1.5x but a ff 2.8 should divided by 1.5x IMO

It has nothing to do with feel.  A 24/3.5 FF lens on APS provides the same exact AOV and DOF and light gathering as 36mm f/5.25 on FF.  

[aksclix]

11 minutes ago, Speeding said:

It has nothing to do with feel.  A 24/3.5 FF lens on APS provides the same exact AOV and DOF and light gathering as 36mm f/5.25 on FF.  

if the opening is more, light gathered is more.. f3.5 on a FF has an aperture opening that should visibly be way more than that of an f/5.25 lens in the APS-C body.. 

[aksclix]

In reality though, there shouldn’t be a visible difference in aperture.. technically it should stay f3.5!! So the f5.25 doesn’t seem right at all

[robgo2]

2 hours ago, Simone_DF said:

Why would you punish yourself with APS-C lenses when you can get Sigma lenses that are as small as the CL lenses but cover full frame?

Obviously, those FF lenses will be cropped on an APS-C camera. Why would anyone choose that over a lens that includes all of the image circle? Also, Sigma lenses may be sharp, and they are inexpensive, but they tend to render flat, lifeless images IMO. That might be sufficient for most photographers, but perhaps not for those who have grown accustomed to the special qualities of Leica lenses. 

Edited November 30, 2021 by robgo2

[NZDavid]

The very first Leica "Barnack" cameras were "full frame", meaning 24 x 36mm format, also described at the time as "miniature" to differentiate them from the widely used 6 x 6cm or 6 x 9cm "medium format" and the "large format" plate cameras. Both the Leica and some medium format cameras were very compact -- much more so than many of today's behemoths. For example, my father had an old Agfa folder and another 35mm camera.

The standard Leica lens, the 3.5/50 Elmar, was hardly high-speed but fast and compact enough, with high enough resolution and contrast, to prove highly popular and sell well. The retractable lens barrel made this lens even more handy. Then came the 2/50 Summar. Still pretty compact. No zooms. 

Of course, film speeds were very slow, 25 to 50 ISO. Perhaps today we're all spoilt!

What mattered, from a design point of view, was finding the right balance between size and performance. But it should certainly be possible to produce a compact "full frame" (35mm format) digital camera with AF and interchangeable lenses. What's the ideal "Goldilocks" size? Could it be the CL, very similar in dimensions to the original Leica?  Definitely no bigger than the M. 

What, I wonder, would Oscar Barnack do? I think he would definitely make compact size a priority, no matter what format the camera.

 

[robgo2]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

2 hours ago, jaapv said:

Why should my camera die?  Although I admit that it has been degraded to "easy to carry and casual use" system. 

Jaapv, I “downgraded” from an SL to a Cl, because of arthritic hands and the desire for autofocus, at least most of the time. Hence, a bigger, heavier camera is not in my future. The only upgrade path for me, as it now stands, would be to sell my CL camera and lenses and move on to a different APS-C manufacturer, such as Sony or Fuji. But the thought of abandoning such a wonderful little camera and its lenses leaves me cold. So I will continue to use the CL along with my Q2 and Q2M for the foreseeable future. Those three cameras meet and all of my needs and exceed my expectations. 
 

P.S. I used the word “downgraded” loosely, as it’s very hard to perceive a difference in IQ between the SL and the CL 

Edited November 30, 2021 by robgo2

[Speeding]

34 minutes ago, aksclix said:

if the opening is more, light gathered is more.. f3.5 on a FF has an aperture opening that should visibly be way more than that of an f/5.25 lens in the APS-C body.. 

The physical aperture is the same, therefore more light is not being gathered.  The result is a 24/3.5 FF lens on APS provides the same exact AOV and DOF and light gathering as 36mm f/5.25 on FF.

[Speeding]

13 minutes ago, robgo2 said:

Obviously, those FF lenses will be cropped on an APS-C camera. Why would anyone choose that over a lens that covers the full sensor and all of its pixels?

Convenience mostly.  You can use the FF lens to achieve full FF image, OR use it on APS-C body to achieve cropped FOV.  For example, I often mount the Summicron 90 SL on the CL to provide a very convenient 135mm f/3 equivalent image with 24MP.  The problem is at the wider end where FF lenses are somewhat narrow on APS.  

[Minolta TC-1]

24 minutes ago, aksclix said:

In reality though, there shouldn’t be a visible difference in aperture.. technically it should stay f3.5!! So the f5.25 doesn’t seem right at all

It's because you frame differently. With 24mm FF, you place your subject on the left side and stand at 1m. But when it becomes 36mm, you need to stand further back to get the subject more in the center (otherwise it drops out of frame because of that crop). Because of that different perspective, the subject is closer to the background. Hence the DOF compares to the DOF of a slower lens as well.

I've been using an X-Pro2 for 5 years now and love the IQ and the film simulations. But I'm not taking it where I'd like to because of its size. I had an Olympus OM system a long time ago, then moved to a Zorki with a Summitar, an Olympus E-P1 and a Pana LX3. I thought the X-Pro2 would feel familiar because it's the same size as the OM, but the stint with smaller cameras has left its mark. The Leica CL is very appealing. I'd get the 18 and/or 23 and use my Summitar with a converter. Or if that doesn't work out, the Sigma 45, which I think would combine well with an 18 and something in between (e.g. adapted 28mm). Of course, the age and lack of clarity of direction of the APS-C L system are worrying.

Are there any alternatives? The Q2 seems nice but it's also very big. The SL2(-S) is waay too big. M cameras are exactly the same size as OM or X-Pro2. I'm a natural sceptic against Sony and the Sigma FP is a film camera... It seems like for me, the CL2 just needs to happen!

[robgo2]

13 minutes ago, Speeding said:

Convenience mostly.  You can use the FF lens to achieve full FF image, OR use it on APS-C body to achieve cropped FOV.  For example, I often mount the Summicron 90 SL on the CL to provide a very convenient 135mm f/3 equivalent image with 24MP.  The problem is at the wider end where FF lenses are somewhat narrow on APS.  

That may work well for some, but mounting a bulky lens onto a compact camera seems to defeat the purpose of using a CL. 

[jaapv]

1 hour ago, aksclix said:

A 3.5 aperture should feel more wide open on an aps-c sensor.. an aps-c f2.8 is multiplied by 1.5x but a ff 2.8 should divided by 1.5x IMO

Just take one step closer…. Or print twice the size. 

[lct]

1 hour ago, RM8 said:

A key point IMHO! Am new to Leica cameras  since one year only, chose CL. I never saw a reply to the question why FF has this apparent supreme status for DIGITAL cameras. Surely it has to be more than a marketing thing? Pls enlighten, somebody among you clever people

Not sure this will answer your question but here is how a pic looks like when shot sans software correction with a modern APS-C lens on the CL. As superb as they may be otherwise, such lenses rely heavily on software distortion correction and the results they allow can be quite nice when corrected electronically but a FF lens is supposed to be natively corrected instead. Such native correction can be helped by software or firmware to a moderate extent but the FF lens can be used as is sans correction at all.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[SrMi]

6 minutes ago, lct said:

Not sure this will answer your question but here is how a pic looks like when shot sans software correction with a modern APS-C lens on the CL. As superb as they may be otherwise, such lenses rely heavily on software distortion correction and the results they allow can be quite nice when corrected electronically but a FF lens is supposed to be natively corrected instead. Such native correction can be helped by software or firmware to a moderate extent but the FF lens can be used as is sans correction at all.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

What focal length was that? I assume wide.

Many FF lenses, especially wide-angle lenses, also rely on SDC (software distortion correction). Q2's lens is an example. With digital, the trend is to rely more on SDC than to make the lens heavier and more expensive by correcting distortions in the lens itself. I am not a purist in that context, as I care only about the output. I just wish we could tune the amount of SDC applied (I believe DxO PhotoLab can do that).

[RM8]

12 minutes ago, lct said:

Not sure this will answer your question but here is how a pic looks like when shot sans software correction with a modern APS-C lens on the CL. As superb as they may be otherwise, such lenses rely heavily on software distortion correction and the results they allow can be quite nice when corrected electronically but a FF lens is supposed to be natively corrected instead. Such native correction can be helped by software or firmware to a moderate extent but the FF lens can be used as is sans correction at all.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Many thanks! I just assumed a "FF lens" throws a larger 43mm image circle on its focal plane from which the APS-C sensor takes the "sweet" central part

[jaapv]

50 minutes ago, Speeding said:

The physical aperture is the same, therefore more light is not being gathered.  The result is a 24/3.5 FF lens on APS provides the same exact AOV and DOF and light gathering as 36mm f/5.25 on FF.

The concept of light gathering has been comprehensively debunked. The amount of light per square mm remains exactly the same As for shallow DOF, being predominantly a nature and landscape photographer I regard shallow DOF as an aberration. I am totally chuffed that my S5 offers excellent 6k focus stacking in-camera.  It saves a lot of computer time. As for shallow DOF emphasizing the subject, shouldn’t composition do that?  I hate fuzzy ears and nose portraits. 

[Speeding]

Just now, jaapv said:

The concept of light gathering has been comprehensively debunked. The amount of light per square mm remains exactly the same v

Except the mm...they're not the same are they?  You can't debunk photons.  

[aksclix]

58 minutes ago, robgo2 said:

Also, Sigma lenses may be sharp, and they are inexpensive, but they tend to render flat, lifeless images IMO

this is not true for modern sigma lenses.. they're pretty damn good and not just talking about sharpness.. 

[Speeding]

24 minutes ago, robgo2 said:

That may work well for some, but mounting a bulky lens onto a compact camera seems to defeat the purpose of using a CL. 

In general, I agree.  Not all FF lenses are bulky which is the point made above.  It depends on what AOV you are after (and other priorities you have).

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[aksclix]

54 minutes ago, Speeding said:

The physical aperture is the same, therefore more light is not being gathered.  The result is a 24/3.5 FF lens on APS provides the same exact AOV and DOF and light gathering as 36mm f/5.25 on FF.

what I meant was the opening of a f/5.25 aperture is NOT  bigger than the 24 f/3.5 so it does not make sense to call a f/3.5 lens on a full frame as f/5.25 on APS-C when the actual image circle covers more than the crop sensor itself

Edited November 30, 2021 by aksclix