OhOh, future of CL?

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

6 minutes ago, adan said:

Yep!

And that is exactly where light gathering breaks down. 

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[jaapv]

2 minutes ago, SrMi said:

At the same output level, larger sensors will have less noise. At same sensor size and same output level, the noise characteristic is approximately the same regardless of MP count. 

Yes, that is what I am saying. 

[Speeding]

20 minutes ago, SrMi said:

At the same output level, larger sensors will have less noise. At same sensor size and same output level, the noise characteristic is approximately the same regardless of MP count. 

Yes of course, that wasn't in question.  The sensors discussed (FF and APS) are not the same size.  Some here seem to take umbrage at the fact that a 24/3.5 FF lens on APS provides the same AOV and DOF and light gathering as 36mm f/5.25 on FF.  There is nothing inherently wrong with that outcome.  In the context of Simone_DF's question, there are simply more advantageous options available in APS lenses for L-mount.  

Edited November 30, 2021 by Speeding

[adan]

10 minutes ago, Speeding said:

Some here seem to take umbrage at the fact that a 24/3.5 FF lens on APS provides the same AOV and DOF and light gathering as 36mm f/5.25 on FF.

Unless one owns one's own dictionary company, "light gathering" means exactly what it has always meant. "Can I take a correctly-exposed picture in here at ISO 400 and 1/125th sec. at f/3.5?"

If you can, you can do it with any camera on any format with an equivalent lens.

[Speeding]

24 minutes ago, adan said:

Unless one owns one's own dictionary company, "light gathering" means exactly what it has always meant. "Can I take a correctly-exposed picture in here at ISO 400 and 1/125th sec. at f/3.5?"

If you can, you can do it with any camera on any format with an equivalent lens.

In your example, you can achieve an image of similar lightness across various sensor sizes, but you most certainly did not gather the same amount of light.  This is reflected in shot noise and DOF differences that will be evident in your results.

[lct]

Only difference is DoF.

[Speeding]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

5 minutes ago, lct said:

Only difference is DoF.

And noise.  You are effectively trading depth for light. 

[lct]

12 minutes ago, Speeding said:

And noise.  You are effectively trading depth for light. 

I've been using both FF and APS-C cameras for 15+ years and i've never seen that so far. Only obvious difference is DoF to me but YMMV.

[adan]

Seems to me you are confusing "light gathering" with "response."

A lens gathers light and projects an image independent of the camera or detector behind it (and even if there is no camera/detector behind it - a virtual or aerial image). The amount gathered is set by the f/stop (and exposure time). Then its function is finished - the microsecond the last photon exits the rear element.

The silicon or film responds to light, and may or may not be equally competent in its response. But that is not a "lens issue" or an "f/stop" issue.

Take a FF sensor of 24 6-micron Mpixels, and cut it in half (12 6-micron Mpixels), and put the result in an APS camera.

The shot noise will be identical in either case - what one expects from a 6-micron pixel of a given architecture. The resolution, of course, will be lower. But the lens or its f/stop no longer has anything to do with it.

[hamey]

On 11/24/2021 at 12:44 AM, Michael Markey said:

I`m not sure what you mean by image quality but from what I`ve seen the colours produced by Fuji cameras are ,to my eyes ,superior to the Leica colour palette .

Thank you Michael, I fully agree, in the last few years I have switched to Fuji Digital and I simply couldn't ask for more, if only Leica could equal Fuji.

Ken.

[ECohen]

Sure seems like an awful lot of posts just to say that full frame has more shallow depth of field and  less noise in lower light than APSC.

Edited December 1, 2021 by ECohen

[Speeding]

24 minutes ago, lct said:

I've been using both FF and APS-C cameras for 15+ years and i've never seen that so far. Only obvious difference is DoF to me but YMMV.

Easy to demonstrate.  Set your FF camera and APS-C camera side by side.  Set them at ISO 400 and 1/125th sec. at f/3.5 just like Adan said above.  Does the noise look the same?  

[hamey]

4 hours ago, Minolta TC-1 said:

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!

Minolta TC-1  Welcome to the forum, my first SLR was the Minolta SRT-101 back in 1969, still have it and still works.

Cheers..Ken.

[Speeding]

33 minutes ago, adan said:

Seems to me you are confusing "light gathering" with "response."

A lens gathers light and projects an image independent of the camera or detector behind it (and even if there is no camera/detector behind it - a virtual or aerial image). The amount gathered is set by the f/stop (and exposure time). Then its function is finished - the microsecond the last photon exits the rear element.

The silicon or film responds to light, and may or may not be equally competent in its response. But that is not a "lens issue" or an "f/stop" issue.

Take a FF sensor of 24 6-micron Mpixels, and cut it in half (12 6-micron Mpixels), and put the result in an APS camera.

The shot noise will be identical in either case - what one expects from a 6-micron pixel of a given architecture. The resolution, of course, will be lower. But the lens or its f/stop no longer has anything to do with it.

In your example fewer of those photons hit the APS sensor as they are beyond its borders.  Thus less signal to represent the image leading to more noise evident in the result.

Edited December 1, 2021 by Speeding

[Speeding]

9 minutes ago, ECohen said:

Sure seems like an awful lot of posts just to say that full frame has more shallow depth of field and  less noise in lower light than APSC.

Although this is obvious, some here seem to grapple with this reality.  

[lct]

10 minutes ago, Speeding said:

Easy to demonstrate.  Set your FF camera and APS-C camera side by side.  Set them at ISO 400 and 1/125th sec. at f/3.5 just like Adan said above.  Does the noise look the same?  

Depends on the cameras of course but i've never seen significant differences in 15+ years sorry.

[jaapv]

Andy has it completely right, as usual. Better listen to him than take notice of empty-headed Internet parroting.
I see no significant difference between for instance the CL and the (approx same-generation) SL 601 - and what there is is a one-click removal with Topaz DeNoise AI. Noise is more a function of sensor design and firmware than anything else and will be a complete non-issue with the sensors that are in the pipeline.

DOF with these modern lenses has no interest for me; often, when I get a really nice shot, I use Sharpen AI to crisp up the OOF areas or stack focus to get rid of the unsharpness - I am contemplating getting a Lomography Petzval 58 Bokeh Control lens for specific narrow-DOF use - it would run rings around any of the stuff discussed here and make the whole discussion moot.

[adan]

58 minutes ago, Speeding said:

Although this is obvious, some here seem to grapple with this reality.  

We can actually do the experiment to test that "reality," right now, right here. Scientific method and empirical evidence.

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilm-x100f/4

Just call up the X100F and the Leica M10 in the pull-down selections - both 24 Mpixels, both "2017" technology, one APSC, one FF

...amd compare the noise (RAW files) at each ISO.

(Whatever Leica lens was used is sharper than the Fuji used, but beyond that the APSC keeps up - or even wins in some cases).

__________________

Now, personally, I still prefer "FF" ("I pay for "21mm," I want "21mm" field of view" ). But as always, one ounce of empirical evidence outweighs a million tons of theory.

I just hope the M11 gets to Fuji X100F noise levels.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[Speeding]

8 minutes ago, jaapv said:

I see no significant difference - and what there is is a one-click removal with Topaz DeNoise AI.
DOF with these modern lenses has no interest for me; normally, when I get a really nice shot I stack focus to get rid of the unsharpness - I am contemplating getting a Lomography Petzval 58 Bokeh Control lens for specific. narrow-DOF use - it would run rings around any of the stuff discussed here and make the whole discussion moot.

Significant is another matter entirely.  Do they look the same?  No.  Topaz improves FF images too.  
 

Just so we’re clear, I shoot mostly with sensors smaller than FF.  But I can’t ignore that differences exist.  I just accept that those differences do not always affect the results in a meaningful way.  

Edited December 1, 2021 by Speeding

[jaapv]

As I said - the difference, if there, is insignificant and dependent on sensor design, not size.