OhOh, future of CL?

[Speeding]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

8 minutes ago, adan said:

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.

Hardly a comparison.  Fuji bakes in abundant chroma noise reduction.  Compare same brand FF vs APS and the difference is obvious.

[Speeding]

6 minutes ago, jaapv said:

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

It very much depends on size.  FF gives you the opportunity to exchange more light for less depth.  There is no way around it.

Edited December 1, 2021 by Speeding

[jaapv]

Do you actually read posts like Andy’s ? In fact, the only thing that happens from APS to FF -everything else being equal- is that the noise floor is raised one EV level, reducing the photographic dynamic range by approx one EV stop. Given that for instance the CL has a PDR of about 13 EV values, (similar to negative film) this would only make any noise visible when the DR of the subject exceeds the PDR of the camera. 

[ECohen]

…

 

Edited December 1, 2021 by ECohen

[lct]

9 minutes ago, Speeding said:

It very much depends on size.  FF gives you the opportunity to exchange more light for less depth.  There is no way around it.

Exchange really? Would you have optical formulas explaining that? Otherwise DoF depends on sensor size of course but your point is not DoF as i understand it.   

[Speeding]

Just now, lct said:

Exchange really? Would you have optical formulas explaining that? Otherwise DoF depends on sensor size of course but your point is not DoF as i understand it.   

More light comes with larger physical aperture.  Larger aperture results in less depth.  Quite simple really.

[SrMi]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

39 minutes ago, jaapv said:

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.

SL 601 and SL2 are a bit of an exception, as they "underperform" in terms of noise when compared to other FF cameras. Note that I am quite happy with the results from SL2, the term "underperform" is more theoretical in this situation.

You should be able to see a difference in noise at higher ISOs between your S5 and CL:

CL vs. SL vs. S5 (PhotonsToPhotos)

Here is a difference between a Nikon APS-C vs. FF:

DPR Studio Scene: Z fc vs. Z 7 II

I would expect the difference to be most visible in deep shadows.

Noise removal by Topaz and DxO is great, but it cannot  completely compensate for the loss of detail due to noise. 

Now, are we splitting hairs? There is a difference, but for many the difference is too small to matter.

 

[SrMi]

29 minutes ago, jaapv said:

Do you actually read posts like Andy’s ? In fact, the only thing that happens from APS to FF -everything else being equal- is that the noise floor is raised one EV level, reducing the photographic dynamic range by approx one EV stop. Given that for instance the CL has a PDR of about 13 EV values, (similar to negative film) this would only make any noise visible when the DR of the subject exceeds the PDR of the camera. 

Who is Andy?

[Speeding]

1 hour ago, jaapv said:

Do you actually read posts like Andy’s ? In fact, the only thing that happens from APS to FF -everything else being equal- is that the noise floor is raised one EV level, reducing the photographic dynamic range by approx one EV stop. Given that for instance the CL has a PDR of about 13 EV values, (similar to negative film) this would only make any noise visible when the DR of the subject exceeds the PDR of the camera. 

In this situation, everything is not equal.  The FF lens is getting more light resulting in less noise.  PDR on the CL at 800 is very good, but still more than 1 EV lower than cameras like the SL2-S and S5.  

Even the same sensor cropped to APS-C size shows 1 EV difference in PDR from start to finish.

I shoot the CL because it has great image quality.  But that does not prevent larger sensors from having certain advantages.  Light gathering is one of them.  

Edited December 1, 2021 by Speeding

[IkarusJohn]

36 minutes ago, SrMi said:

Who is Andy?

@adan is Andy Piper.

This depth of field, f/stop/sensor size comes up every few years, and someone sensible like Andy clarifies it.  We almost need a pinned description.  All being equal, the f-stop of a lens is the ratio of its focal length to the diameter of the entrance pupil.  So, a 50/1.4 lens is still a 50/1.4 lens regardless of the size of the sensor it is attached to.

If you attach a 50 Summilux-M f/1.4 to your CL, the only change will be that the field of view will be the same as a 75 Summilux-M on an M10.  The focal length of the lens doesn’t change, nor does the f number of the lens, or its “light gathering”, whatever that might mean.

If you maintain the same angle of view (moving back with your CL camera to achieve the same image as with your M10), then you’re changing your perspective (as you’re moving the camera) and subject distance, increasing the depth of field.  Your CL will have greater depth of field than larger formats at the same f-number for the same distance of focus and same angle of view since a smaller format requires a shorter focal length (wider angle lens) to produce the same angle of view, and depth of field increases with shorter focal lengths.

Talk of light gathering etc really is an unhelpful myth.  One lens, with one focal length and f-stop gathers the same light, regardless of the sensor size.  If the camera stays in the same place, with the same lens and same f-stop, the only thing which changes with a change in sensor is the angle of view.

Edit - I am ignoring noise for this purpose.  As to EV, no it doesn’t change with format size - the amount of light hitting any photon is the same.  The total light hitting the sensor is less, purely because the sensor is smaller.  What confuses this discussion is that the CL and the M10 both have 24MP sensors, meaning that the photon sites on the CL are smaller.  That changes everything for image quality - but it has no impact on the lens focal length or f-stop.

Edited December 1, 2021 by IkarusJohn

[hoppyman]

This is what I care about for how I use them with my SL2 and CL. In my view the two systems have different strengths. They are also of course at very different price points. For me a replacement FF body for the CL would need to be much smaller and lighter than the SL2. The lenses for that would need to be in proportion to that smaller lighter body and would need excellent performance to take advantage of a higher resolution sensor (as in the SL2) The whole system would need to cost much less than the SL system.
If a hypothetical new smaller lighter 35 could be made for a hypothetical new smaller, lighter FF L mount body compact body. I wouldn't hesitate.
I don't see how that would be possible.
Speculation again...if a new range of lenses with lesser maximum aperture was to happen to suit with that new body???????.

 

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!

Edited December 1, 2021 by hoppyman
additional comment for clarity

[IkarusJohn]

Just to close that last point off, EV (or exposure value) is the combination of shutter speed and aperture for a given scene illumination - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exposure_value

So, if taking an ambient light reading (which will hopefully give all tones from deepest black to white, without going through complex zone calculations), you set the ISO value (for your ideal film or sensor sensitivity), and your meter gives you the best relationship between aperture and shutter speed (the EV number).  That EV number has no relationship to focal length or sensor size.  The EV number measures the luminance of the scene you’re photgraphing …

Edited December 1, 2021 by IkarusJohn

[cpclee]

4 hours ago, hoppyman said:

This is what I care about for how I use them with my SL2 and CL. In my view the two systems have different strengths. They are also of course at very different price points. For me a replacement FF body for the CL would need to be much smaller and lighter than the SL2. The lenses for that would need to be in proportion to that smaller lighter body and would need excellent performance to take advantage of a higher resolution sensor (as in the SL2) The whole system would need to cost much less than the SL system.
If a hypothetical new smaller lighter 35 could be made for a hypothetical new smaller, lighter FF L mount body compact body. I wouldn't hesitate.
I don't see how that would be possible.
Speculation again...if a new range of lenses with lesser maximum aperture was to happen to suit with that new body???????.

 

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!

Not to distract from your point, but the 23/2 TL was likely designed with compactness being a high priority.  A better comparison would the 35/1.4 TL vs the 50/1.4 SL.  Their MTFs look very, very similar.

Edited December 1, 2021 by cpclee

[jaapv]

6 hours ago, IkarusJohn said:

@adan is Andy Piper.

This depth of field, f/stop/sensor size comes up every few years, and someone sensible like Andy clarifies it.  We almost need a pinned description.  All being equal, the f-stop of a lens is the ratio of its focal length to the diameter of the entrance pupil.  So, a 50/1.4 lens is still a 50/1.4 lens regardless of the size of the sensor it is attached to.

If you attach a 50 Summilux-M f/1.4 to your CL, the only change will be that the field of view will be the same as a 75 Summilux-M on an M10.  The focal length of the lens doesn’t change, nor does the f number of the lens, or its “light gathering”, whatever that might mean.

If you maintain the same angle of view (moving back with your CL camera to achieve the same image as with your M10), then you’re changing your perspective (as you’re moving the camera) and subject distance, increasing the depth of field.  Your CL will have greater depth of field than larger formats at the same f-number for the same distance of focus and same angle of view since a smaller format requires a shorter focal length (wider angle lens) to produce the same angle of view, and depth of field increases with shorter focal lengths.

Talk of light gathering etc really is an unhelpful myth.  One lens, with one focal length and f-stop gathers the same light, regardless of the sensor size.  If the camera stays in the same place, with the same lens and same f-stop, the only thing which changes with a change in sensor is the angle of view.

Edit - I am ignoring noise for this purpose.  As to EV, no it doesn’t change with format size - the amount of light hitting any photon is the same.  The total light hitting the sensor is less, purely because the sensor is smaller.  What confuses this discussion is that the CL and the M10 both have 24MP sensors, meaning that the photon sites on the CL are smaller.  That changes everything for image quality - but it has no impact on the lens focal length or f-stop.

Actually the answer is quite simple. I wish people would have read at least a primer on optics. The term Light Gathering  depends on one thing only : The diameter of the lens   It is of no relevance for whatever receptor one hangs behind it.  But it is a nice catchy phrase to trip the unaware up.

 

 

Quote

https://www.britannica.com/science/optical-telescope/Light-gathering-and-resolution

 

[IkarusJohn]

I thought that’s what I said, only with more words … 🧐

[jaapv]

6 minutes ago, IkarusJohn said:

I thought that’s what I said, only with more words … 🧐

Too complicated an answer to convince John . Only simple words and an authoritative  quote may sway a true believer, if you are lucky. 🤩 

[wda]

I wonder ... I just wonder whether this explosion of comments in this 'future of the Leica CL' thread, is really intended just to catch the eye of Leica Germany?

[jaapv]

True, but it is characteristic of this forum for threads to do so. When it gets out of hand, I split them.

[lct]

7 hours ago, Speeding said:

More light comes with larger physical aperture.  Larger aperture results in less depth.  Quite simple really.

To you i'm sure but not to me sorry. Reason why i asked if you know optimal formulas explaining your "exchange" idea. There are such formulas to explain DoF of course but what about this exchange idea? Just curious as such an idea does not match my experience (images 1.5 stop darker or brighter due to the crop factor, serious?) but i don't mind to learn new to me things when there are any. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[Minolta TC-1]

Being a bit new to this topic & exploring my possibilities at the moment... Does anybody have both CL and Q2? The CL is obviously the less obtrusive when used with the 18 or 23 lens. That for me is a major advantage and I'd stick to small lenses to retain it. But a roadmap would be great, as it's no fun buying into a dying system.

FF vs APS-C is not very important to me. I like my X-Pro2 up to 6400ISO. But DOF is. The 18/f2.8 "looks like" a 28/f4 FF lens, which is not very narrow. The 23 fares a bit better, "looking like" a 35/f2.8. Still, f2 would be better.

The Q2 follow-up discussion seems to be more optimistic than the one on the CL. I don't mind cropping to simulate longer lenses, as 48MP is crazy anyway. But 7MP at 70mm is not a lot, so 50mm seems like the maximum. Also, by cropping, the result is exactly the same as for APS-C cameras. Crop the 48MP by half and the 24MP photo is of a 40mm/f2.4. Crop by half again and you get 12MP with an equivalent of 56/f3.4. All slightly better than the CL, but nothing to write home about. My X-Pro2 with 35/f2 (equiv of 50/f2.8) does better and it's not a lot larger.