Mauribix Posted October 3, 2007 Share #1 Posted October 3, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) Hi folks! Someone's wishes are to see a New M9 (or whatever it calls) with a Full Frame Sensor, but i guess one thing: Do we really need it? Maybe I will "just" need some more Mpixel, some higher ISO and some new faster lenses! If M9 with full frame sensor had available, i certainly won't be running to buy it. I think 1,33x crop factor is the best way to cut out vignetting,soft corners and all of those things that so often had to be criticized in the past (and still now!).Do I really need a Sensor showing up all of this?My answer is NO! I'd much prefer to see some faster lenses, and some Wider (12-15-18-21-24-28), because if i had a Wider sigle lens (thinner and faster than WATE) i would be so much happy! In relation with this, i can't understand the decision of making the new "cheaper" summarit. We already discussed about this, and still i think that when someone has the opportunity to spend almost 5000€ for a camera, it just won't be a problem to think about an outstanding high-class Leica lens of about 3000€! For cheaper ones it won't be a problem to buy a CV or Zeiss (or Leica used) lens, I guess(as i do). If I had to choose between a New M9 camera with full-frame sensor (spending 5000€ at least) or having a really noiseless 2500iso on my "old camera" with a 21/24mm F2 or a 28mm F1.4 or 35mm F1 lens for the same price, i would go for the second way for sure. And maybe it won't be that much expensive! Obviously this is just MY point of view.... Waiting to see yours.... Regards Maurizio MAURIZIO BEUCCI.com - Official web site Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 3, 2007 Posted October 3, 2007 Hi Mauribix, Take a look here Reflections on M? and Full Frame Sensors )including new lenses). I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
tom0511 Posted October 3, 2007 Share #2 Posted October 3, 2007 Actually IMO the problem is shallow DOF. Its allready difficult if you use a 28/2.0 sometimes, and personally I really rather like shooting scenes and people at f2.8 at least, maybe a 21/2.0 would work but then again thats just one more stop we allready have. Full frame I would like since it would give us the posibility to use the lenses in their intended way, and would gain about one stop (on M8 we have to use the 28/2.0 instead of 35/1,4, 35/1.4 instead of 50/1.0 and 21/2.8 instead of 28/2.0) I am pretty sure that we can speculate a lot, but in the end the M8 is what we have today, maybe in 1-2 years Leica will bring the M9, it will have improved noise behavier and a larger sensor. Until then we either use the M8 or get a 5D/1D/D3 if we need even better noise behaviour but accept to shoot with a SLR. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eoin Posted October 3, 2007 Share #3 Posted October 3, 2007 I've gotten used to the 1.3 crop over the years. My Canon had it as well. I'm not so much of a wide angle guy so it makes little sense to me. I don't get hung up in the MP war where more is better. I just use what I have and get on with it. I love the files I'm getting already from the M8, I have some lovely lenses now that suit my style, I love the simplicity shooting the M8 has brought back to my photography. Why complicate things, the M8 will be with me for quite a while. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted October 3, 2007 Share #4 Posted October 3, 2007 I've gotten used to the 1.3 crop over the years. My Canon had it as well. I'm not so much of a wide angle guy so it makes little sense to me. I don't get hung up in the MP war where more is better. I just use what I have and get on with it. I love the files I'm getting already from the M8, I have some lovely lenses now that suit my style, I love the simplicity shooting the M8 has brought back to my photography. Why complicate things, the M8 will be with me for quite a while. Well said. I'm sure this goes for a fair number of us. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted October 3, 2007 Share #5 Posted October 3, 2007 I'm greedy, I'd like full frame _and_ lower noise <grin>. However if I had to choose one or the other I'd go for lower noise. I can already print beautiful A2 prints from my M8, but the area that lets it down is noise at higher ISO settings. This is a bit sad given that the film Ms excelled in low light photography. Converting to b&w usually provides a solution, but not everyone wants to have to do that to get an acceptable image. Incidentaly, I haven't used my 5D since I bought the M8 in January, so it must be doing something right <grin> Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
j. borger Posted October 3, 2007 Share #6 Posted October 3, 2007 Full frame .....we do not need it....... we do not even want is ........ but we will be first in line to order when it is anounced ........... because you get the new (faster) lenses and focal lengths for free with it .......... More MP's are not necessary for me ...... for the simple reason i almost always prefer smaller intimitate prints to larger prints..... Lower noise has a price i am not prepared to pay ......... i love the M8 at 640 and shoot never at lower iso ..... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
delander † Posted October 3, 2007 Share #7 Posted October 3, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) I like the 1.3 crop as well. Canon have retained it for the 1D series although there was a rumour some while ago that they would abandon it. It seems almost ideal, removes vignetting and softness at the frame edges whilst still retaining most of the low DOF. Maybe if Leica cant quite manage full frame in the M9 for technical reasons they could get a little closer, say 1.15 crop, and up the MP to 14. For me that would be great. Jeff Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mauribix Posted October 3, 2007 Author Share #8 Posted October 3, 2007 More MP's are not necessary for me ...... for the simple reason i almost always prefer smaller intimitate prints to larger prints..... Lower noise has a price i am not prepared to pay ......... i love the M8 at 640 and shoot never at lower iso ..... Are you refferring to colour or B/W? I'm getting used to love iso 640, but only when shooting B/W, maybe a noiseless improvement would rather be useful in colour shoots.. . won't it? "...I just use what I have and get on with it..." it's my way since i have a Leica, Eoin, but now i'm getting more and more involved in each individual lens characteristics, and that's why I'd love to have a larger set to choose with. More MP would be great not only for larger prints, (and this is jus my opinion), won't it improve microdetails and rendition too? Maybe Sean could answer to this. regards Maurizio MAURIZIO BEUCCI.com - Official web site Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mauribix Posted October 3, 2007 Author Share #9 Posted October 3, 2007 I like the 1.3 crop as well... It seems almost ideal, removes vignetting and softness at the frame edges whilst still retaining most of the low DOF.Jeff Well said Jeff, and I add, most of the people who would like to have a FF sensor, are looking for Wider lenses.But have you seen the vignetting and softness in the corners that FF camera and WA lenses on the market can produce? Is it something acceptable comparing to M8+CV 12 (or15) output?Dunno... cheers Maurizio Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
j. borger Posted October 3, 2007 Share #10 Posted October 3, 2007 Are you refferring to colour or B/W?I'm getting used to love iso 640, but only when shooting B/W, maybe a noiseless improvement would rather be useful in colour shoots.. . won't it? Yes .... I shoot 95% B&W Maurizio ... but for color i also like noise and structure .... even like to add some more noise in post most of the times ........ In all circumstances I prefer to handle noise myself ... to enhance it or reduce it with secundary software ............ off - camera i want all the detail possible ... even if it includes "noise". Perhaps it is just my personal taste to like noise....... i also like the look of grainy film ..... so why should we all want clean iso 3200 ....? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hankg Posted October 3, 2007 Share #11 Posted October 3, 2007 If Leica is going to continue making lenses exclusively for 24x36 then the sensor should be 24x36. I'm fine with the 1.33 sensor but Leica is not making lenses optimized for it so the equivalent of a 35/1.4 ain't gonna happen -a 24/1.4 covering 24 x 36 would be huge and cost more then the camera. If 24 x 36 would mean more resolution with lower noise and higher ISO then I'm all for it. But if Leica is planning on staying with 1.33 then lets have some 1.33 lenses. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdai Posted October 3, 2007 Share #12 Posted October 3, 2007 DX format lens means smaller image circles and vignetting will be a more prevailing problem when the imagery is projected on to the current sensor ... with an offset microlens layout and in camera correction designed for full frame optics. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rwfreund Posted October 3, 2007 Share #13 Posted October 3, 2007 I am happy with i as it is except for the reduction of noise at the higher sensitivities and an increase of the top sensivity by a stop or two. Then, I would be pleased to see a "dx" linear 10-12 mm f/5.6 lens. That would do it for me oh, as long as we are dreaming, replace the rangefinder with a eye-level (through an eyepiece at the current location) full view lcd and electronic focus assist. That would mean the end of the 2mm wrench and all the bellyaching about framelines. -bob Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Roberts Posted October 3, 2007 Share #14 Posted October 3, 2007 When they come out with a full-frame M--which will have better noise and resolution than the M8--I will buy it and use the M8 alongside it, probably. It's just as Hank said; I ultimately want my 35 1.4 to be a 35 1.4 I'm all for lower noise at higher ISOs too, though I see no problems whatsoever at ISO 640, where there is still a stop or two in the shadows. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted October 3, 2007 Share #15 Posted October 3, 2007 ...replace the rangefinder with a eye-level (through an eyepiece at the current location) full view lcd and electronic focus assist... No please - see how difficult we are to please <grin>. If I wanted an SLR I'd buy one. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guy_mancuso Posted October 3, 2007 Share #16 Posted October 3, 2007 Well I have been shooting the crop camera's full time since the DMR introduction and it does solve some of the wide angle issues that I had with canon so i really don't mind it at all and do embrace it. The one issue is making lenses wide enough for it at a reasonable cost. the widest i could go on the DMR was 15mm. The issue was, it cost me 5k for a used 15mm 2.8. Now that part is wrong and leica did address this somewhat with the M8 with the WATE but still the cost is high. I have been begging leica to build a 15mm F4 at a reasonable cost so the crop factor is less of a issue for wide angle work. That is the biggest and really the only issue is the lens support along with maintaining costs. The WATE is awesome but costly too, they need a 1 or 2 extreme wide angle primes cheap and they need to bump the speed on the 24 and 28 lenses. There too slow and i HOPE they never fall into well the ISO's are higher so we can build slower lenses crap , to me that is a cop out . Some want fast wide angles regardless. I also think FF is a completely secondary option and the only real reason i want one is MPX and to get to at least 16mpx. I'm cheating MF guys let's face it. i would like some bigger files for elbow room when the need comes. I also want pure 16 bit like the DMR but more important raise the noise floor from one to two stops. I can go 640 with color but not 1250 without extra work . And the MUST come with electronic projected frame lines that are accurate like I have been talking about for months. So really FF is not that important to me but I want the support of it with improvements in extreme WA, Noise Floor, MPX, Faster WA and other relevent improvements. If it was me this is what i would work on Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hankg Posted October 3, 2007 Share #17 Posted October 3, 2007 DX format lens means smaller image circles and vignetting will be a more prevailing problem when the imagery is projected on to the current sensor ... with an offset microlens layout and in camera correction designed for full frame optics. When you can charge $2-3,000 for a prime lens you have lot's of leeway in minimizing things like CA and vignetting. I wonder what Canon, Nikon or even Sigma could achieve if they could charge $3,000 for a 50mm or 35mm prime lens. With 6-bit coding you also have the aid of software which lens designers are starting to factor in to their design considerations and if you are designing for digital you would move to wide angle designs that are more digital friendly (more tele-centric). Although it seems Leica is expecting eventually to have a full frame M digital which would explain it's commitment to 24x36 lenses exclusively. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
j. borger Posted October 3, 2007 Share #18 Posted October 3, 2007 And the MUST come with electronic projected frame lines that are accurate like I have been talking about for months.... YESSS-....... And one at a time please ....... we should at least get somehow rid of the horrible and confusing 50-75 combo ....! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hankg Posted October 3, 2007 Share #19 Posted October 3, 2007 And the MUST come with electronic projected frame lines that are accurate like I have been talking about for months. I'll second that. One more proviso. If Leica's goal is a 24 x 36 M digital please don't do it in increments. Don't make the M9 1.25 if you can't get to 24x36. Everytime the crop factor changes your lens kit needs to be re-configured and with Leica that is really expensive. So let's get it over with in one jump whether that happens with the M9 or the M10. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdai Posted October 3, 2007 Share #20 Posted October 3, 2007 Why do you guys still want frame lines? Leica could add a viewfinder mask like the one you'll see in the Nikon D3. But that's what I always lament ... the M is antiquated and there's no much room for further development, and these lens coding, focusing assistance, picture frame, noise performance thing can be better dealt with if Leica would jumpstart from scratch. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.