Reflections on M? and Full Frame Sensors )including new lenses)

[sean_reid]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hank - You may be in the M system for its antiquated viewing,

............... Chris

 

I've yet to see many small format pictures that rival those that have been made with cameras that use this "antiquated viewing". That antiquated view has brought us the strongest small format work in the history of photography so far. You may not value its strengths, and they may not matter to you, but they most certainly do exist.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[sean_reid]

The discussion regarding the possibility of a full frame M camera is moot. Leica has already been very clear about the mechanical limitations of the M lens dimensions. It leica decides to make a digital rangefinder with a full size sensor, it will not be using M lenses.

 

Never say never. Yesterday's "impossible" is *yesterday's* impossible. What seemed realistic and do-able in 2004 is not necessarily the same in 2007.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[Advertisement]

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

[charlesphoto99]

I actually love my .58x finder on my M7 because of all that space around, esp when shooting with a 35, 50 or 90. Yes, the .58 can be a bit more difficult to focus (though somehow not really), but seeing all that is going on outside the frame allows one to choose what and how to compose. I would like to see a wider viewfinder version of the M8, thought the nee to be more critical in focusing would make it a it more worrisome proposition.

 

With the M line Leica has the form down - I just think they dropped the ball in some Q.C. with the M8 (it just doesn't "feel" as well built as my M7). And they thought they were doing people a favor by squeezing the framelines. Dumb idea. Goes to show don't monkey with what already works.

[xrogers]

I'd also like to see electronic framelines---ideally something like a high resolution LCD mask replacing the existing cutout frameline mask in an otherwise unchanged viewfinder. If something like this would work, then a "classic view" could be supported for those who want it, and single framelines accurate at all distances could be provided for others. And Leica could make piles of cash off the new M zoom lens .

 

And if it can't be done without screwing up the viewfinder, then don't do it.

 

I love the M8 sensor and don't want a Canon or Nikon sensor. I do want a camera that pushes the Leica lenses to their limits. And I want my 35 Summilux back. Make me an M9 with a full frame sensor and 20 megapixels (then I can sell off the Mamiya stuff), and pack it into an M8-sized body. And continue making (and updating) the M8 for people who prefer it.

 

Until later,

 

--clyde

[tom0511]

Like many said, for a given lens the inherent DOF does not differ, but in a larger magnification it shows it up more (the DOF coding like I think Lars mentioned is for a 10x15 cm - A6 print size from a 24-36 frame, so for the 1.33 extra magn. the coding should be smaller - but who uses that anyway?).

 

So you trade in half a stop of speed (guestimate) for a lower magnification (at FF) to get the same end result.

 

OK, if you want the same scene you now use a 28 mm where you were used to a 35 mm; then you would select an extra half stop or so and you need a faster lens maybe.

 

There is a lot of money in between! I'm not sure any more if that is worth it.

albert

 

Albert, IMO 1/2 stop doesnt help much - I try to avoid f1.4 and f2.0 as much as I can (except I explecetly want very shallow DOF) in order to get some DOF.

Regards, Tom

[lct]

To crop factor supporters: How can you live without small/fast wides folks? Do you shoot wide rarely (like me) or...?

Edit: Hey! 1000 posts! Cheers to all!

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

9.8 mm @ 1.8 is fast and wide enough for me (Kinoptik Tegea)

[lct]

9.8 mm @ 1.8 is fast and wide enough for me (Kinoptik Tegea)

Yes a small wide, exactly what i meant

 

]

[jaapv]

..............

[leicar7]

Some reasons why many of us really want a FF M digital:

 

1. The wide angle penalty, both in terms of angle of view and widest aperture;

2. The DOF at any aperture increases by the same factor as the chip size ratios, to wit, there is a cost to composing images owing to lessened ability to use selective focus at large apertures;

3. To regain the selective focus capability at the same angle of view and aperture, the required lenses must be much larger, both in terms of physical size and necessary aperture, and be even better corrected than for FF. I forget the argument on this, but gaining the FF capability of a 35/1.4 means needing a 28/1.0 or something. Anyway, 1.4 at FF is not equivalent to 1.4 on a smaller sensor in terms of DOF. Since that means intruding into the viewfinder space, it will not often be feasible, let alone because of the cost.

 

So I'm holding out for a FF or nearly FF (1.1x would be acceptable to me) M camera.

 

One of the most frequent complaints I hear about the M8 is the lack of grip with the film advance lever having disappeared. Several pros I have talked to had to get the M8 grip to be happy during long shooting periods. It would appear that an M9 might need to incorporate some changes in the body on the right side to provide some grip.

[ChrisC]

I've yet to see many small format pictures that rival those that have been made with cameras that use this "antiquated viewing". That antiquated view has brought us the strongest small format work in the history of photography so far. ........

 

Sean - Or rather, with film; an unobtrusive camera with great lenses and a very quiet shutter has - regardless of the framing mechanics being either good legacy, or hopelessly anachronistic as is my contention.

 

We disagree, and I'm glad it can be done in a gentlemanly manner.

 

..................... Chris

[tom0511]

Some reasons why many of us really want a FF M digital:

 

1. The wide angle penalty, both in terms of angle of view and widest aperture;

2. The DOF at any aperture increases by the same factor as the chip size ratios, to wit, there is a cost to composing images owing to lessened ability to use selective focus at large apertures;

3. To regain the selective focus capability at the same angle of view and aperture, the required lenses must be much larger, both in terms of physical size and necessary aperture, and be even better corrected than for FF. I forget the argument on this, but gaining the FF capability of a 35/1.4 means needing a 28/1.0 or something. Anyway, 1.4 at FF is not equivalent to 1.4 on a smaller sensor in terms of DOF. Since that means intruding into the viewfinder space, it will not often be feasible, let alone because of the cost.

 

So I'm holding out for a FF or nearly FF (1.1x would be acceptable to me) M camera.

 

One of the most frequent complaints I hear about the M8 is the lack of grip with the film advance lever having disappeared. Several pros I have talked to had to get the M8 grip to be happy during long shooting periods. It would appear that an M9 might need to incorporate some changes in the body on the right side to provide some grip.

 

Regarding grip: the M8 protector (black leather half case) works pretty good for me (except you have to take it off to access the sd card.

 

Regarding shallow DOF: in reality transition between sharp and unsharp area seems more determinded in the M8 images and you can get very well selective focus with 28/2.0, 35/1.4 lenses.

[jaapv]

One of the most frequent complaints I hear about the M8 is the lack of grip with the film advance lever having disappeared. Several pros I have talked to had to get the M8 grip to be happy during long shooting periods. It would appear that an M9 might need to incorporate some changes in the body on the right side to provide some grip.

So as Leica offers a grip that seems to solve the problem - what is the problem with the body shape?

[tomasis7]

it'd be a suicide for Leica company to change body shape to Nikon d70, lol

 

I'm amazed to read some wild ideas from people here. Thankfully, Leica is not that crazy and I hope that they continue to be very extreme conservative regarding new ideas and maintaining the core back to Leica A.

[ChrisC]

it'd be a suicide for Leica company to change body shape to Nikon d70,.....

 

Because Leica Heritagers demand a camera that is uncomfortable to hold? I have in mind a torture test; in one hand a D70 [or that other wonderful shaped grip - on the Mamiya 7], in the other hand an M8. I'll bet that only the religiously fanatical wouldn't put down the M8 first.

 

Oh, by the way - I've owned and extensively used D70, Mamiya 7, and M8.

 

..................... Chris

[lct]

What do you have against the D70 guys? I have not large hands and it's one of my favourite as far as ergonomy. Not a monster like the R9 at least. Hope the R10 will be closer to the R4/R7 size otherwise no R10 for me.

Edit: Oops sorry out of topic. Yes an M is an M. So please nothing fatter than good old M2/M3/M4/M6/M7/MP's please. Also please Mr Leica if you don't know how to get a non-slippery sophisticated covering, forget sophistication please and give me a mere rubber one a la D70. And also please Mr Leica if you don't know how to build a quiet motorized body, keep the motor if your clients like that but please let me switch it off if i need it and give me a good old shutter lever as well if you don't mind.

[sean_reid]

Sean - Or rather, with film; an unobtrusive camera with great lenses and a very quiet shutter has - regardless of the framing mechanics being either good legacy, or hopelessly anachronistic as is my contention.

 

We disagree, and I'm glad it can be done in a gentlemanly manner.

 

..................... Chris

 

Hi Chris,

 

Gentlemanly of course. But, I know or knew (personally) some of the photographers who made the work we're discussing. My friend Ben knew many more of them quite well. The finder has been important to Levitt, Winogrand, Frank, Koudelka, etc. So, while its excellences may not be of value to you, it has been of great value to many (myself included) and continues to be so. Those of who really make use of its strengths often find it essential.

 

"Great" lenses, measured by today's technical standards, had little to do with much of that work. Most of it was made by lenses that some here would consider quite mediocre. I would argue that a modest lens on a camera that lets the photographer see the subject (the whole subject) thoroughly has lead to far better work, overall, than have technically superb lenses mounted on cameras that see the world through shallow depth of field. That's not to say that there hasn't been great work done with small format SLR cameras (Robert Bergman is one example), there just isn't a lot of it. Those photographers stuck with rangefinders for a reason, long after the SLR "revolution" had arrived. Old needn't mean bad.

 

Rangefinder viewing isn't right for everyone but, gosh, we've already got plenty of SLR and EVF cameras to choose from. I definitely want to see Leica continue to make a true M with a glass window for a finder. Some of us need that kind of camera and no longer use film.

 

If its of any interest to you, I discussed this further in the "Street Photography" article.

 

Unobtrusiveness and quiet shutter - yes I agree that has been and continues to be valuable for many of us.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[carstenw]

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.

 

The M8 is not worse than film, but rather a lot better, so that really isn't a fair comment. Having said that, I would love a usable ISO 100-3200, with 6400 as an option like the current 3200.

[stunsworth]

Carsten, I agree, but the problem is that other cameras have raised the bar <grin>

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[hankg]

Because Leica Heritagers demand a camera that is uncomfortable to hold? I have in mind a torture test; in one hand a D70 [or that other wonderful shaped grip - on the Mamiya 7], in the other hand an M8. I'll bet that only the religiously fanatical wouldn't put down the M8 first.

 

 

It's not brand snobs and collectors that made the Leica body design and ergonomics the icon they are. It's some of the greatest photographers of the last 60 years. I have used a Mamiya 6 + 7 and the Plaubel 670 RF's and while I like them very much (especially the Plaubel) they don't hold a candle to a proper film M ergonomics wise.

 

Unfortunately Leica picked a covering with very poor grip and lost the purchase for the thumb with the lack of film winder making the M8 not nearly as comfortable as some other M's. A different covering with more tooth and some slight protrusion on the rear for the thumb to latch on to and this is easily remedied. Like the old Rollie TLR the Leica RF is an industrial design refined over time to about the point of perfection. There is room for improvement accuracy wise with the frame lines but I wouldn't trade the optical window of the finder for any SLR made today when using lenses of focal lengths less then 75mm.

 

Even in the world of SLR's I have yet to look through a finder that improved on the 40 year old Leicaflex finder. Most cropped sensor DSLR finders are abysmal by comparison and even the full frame 1Ds is no match. Newer does not always mean better.