nemeng Posted September 13, 2006 Share #21 Posted September 13, 2006 Advertisement (gone after registration) Part is laws of physics (high angles), but why we worry FF?... Maybe whole FF discussion is a red herring No it isn't. Here's a couple of reasons why. (1) We paid good money to get the focal length and aperture we want. This goes out the window with crop-frame bodies. We now have to get new lenses, and even then we won't get exactly the coverage/max-aperture we want: eg. we'll need a 28mm to shoot 35mm equivalent, but is there a 28mm Summilux?... Likewise I have a 1989 50mm Summilux-M. Beautiful smoothness, bokeh and flare-resistance. Mount this lens onto the M8 and now it's a 67mm equivalent. Totally useless for my needs. :?/ (2) I shoot Quicktime VR panoramas. Not as a hobby, but as part of my business. To do it I need to use fisheye lenses. My current setup uses the full-frame 16mm Leica Fisheye-Elmarit-R, which gives a diagonal coverage of 180-degrees. Guess what happens were I to mount this lens onto a crop-frame body?... That's right, kiss goodbye to 180! I would now have to take more shots using multiple rows and... no more candid people crowd VR scenes (for which I am - ahem - a bit famous). Let's face it, crop-frame is a PITA. We can work around it, we can after-the-fact rationalise, but if digital cameras were full-frame 24mm x 36mm from the beginning, would any of us demand to have crop-frame chips?... Somehow I don't think so :?) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted September 13, 2006 Posted September 13, 2006 Hi nemeng, Take a look here New Tri-Elmar Lens 16-21-28 for Digital M8. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
albertwang Posted September 13, 2006 Share #22 Posted September 13, 2006 either that or shoot 4/3 system which is full-frame on a smaller version. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ho_co Posted September 13, 2006 Share #23 Posted September 13, 2006 . Unless of course of you live in the Bible Belt and think that George W. is the greatest President of all times and smart too... But not smart enough to shoot Leica, Pascal! --HC Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ho_co Posted September 13, 2006 Share #24 Posted September 13, 2006 (1) Likewise I have a 1989 50mm Summilux-M. Beautiful smoothness, bokeh and flare-resistance. Mount this lens onto the M8 and now it's a 67mm equivalent. Totally useless for my needs. :?/ (2) I shoot Quicktime VR panoramas. My current setup uses the full-frame 16mm Leica Fisheye-Elmarit-R, which gives a diagonal coverage of 180-degrees. Andrew-- 1) Again, what works for you and what works for me may be different. 2) Possible solution: Try the 10.5mm f/2.8 Nikkor Fisheye. [i tried to post its URL, but this forum rejected it.] It's designed for the smaller APS-C sensor, and definitely not the quality of the Elmarit, but it might pull you through. --HC Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted September 13, 2006 Share #25 Posted September 13, 2006 FF is impossible for rangefinders so far so the actual choice is digital crop or film that's all. BTW i like APS format for reflex cameras as i use telephotos a lot and i'm quite happy to use small and fast lenses instead of slow monsters personally. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
georg Posted September 13, 2006 Share #26 Posted September 13, 2006 The whole system (M and R) is engineered for 24x36mm, the crop-sensor is just a compromise to today's sensor-technologies. Some companys start to make compromises in optical design (telecentric, more cmplicated to build, bigger, with less image quality - compare a R1,4/35 and the M1,4/35Asph in size and quality...) but in a few years they will solve this problem (they already made big improvements - the M8 wasn't possible 2 years ago) with new sensors and they need new "optimized" lenses again... Sensor technologies improve pretty quick, a good lens remains a good lens much longer - don't make compromises with the lenses, solve the problem = the sensor! But that's exactly what Leica does: still making "full-frame-lenses" (by the way the best on this planet - no need for "digital optimization" in resolution...) and waiting for new sensors :-) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted September 13, 2006 Share #27 Posted September 13, 2006 Advertisement (gone after registration) ...in a few years they will solve this problem (they already made big improvements - the M8 wasn't possible 2 years ago)... Leica could have done what Epson did with the R-D1 two years ago. Now will Kodak, Fuji or same make special FF sensors for M lenses, i would not hold my breath personally... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kidigital Posted September 13, 2006 Share #28 Posted September 13, 2006 Depends on M8 sales results. If there is a ready market as an incentive for a sensor manufacturer considering product development costs, time to market, etc., etc., someone will develop one. There is a vocal crowd that clamors for full-frame. A few see it as a deal breaker, while the majority will most likely work around the crop factor. As a business strategy, I'd go with what is going to make the majority happy. As an aside, I wonder if sales of Canon's full-frame 5D have met expectations? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted September 13, 2006 Share #29 Posted September 13, 2006 RFs are too niche a market i'm afraid. Canon is a reflex camera, not the same market at all. FF Canons are hitting the market of MF film. 24x36 will be replaced by APS IMHO. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nemeng Posted September 13, 2006 Share #30 Posted September 13, 2006 ... Try the 10.5mm f/2.8 Nikkor Fisheye... (Sorry for the OT - I'll try to keep this short.) No good, there is no independant aperture control. When used off a Nikon DSLR you have to insert little sticks to change the aperture (removing the lens every time). Canon Nikon lens adapter for 10.5mm fisheye... It works, many use the lens this way, but it's (again) a PITA. It would also mean having to spend $AUD 1000 for a new lens, when I have a perfectly good one already in my hands... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Ross Posted September 14, 2006 Share #31 Posted September 14, 2006 FF is impossible for rangefinders I would rephrase that to: FF is currently not possible for rangefinders... As George says it is the sensor that has to evolve to find the solution. If in all the recearch going on, someone comes up with a different architecture or substrait, then the rules of the game will change. There is certainly incentive to find alternatives, just like the OLED will eventually replace the LCD and maybe the incandescent light bulb, too. Bob Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ho_co Posted September 14, 2006 Share #32 Posted September 14, 2006 No good, there is no independant aperture control. When used off a Nikon DSLR you have to insert little sticks to change the aperture (removing the lens every time). Oops! You're right. I had forgotten that the lens had no aperture control ring. Red herring. HC Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted September 14, 2006 Share #33 Posted September 14, 2006 But, Andrew - isn't it on your site, on the M8 page, that I saw this? -------- ...So the decision is this: sit paralysed and wait, use something else (such as a full-frame Canon DSLR), or use a crop-frame rangefinder and adapt, experiment & get over it ;?) _____ As always, I find nemeng.com extremely helpful and informative. 8^) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rvaubel Posted September 14, 2006 Share #34 Posted September 14, 2006 I would rephrase that to: FF is currently not possible for rangefinders...Bob Yes, it's true that eventially FF will fit in the rangefinder format. But I have a feeling that 1.33X might hit the "sweet spot" for the rangefinder form factor. Further development will probably converge @ 5.0 micron pixels, 13-15 MP, ISO's of 3200, and huge dynamic range. That just about matches the resolution capacities of the lenses, with the low light needs of street, theater, documentary, requirements that a rangefinder system does so well. Sure, there are gaps in lens selection especially with the fast, wides. On the other hand my underused 40mm/1.4 Nokton in film becomes a favorite long, normal in digital. My 50mm/1.2 canon becomes a dreamy wide open portriat lens. Everything changes, but, so what? Its no different than picking up any new format. My feeling is that 24mmX36mm will become the new medium format. Nothing wrong with that for studio work or where the resolution requirements require it . And some people just like a larger format. But for rangefinder use, I think that the 1,33 format has a chance to become dominant. Rex Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted September 14, 2006 Share #35 Posted September 14, 2006 ...My feeling is that 24mmX36mm will become the new medium format. Nothing wrong with that for studio work or where the resolution requirements require it . And some people just like a larger format. But for rangefinder use, I think that the 1,33 format has a chance to become dominant... Yes 1.33x or 1.50x with which one can get 75mm FoV with 50mm lenses. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_tribble Posted September 14, 2006 Share #36 Posted September 14, 2006 Rare for me to post to this forum, but I keep on noticing comparisons of different horses on different courses. I use Canon DSLRs (5D / 1Dmk2) when I want to work quickly in reportage work or require long lenses (stage / concert performance often using tripod / monopod). I use rangefinder for intimate work (portraiture / social documentation / stage / film set) where I need to work quietly and discreetly. At the moment I'm in Vietnam on an assignment and because I have to provide output to my client quickly I've had to lug a DSLR set up with me. I would SO much prefer to have had an M setup with a few lenses (equivalent of 28 / 35 / 50 / 90 usually does me) all snug in a little Domke satchel. No airport hassle, no monster stuck to your face when you're doing street work (has anyone found a way of being discrete when carrying a 1 series Canon and a 28-70 lens...?). I'm buying an M8 because it will let me return to working the way I like to work. I'm a bit pissed that I can't use my 135 APO - it was a lovely lens, but the other lenses I have (21mm through to 90mm) will let me do the job I want to do... And I'm keeping the DSLRs because they let me do other kinds of work. Wasn't this always the case? Best Chris Christopher Tribble: documentary photography, training, education, linguistics Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.