Low telecentric spec...

[adan]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hmmm, according to Schneider's own Digitar White paper here:

 

http://www.schneideroptics.com/pdfs/Digitar.pdf

 

...the 24 is not compatable with 36 x 48 backs (nor is their 60mm) - see pages 19-23 "Lens exceptions"

 

The Digitar 24 CAN cover 24 x 36 - but is an f/5.6 lens, whereas the Leica is an f/2.8. Makes a difference.

 

Leica has tried their wideangles on a full-frame Kodak chip in the process of developing the M8 - the results were "not satisfactory" - they went back to the 1.3 crop. (But you are right - from at least 50mm and longer a big sensor is not much of an issue even with M lenes)

 

Empirical results always trump theory.

[AlanG]

Hmmm, according to Schneider's own Digitar White paper here:

 

http://www.schneideroptics.com/pdfs/Digitar.pdf

 

...the 24 is not compatable with 36 x 48 backs (nor is their 60mm) - see pages 19-23 "Lens exceptions"

 

The Digitar 24 CAN cover 24 x 36 - but is an f/5.6 lens, whereas the Leica is an f/2.8. Makes a difference...

 

 

I did not notice that and it is interesting because the lens is being sold by camera companies for use on that format. It must be "correct" but it seems that quite a number of people are using the 24 Digitar on 36x48. Perhaps they are accepting some corner vignetting. Here is what Alpa says about it:

 

 

"The Widest in Digital Photography

 

This lens offers an angle of 100° and covers with its image circle of 60 mm todays digital sensors up to 36x48 mm (without shift reserve). The resulting angles are nearly 90° horizontal and 100° diagonal. The extraordinary short flange focal distance and the travel of only 1.6 mm from “infinity” to 60 cm make high demand on all components used. The special ALPA helical ramp fulfills this together with ease in handling and manipulation. The lens can get ordered in standard Copal 0 or Schneider electronic shutter."

 

Anyhow the 24 Digitar is at least close to covering 36x48. And Sinar reports that a 23 is coming out that covers a 70mm diagonal. Of course an f5.6 is not an f2.8 lens but I am not sure that is relevant for saying that the 24 Elmarit won't work with a full frame sensor. Would the 24 Elmarit work well on a full frame sensor if it is stopped down a little?

 

It makes sense that Leica would have tested it on a larger sensor. So if it doesn't produce satisfactory results on a Kodak full frame sensor, what is going on? And why would a wide angle Digitar work on a still larger sensor? Back to my thought that the microlenses or sensor design on the Canon sensor might make a difference. The Fill Factory 24x36 sensor on the Kodak DSLRs was very susceptible to color shifting and the Canon 1Ds was not.

 

A few years ago, I was told by a MagaVision camera rep that the 24 Digitar works better with the Dalsa sensor than with the Kodak sensor. He explained the "reasons" but may have been blowing smoke to sell me his back. He was showing me a Cambo Wide with the 24 Digitar and the MegaVision E5 22 megapixel 36x48 back. It seemed to work quite well. You don't hear much from MegaVision any more.

[Advertisement]

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

[Olsen]

There is no crop factor issue with the M8. To my opinion.

 

Leica offers probably the best digital solution for wide angle photography; the WATE. It is far sharper than, say, Canon's 16 35 mm 2,8L on 1Ds III. For the professional interior photographer the M8/WATE combo must be a very good propostion. The Voigtländer Super Wide 15 mm is also a remarkably good alternative, - at least for the amateur. So, the 1,33 crop factor is really not that much of a problem.

 

Ruomors say that Leica will launch new and faster wide angle alternatives this year. Anyone who have idea of what that might be?

[AlanG]

... For the professional interior photographer the M8/WATE combo must be a very good propostion. The Voigtländer Super Wide 15 mm is also a remarkably good alternative, - at least for the amateur. So, the 1,33 crop factor is really not that much of a problem...

 

I am not sure what this has to do with the topic at hand - telecentric lenses being needed for full frame. But I am a professional interior photographer and wouldn't choose to do that work with an M8. I guess it could work for some.

[malagauche]

Can someone please tell me why it is intrinsically desirable to have a full-frame sensor? Is it more pixels, bigger pixels, or what?

 

It's hard to see what more pixels would do for you, given that the resolution is at present beyond the ability of the lenses to deliver, and certainly beyond the ability of hand-holding photographers to approach.

 

Bigger pixels would give somewhat better noise, but not all that much better. (Peltier cooling of the sensor gives very much better noise, but I don't expect to see that in portable cameras any time soon.)

 

It seems to me that Leica has, apart from its woeful communication, done something quite remarkable. It has produced a digital rangefinder with, by general acclaim, superb image quality which is not cooked-up in the camera by aggressive noise reduction. The infra-red problem is solved - either by the firmware or by cornerfix - and, as it turns out, the camera is all the more versatile because of it.

 

The only real improvements I can see coming are genuine noise reduction through new types of sensors, though the laws of physics do tend to dampen one's expectations, and new post-processing software. When the latter appears my M8 DNGs will be there to take advantage of it.

 

What's so magic about full-frame?

[Olsen]

I am not sure what this has to do with the topic at hand - telecentric lenses being needed for full frame. But I am a professional interior photographer and wouldn't choose to do that work with an M8. I guess it could work for some.

 

Alan,

 

"This is why (being the lenses too close to the sensor) he doesn't believe Leica to be easily producing a FF sensor on the M (obviously if the try to make it in the actual state-of-the-art CCD/CMOS way).

 

What do you think?"

 

This is the thread starter's question. I was just trying to give my opinion.

 

I am an amateur. But quite able to compare digital picture files taken with different digital wide angle solutions. Apart from digital MF solutions, possibly, - I haven't tried them, the M8/WATE combo is the best wide angle solution on the market. To my opinion. It is even economically attractive. It costs about the same as a 1Ds III/16-35 mm 2,8L combo.

 

What kind of digital wide angle solution do you prefer?

[Vieri]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

There is no crop factor issue with the M8. To my opinion.

 

Leica offers probably the best digital solution for wide angle photography; the WATE. It is far sharper than, say, Canon's 16 35 mm 2,8L on 1Ds III. For the professional interior photographer the M8/WATE combo must be a very good propostion. The Voigtländer Super Wide 15 mm is also a remarkably good alternative, - at least for the amateur. So, the 1,33 crop factor is really not that much of a problem.

 

Ruomors say that Leica will launch new and faster wide angle alternatives this year. Anyone who have idea of what that might be?

 

With the WATE you get respectively, in FOV:

 

- 21.3 mm f4;

- 24 mm f4;

- 28 mm f4.

 

add the CV 15, and you get:

- 20 mm f4.5

 

With a full frame or a film M, you get:

- 21 mm f2.8;

- 24 mm f 2.8;

- 28 mm f2;

 

plus the chance of using the WATE & the CV 15 and getting thus:

- 16/18/21 mm f4;

- 15 mm f4.5.

 

It seems to me that the advantage of full frame is self evident in speed and focal length. I really don't see an argument there, and I am surprised that people keep saying that we are fine with the 1.33x crop - we are, we just would be better with a FF option both as far as speed and as WA per se. It is actually so self-evident that denying this, IMO, is like denying the earth is round or something of that sort of course, hoping for a FF digital M is something else, and for now I think that believing we are going to get one soon has basically the same level of reality as believing the earth being flat...

[Vieri]

Can someone please tell me why it is intrinsically desirable to have a full-frame sensor? Is it more pixels, bigger pixels, or what?

 

 

For me, but others might have different opinions:

1. Using the lenses as they were intended and getting back WAs and fast WAs especially;

2. Not more MP, but better MP: less noise, more DR. See what Nikon and Canon did with FF and you'll see what I mean, especially what Nikon achieved with the 12 MP of the D3 vs the 12 MP of the D2 series. Night and day difference. Why shouldn't we hope for a digital M with these characteristics, even if it looks like we will be hoping for a long time? What's wrong with asking & hoping?

[Mauribix]

...I haven't tried them, the M8/WATE combo is the best wide angle solution on the market. To my opinion. It is even economically attractive. It costs about the same as a 1Ds III/16-35 mm 2,8L combo.

 

What kind of digital wide angle solution do you prefer?

 

I'm sorry, but finally the Wide Angle Canon lenses are not that good.

I wouldn't compare them to Leica or Zeiss' ones.

Or let me say, they're good but not great, and that's why Canon's redesigning most of them:

i.e. 16-35 ver. II, 14mm f2.8 II ...

I guess the greatest combo right now should be D700+14-24 f2.8.

Low light, zoom possibility, quality and mainly Price!(the combo it's less than the M8 alone)

 

Just MHO

[AlanG]

For me, but others might have different opinions:

1. Using the lenses as they were intended and getting back WAs and fast WAs especially;

2. Not more MP, but better MP: less noise, more DR. See what Nikon and Canon did with FF and you'll see what I mean, especially what Nikon achieved with the 12 MP of the D3 vs the 12 MP of the D2 series. Night and day difference. Why shouldn't we hope for a digital M with these characteristics, even if it looks like we will be hoping for a long time? What's wrong with asking & hoping?

 

All of this is true. On point #1. The logic is that the M8 came out to keep compatibility with M lenses but those lenses were all designed for full frame and thus are not being used to their best potential.

[Olsen]

With the WATE you get respectively, in FOV:

 

- 21.3 mm f4;

- 24 mm f4;

- 28 mm f4.

 

add the CV 15, and you get:

- 20 mm f4.5

 

With a full frame or a film M, you get:

- 21 mm f2.8;

- 24 mm f 2.8;

- 28 mm f2;

 

plus the chance of using the WATE & the CV 15 and getting thus:

- 16/18/21 mm f4;

- 15 mm f4.5.

 

It seems to me that the advantage of full frame is self evident in speed and focal length. I really don't see an argument there, and I am surprised that people keep saying that we are fine with the 1.33x crop - we are, we just would be better with a FF option both as far as speed and as WA per se. It is actually so self-evident that denying this, IMO, is like denying the earth is round or something of that sort of course, hoping for a FF digital M is something else, and for now I think that believing we are going to get one soon has basically the same level of reality as believing the earth being flat...

 

Sure,

 

Look up the 'professional' digital alternatives on the market and compare. You will be amazed at how strong the M8/WATE comes out. It is certainly not self evident that FF has an advantage with the wide angle lenses available to FF-cameras today. Wide angles is tricky on all digital cameras. Canon's alternatives comes out blured and with corner light fall-off measuring several F-stops. - With exception of Canon's excellent 35 mm 1,4, but then that is not a real wide angle lense.

[jaapv]

With the WATE you get respectively, in FOV:

 

- 21.3 mm f4;

- 24 mm f4;

- 28 mm f4.

 

add the CV 15, and you get:

- 20 mm f4.5

 

With a full frame or a film M, you get:

- 21 mm f2.8;

- 24 mm f 2.8;

- 28 mm f2;

 

plus the chance of using the WATE & the CV 15 and getting thus:

- 16/18/21 mm f4;

- 15 mm f4.5.

 

It seems to me that the advantage of full frame is self evident in speed and focal length. I really don't see an argument there, and I am surprised that people keep saying that we are fine with the 1.33x crop - we are, we just would be better with a FF option both as far as speed and as WA per se. It is actually so self-evident that denying this, IMO, is like denying the earth is round or something of that sort of course, hoping for a FF digital M is something else, and for now I think that believing we are going to get one soon has basically the same level of reality as believing the earth being flat...

 

Funny thing is, back halfway the 20th century exactly the same arguments were used to damn the "miniature" 135 film format as opposed to the "full frame" 6x9 and larger formats. Nothing changes but the players....

[Mauribix]

...given that the resolution is at present beyond the ability of the lenses to deliver...

 

This is radically wrong, If the sensor's resolution should outperfom the lenses' resolution, you probably wouldn't be so happy with the results.

 

You MUST have a lens that has got more resolution than you sensor.

 

Larger sensor can't but have pros.

First, it's not a "magic spell", it's the possibility (as Vieri said) to use the lenses in the way they're meant to be.

I don't need 21mp or something more, I just would have the possibility to use the right FOV and DOF.

[Olsen]

Funny thing is, back halfway the 20th century exactly the same arguments were used to damn the "miniature" 135 film format as opposed to the "full frame" 6x9 and larger formats. Nothing changes but the players....

 

Jaap,

 

It is even the same players! (- Ah, my false teeth is supposed to be around here somewhere...)

[Vieri]

Sure,

 

Look up the 'professional' digital alternatives on the market and compare. You will be amazed at how strong the M8/WATE comes out. It is certainly not self evident that FF has an advantage with the wide angle lenses available to FF-cameras today. Wide angles is tricky on all digital cameras. Canon's alternatives comes out blured and with corner light fall-off measuring several F-stops. - With exception of Canon's excellent 35 mm 1,4, but then that is not a real wide angle lense.

 

Who ever mentioned the very poor Canon zooms & primes (I'd add the 24 f1.4 to your 35 f1.4, though). Check out the Nikkor 14-24 or the Nikkor 17-35. I'd take either on D3 (or D300, for that matter) over the WATE on the M8 any day. The advantages of FF as I put them above are self evident to me, and to many others; the lack of Leica's lineup on fast wides, especially for 1.33x is self evident to me, and many others; wether this makes sense for you and for your particular needs, this is a completely different business. We'll have to agree to disagree

[Olsen]

This is radically wrong, If the sensor's resolution should outperfom the lenses' resolution, you probably wouldn't be so happy with the results.

 

You MUST have a lens that has got more resolution than you sensor.

 

Larger sensor can't but have pros.

First, it's not a "magic spell", it's the possibility (as Vieri said) to use the lenses in the way they're meant to be.

I don't need 21mp or something more, I just would have the possibility to use the right FOV and DOF.

 

Maurizio,

 

I am not impressed with the new Nikon 14-24 mm 2,8. The files looks very familiar to Canon's 16-36 mm 2,8 both regarding softness and 'vignetting'. But Nikon users are exited. Which is fine. Otherwise I agree with you that 'you must have lense that outperforms the sensor'.

 

Look at the bottom of this linked page where I have posted two examples comparing M8/Noctilux with Canon's 50 mm 1,0L/1Ds III -

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/customer-forum/53650-noctilux-price-gone-wild-2.html

[Olsen]

Who ever mentioned the very poor Canon zooms & primes (I'd add the 24 f1.4 to your 35 f1.4, though). Check out the Nikkor 14-24 or the Nikkor 17-35. I'd take either on D3 (or D300, for that matter) over the WATE on the M8 any day. The advantages of FF as I put them above are self evident to me, and to many others; the lack of Leica's lineup on fast wides, especially for 1.33x is self evident to me, and many others; wether this makes sense for you and for your particular needs, this is a completely different business. We'll have to agree to disagree

 

Nothing I have seen from FF Nikon looks that more impressive than Canon's alternatives when it comes to 'wide angles'. Wide angle on just any digital camera is a problem. In this terrain M8/WATE comes out a winner.

 

What has destroyed the M8/WATE consept for Leica, - first of all, is this bloody fall of the d-d-dollar...

[AlanG]

 

What kind of digital wide angle solution do you prefer?

 

I was trying to just stick to my point about the possibility that some of Leica's wides could work on a full frame sensor. I really wasn't trying to get into a "what camera or lens is best dialog."

 

I clearly am not working in the "best" resolution mode but have probably earned over $500,000 from the images I have produced with the Canon 16-35 and a full frame Canon. I use DXO and that corrects for a number of the shortcomings. The speed, ease, and convenience of using a zoom lens on a DSLR outweighs the defects for me. I like having the precision of through-the-lens viewing for accurate framing, and the zoom aspect helps me get a very precise vantage point and field of view. Even though I usually shoot interiors around f8-f10 the SLR viewing and 2.8 aperture makes it very easy to use indoors. Have you ever tried viewing through a view camera with a 35mm f4.5 Apo Grandagon or a 47mm f5.6 Super Angulon XL? (It isn't so much the f5.6 aperture as it is the angle of the light that makes it very difficult to see much.) Plus I have 6 PC and TSE lenses. Additonally I will use fisheye, and long lenses to shoot details or when working from a distance. So a 35mm rangefinder would be limited.

 

If the corners are not as sharp as the rest, that is rarely much of a factor because when shooting interiors the corners do not usually contain much important information. Often the ceiling, a blank wall, or the floor fall in that area. I have never once had a client say anything about the sharpness or lack of sharpness in one of my photos. That being said, I'd go for a better zoom in this range if one becomes available. Especially if it is good enough to justify buying the 21 megapixel camera. But I am not going to obsess about it.

 

I have been working on stitching images and I think that is a better solution as it offers the possibility of much more resolution than even single frame MF with a much wider field of view, more creative options, and no additional expense.

 

I posted this link on another thread to illustrate DXO, but it should give you an idea of how I use the 16-35 and the quality it produces.

 

Here is the info from that post:

 

PhotoShelter - Gallery Password Required

 

The password is :Leica

 

The example is a typical architectural shot photographed with a 5D, 16-35 series 1 lens at f10 and 17mm and shows why I like to use DXO. It is unretouched and unedited - a simple straight conversion.

 

Both were identically processed in DXO. The "corrected" version has c/a, vignetting, distortion, and lens softness correction "on" for the default values. The "Uncorrected" example has these turned off.

 

This example clearly shows the barrel distortion on the right side. There is not much c/a but if you look closely you'll see some in the uncrorrected version. The vignetting is pretty obvious.

 

You can view on screen and use the arrows to switch beteween photos. or download the hi res jpegs to examine the detail. (Almost 7 megs each) Please do not repost or use the hi-res images for anything. (I did not want to risk altering the image by adding a watermark.) The photos will only be on-line for a few days.

[Olsen]

Alan,

 

Very interesting feedback.

 

"Have you ever tried viewing through a view camera with a 35mm f4.5 Apo Grandagon or a 47mm f5.6 Super Angulon XL?"

 

No. But I have a tilt/shift Hasselblad Archbody with a Rodenstock 45 mm 4,5 Apo-Grandagon. And - I have been dependent on reading glasses for the last 10 years... - Demanding...

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[adan]

".....I was told by a MagaVision camera rep that the 24 Digitar works better with the Dalsa sensor than with the Kodak sensor."

 

Well, I wondered about that aspect, too. The C/V 15, for example, certainly performs "better" on the M8 18x27 sensor than it did on the Epson R-D1 16x24 sensor: vignetting, and even more critically, internal reflections from intense light sources near the corners (where the angle of incidence is most radical).

 

It is interesting that Schneider is pushing the envelope - I'm sure Leica keeps an eye on what everyone else is doing. I know THEY know the demand is out here for a 24x36 sensor in an M body.

 

As to the side topic of "why full frame anyway?" - right now I have to have 5 lenses to handle what I could do with 3 lenses on film.

 

Used to use 21 f/2.8, 35 f/2, 75 f/2.

 

Now I need both a 15 f/4.5 and my 21 f/2.8 to cover the wide end - swapping out depending on which I need more, speed, or extra-wide.

 

28 does OK for a 35 substitute - but at 80% higher cost to retain f/2.

 

A 50 is not quite as long as the 75, but fast and easy to focus. 75/90 f/2's are a bit too long/fast for my preference for RF use (focus too tricky, and the 75 frame is too sloppy), and the 90 f/2.8 is a stop slow.

 

WHEN Leica can produce a 24 x 36 M, I'll be ready. Until then, I'll make do - just as many Nikon users did for 5-6 years until the D3.