A new sensor that can be upgraded is now an obligation

[Kasimir]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Would you quote the source of this wisdom? From where I am standing the safest place for my money seems to be China...At least the Chinese save instead of running up debts.

 

No, the safest place for money is Your Leica dealer.

[jaapv]

I see.:D I guess you are right. I run up the debts and he puts the money into his savings acoount

[Advertisement]

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

[Kasimir]

I guess you are right. I run up the debts and he puts the money into his savings acoount

 

with the amount of inflation that is (maybe?) heading our way this could be a good idea :D

inflation favors the debtor

[Mauribix]

Because in bad times money looks for safety and the US is still the safest place for money.

 

 

With all respect, this is the typical "american" point of view. But sometimes we all have to face the truth... and sorry, in this case it's not like that.

 

BTW I trust the "leica dealer" bank as Kasimir and Jaap stated above!

[akiralx]

I disagree to this statement. I prefer the M8. It's very suitable for available light.

 

Regards

Steve

 

Well... I like my M8 a lot, but I wouldn't kid myself that it would hold a candle to the Nikon D3/D700 in low light (if you'll excuse the pun). I've shot my D700 at well over ISO3200 with few problems, but the M8 couldn't do that.

[guidomo]

The biggest reason I want a FF M is to fully utilise my lenses. People need to realise that their M lenses are oversize on the M8.

[t024484]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The biggest reason I want a FF M is to fully utilise my lenses. People need to realise that their M lenses are oversize on the M8.

 

You are usng the best part of your lenses. Lense properties detoriate rapidly at the edge when having a larger sensor. Look at the MTF figures of all lenses that Leica have on their website.

So a FF doen not help to get a better picture.

 

Hans

[haribo]

Plus, you get a nice reach from your lenses with the current sensor size.

Frankly, I like my M8 just fine as it is. Even if a FF sensor would be available as an upgrade, i wouldn't want one.

If one wants to get more out of their 'oversized' lenses, I recommend to work harder on becoming a better photographer.

[fotografr]

Well... I like my M8 a lot, but I wouldn't kid myself that it would hold a candle to the Nikon D3/D700 in low light (if you'll excuse the pun). I've shot my D700 at well over ISO3200 with few problems, but the M8 couldn't do that.

 

How many f/1.0 lenses are made for the Nikon D3/D700? With the ability to hand-hold the M8 at shutter speeds 1 or 2 stops slower than a D3/D700, combined with high quality, super fast lenses, one doesn't usually need ISO 3200.

[jaapv]

A respected poster on RFF wrote this:

I've noted that I don't "need" the high ISO like I do with the 5D - the image in the church, while I could shoot with the 5D @ ISO 1600 I shot with the M8 @ ISO 640 - I don't know the reason why I couldn't shoot with the 5D at ISO 640, you'd figure an exposure reading is an exposure reading is an exposure reading but I've noted, at least in my experience, that different cameras read the exposure differently - this is something I've only experienced with digital capture - regular film is a different story (format being similar of course).

 

I have no 5D, but it makes a lot of sense

[charlesphoto99]

How many f/1.0 lenses are made for the Nikon D3/D700? With the ability to hand-hold the M8 at shutter speeds 1 or 2 stops slower than a D3/D700, combined with high quality, super fast lenses, one doesn't usually need ISO 3200.

 

That is if one can spend $10K for an extremely low depth of field lens (or $6K for a used one with focusing problems). Sorry but this sounds a bit like when a GOP politician introduced Cindy McCain as a "small businesswoman."

 

When it comes to low light and commercial applications the D3/D700 wins out bar none. The M8 is very good though at 1250 and even sometimes 2500 for apps where you are the client and you can rely on faster more expensive lenses, less depth of filed, and/or slower shutter speeds.

[tomasis7]

That is if one can spend $10K for an extremely low depth of field lens (or $6K for a used one with focusing problems). Sorry but this sounds a bit like when a GOP politician introduced Cindy McCain as a "small businesswoman."

 

When it comes to low light and commercial applications the D3/D700 wins out bar none. The M8 is very good though at 1250 and even sometimes 2500 for apps where you are the client and you can rely on faster more expensive lenses, less depth of filed, and/or slower shutter speeds.

 

It is good for you so long you bear weight and size of DSLR.

 

I would enjoy more of Elmar 2.8 if I use future Leica M with same good ISO as D3 *dreams on*.

 

I think that M8 with more expensive lenses are equal at widest aperture (Lux ASPH to example) when you compare to d3 system with a fast speed prime, closed down to f2.8 (AF Nikkor). Fastest zooms are from f2.8. So that eliminate differences between usable highest iso perfomance of M8 and D3. Think about RF advantage which gains a few stops more than DSLR. So I couldnt say that M8 is worse low light camera than D3 especially when M8,2 exists now with new shutter.

 

As Jaapv said, if the compromise is found, use it. Weight & size are bigger factors than we are used to imagine or confess.

[guidomo]

You are usng the best part of your lenses. Lense properties detoriate rapidly at the edge when having a larger sensor. Look at the MTF figures of all lenses that Leica have on their website.

Hans

 

I understand what you are saying but if this was a major problem then why did Leica not build Medium Format lenses for the film M cameras?

 

So a FF doen not help to get a better picture.

 

"Better picture" of course is extremely subjective, but there is some very fundamental physics behind why a larger sensor will deliver a higher IQ image. It has to do with the relationship between the sensor's pixel size and its noise behaviour.

[jaapv]

I understand what you are saying but if this was a major problem then why did Leica not build Medium Format lenses for the film M cameras?

 

Size?

[guidomo]

Plus, you get a nice reach from your lenses with the current sensor size.

 

Yes, and your 35mm Summicron would be a 1000mm Summicron had they used a PNS sensor...

 

What the crop effect gives you at the long it you lose at the short end. What I would like Leica to give us if they cannot bring a FF digital M is a decent wide angle prime lens.

 

If one wants to get more out of their 'oversized' lenses, I recommend to work harder on becoming a better photographer.

 

Whenever someone here on the forum has a criticism about some Leica equipment, someone would come round and tell them to become a better photographer rather than ask for better equipment. If equipment had nothing to do with the quality of the photos one can take, we'd all be using [insert your favoutite PNS camera model].

[artur5]

I bet that if Leica had done the miracle the releasing the M8 with a fullframe sensor in 2006, nobody would have complained and afterwards started praising the virtues of a crop sensor ( more reach, no soft corners.. )

Crop sensors in 35mm. sized cameras are a compromise for economical and (in case of a DRF ) technical reasons.

The supposed virtues of a crop sensor it's what they call 'making a virtue of a necessity'.

[marknorton]

Yes, I never understood the supposed benefit of "longer reach" with a cropped sensor. You can achieve the same effect by cropping the FF image and my experience of the D3 is that it's much better to have 5M noise-free pixels from my D3 in crop-mode than it ever was to have 12M noisy pixels from my D2X covering the same area.

 

The advantage to my mind of a FF M camera would be lower noise more than higher resolution. 12MP FF, D3 noise performance, M lenses, M form-factor would be great.

[Theodor Heinrichsohn]

A respected poster on RFF wrote this:

 

I have no 5D, but it makes a lot of sense

 

I agree, as I briefly owned a 5D and a D3 before trading the latter for a 1DsIII (because I can use several Leica R lenses on it) and selling the 5D.

Maybe it is because I use both my M8 set permanently at - 2/3 stop and still find some shots less dense than desired. I then switch to the M setting to get the desired result. I also tend to use the fast 1.0 and 1.4 lenses at full opening and have not really missed the high ISO capability of the D3 - which is phenomenal indeed.

Teddy

[akiralx]

It is good for you so long you bear weight and size of DSLR.

 

I think I'm right in saying that an M8 + new Noctilux is heavier than a Nikon D700 + 50mm f/1.4...

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[bertraaphorst]

 

"Better picture" of course is extremely subjective, but there is some very fundamental physics behind why a larger sensor will deliver a higher IQ image. It has to do with the relationship between the sensor's pixel size and its noise behaviour.

 

Yes, I agree with you, it is extremely subjective. On the other hand "Good" and "better" pictures can be made with any good working camera. And if someone is thinking that changing to another, better, more expensive, etc. camera, turns him in a better photographer, is working in the wrong way. Yes, the Nikon, Canon and also the Leica manufacturers would love that we believe that and they like to sell us every (half) year the newest upgrade of your camera model.

 

So I stay with my M8, would not even buy a FF M9, if that would be possible, because it suits me very well, am satisfied with the "1,33 Crop factor image quality".

 

I also think that a larger (FF or larger) sensor can deliver a higher image quality, which has of course advantages. Why where MF film workers never complaining about sharpness and grain? Because of the larger film format there was no need to enlarge the film with a high factor, compared to the 35mm film format that was blown up with a much higher enlarge factor! That's why a larger sensor can perform sharper and less noisier images. (Sensor's pixel size is larger / less number of pixels per mm)

Another advantage is that you can use older lenses with good results, just because of the fact that there is no need to enlarge with a high factor. So you don't enlarge the limitations of the older lenses: with FF you can achieve very good results with the older (and cheaper)lenses.

 

Albert