A new sensor that can be upgraded is now an obligation

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I think most gripes come from photographers that have not been using different formats in the film days. If one is used to switching between for instance 645 and 135 the marginal difference between the M8 and a 24x36 sensor is rather unimportant.

[lct]

FF is FF, means 135 or 24x36.

Always shot FF before using crop cameras personally.

I don't mind using the latters but i 'see' in 24x36.

[Advertisement]

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

[jaapv]

Basically full frame means that the negative is the same size as the print. That means you are a passport photographer... The last time anybody shot full frame was in the time of contact prints from 6x9. Nowadays you need an 18x24 view camera....

The digital interpretation of the phrase is a Canon marketing fabrication.

[haribo]

For what it's worth, my first camera was a Canon 10D dSLR, and I've never used a film camera in my life, let alone a film M. Traded the Canon for an Epson R-D1, and the R-D1 for an M8.

 

I just don't get all this full-frame whining. As has been said, full frame vs. an APS-sized sensor makes very little difference in practice for most people.

 

I'm perfectly happy with the M8 sensor size, and can't see any reason to buy a FF camera. In fact, I hope Leica don't waste time and money on developing a FF sensor, and instead concentrate on more important things like better high-ISO performance and less IR sensitivity.

 

The M8 can create huge high-quality prints, so for most of us the extra FF pixels aren't a necessity. And there's a wide range of lenses, so FF isn't going to make a huge difference in lens choice - and this choice will increase with Leica developing new lenses to suit digital (I'm sure that the new fast, wide lenses were not released to primarily satisfy M7 users!). In fact, it's arguable that the APS-size sensor is a benefit, since we get to use the sweet spot of a lens. And depth of field is not the issue some make it out to be - it's simply a case of getting used to the difference between APS and FF.

 

I accept that some people may be used to the 35mm format and/or may need to buy new lenses - but these are hardly arguments for the necessity of a full frame sensor.

 

To me, who only took up photography in 2005, an APS-size sensor is entirely normal, and all this talk about FF as if it's the Holy Grail I find somewhat perplexing. The 35mm format is hardly a scientifically chosen size with special significance - simply a historical accident.

 

So, in what way would a FF Leica benefit me?

 

I really don’t get this format angst... <scratches head>

 

I'm with you on this one. And I did use to work with film.

A lot of guys here seem to be holier than the Pope. Considering that Leica themselves doesn't seem to have problems creating a new 'standard' with their in between formats S2.

 

Maybe it's not format angst but rather an inferiority complex that's driving this silly debate. Maybe it's simply because many of those traditionalists here can't stand it anymore that every freckled kid with a 5D can say to them "nice á la carte Leica there, Sir ... but I use a real camera", or whatever else it is that gets them all frazzled up.

 

Here's a solution. Next time when sending your M8 in for an upgrade, instead of your name get Leica to engrave the following: My other Leica has a FF sensor.

 

 

Alright. I admit, my attempt of humor might escape some. Got a darn cold, am sick as a dog and grumpy as hell. But this never ending debate is just too painful.

Get over it. If you don't like it, don't use it.

[andybarton]

 

And there's a wide range of lenses, so FF isn't going to make a huge difference in lens choice - and this choice will increase with Leica developing new lenses to suit digital (I'm sure that the new fast, wide lenses were not released to primarily satisfy M7 users!).

 

But, the whole point is that they can satisfy M users with cameras from 1954 to the present. That's always been the case with Leica M lenses, and long may it continue.

 

You can buy a new 35 ASPH and put it on a 1954 M3, or you can take a 1950s Elmar and put it on your M8. It doesn't matter because ALL Ms are part of the system and all Leica M lenses are designed to work with the system, not just one camera within that system. That's kind of the point, really, and by buying into the Leica M system, you have to accept that heritage baggage.

[tomasis7]

I'm fine with that - and I'm sure that as long as the M system exists, Leica will design new lenses are compatible with old lenses.

 

What I meant was that although the new fast Summiluxes work fine with film M's, and that this was an essential design factor, I'm pretty sure that the main impetus behind those lenses was the desire by Leica to create fast, wide lenses for the M8.

 

 

I agree, but a line has to be drawn in the sand at some point.

 

I've nothing against film* or the 35mm format per se - it's just that I think Leica should not carry forward "heritage" for its own sake, especially to the detriment of new products.

 

Leica have already made design concessions with the M8 that compromise its usability, viz. the ridiculous base plate and desire to retain the film M's clean body lines (burying the controls for ISO, white balance, exposure compensation in the menu was criminal!) - the Epson R-D1 is a far better design for a digital rangefinder, considering just the ergonomics. The 35mm format is also "heritage" that Leica would be wise to leave behind when designing future digital M's ...

 

[* Although I said I've never used film, I have just bought my first film camera - an ancient 6x6 medium-format Certo Six (not used it yet!) - so I'm not against old technology and certainly don't fall into the "film is obsolete" school. What I am against is compromising the functionality of tools for no good reason.]

 

I would prefer 135 size for digital just for convenience's sake

 

I dont want have to buy both 35 Lux Apsh and 50 Lux Asph to get same Fov with both mediums. So M8 would work very well for those first time digital users like you. The choice of lenses will not trouble you.

 

Try M3 when it is possible. It is TINY compared to Rd1 which feels already cumbersome for me though some good ergonomics points against M8. But again I dont like wheel in M8 and I would love have S2 style OLED small size display with 4 buttons, no wheel so the chance is that it comes closer to M3 regarding thickness. You say base plate is ridiculous. I think Nikon Canon bodies look very ridiculous compared to S2. Like the cabinet of pilots in the plane. A lot of millions buttons.

 

As you see , those are small things above and I have really no complains about image quality of M8 sensor or something inside the body.

 

Again, I would not mind S2 style back layout, why not touchscreen (inspirations from Leaf and Phase One backs)

[Vieri]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

...

 

I'm perfectly happy with the M8 sensor size, and can't see any reason to buy a FF camera. In fact, I hope Leica don't waste time and money on developing a FF sensor, and instead concentrate on more important things like better high-ISO performance and less IR sensitivity.

 

The M8 can create huge high-quality prints, so for most of us the extra FF pixels aren't a necessity. And there's a wide range of lenses, so FF isn't going to make a huge difference in lens choice - and this choice will increase with Leica developing new lenses to suit digital (I'm sure that the new fast, wide lenses were not released to primarily satisfy M7 users!). In fact, it's arguable that the APS-size sensor is a benefit, since we get to use the sweet spot of a lens. And depth of field is not the issue some make it out to be - it's simply a case of getting used to the difference between APS and FF.

 

...

 

I really don’t get this format angst... <scratches head>

 

Rich, you seem to be missing quite a few points here.

1- FF doesn't mean more pixel, means larger pixel on a same pixel count sensor; which, in turn, would go a long way towards your goal of better high-ISO performance, among other things;

2- Is really arguable that APS is a benefit. You use the sweet spot of a lens, indeed, but at the same time you loose a lot of low light capability, or speed, for WA lenses. In detail, here you have a little comparison:

 

FOV - max speed on the M8 - max speed on film (or FF)

 

12 mm - not available on the M8 - f5.6 on FF;

15 mm - not available on the M8 - f4.5 on FF (CV)

16 mm - f5.6 (CV 12mm) - f4 (WATE)

18 mm - not available on the M8 - f4 (WATE, Zeiss)

21 mm - f4 (WATE), f4.5 (CV 15mm) - f1.4 with the new Leica 21mm f1.4

24 mm - f4 (WATE, Zeiss) - f1.4 with the new Leica 24mm f1.4;

 

so, as you can see, there is a large benefit in using FF vs APS for those who want fast WA. You might not be one of these, but you might not be in the majority here either

[haribo]

How big a FF sensor would you like?

 

RED DIGITAL CINEMA - EPIC & SCARLET REVEALED

[tomasis7]

Rich, you seem to be missing quite a few points here.

1- FF doesn't mean more pixel, means larger pixel on a same pixel count sensor; which, in turn, would go a long way towards your goal of better high-ISO performance, among other things;

2- Is really arguable that APS is a benefit. You use the sweet spot of a lens, indeed, but at the same time you loose a lot of low light capability, or speed, for WA lenses. In detail, here you have a little comparison:

 

FOV - max speed on the M8 - max speed on film (or FF)

 

12 mm - not available on the M8 - f5.6 on FF;

15 mm - not available on the M8 - f4.5 on FF (CV)

16 mm - f5.6 (CV 12mm) - f4 (WATE)

18 mm - not available on the M8 - f4 (WATE, Zeiss)

21 mm - f4 (WATE), f4.5 (CV 15mm) - f1.4 with the new Leica 21mm f1.4

24 mm - f4 (WATE, Zeiss) - f1.4 with the new Leica 24mm f1.4;

 

so, as you can see, there is a large benefit in using FF vs APS for those who want fast WA. You might not be one of these, but you might not be in the majority here either

 

All those points I forgot to add For me two above are important enough to have reason using a digital one.

[tomasis7]

How big a FF sensor would you like?

 

RED DIGITAL CINEMA - EPIC & SCARLET REVEALED

 

I wonder if it would be possible to use R-lenses on FF35? That largest one looks like :eek: :eek: 19cm wide

 

something for lords of the ring

[danyves]

" ridiculous base plate and desire to retain the film M's clean body lines"

 

The base plate is not ridiculous, and is a better protection.

[guidomo]

FF in the context of the M8 can only be the format that our lenses are able to "illuminate". And that area is more than 75% bigger than the M8's sensor.

 

So, whatever twist some people want to give it, you are not using your lenses fully. No real deal, and I would not want cropped lenses, because I believe (and I think Leica does too), that one day we will have a FF sensor. The advantages will be the regained FOV at the wide angle end (as vieri as nicely shown) as well as better ISO performance. In fact, it is the only sure way Leica will be able to signifinatly improve ISO performance, you cannot defy physics.

 

Whether you need all that is another question. But why can some people not allow others to question the status quo? Leica themselves have a history of doing that.

[jaapv]

Rich, you seem to be missing quite a few points here.

1- FF doesn't mean more pixel, means larger pixel on a same pixel count sensor; which, in turn, would go a long way towards your goal of better high-ISO performance, among other things;

 

That is only true if the increase in size is used to increse the pixel pitch, i.e. maintain 10MP

I think it would be very,very difficult to face the competition with a 10 MP 24x36 sensor. So the Mp would have to be increased, at least to 16 or such - which would mean the same pixel size as now, and thus the same noise (assuming there are no other developments in that respect).

 

I notice very few of the contributors here visit the Photoforums - you should!. There are amazing photographs there - but very few, if any, that would benefit significantly from a larger sensor. From a practical point of view this whole argument is moot.

[lct]

Pixel densities:

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[jimleicam3]

Pixel densities:

 

So is it the pixel density or the frame size that causes problems with noise? Thanks

[jaapv]

Not quite. Basically a larger pixel will produce less noise, but there are other factors - for instance in-camera noise reduction ( which the M8 does not have and most other cameras do), CCD or CMos (which has on-sensor noise reduction) etc....

[Vieri]

That is only true if the increase in size is used to increse the pixel pitch, i.e. maintain 10MP

 

Thank you for making my point, Jaap: as I said,

 

1- FF doesn't mean more pixel, means larger pixel on a same pixel count sensor;

 

as far as your second point

 

I think it would be very,very difficult to face the competition with a 10 MP 24x36 sensor. So the Mp would have to be increased, at least to 16 or such - which would mean the same pixel size as now, and thus the same noise (assuming there are no other developments in that respect).

 

not quite - 16 MP wouldn't be enough, Jaap: in fact, a supposed FF future M would have larger pixel than the M8 up to 18 MP:

 

- 16 MP would mean 1.85 MP/cm2 vs the 2.1 of the M8;

- 18 MP would mean 2.08 MP/cm2 vs the 2.1 of the M8;

 

So, with today's sensors and not keeping into account possible technology improvement, you can have easily a 16 MP FF M with much better high ISO performance than the actual M8; adding the very likely technology improvement happened since the M8 and that will happen in the future until the next eventual M will come out, you would very likely get a 21 MP future M with better or same high ISO performance.

 

Besides this, if you ask me I would be very happy with a 12 MP FF future M, 16 MP would be perfect, 21 would even be too much.

[SJP]

If you have a larger sensor then you can live with larger pixels. The circle of confusion that people tend to use for a M8 (about 21 micron) is not governed by the size of the pixels (6.8 micron) but by the CROP FACTOR. So a film CoC of 31 micron becomes 31/1.4 =21 or so on the M8.

 

If you have a full frame sensor then the Circle of Confusion can be taken as 31 micron again. In that case having a pixel density of about 1Mp/cm2 would be more than good enough & you would get less noise/higher ISO.

[lct]

..If you have a full frame sensor then the Circle of Confusion can be taken as 31 micron again. In that case having a pixel density of about 1Mp/cm2 would be more than good enough & you would get less noise/higher ISO.

Would you mind to explain me the link between CoC and noise please. Thanks.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[SJP]

The CoC is just some arbitrary number that was decided to be 'good enough' for getting an acceptably sharp photographic print from a film of a certain size. So with a MF film the CoC is bigger than with a 135 or 110 film, as the last need to be enlarged more.

 

For a 135 film the industry standard is 31 micron CoC, purely by definition. Many nowadays find this too lenient as enlargements are cheaper and pixel peeping is more popular than ever. But that is the way it is - like it or not.

 

Anyway what it boils down to is that if you have a larger sensor then on paper you need THE SAME number of pixels to get the same resolution enlargement. So if it remains 10MP that give the same 'sharpness' of the sensor. The secret however is that you can scale up the surface area of the pixels in this process, so you will collect more photons for a given aperture, illumination, and shutter speed. More photons => less noise, because the measurement of the light intensity becomes more reliable if you have a larger no. of counts.

 

You are using a bigger bucket to catch the stream of photons.