Guest chris_h Posted July 5, 2006 Share #21 Posted July 5, 2006 Advertisement (gone after registration) "I know very little about digital photography but the site seems to have some knowledgeable people who say that 10mp is fine. I just don't get this chase for sensor size. Why not have a double frame size sensor ? Or a triple frame size sensor ?" Because - LEICA-format IS 24x36 !? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted July 5, 2006 Posted July 5, 2006 Hi Guest chris_h, Take a look here R10 Sensor. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
graham_mitchell Posted July 5, 2006 Share #22 Posted July 5, 2006 Can someone please explain why a full frame sensor is required, As many people on this site seem to agree with Erwin Puts and think that exceeding 10mp is a waste of money what is the benefit ? Is there something special, about a full frame sensor ? To me it appears to be no different from moving up to medium format from 35mm. I know ultimate picture quality is not achieved with 35mm but if your biggest print is A3 what is there to gain. I know very little about digital photography but the site seems to have some knowledgeable people who say that 10mp is fine. I just don't get this chase for sensor size. Why not have a double frame size sensor ? Or a triple frame size sensor ? 10 MP is really not enough to allow you to produce even an A3 magazine spread, if you consider that ideally you need a little cropping margin (say 20%, to allow the image to be shifted on the spread relative to other graphic elements), plus "bleed" for printing purposes, and still be left with 300dpi resolution. You actually need around 24MP or more (ideally) for this type of work, OR without any cropping margin you still need to cover 430 x 307mm with 300dpi resolution, which equates to 18.4MP. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mgcd Posted July 5, 2006 Share #23 Posted July 5, 2006 10 MP is really not enough to allow you to produce even an A3 magazine spread, if you consider that ideally you need a little cropping margin (say 20%, to allow the image to be shifted on the spread relative to other graphic elements), plus "bleed" for printing purposes, and still be left with 300dpi resolution. You actually need around 24MP or more (ideally) for this type of work, OR without any cropping margin you still need to cover 430 x 307mm with 300dpi resolution, which equates to 18.4MP. Sorry Graham I'm confused... I've done doublespreads and "much" larger with the DMR , perhaps I'm missing something... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ho_co Posted July 5, 2006 Share #24 Posted July 5, 2006 Can someone please explain why a full frame sensor is required ... ? Anthony-- I think there are two reasons to seek a "full-frame" sensor: 1) We are accustomed to a particular angle of view from a particular focal length on film, and wouldn't have to rethink the coverage with a sensor of that same size. 2) It can be done and done well, so we see no reason not to pursue it. As for point #1, Oskar Barnack chose the 24x36 frame as a convenient compromise. If we hadn't grown used to his standard, any new frame size would be just fine, as you say. In other words, if these digital cameras were new in a vacuum you could call for any size sensor and everyone would be happy: If we hadn't already had 70+ years of the 24x36 frame, the question wouldn't arise. Now Leica, Nikon, Epson and others argue for the adequacy of reduced sensor size, but Canon simply answers, "You want it? We got it." I think there is good logic for a smaller sensor--lower cost, for example, and using the best-corrected part of the lens--but you and I are not sure how accurate the reasoning is, since one manufacturer (so far) ignores the supposed logic and gives us what we think we want. And after all, if a 31.7mm diagonal is good enough, shouldn't a 43.3mm diagonal be better? I find Steve Unsworth's argument that wide-angle users want to get as wide a field as possible from their lenses quite accurate, but I'm not sure that, given a choice, a long-lens user would choose an APS-C size sensor for its apparent increase in magnification. It's an interesting argument that I hadn't considered, but one can simply crop full-frame output to get the same result. On the wide end, you don't have the option of stretching the edges of the frame to see more. I think your question is a very good one, and I'm glad to see interest from so many others as well. --HC Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrc Posted July 6, 2006 Share #25 Posted July 6, 2006 I don't care if it's full frame; in fact, given my druthers, I'd druther it not be. Canon still hasn't solved the corner light-fall-off problem, because, I suspect, there is no solution. What I would like to see instead is a 14-16mp sensor with an aspect ratio of, say, 4:5, even if the 5 dimension was a bit shorter than a 35mm frame...I'm pretty sure it could be done, if somebody had the guts to break away from obsolete movie-film sizing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mgcd Posted July 6, 2006 Share #26 Posted July 6, 2006 4:5! You might as well get a MF back, except for the price... I like my 3:2 aspect ratio just fine thanks! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
graham_mitchell Posted July 6, 2006 Share #27 Posted July 6, 2006 Advertisement (gone after registration) Sorry Graham I'm confused... I've done doublespreads and "much" larger with the DMR , perhaps I'm missing something... I was referring to the ideal but of course you can 'get away' with less. Printers normally insist on 300dpi for printing with a 150# screen ruling but in fact you can get away with >212 dpi, which basically halves the total megapixels required for the page. So it's not hard to see how a sharp DMR image is useable, but I'd still prefer the headroom for cropping, creative freedom, etc. If the printer is using a 200# screen ruling then he will probably ask for 400dpi although 280dpi will be the technical minimum. The DMR would be technically insufficient but that doesn't mean it's going to look awful. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_j Posted July 6, 2006 Share #28 Posted July 6, 2006 Hi- What's this about an R-10 digital? I recently heard from what I have come to consider a pretty good source, Leica is going to approach the digital SLR through the 4/3rds standard and there will be no totally "digital R" so to speak. Having sold off much of my R system, I hold onto 3 favorite lenses and my R4SP. With an adapter, I use the R lenses with my E1. Is there truth behind a full sensor R or just wishful thinking? Thanks, Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
psquared Posted July 6, 2006 Share #29 Posted July 6, 2006 I, too, would love to see a full-frame sensor on the R10. In addition to what Guy and Kit mentioned, I would love to have Canon 5D's high ISO performance (or better) in the new sensor. I would also like to have the exposure compensation lever function relocated to the wheel or the arrows on the DMR. It should also have a switch to turn this function off and on to keep it from being changed accidentally. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ho_co Posted July 6, 2006 Share #30 Posted July 6, 2006 I hold onto 3 favorite lenses and my R4SP. With an adapter, I use the R lenses with my E1. Is there truth behind a full sensor R or just wishful thinking? John-- Just wishful thinking so far, I'm afraid. Adapter to put R lenses on E1? Where can someone get such a beast? --HC Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_j Posted July 6, 2006 Share #31 Posted July 6, 2006 Howard- There are various lens adapters available on ebay from different parts of the world, but I bought mine from: http://www.cameraquest.com His prices are higher but the product is very good. He's located in Calif. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Ross Posted July 7, 2006 Share #32 Posted July 7, 2006 Hi- What's this about an R-10 digital? I recently heard from what I have come to consider a pretty good source, Leica is going to approach the digital SLR through the 4/3rds standard and there will be no totally "digital R" so to speak. Having sold off much of my R system, I hold onto 3 favorite lenses and my R4SP. With an adapter, I use the R lenses with my E1. Is there truth behind a full sensor R or just wishful thinking? Thanks, I think it is wishful thinking and that Leica would first go with the Kodak sensor in the DMR & M8, since they have done all the development work and the R10 would be another way to get some return on the R&D. I kept my R4s, 90/2 & 2X TC and also use them on an E-1. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ho_co Posted July 7, 2006 Share #33 Posted July 7, 2006 There are various lens adapters available on ebay from different parts of the world, but I bought mine from: http://www.cameraquest.com John-- Many thanks! --HC Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
timbedsted1234 Posted July 7, 2006 Share #34 Posted July 7, 2006 Hello, It is wishfull thinking on our part, but Spichtig does mention that Leica is conducting feasibility studies for a new digital SLR body. The main problem right now is that no chip manufacturer produces a 11+ MP CCD/CMOS chip for 24X36mm format. I have checked Dalsa, Kodak, Panasonic. So Leica will have to convince one of these manufacturers to build such a chip, but with the small volume of expected sales another company will have to come on board before a 11+ MP chip will even be considered by these chip designers. I can't remember if Nikon builds its own chips, otherwise they might be considered for such a chip as well. Regards, Tim Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ruiespanhol Posted July 7, 2006 Share #35 Posted July 7, 2006 Well for me I like the design and shape of R8/9 camera body,but I would like one new R10 more smaller and much more ligther then R8/9 whit or whitout DMR. It was not the shape of this lovely cameras the problem is the wheigth. Remember one thing Leica was famous in the past for your´s small and quiet body´s so it´s time for made the tradition remains. About the sensor if will be full frame is much better them actual sensor of DMR but if not more pixels are wellcome (near 16Mp are good). Regards, Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicapages Posted July 7, 2006 Share #36 Posted July 7, 2006 Well, I had the opportunity to play a little with the DMR in a photo shop. The overall feel was great, it looks as if the R8/R9 had been designed with this addition in mind! That said, however, two issues were immediately apparent and spoiled a lot of the fun for me: - the LCD preview display on the camera's back is really small, too small actually. Compare this to a Nikon D2X... - more importantly, the actual image within the frame lines in the viewfinder is, though it is 100% now WYSIWYG, quite small. This is an issue with consequences for accurate focusing, especially under more challenging conditions. On top of that, it would seem (so I was told by several users) that the focusing accuracy needs to be more precise than with film, since the sensor is less forgiving. That certainly does not help matters. So, I would really hope that in a next revision, both of these issues are adequately addressed. Pascal http://www.leicapages.com Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted July 7, 2006 Share #37 Posted July 7, 2006 Hi Pascal, just to deal with one of those issues, in my experience moving from a camera with a small LCD (Canon 20D) to one with a larger LCD (Canon 5D) doesn't really bring any practical improvement. Yes the image is bigger, but it still doesn't provide a great deal of information. In fact I have the screen set to show a small thumbnail and the histogram. The histogram is far more useful IMHO. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kobold Posted July 7, 2006 Share #38 Posted July 7, 2006 Two reason I can think of for full frame on an R10, if Leica does eventually make one, which I hope they do: 1) shallower DOF at any aperture for any focal length lens 2) wide and ultra-wide angle lenses perform as the designers intended. I do quite a bit of architectural work, and am doing the images for a forthcoming book on Japanese gardens here in Australia. The 15 and 19 will do some of this, mounted on a 5D via adapters. 3) larger viewfinder. The R9's finder is not as good as the one in my girlfriend's Oly OM-4, seriously. And when you add the crop factor, things get small in a hurry. This is particularly noticeable in low light situations where, even if pushing the ISO would provide a perfectly acceptable image, sometimes there is simply not enough light to see clearly enough to focus accurately with the R9. Guy and I were involved in the production of the new Brightscreen magnifier (and the microprism-only Proscreen from the same company). Both made a tremendous difference to ease of focussing with this camera. For this reason, I mentioned the need for a magnifier in an earlier post. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guy_mancuso Posted July 7, 2006 Share #39 Posted July 7, 2006 The DMR may have a smaller screen but it is by far the best to actually see in bright sunlight, every Nikon and Canon I have tried is not close in this area when it come to actually seeing the image in the light. Also the DMR LCD is more accurate in terms of what you see is what you get. I have the D200 and the LCD is flat as a pancake with contrast but the images are not. Also leica has a full line white Histo that goes across the entire screen right after a shot which makes this far easier than the little window that canon has. so yes it is smaller but more effective. Focusing any DSLR is more critical in digital than it is in film this goes across the board of all the DSLR's but focusing the Leica is a little more challenging in the sense it is a bit tougher to see with there standard screens which there microprism is 7mm but i use Brightscreens proscreen for the DMR that is 13mm microprism circle which makes it cover and easier to focus plus i do have one of there magnifers (prototype) which further enhances your viewing pleasure. we also have to remmeber there is no AF going on here. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kobold Posted July 7, 2006 Share #40 Posted July 7, 2006 Guy, agree completely re. finder in bright daylight. Just wanted to make the point that the magnifier and the Proscreen made it easier to focus, esp. in low light. cheers, KL Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.