dseelig Posted January 8, 2009 Share #21 Posted January 8, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) The thing for me is like many a 35 lux should be a 35 not a 47 . I will probably keep my m8 and get a full frame when \an M9, as I use my 75 lux much more then I did in film days its the fast wides that I miss. And the 28 f2 does not cut it as fast. David Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 8, 2009 Posted January 8, 2009 Hi dseelig, Take a look here Reason(s) for a FF M9 . I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
nhabedi Posted January 8, 2009 Share #22 Posted January 8, 2009 You don't see a 35mm or 75mm with aperture as low as 1. But almost. Voigtländer offers a 35/1.2 lens which fits on M Leicas. Otherwise I agree with the OP - I'd like to see a FF M9 so that the Leica lenses I have can be used with the focal length they were designed for. And for having the same DOF options I have with my M4-P. A few weeks ago someone published a link to a blog article where the author claimed he had seen FF digital rangefinder prototypes in Solms, but I can't find it right now, and of course we'll never know if that was the truth... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted January 8, 2009 Share #23 Posted January 8, 2009 I'd like to see a FF M9 so that the Leica lenses I have can be used with the focal length they were designed for. Being picky I know, but the focal length doesn't change if a lens is used on an M8. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rolo Posted January 8, 2009 Share #24 Posted January 8, 2009 Being picky I know, but the focal length doesn't change if a lens is used on an M8. Steve, I don't think it's being picky, it's stating the fact. A crop on a 35mm isn't a 47mm in anything but the frame dimension. All lens characteristics carry forward. It's not a big problem to overcome until one gets to the wides, but it's not the same as more often than not you stand in a completely different position to frame the shot, thereby completely changing the dynamics of the composition. I too look forward to the launch of the M9. Rolo Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nhabedi Posted January 8, 2009 Share #25 Posted January 8, 2009 Being picky I know, but the focal length doesn't change if a lens is used on an M8. When I wrote that sentence, I knew somebody would come up with this. I didn't expect it that fast, though... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bo_Lorentzen Posted January 8, 2009 Share #26 Posted January 8, 2009 LOL... well I guess the real issue is that the M8 basically applies a "crop" to the full frame image... so if I wanted the same look as I get with a 35 1.4, I would need a 28mm 1.2 or something like that to get the same dof and field of view. Anyway, the real issue is that we DO have a M8 at the current time and Im sure most of us are interested in the future full-frame M Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Roberts Posted January 8, 2009 Share #27 Posted January 8, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) I just want a FF M9 with NO sensor defects a la the green stripe. Then it could be identical to the M8 (well, fix a few things, make a bigger buffer, put in the quieter shutter, etc...) and I'd buy one right away. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted January 9, 2009 Share #28 Posted January 9, 2009 Main reason I want a FF M camera eventually is to get back a 21mm field of view with an f/2.8 aperture, preferably from the 21 pre-ASPH I already own. Purely for the low-light advantage. For the most part I've been fine with how the other lenses perform and look, cropped 1.33x - and will be fine with the same lenses uncropped, as well. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
waterlenz Posted January 9, 2009 Share #29 Posted January 9, 2009 I would like FF too but if it is not in the near future (< 1 year), Leica should replace the current sensor with one with less problems (IR, green stripe etc.). Furthermore the electronics are a tad slow and should be up-dated as well. Nikons newer CMOS crop factor cameras like the D90, for example, are an improvement over their previous crop models. Of course the FF ones blow the rest away. Tom Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
offshore Posted January 9, 2009 Share #30 Posted January 9, 2009 After I mounted my Noctilux on my M3 body, it feels really good to see 50mm performing at its true focal length which is 50mm. It makes me don't want to put Noctilux back to the M8. So I totally can see how lovely would a FF M9 be for me! I know many of you also want a full frame version of M8. What is the particular reason(s) for you? How about a 35 mm F1.0 Noct. for the M8? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Printmaker Posted January 9, 2009 Share #31 Posted January 9, 2009 I'd like to see a full frame M9 with a 18 mb sensor that did not require IR filters and had a quiet shutter. Price it a 5K and I'd have a reason to buy a 50 lux with the camera. I'd still keep my M8 though as my IR camera and for back up. Tom Kauai's Printmaker Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenf Posted January 9, 2009 Share #32 Posted January 9, 2009 I would prefer a 24x36 digital M so I could shoot it side by side with my film Ms. If one is developed, I would expect certain "legacy" wide angle lenses would not be compatible - just like how the M5 had metering restrictions with certain lenses. I think I see where garygsandhu is going regarding the newer lenses. It appears all the new wides are retrofocus - less rear element extension behind the mount = less of an angle for the sensor wells to deal with. I think. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dseelig Posted January 9, 2009 Share #33 Posted January 9, 2009 Second most important would be iso 6400 comparable to the canon 5d mk 11 or nikon d3 . Megabytes any where from 15 to 25 . Iso performance more important then 25 mbs. But that the canon 5d does a decent 6400 at 21 mbs tells the world something. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted January 9, 2009 Share #34 Posted January 9, 2009 Being largely a wide angle man, I do long for a FF M (though not for its price ...) The argument about d.o.f. at wide angles of view is a valid one. Another argument applies at the other end. One reason why most art directors insist on medium format for their set-up shoots is that they want oodles of acreage around the main subject. This gives them leeway to adjust the images to different layout schemes. Similarly, a FF M would made it possible to crop a 90mm picture to the f.o.v. equivalent of 135mm, and a 135 to 200, still with excellent image quality equivalent to what we are now getting from the M8. More acreage makes for more mileage, with light equipment. The old man from the Age of the 10.5cm Standard Lens Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisC Posted January 9, 2009 Share #35 Posted January 9, 2009 I'd love a full frame 6x7cm sensor in an 'M'. Oh wait a minute, with current technology the sensor would be too big for the 'M' mount. As would a 36x24mm one. It's just as well the M8 already comes with a full-frame sensor; it is the size it is, all sensors are full frame. Maybe some of the fullframefanatics would have preferred a larger 'M', with a larger than M8 sensor, and [with M8 release date technology] requiring a new range of larger-mount lenses. Wait another minute - that's not a good idea either. I'll go away now. ................. Chris Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted January 9, 2009 Share #36 Posted January 9, 2009 I would prefer a 24x36 digital M so I could shoot it side by side with my film Ms. If one is developed, I would expect certain "legacy" wide angle lenses would not be compatible - just like how the M5 had metering restrictions with certain lenses. I think I see where garygsandhu is going regarding the newer lenses. It appears all the new wides are retrofocus - less rear element extension behind the mount = less of an angle for the sensor wells to deal with. I think. And if the image is not "perfect" at the edges with some w/a lenses, then those images could either be corrected as well as possible digitally, or cropped as they are now. And, and if the sensor has live view, a lot of other lenses would be usable on it via adapters. And, and, and if it has a high quality clip-on EVF, then the camera's versatility would be expanded dramatically - a regular rangefinder Leica and an SLR in one package. (It seems to me they had this combo before.) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
positivibes Posted January 9, 2009 Share #37 Posted January 9, 2009 A Camera Dealer predicted the M8.2 in every detail to me about 3 month before it was announced. He even told me it would be called M8.2, and also knew the exact price of it! The same dealer told me that there will be a FF M sooner than most people think. But it will have a steep price tag. Don't know, but i believe the guy has a good contact to Leica. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Ash Posted January 9, 2009 Share #38 Posted January 9, 2009 The main questions is whether there are any reasons for LEICA to produce a FF M9. In my point of view LEICA themself have the strongest interest to built it as this most likely would burst their production capacity for some time. Keeping this in mind I do not see any reason to frequently "request" Leica to produce a FF digital M. Regards Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotografr Posted January 9, 2009 Share #39 Posted January 9, 2009 thx andrea for shelding light on that. that'll be too sad The good news is that you have a 66.5mm Noctilux for your M8. How about a 35 mm F1.0 Noct. for the M8? Yes, and it would be nice if it weighed less than 2 kilos and cost under $10,000. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
erl Posted January 10, 2009 Share #40 Posted January 10, 2009 The thing I can't get my head around is that Leica have produced a brand new tool (M8) which does exactly what it does. In my case, I use it to do exactly what it does. Where is the problem? If I pick up a tack hammer in my workshop (hyperthetical) I don't expect it to drive roofing nails. OTOH, if you go looking for faults, it is most likely they will be attracted to you. Sorry, I'm in that kind of mood today. I will go and cajole my M8 to do my bidding now. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.