Jump to content

The heck with the crop factor....


adan

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I also have to disagree. I do not mind the crop factor on the M8. However I have to day that it does make a difference. If you want the same shot size with a 35mm that you used to get with a 35mm on a full-frame M, yes, you have to step further back. In doing so, you are changing the look of the image as far as perspective distortion etc. is concerned.

 

And again, the main argument for most people is how much more expensive equally fast wide angle lenses are compared to longer lenses. Just look at the prices of the new 21 and 24 lux. These would be much cheaper designs if they weren't made for a full frame camera. A bigger sensor will, in most instances, give you a nicer image. The depth of field is more shallow and there is more subtlety in the fall-off.

 

I don't want to get into the whole medium format vs. 35mm debate but you will see what I'm talking about when the S2 comes out. I don't think I would use the S2 for my type of photography even if I could afford it, but the image quality will knock our socks off. I am convinced of that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 189
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Well I stand corrected, I think.

 

On page 303 of the Leica M Advanced Photo School book I have it shows 3 pictures of the same woman, each with a different lens. The face is distorted in the 21, less distorted with the 50mm and correctly proportioned with the 135mm. The perspective may be the same but distortion would not overlap. The faces in the book certainly would not overlap properly due to different distortion from each lens. .

 

I'd post it but as a writer myself I know that is not kosher. If any of you have this book, check it out. It's a great book.

 

I would still like to see those comparison shots & overlaps.

 

In the end it is true though that one must choose what feels best. We can not avoid the crop factor with the M8 & 8.2 and it seems that a full frame one may be an impossibility with current lenses.

That's hardly the same thing though. The shooting position has ben altered in order to keep the subject the same size in the frame.

 

If a consistent shooting position had been adopted, and then the 21mm shot had been cropped in so the final composition was as for the 135mm, then both should be identical (assuming no movement of the model).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, but why would you keep the shooting position equivalent in any practical situation. the most important decision to make is what you want to include in the shot, no matter what sensor size you are shooting with. So if I want to include a person head to toe from the same vantage point with the M8 and a full frame camera, I will have to change lenses. And different lenses do have a different perspective.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the M8 "crop" format had come before the so-called "full frame" format, we'd be hearing complaints about how the new format was messing up composition and the wasteful need to crop to get back to the "true" way of seeing.

 

This is nothing more than a mind game people are playing on themselves. Forget about 35 mm because that's not what the M8 provides; then learn how to use it to your advantage.

 

Larry

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, but why would you keep the shooting position equivalent in any practical situation. the most important decision to make is what you want to include in the shot, no matter what sensor size you are shooting with. So if I want to include a person head to toe from the same vantage point with the M8 and a full frame camera, I will have to change lenses. And different lenses do have a different perspective.

 

To test the differences, or lack there of, of perspective from FL to FL.

 

The perspective point is what we are talking about and from all tests done it looks like there is no real change in perspective, only VOF.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the M8 "crop" format had come before the so-called "full frame" format, we'd be hearing complaints about how the new format was messing up composition and the wasteful need to crop to get back to the "true" way of seeing.

 

This is nothing more than a mind game people are playing on themselves. Forget about 35 mm because that's not what the M8 provides; then learn how to use it to your advantage.

 

Larry

 

 

Well Stated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The crop factor influences the aperture as well, doesn't it? So on an M8 f1.4 becomes f1.8 and f11 becomes f14.3. Or am I on the wrong track altogether ?

 

You're on the wrong track. The aperture 'number' is just the ratio of focal length to aperture diameter. Neither of which change.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it is a bigger deal to some than others, so whatever one decides truly is the most important thing. Personally, I really do *feel* a difference in images made on full frame versus cropped, but mostly when used wide open.

 

I had no problem using a 28 cron as a 35 on the M8 when I had it, but the other lenses, the 35 and the 50 left much to be desired in frame line accuracy so there is that.

 

I got used to the crop factor on the M8, but it was other reasons that drove me to eventually sell it.

 

Needless to say, a 35mm Summilux Aspheric on an M6 shot wide open is a look that can not be easily duplicated on the M8...

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm firmly in the camp of those who believe the M8 crop factor is a necessary evil imposed by the limits of the currently available technology. Leica marketeers might put spin on it but, long term, a cropped sensor will not do. If the lenses are capable of a larger image circle (and about 44% of it currently goes to waste), there's an untapped opportunity to have a sensor with more or larger pixels or both to improve image resolution and noise.

 

My move from Nikon DX to Nikon FX showed me how much there is to gain and I hope that lesson isn't lost on Leica.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Heck with the crop factor, indeed. That 35 cron is the finest lens I have ever used and the reason I got an M8. Any use of the 35 cron is good use; cropped, full-frame, whatever.

 

It seems to get lost in all of the fervor over the 35 and 50 luxes as well as the 28 cron. Advantages of the 35 cron; lighter, smaller, less hood intrusion on the view finder, no focus shift issues and less expensive. Additionally, the 35 is the only lens that, for me, works with the "take one step forward/backward" business. Scenics to portraits - it just works.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In the DSLR world, except for some specific users of long telephotos, and the issue of economy price (neither which relates to Leica M8/9 in the least) there is very little defending of the crop sensors against fullframe. I will be interested to see how much if such defending as we are seeing today here, will change volume when (and if) the M9 becomes fullframe ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Glad I found a button to push on the forum - 8^)

 

As to questions of more pixels or bigger pixels and noise and such - absolutely, a bigger sensor has its technical advantages. But I wasn't arguing that point.

 

And sure, a BIG crop factor (let's say the 2x of the 4/3rds format or more) would be a different story - probably.

 

My point is that with the 1.33x crop, 35 'cron pix still look like 35 'cron pix, not like 50 'cron pix. And pix with any existing 28 do NOT look like 35 'cron pix just because they frame about the same.

 

I guess if one could revive the spirit of Walter Mandler and have him design a 26.5mm f/1.51005 lens with the same aberration patterns as the 35 'cron, one might be able to get the exact look and feel AND field of view on the M8 as the 35 cron on 24 x 36. (Maybe the 24 'lux will come close)

 

(But let's please-oh-please-oh-please not wander off into the "DOF on an M8" quagmire!! Focus on your main subject, use an aperture that allows for a handholdable shutter speed at an ISO you can live with - ignore the rest)

 

From a technical point of view I agree with those who say perspective is soley a question of where you shoot from, and that a picture taken from point A with a wide-angle, cropped appropriately, will show the same "perspective" as an uncropped telephoto picture take from point A.

 

But that leaves out other factors, especially the way a lens draws. And especially when the crop is mild. A 35 cropped 1.33x is still a wider-than-"normal" lens (whether you count it as a "42," "45," or "47mm") with lovely tonality and blur. A 21 cropped 1.33x is still a "pretty wide" wideangle that pairs well (IMHO) with the 35. Etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This discussion is a classic example of what happens when technical accuracy trumps practical considerations. People get confused.

 

Bernd has it right. Yes, the perspective of a long and short focal length lens at the same camera position is the same. But that's not how we shoot.

 

If you use a short focal length, you tend to get closer to the subject, changing the perspective to accentuate the foreground, which gives us what we call "wide angle perspective." So no, the lens itself doesn't change the perspective, but how we generally use it does.

 

(Perhaps, to be totally accurate, the next time people use the words "sunrise" or "sunset," we should correct them and say: "The sun doesn't rise or set. The earth turns). :D

 

As Adan just noted, all the above does not change how a lens "draws." So if you like the general look of a 50mm Noctoschmutz at f/0.75 on film, use it, and take a couple of steps forward or back with the M8.

 

--Peter

Link to post
Share on other sites

Glad I found a button to push on the forum - 8^)

 

 

And sure, a BIG crop factor (let's say the 2x of the 4/3rds format or more) would be a different story - probably.

 

 

From a technical point of view I agree with those who say perspective is soley a question of where you shoot from, and that a picture taken from point A with a wide-angle, cropped appropriately, will show the same "perspective" as an uncropped telephoto picture take from point A.

 

But that leaves out other factors, especially the way a lens draws. And especially when the crop is mild. A 35 cropped 1.33x is still a wider-than-"normal" lens (whether you count it as a "42," "45," or "47mm") with lovely tonality and blur. A 21 cropped 1.33x is still a "pretty wide" wideangle that pairs well (IMHO) with the 35. Etc.

HI Andy,

I was going to pipe in to say that the 4/3rds crop, which I have used for 5 years, can bring you to the same observation, though it takes longer and you have to be able to use an "old favorite". With 4/3rds, you have to double the subject distance to get the same subject field and that alters the DOF and perspective. We'll hear about that with the G1, I'm sure. My "old favorite" is the 90 cron, both M & R and so on the 4/3rds format I get a 180mm that has the DOF of a 90mm (@ 2X the subject distance) and the rendering of my "old favorite" and that hasn't been hard to do. Trying to find that in the 4/3rds system lenses is frustrating.

Having observed this with 4/3rds, it was easy to spot it with 1.33X, which is probably why I tend to drift back to my 50mm cron. The longer focal lengths do have a steeper out of focus gradient and might be quicker to show their character in a crop.

Bob

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know I've said this before but since the subject came up again, on my M8 I use a 21 because it sees like my eyes when taking in the whole scene. I use a 35 because it sees the area my eyes focus the so called "natural perspective" and I use the 90 because it focuses on the face or object in the distance that I can see without resorting to binoculars or a telescope. These three lenses follow the natural human vision like the 28/50/120 (split between 105 and 135) on 35mm film or 50/80/150 on an old 2 1/4 or 90/150/300 on 4x5.

 

Still, given the ergonomics of the Leica, a 28 (for those of us who wear glasses) is a perfect fit. Of course it matches up well with a 50. So there you have it: you need all five lenses. I think Leica planned it that way.:rolleyes:

 

Tom

Link to post
Share on other sites

You know Andy, I wholeheartedly agree with you in theory, but....

 

Maybe it depends on the way I shoot at weddings, but I started out with the m8 ignoring the crop and shooting my "regular" carry of a 35 Lux, 50 Lux and 90 Cron (with a 24 in reserve).

 

Over time though, I've come to get those FOVs instead and I literally found myself shooting the 28 cron as my "normal" 35 (and no, it doesn't "look" like the 35 Cron or Lux) and--more rarely--my 35 Lux as my "normal" 50. I don't ever use the 24 anymore and shoot a 21 instead (which is more like a 28 on the M8 anyway).

 

So my preference is obviously for FOV in relation to where I get to stand (and where I position myself). How weird is that?

 

Now, I've kept all the "other" lenses hoping the M9 will be full frame, and obviously for the film bodies. But I still think it's weird, in a wonderful sort of way, that we went down the M8 lens journey in opposite ways :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's hardly the same thing though. The shooting position has ben altered in order to keep the subject the same size in the frame.

 

If a consistent shooting position had been adopted, and then the 21mm shot had been cropped in so the final composition was as for the 135mm, then both should be identical (assuming no movement of the model).

 

That's correct. Perspective varies only with distance. If you used that 135 at two feet from the model, and then swung it around to pick up all the rest of the frame that the 21 "sees" from that distance, and pasted all those shots together, you'd have exactly the same perspective and bulging nose that you have in the 21 mm picture. (You would have to past the multi-panorama into a single image and then reduce it to the same image size as the 21 mm shot you're looking at to do the full comparison.)

 

 

In the US several years ago one August (slow news period) there was a big to-do over whether Saddam Hussein might have a number of body-doubles. Newspapers would run two face shots of the man shot on different days by different photographers (and at different distances), and show facial measurements--relative positions of cheekbones, nose, eyes, ears, etc--which didn't match. Ergo, the argument went, these were clearly different people.

 

That was this same matter of perspective, nothing more. Photographers I know all laughed at the assumed "proof" of body-doubles by supposedly scientific measurements.

 

At some point, the US found someone who they said was the Iraqi dictator. And, funny thing, they never found anyone who looked like a 'body-double' for Saddam Hussein. :p

Link to post
Share on other sites

Larry, you are right, if there wasn't a standard for what full frame was for 35mm cameras, we wouldn't be using it as a reference. However, neither would we be paying a premium for lenses that cover an image circle larger than what our sensor can capture. Herein lies the problem.

 

Also, I'll try to make my point again here: If you shoot someone head to toe with the M8 vs. a film M using a 35mm lens on both, your perspective will absolutely be different. Just try it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Andy, I'm sorry that, partially through my efforts, your very interesting thread has now developed a second topic. Nonetheless, I feel I must needs introduce a third:

... let's say the 2x of the 4/3rds format ...
... I was going to pipe in to say that the 4/3rds crop ...

 

In the interest of reducing ambiguity, let's keep in mind that in fact the M8 has a 4/3x crop factor (not 1.33x as often stated), while the FourThirds format has a 2x crop factor. :p

 

That is, the format is properly referred to as 'FourThirds,' not '4/3rds.' Now with that taken care of, I'm off to look for some cyan vignetting. :D

 

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!

 

:rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

The crop factor influences the aperture as well, doesn't it? So on an M8 f1.4 becomes f1.8 and f11 becomes f14.3. Or am I on the wrong track altogether ?

 

Marquinius--yes, but only in terms of depth of field. (There are still some folks who disagree with this, but their numbers are dwindling.) :(

 

Both you and Steve (http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m8-forum/76889-heck-crop-factor-2.html#post800258) are correct, but on different levels:

 

A 50 mm f/1.4 still lets through the same amount of light, and at infinity still focuses 50 mm from the image plane. The lens doesn't change, and on the M8 the exposure doesn't change from a practical point of view. [That's Steve's point.] (Actually, in point of fact, the total amount of light reaching the sensor is reduced because the sensor area is smaller.)

 

But because of (for example) the M8's crop factor, the lens takes on the field of view of (4/3*50 =) a 66.67 mm lens; and because the image is smaller and must be enlarged more, the depth of field is increased by the same 4/3 factor [your point]:

 

Speaking pictorially, on the M8 a 50/1.4 behaves like or becomes the equivalent of a 67/1.9. (4/3*1.4 = 1.9)

 

(See the references I posted earlier if this remains unclear.)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...