TimF Posted March 10, 2009 Share #1 Posted March 10, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) This has just been posted on the AP site. Most of the statement is the usual stuff we know, but tucked away at the bottom is a comment about feedback at PMA suggesting M8 users are not concerned about having full frame. There's only one way to find out (as Harry Hill might say), so let battle commence. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted March 10, 2009 Posted March 10, 2009 Hi TimF, Take a look here To Full Frame Or Not To Full Frame?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
jaapv Posted March 10, 2009 Share #2 Posted March 10, 2009 Hmmm.. Not much of a battle, given that Leica would have to provide the ammunition by announcing that they deem it possible. Through lack thereof I would suggest that the AP article sums up the current situation quite accurately. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bo_Lorentzen Posted March 10, 2009 Share #3 Posted March 10, 2009 This applies not just to Leica, but probably all digital photography manufactures and their followers, the never ending lust and demand for something more. Sure full frame would be interesting, and if it was possible to upgrade the M8 body to a FF sensor, wow that would be something. However, as photographers, we are (or maybe rather should be) purchasing equipment based on the ability of said equipment to meet our needs. if a given camera leave so much to be desired that it is deemed useless or hopelessly obsolete until a feature have been added, then don't buy it. I don't long for full frame, my 50mm is substituted by the 35mm and the 35mm with the 28mm, images looks the way I expect them to. and Im perfectly satisfied with the M8. it does what it was expected to do when I purchased it. So that is not saying I would not purchase a full frame M, just that I am perfectly happy with the current digital M. dreams for my current M, it sure would be nice to have a shutterspeed display in the viewfinder when shooting manual speeds. I hope for a 28mm Lux before a FF M. . Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted March 10, 2009 Share #4 Posted March 10, 2009 Of course full frame is desirable. The cropped alternative is just a waste of good lens design. However, removing the need for IR/UV filters should be the first priority. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnastovall Posted March 10, 2009 Share #5 Posted March 10, 2009 I shoot both a Canon 5D and the M8. I don't feel I'm missing any thing with the 1.3 Leica sensor. I would rather have a 1.3 digital M now than wait for the Pie in Sky, full frame M. Remember the 1.3 sensor size is the same as Canon uses in it hugely popular 1DMk bodies. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
guywalder Posted March 10, 2009 Share #6 Posted March 10, 2009 given that Leica would have to provide the ammunition by announcing that they deem it possible. no they dont, I want it regardless of what Leica think about technical feasability. When I go to the airport I want to have no flight delays. I know delays are certain, but it doesnt stop me wanting the flight to go on time. If one airline could offer a punctual service, they would get more business. Its up to some clever entrepreneur to find a solution, and they will win custom. Saying it up to Leica suggests you dont know what you want, so you will buy whatever Leica tells you is good for you:confused: I want a bigger sensor because: a) I'm paying for FF lenses. An M8 equivalent means a more complex design (35/1.4 vs 28/1.4) which is either not available, or (much) more expensive, and looks different. Spreading the 12Mp over a bigger area should mean much bigger pixels which, all else being equal, much better performance in low light (or just 'more' resolution if they went fofr the same pixel pitch). My Nikon D3 is so much better than my D2X that its not even funny. If the move from 1.3x to FF on a Leica M compatible RF was half as good I would snap it up, whoever made it. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted March 10, 2009 Share #7 Posted March 10, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) When I go to the airport I want to have no flight delays. I know delays are certain, but it doesnt stop me wanting the flight to go on time So when you get on your (hopefully) on time flight, which kind of aircraft would you prefer to board, one that had been by designed by engineers who were experts in their field, or one designed by amateurs who laid down a feature list that had to be incorporated regardless of its practicality? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted March 10, 2009 Share #8 Posted March 10, 2009 Saying it up to Leica suggests you dont know what you want, so you will buy whatever Leica tells you is good for you:confused: No. I was taught at a quite young age that going "I wanna I wanna" didn't have any influence on what I was going to get. I am quite happy with the current specs of the M8 and when an M9 comes along I will judge whether it meets my wants sufficiently to warrant a switch. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gfspencer Posted March 10, 2009 Share #9 Posted March 10, 2009 What if 35mm film had never been invented*. What if we were still using 120/220 film. Would we still be worried about "Full Frame" digital cameras. I look at some of the photos that you folks post here and they are fantastic! Would they be better if they had been Full Frame? Who knows. Never-the-less they are great photos. As John said, I don't feel that I am missing a thing by 1.3 Leica sensor. In fact, when I bought my 50D I gave some thought to a 5D (which is a fine camera) but I still chose a 50D. (Now if you want to hear some talk about sensors find a 50D forum. ) ____________ *Of course if 35mm film had not been invented we might not have Leica cameras. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nhabedi Posted March 10, 2009 Share #10 Posted March 10, 2009 This has just been posted on the AP site. Most of the statement is the usual stuff we know, but tucked away at the bottom is a comment about feedback at PMA suggesting M8 users are not concerned about having full frame. This is similar to what Mr. Kaufmann said in the LFI interview. I think they're deceiving themselves if they really believe that. It is true that there are nice cameras from other makers that have a 1.3 or similar crop factor. But these makers don't charge 3,000 Euros or more per lens (designed for full-frame) and expect you to put them on a camera that only utilizes a fraction of their performance. Don't get me wrong, I have an M8.2 and I'm happy with it as it does what it promised. But if someone (Leica or else) releases a full-frame digital rangefinder that can accept Leica lenses, I'll happily sell my M8.2 the next day. If the technical hurdles right now are too high for a full-frame M, that's fine and we'll have to live with that. But then Leica should say so and not pretend that nobody wants or needs a bigger sensor. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
guywalder Posted March 10, 2009 Share #11 Posted March 10, 2009 Steve, I dont understand why you ask the question. The answer is obvious, so what? Jaap, Nikon listened to their customers, and the D3 has been a huge success, despite a few years of Nikon stonewalling discussion of FF. Companies that do well often mix giving their customers what they want with giving them things they didnt realise they wanted. The market wanted a digital M, and Leica got into considerable trouble because they didnt (couldnt) deliver, until they did! If product delevopment engineers shared your approach we would all still be riding donkeys and living in caves (ok, so I exaggerate, a bit..) In the various product development cycles I have been through, progress has invariably been driven by engineers and product managers actively, sometimes very actively, insisting that 'good enough' was precisely not good enough, not unlike Leica's lens development in fact.... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
delander † Posted March 10, 2009 Share #12 Posted March 10, 2009 Personally I would like a few more MP, better high iso, no IR filter and a larger sensor. If Leica cant quite stretch to full frame then it would be great to have a 1.15 crop. Anyway I am sure Leica are constantly assessing new developments in sensors, they are as keen as their customers to move forward in these areas, simply because the future of the digital M depends more on this than anything else. Jeff Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ecar Posted March 10, 2009 Share #13 Posted March 10, 2009 This is similar to what Mr. Kaufmann said in the LFI interview. I think they're deceiving themselves if they really believe that. It is true that there are nice cameras from other makers that have a 1.3 or similar crop factor. But these makers don't charge 3,000 Euros or more per lens (designed for full-frame) and expect you to put them on a camera that only utilizes a fraction of their performance. Don't get me wrong, I have an M8.2 and I'm happy with it as it does what it promised. But if someone (Leica or else) releases a full-frame digital rangefinder that can accept Leica lenses, I'll happily sell my M8.2 the next day. If the technical hurdles right now are too high for a full-frame M, that's fine and we'll have to live with that. But then Leica should say so and not pretend that nobody wants or needs a bigger sensor. Fully agree with this: yes, we all want a FF sensor. But if it's technically impossible for the time being, then there are other M users' needs/wishes that can be fulfilled: some want more/better lenses, others want to get rid of UV/IR filters, etc. As far as I'm concerned, high-ISO performance should be the top priority: the low-light capabilities of the M system, despite all these great new (and extremely expensive) f/1.4 lenses, are really falling behind. A pity, given that this used to be one of the M's strengths. Maybe, Leica could ask users what they want and improve the current design, while we wait for FF... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimF Posted March 10, 2009 Author Share #14 Posted March 10, 2009 As far as I'm concerned, high-ISO performance should be the top priority Agreed, along with an extension downwards of the ISO range. There's more than one reason to use the fast lenses that Leica do so wonderfully well, but at present one of those is stymied in good light by the minimum 160. Howzabout a Kodachrome 25 alike-speed? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted March 10, 2009 Share #15 Posted March 10, 2009 Jaap, Nikon listened to their customers, and the D3 has been a huge success, despite a few years of Nikon stonewalling discussion of FF. Companies that do well often mix giving their customers what they want with giving them things they didnt realise they wanted. The market wanted a digital M, and Leica got into considerable trouble because they didnt (couldnt) deliver, until they did! If product delevopment engineers shared your approach we would all still be riding donkeys and living in caves (ok, so I exaggerate, a bit..) In the various product development cycles I have been through, progress has invariably been driven by engineers and product managers actively, sometimes very actively, insisting that 'good enough' was precisely not good enough, not unlike Leica's lens development in fact.... Do you really think that companies are unaware of customer's wishes, Guy? It makes good commercial sense to see whether a possible product is going to sell. But Leica is a bit of a case apart. In a way they turn things upside down and will first define what the call their "philosophy" and only then will they develop a fitting product. And rightly so. The times that they gave in to market pressure have generally ended in disaster - M5 (We want a TTL exposure meter, not a stick-on!) RE -(We want a full AE R at a decent price!) D3 (We want a Digilux2 with uptodate sensor and all kinds of functions!) etc.. Over the years it has been demonstrated that the best way to get what we deem "real Leica" stuff is to let the little goblins in Solms hammer away in their hollow trees -industriously too. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
M. Valdemar Posted March 10, 2009 Share #16 Posted March 10, 2009 Geez, you're a stubborn little fella. And a full time forum authority, it would appear: jaapv - Google Search Do you really think that companies are unaware of customer's wishes, Guy? It makes good commercial sense to see whether a possible product is going to sell. But Leica is a bit of a case apart. In a way they turn things upside down and will first define what the call their "philosophy" and only then will they develop a fitting product. And rightly so. The times that they gave in to market pressure have generally ended in disaster - M5 (We want a TTL exposure meter, not a stick-on!) RE -(We want a full AE R at a decent price!) D3 (We want a Digilux2 with uptodate sensor and all kinds of functions!) etc..Over the years it has been demonstrated that the best way to get what we deem "real Leica" stuff is to let the little goblins in Solms hammer away in their hollow trees -industriously too. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted March 10, 2009 Share #17 Posted March 10, 2009 (edited) I find you a quite bad-mannered poster. But thank you for the link. I didn't know some those forums existed at all, so I suppose there is somebody out there posting in them - not me. Edited March 10, 2009 by jaapv Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdai Posted March 10, 2009 Share #18 Posted March 10, 2009 As a "full-time" vocal advocate for full-frame, I agree with Ian that getting rid of the on-lens IR cut filter is Leica's top priority. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
misha Posted March 10, 2009 Share #19 Posted March 10, 2009 full-frame or not, i want a better censor Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted March 10, 2009 Share #20 Posted March 10, 2009 full-frame or not, i want a better censor :D:D Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.