Jump to content

To Full Frame Or Not To Full Frame?


TimF

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Well, in short: I should not have to, especially with the prices of the 3 lenses I use, 28 Summicron, 35 1.4 asph and 50 1.4 asph.

 

I am not interested in any other lenses for my M system, digital or film.

 

Yes I agree with you on that. I would not want to double up on that much glass. You have the most useful lenses, esp if your shooting in tandem with reflex. I was about to get an m8 & can't quite commit to it. I've got a lot of older glass from my older M's to use, like you I need to shoot digital so my M's are only used for pleasure these days. I'll be missing a 35mm equivalent for the crop factor, but don't think I'll spend for a new 28 summicron. I've got the 35 summicron v4 + the old summilux 35 along with the 50 summicron. I've also got the 75 1.4, but it's on the long end for the M8. My main concern with the m8, not being full frame, is getting decent selective focus with the 35 & 50 summicrons. My old summilux is too soft wide open:) I ended up getting into the canon system (5d) because of the full frame sensor for the selective focus. It's a nice camera, but I wish I could shoot the 50 1.4 wide open without it being so soft! I would get an M8 as a tandem camera to accompany the reflex.

 

Cheers

 

Frederic

Link to post
Share on other sites

x
  • Replies 162
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I don't have a particular problem with the M8's crop, but I do think Leica needs to "fish or cut bait" on the subject. Hints and wobbles and "if this or that" don't cut it.

 

Leica should come out and say, forcefully, direct from DR. Kaufmann:

 

"The 1.33x crop is "it" for the foreseeable future. We don't see any technical advances in sight that would allow a 24 x 36 sensor that works with traditional Leica M film lenses below 35mm focal length and still meet our quality goals. A breakthrough is always possible, but until one happens, we will consider the 1.33x crop as the standard for the Leica M digital cameras."

 

..and then get behind their own statement and produce 16mm and 18mm f/2.8 (or faster) M lenses as fast as possible. On 24 x 36, Leica has had a 21mm f/2.8 prime lens for about 30 years. And a 24 for a decade. A "24 f/3.8" as the widest prime in the system - well, I had a Pentax 24mm f/3.5 in 1970, and it was slow even then.

 

Or Leica should say - equally forcefully:

 

"We can build a 24 x 36 Digital M today - so long as our users are willing to throw away their existing 21, 24, 28, and 35mm lenses, and buy new ones that we will design to be compatable with digital imaging on a sensor that size. Those new lenses will be either large and heavy - or small and of slow apertures. And at least $4,000-$6,000 each, regardless.

 

Oh - and the new camera? The size and weight of a Nikon D700."

 

Personally, that is the situation I think actually exists - there is, in fact, no immediate outlook for a larger sensor that will work with current LEICA RANGEFINDER lens designs (what Canon and Nikon do with SLRs is irrelevant.)

 

Ex-CEO Steve Lee tried to say otherwise and got sacked for his efforts (among other things).

 

Leica obviously could build an SLR-sized digital rangefinder camera with SLR-sized lenses (A D700 minus the prism and mirror). But those of you crying about paying for a 21 and only getting a 28 FOV, well, your lens would not work on such a camera either - unless you like lots of vignetting and streaky corners and such.

 

If I had an opportunity to walk into Leica's conference room, with all the officers and department heads assembled (the S and R folks could skip the meeting) - I would plunk down a 1965 Leica M2 body and three lenses on the table and say "Folks, this is your design target. I don't care what size sensor you use, but match this camera and these lenses for size, FOV, aperture and weight. They are the quintessence of the Leica M experience, and until you can replicate that experience in digital, you are on a wild goose chase (or equivalent German idiom)."

 

The three lenses would be: 35 f/2 Summicron, 21 f/3.4 Super-Angulon, 90 f/2.8 Tele-Elmarit (fat).

 

(I know - everyone will have their own preferred lenses. But those are the keystone lenses for defining size and range - slipping in a 24, 28, 50 or 75 in between will be trivial once they have established the spectrum).

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are a camera company moving into digital with just an "OK" system in film rigs and lenses, you can wipe the slate clean and start from the sensor forward and make the most of it. But if you have a flat out legendary optical system, you really ought to work from the lens mount back.

 

For some time Nikon users who accepted DX sounded off that a full frame sensor was not needed and and that it would only expand on an area that was not the "Sweet-spot" and be a waste. Not only did I know that was a load of bull, it was proven to most that is was too.

 

For as it would turn out, even some of the older lenses of the AI / AIS variety are as outstanding on digital as they are on film.

 

So since the whole 24 x 36 frame of a Leica M lens is the "Sweet-Spot", that is where Leica needs to focus the energy on in the next M digital incarnation. For years it was said that full frame was not possible in an SLR and for awhile, it was not. But it has been overcome in the SLR and will no doubt continue to get better, so there is no reason why astounding new technology can not be employed into the M mount digital to overcome the current problems.

 

If there was ever a camera that needed a full frame sensor to go with it's optics, for Pete's sake, it is the Leica M.

 

And fortunately, I am happy to use my film M's until one comes out. As I have said before, if the IR filter issue were to be worked out, I would tempted once again by the digi-M. But when they lick that *and* make a near or full frame sensor, I am all over it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

First one has to understand that we are in the computer age of design and manufacture where product life cycles are vastly shorter than in the 20th century. Companies design, introduce and advertize new technologies to keep cash flow as high as possible rather than introduce the 'best' that they can produce at any one time. They don't build the 'best' product that they can at any one time but strategise on how and when to introduce new features to again maximise cash flow.

The introduction of the DX format was simply the best that could be done at the time to get revenue out of digital photography and the advent of the computer and Internet allowed one to transmit a digital photograph almost instantaneously. That is what sold DX digital photography. Professionals other than Sports/News needed better content and when sensors were available the switch to FX began as a planned new revenue stream and will continue as the price point of FX digital cameras comes down with new model introductions. MY bet is that serious professional photography will be with the MX format and that is where digital will finally put an end to analog photography.

In order not to spend all your money one has to realise what is occuring and not jump at every new product introduction/cycle and look to long term investment cycles rather than the short term cycles prevelant in todays world.

Personally other than a Nikon SQ I purchased for my wife, i own only analog Nikon and Leica M equipment and shoot mostly K64 for the results I require which are still better than any DX or FX format. I will most likely settle on an MX format once the dust settles and my bet will be on Nikon for a less expensive solution than the Leica S2. I will shed a tear for analog photography but only one.-Dick

Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess I just don't believe in the "click your heels three times and wish hard enough - and the technology you want will magically appear" mantra.

 

Fusion technology has been around for 60 years, at least in the form of blowing holes in tropical islands, and yet, despite all those decades of research, and spending probably 1,000,000 times Dr. Kaufmann's personal fortune - nobody's gotten a fusion power system to really work yet. Not all problems are solvable.

 

I don't know what technical issues are still out there (nor does anyone else on this forum that I can see, or else they'd have some concrete suggestions).

 

We have offset microlenses in the current M8 as the primary means of compensating for light fall-off due to the short backfocus and angle-of-incidence issue.

 

Consider any or all of the following:

 

1) Maybe the microlenses at the corners of the M8 crop are already as "offset" as they can be - make the sensor bigger, and the microlenses in the "new" area of the sensor will have to be even more offset, and maybe that puts them so far off-center that they aren't over the right pixel anymore. If I slide the roof of your house far enough to the side - eventually it will be over your neighbor's house, not yours (well, maybe not yours personally, KM, if you live up among the evergreens, but the M8 pixels are more like a tightly-built city block).

 

2) Maybe there is room for offsetting the microlenses further, but they begin to cause vignetting with long lenses. (Remember Nikon's old "H" and "G" microprism screens? You had to use a different one (numbered 1-4) depending on the lens in use - some vignetted telephotos, some vignetted wide-angles.) I'd hate to have to hot-swap sensors just because I changed from a 21 to a 90.

 

3) IR filter - we all want a stronger IR filter, but maybe even the weak one Leica uses now will begin causing internal corner reflections (like the ones I got with an Epson R-D1) or image distortions once the incidence angle increases by whatever amount it will moving from a 18x27 sensor to 24x36.

 

That's just three possible roadblocks I can see, and I'm not even an optical engineer. How many more are obvious to someone who knows the subject?

 

As to what Nikon may or may not have done - I saw some D700 shots today shot with wideangles, and I wouldn't crow about the mushiness and streaking that was occuring in the corners of those shots. (Same for the Sony A900/24mm shots I've seen). In terms of overall across-the-image optical image quality - Nikon and Sony shoulda stuck with the crop. (ISO 6400 on the D700 was nice, though!).

 

Full-frame c**p is still c**p. And I sure wouldn't buy a Leica that performed at that level. And that was with SLR retrofocus lenses that stick way out from the sensor surface another 15mm and are far easier to handle, in terms of sensor design, than M wide-angles.

 

That being said - if Leica does pull off a 24x36 sensor that works with my M lenses, in a body the size of the M8 (or smaller), for under a semidecakilobuck - hey, I'll be all over it, too.

Link to post
Share on other sites

from the perspective of someone who has not yet bought an M8 I would rather wait to see if they do come out with full frame given that the M8 is already a few years old. How annoying would it be to commit a few thousand to the M8 only to discover six months later that full frame is available and everybody is saying how great it is and how much better image quality is at high iso etc. I have 3 M lenses 35 1.4 50 2.0 and 24 2.8.. I am happy with those in full frame and rather than having to buy new lenses I would rather wait at this stage.

 

Its like buying the dow jones at 13,500 in 2007 having been too scared to buy in 2004 at 10,500!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

That's funny that you mention fusion energy, since I'm a fusion energy researcher. It is indeed a difficult problem, and there certainly is a solution, but much like a full frame M that ended up being twice the size with all new tele-centric lenses, I don't think people would much like the certain solution. Thus, we continue to research and try to find a way to make it work AND be attractive. And the whole "it will work in 20 years" is the fault of BOTH sides, the research community and government. The research community was a bit optimistic in the early years (50's-60's) but got a lot more realistic after that. Their optimism is sort of understandable since it didn't take us that long to go from fission bomb -> fission power, and many thought fusion bomb -> fusion power would work on a similar time scale. However, it didn't take too many years to figure out this would not be the case; in fact, a whole new field was spawned. In the 80's, we might have only been 25-30 years away, had funding continued. Many of those predictions were based on an 'Apollo-style' research program: lots and lots of money, lots and lots of parallel research. This is not exactly what happened. To put it in perspective, Spiderman 2 (used because it features (bad) fusion science) grossed about half of the US fusion budget in the first weekend. By two weeks, it had grossed about the full US fusion budget at the time.

 

Sorry for the digression. I think a full frame M is possible. I don't think it was with satisfactory quality in 2004 or 2005 when the M8 development was probably underway. I think they are probably a lot closer to it now - it's a tough problem, but I'm sure they will figure it out.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As to what Nikon may or may not have done - I saw some D700 shots today shot with wideangles, and I wouldn't crow about the mushiness and streaking that was occuring in the corners of those shots. (Same for the Sony A900/24mm shots I've seen). In terms of overall across-the-image optical image quality - Nikon and Sony shoulda stuck with the crop. (ISO 6400 on the D700 was nice, though!).

 

Full-frame c**p is still c**p. And I sure wouldn't buy a Leica that performed at that level. And that was with SLR retrofocus lenses that stick way out from the sensor surface another 15mm and are far easier to handle, in terms of sensor design, than M wide-angles.

 

Nonsense. I have a D700, AND a Kodak DCS Pro 14n (5 years older than D700, and full frame), and there is almost no "mushiness and streaking in the corners" on either.

 

The Kodak 14n and SLR/n cameras, with a full frame sensor and no AA filter, easily exceed the file quality of the M8 when shooting at base ISO of 80 or 160 respectively.

 

The image quality is incredible.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nonsense. I have a D700, AND a Kodak DCS Pro 14n (5 years older than D700, and full frame), and there is almost no "mushiness and streaking in the corners" on either.

 

The Kodak 14n and SLR/n cameras, with a full frame sensor and no AA filter, easily exceed the file quality of the M8 when shooting at base ISO of 80 or 160 respectively.

 

The image quality is incredible.

 

I second that. Maybe if one uses the old 20mm 2.8 is does that, but all my lenses are great on that sensor, much better than expected. But what do I know, I just get paid to use this stuff, right?

Link to post
Share on other sites

MY bet is that serious professional photography will be with the MX format and that is where digital will finally put an end to analog photography.

 

Umm, no, because the reason one chooses film over digital now days is workflow and final result preference in the total package, not the highest *technical* quality attainable. This is why after 15 years of shooting digital, I am working towards using all film for certain sectors of my business. I just like it better.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Using film is a lot of fun and with certain formats the quality is astonishing.

 

Large format negative a hundred years old can beat anything shot on small digital sensors.

 

The whole "film vs digital" argument is moronic. The purpose is to make images.

 

But we are talking about putting a full frame sensor into a digital rangefinder, and I say get off the pot and just do it. Stop wasting time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know what a 'fusion energy researcher' is but my BS and MS degrees are in Nuclear Engineering and I worked on the development of the Multipole Experiment(Levitating Toroidal Rings) at MURA in the late to early 1970's. I also did material studies both macro and electron microscopy research on ion bombardment of materials for a first wall containment for a Fusion Reactor.

 

"I don't know what technical issues are still out there (nor does anyone else on this forum that I can see, or else they'd have some concrete suggestions)."

Problems still out there are numerous but still consist of essentially the same problems as 30 years ago, first wall material, containment time and containment stability. I judged the first wall problem unsovable in the near future and moved on to Commercial Nuclear Fission Power Production as money dried up for fusion reasearch and interest waned as new sources of petroleum were discovered that essentially shifted the oil usage problem about 20 years into the future. Well that 20 years is up and the only short term solution is Nuclear Fission which TMI and Chernobyl have really put a stop to.

Knowing what the problems are does not always guarantee "concrete solutions".

In terms of the Leica M sensor, Leica knows what the problems are but i'm not so assured that they have a solution, as witnessed by the M8, a surely flawed design that never should have been introduced.-Dick

Link to post
Share on other sites

In terms of the Leica M sensor, Leica knows what the problems are but i'm not so assured that they have a solution, as witnessed by the M8, a surely flawed design that never should have been introduced.-Dick

 

Dick - I think there are a lot of people using their M-lenses on a digital platform and thoroughly enjoying themselves (myself included).

 

If by flawed you mean reliability and IR issues - well naturally the camera has its faults, which we'd all wish would've been fixed by now. But the fact the sensor isn't full-frame is hardly a reason that the camera shouldn't exist at all.

 

One of the things that surprised me when I began using the M8 after almost exclusively using the RD1 last year (and totally neglecting my film Ms - to my shame), was that it felt like there was suddenly a lot of 'space' around my compositions: I wondered where the lovely "75mm" lens had got to, when I put the Noctilux on the camera. But honestly it doesn't take long to accustom oneself to different crops.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know what a 'fusion energy researcher' is but my BS and MS degrees are in Nuclear Engineering and I worked on the development of the Multipole Experiment(Levitating Toroidal Rings) at MURA in the late to early 1970's. I also did material studies both macro and electron microscopy research on ion bombardment of materials for a first wall containment for a Fusion Reactor.

 

How would you like me to describe it? I do research on plasma physics and fusion energy. I didn't feel like it was necessary to toss around degrees or list specific research experiences and still don't.

 

You are correct, first wall issues are a big problem but we have some ideas on how to deal with that. Confinement time is pretty decent now, running into the many seconds, temperatures are up, density is up.

 

The real issue in my mind is that we are only now starting to push past design goals from the mid to late 70's. TFTR at Princeton was a 70's design, did good research in the 80's and 90's, but money started to dry up as early as '86. In '86, the successor should to TFTR should have been on the drawing board and by the early 90's, construction should have been underway. Instead, nothing. A successor is being planned/built now, but it's an international collaboration (ITER) (US dropped the ball) and it should come online, oh, say, after 2015. That's a nice 30 year gap if you ask me. Kind of dumb if you ask me, unless you are throwing in the towel.

 

Much like it would be really dumb if Leica wasn't doing research on a full frame M, or next gen M, even as the M8 was coming to market. I'm sure they are. And I'm sure they have some ideas on how to accomplish that.

 

Knowing what the problems are does not always guarantee "concrete solutions".

 

Thanks for the lecture. Knowing what the problems are does not always guarantee a solution, but it certainly gives you a damn good place to go about looking for one. I prefer to be optimistic.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My main concern with this issue right now is that I don't have confidence Leica can survive long enough to reap the benefits of what is likely to be a lengthy R&D project getting to full frame for the M system. They are playing with the big dogs now and the competition is getting pretty fierce. Currently, Leica have put considerable resources into development of the S2 and compatible lenses. Simultaneously, Nikon are working on their own MX system that will make the S2 much less attractive, even before it is available. It is widely rumoured they will bring out a 40.7MP MX body along with a new series of lenses: AF-S MX Nikkor 24 f4.0G, AF-S MX Nikkor 45 f2.8G, AF-S MX NIkkor 85 f2.8G, AF-S MX Nikkor 135 f2.0G ED, AF-S MX Nikkor 200 F2.8G ED and AF-S MX Nikkor 65-180 f2.8G ED IF. When this happens, where will the market be for the S2, given that the Nikon line will likely be considerably less expensive?

 

If Leica don't have the requisite technology right now to be producing a FF M body, my thinking is that they should simply improve high ISO performance and reliability and bring it out in the M9 as soon as possible.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Currently, Leica have put considerable resources into development of the S2 and compatible lenses. Simultaneously, Nikon are working on their own MX system that will make the S2 much less attractive, even before it is available.

 

When Leica announced the S2, I was actually *really* ticked! I honestly hope it doesn't, but I think it might bury them. If the camera actually hits the shelves, it had better not have any of the levels of the problems the M8 has had. For if it does, then I am afraid the camera side of the company is going to up the creek without a paddle.

 

So in this respect you are right, a full frame M9 is the last thing we need to worry about when Leica has exposed the entire camera division to huge potential fallout with that darned S2...

 

I don't have a good feeling about the S2, I think it is going to have issues on introduction, face serious competition from new product lines and I think the media and consumer internet presence is going to have a field day with that...

Link to post
Share on other sites

If all basic parameters (MP count, IQ, DR, ISO noise, etc) were similar,would you rather:

 

a) Spend 8k on FF LeicaM9 (incompatible with old M lens) and 15k on three basic "FF design" (telecentric?) lens ?

B) Spend 15k on FF LeicaMO with a dedicated (spherical?) sensor design compatible with all M lenses?

c) Spend 6k on the new m4/3 RF Olympus body with optoelectronic VF and three excellent Zuiko lens included AND compatible with all M lens?

d) stay with M8

Link to post
Share on other sites

If all basic parameters (MP count, IQ, DR, ISO noise, etc) were similar,would you rather:

 

a) Spend 8k on FF LeicaM9 (incompatible with old M lens) and 15k on three basic "FF design" (telecentric?) lens ?

B) Spend 15k on FF LeicaMO with a dedicated (spherical?) sensor design compatible with all M lenses?

c) Spend 6k on the new m4/3 RF Olympus body with three excellent Zuiko lens included AND compatible with all M lens?

d) stay with M8

 

None of the above, I would stick to film use in Leica M and use a more sensible and equitable system for my professional digital needs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If all basic parameters (MP count, IQ, DR, ISO noise, etc) were similar,would you rather:

 

a) Spend 8k on FF LeicaM9 (incompatible with old M lens) and 15k on three basic "FF design" (telecentric?) lens ?

B) Spend 15k on FF LeicaMO with a dedicated (spherical?) sensor design compatible with all M lenses?

c) Spend 6k on the new m4/3 RF Olympus body with optoelectronic VF and three excellent Zuiko lens included AND compatible with all M lens?

d) stay with M8

 

So, why would anyone spend 15K on a FF Leica M which was similar to the M8 in MP count, IQ, DR and ISO noise??? In fact, if all basic parameters were similar, why would there be any motivation to switch to anything else?

Link to post
Share on other sites

"I don't know what technical issues are still out there (nor does anyone else on this forum that I can see, or else they'd have some concrete suggestions)."

 

In posting that statement, I meant issues in designing a full-frame sensor for the M8, not issues in the current state of fusion technology. But I can see where my transition was sloppy and confusing. Sorry about that.

 

And it does point up the fact that when dealing with technical issues - there are those who have enough technical knowledge to at least exchange ideas, and there are those who can only say "I wanna clean fusion power system NOW! And I don't see why I can't have one!"

 

Bud and tgray both seem qualified to discuss fusion technology (whether they agree or not). I haven't seen anyone here yet qualified to discuss sensor design issues with RF lenses at their level.

 

"But what do I know, I just get paid to use this stuff, right?"

 

Precisely. One's creative talent in using a camera is not a measure of one's technological skill in designing a camera - or vice-versa. There are plenty of engineers out there who can't take a picture to save their lives (and many who can).

 

Frankly, I have sympathies with both sides of the discussion (M8 full-frame, not fusion).

 

I do wonder whether the S-system is a false trail, diverting Leica's resources into a part of the market where even the experts have imploded (Pentax, Bronica, Franke & Heidecke) - when it might be better to maintain sharp focus on the core business that makes them absolutely unique in the business (compact interchangeable-lens rangefinders with incredible low-light potential).

 

I would like to use a full-frame digital M.

 

Despite my comment above, I would probably accept "only" D700 performance with wide-angles, if the price was right, because I got into the M system for reasons other than image quality (size, silence, "manualness"). Heck, most of my glass (c. 1980 designs) is a little weak in the corners anyway, at least wide-open.

 

(But I guarantee the forum would be full of whiners: "I paid $6,000 for my 21 f/1.4 - How dare Leica introduce such a clearly flawed camera that can't deliver the lens's full corner performance!")

 

"Darn good" and "perfect" will always be antagonists.

 

However, my main point still stands. I want to see a clear, technically informed, discussion of what problems remain to be solved in getting to a full-frame M camera.

 

Somebody like Sean Reid, who has had insider discussion with Leica, and has worked with a wide variety of RF lenses on digital sensors, likely could shed some light - if Leica lets him talk.

 

Also, as I said - what the SLR makers can do is irrelevant to the question of rangefinder lenses. When it comes to digital, there is a qualititative difference between:

 

a lens that mounts 2-3x the focal length away from the image plane (Nikon/Canon 14mm lenses sit 42mm from the sensor, and the total length from front element to sensor is about 6 inches), and

 

a lens that mounts 1-1.5x the focal length away from the image plane (C/V 15mm sits 20mm from the sensor, and the total length from front element to sensor is under 2 inches).

 

Even Hasselblad now puts a caveat on their 1.5x crop (not even M8 1.33 crop) CFV digital back to the effect that it is "not recommended for critical work together with SWC models and ArcBody due to optical incompatibility."

 

CFV II

 

I.E. - It don't work so good with rangefinder-style wide-angles - only with the SLR-style retrofocus lenses with a lot a room behind them.

 

An M9 with the caveat that "it is not recommended for critical work together with 18, 21, 24, and 28mm lenses due to optical incompatibility" is going to sell really well, don't you think?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...