Jump to content

To Full Frame Or Not To Full Frame?


TimF

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

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.

 

I certainly agree!

 

" I didn't feel like it was necessary to toss around degrees or list specific research experiences and still don't."

 

I have found that knowing an individuals academic credentials and research experience to be extremely useful in developing an understanding if they have any credentials to support the comments that they make on these types of Forums. While these types of forums are certainly not reviewed such as when submitting an academic paper to a scientific publication, many times individuals inflate thier credentials to gain credance.

I still don't know what a 'fusion energy researcher' is? I know what a physicist is, an Electrical Engineer, a Mechanical Engineer but I don't know of any discipline where a degree is given for ''fusion energy researcher' .EOT-Dick

Link to post
Share on other sites

x
  • Replies 162
  • Created
  • Last Reply

If you must, I'm a physicist. Fusion energy physicist isn't actually quite as descriptive :D

 

I did my degree work at PPPL. I did that degree work specifically on first wall issues in tokamak reactors. I really am not inflating credentials. I just find that usually (not directed at anyone in this forum) those who spout their credentials are the exact ones inflating their background and credentials. But we've probably bored the heck out of everyone else by now :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

If Leica plans to stick with the 1.33 format, why not design smaller (and possibly less expensive) lenses for that format? They already have plenty of lenses for full frame. I wonder how many people are buying some of these new lenses primarily for use on film cameras.

 

Or is the hope at Leica that someday somehow they'll have a full frame digital M body. So they want to maintain future compatibility even if there is nothing on the drawing board at this time.

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

 

Fair question, although I doubt the "basic parameters" premise is correct. If the MP count stayed the same, you would have bigger pixels, and thus almost certainly better DR and ISO noise. If the MP count increased (same area pixels, but more of them over a bigger sensor area) you'd get a resolution increase.

 

Given the choice, I'd go for a modest increase in MP (12-ish) combined with an improvement in noise/DR. But some others would want the D3x option. Leica would have to disappoint someone, or produce both an "M9" and an "M9x".

 

otherwise:

 

a) No - cost of new vs. old aside, I adore the drawing of my c. 1980 Mandler lenses compared to Solms' newer efforts. Current lenses are too pink and too contrasty for my taste, generally. Gotta have my 21 and 28 pre-ASPH Elmarits.

 

B) Nope - putting a curved sensor behind lenses designed for a flat image plane guarantees fuzzy everything except in the center of the image. And realistically, given the price cuts Leica has implemented for the M8/M8.2, I think there is strong resistance to an M body price beyond $6K. Maybe - MAYBE - you could get a 50% premium for full-frame over cropped (D300 vs. D700). And I don't think the issue with getting full-frame behind M lenses is cost - it is pure physics. Solve the physics, and the silicon cost won't be that much.

 

$6,995 tops

 

c) Vaporware. I was talking to an Olympus rep yesterday and that person was still talking proudly about "the wooden mockup". Where's the product? Panasonic GH1 with video and 6x6 cropping - THAT I might consider alongside Leica Ms - and use M-mount lenses on occasionally - 12mm C/V would be sweet as an "almost-SWC-Biogon".

 

d) Given the other options listed - yes.

 

(edit) Alan - exactly. My point in my first post on this thread. Leica needs to - (well, you know) or get off the pot. I do believe, deep in my heart, that Leica does want to produce a 24 x 36 rangefinder camera when they have the technical solution to wide lenses. I do not think they should produce "cropped" lenses - DX-Summarits or whatever - so long as there is a reasonable likelihood that they can solve the bigger (so to speak) problem eventually.

 

For the R&D costs involved, they could just design one 16mm f/2.8 covering 24 x 36 and be covered either way.

 

Right now they are waffling - "We think the 1.33 crop is the sweet spot - BUT if the market really demands 24 x 36...." (Dr. Kaufmann in an LFI interview, paraphrased). That's not very clear guidance, for either the staff or the users.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

 

My mistake in describing the choices. A, b, c should be similar to each other, but with parameters superior to d= M8. Not only FF compared to 1.33 crop sensor , but better DR, IQ, high ISO and higher MP count.

The assumption for the FF M is that you cannot have both: old M lens compatibility and "traditional" flat deep-well sensor design. So either telecentric lens of a new design or an exotic expensive sensor.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If Leica plans to stick with the 1.33 format, why not design smaller (and possibly less expensive) lenses for that format? They already have plenty of lenses for full frame.

 

That would be fine, as long as future digital M bodies would accomodate both the new designs and the current line of lenses. After all, the main idea behind the design of the M8 was to allow current M film system owners to seamlessly transition to digital format by being able to utilize their existing collections of lenses.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

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.

 

That is exactly the point!

 

Would customers be all over it?

Yes = Leica need to keep chasing a/the technical solution(s)

No = they shouldn't waste R&D time and money on it

 

Understanding if the answer is Yes or No has nothing to do with When the solution might be available, likewise it has nothing to do with What the solution might be.

 

ok, so if it takes 50 years and costs 5 times as much as an S2 then that will impact sales success, but the answers to When and What only come after investigation, and that will only happen if there is enough interest...

Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is that many (not all - many) of those calling for a full-frame M tend to do so in a petulant, cry-baby way, with an "I don't care what the technological realities are - I just want full-frame and I want it NOW!" tone.

 

I think Leica has a lot of experience with type-A, demanding customers, and so they just tune out that kind of approach.

 

I will stand up, here and now, and say "Yes, I would much prefer to use a full-frame digital M than the M8." I'll take the pledge. I'll join the "24 x 36 or bust" fan club.

 

I doubt there are many M8 users who would NOT want 24x36, so long as it performs at least as well as the M8 - ON BALANCE.

 

That is, I would accept some small optical sensor issues (reflections, smudging) with older wide angles (hey, the world moves on) in exchange for getting back a 21 FoV + f/2.8 (or f/1.4), a "real" 35 f/1.4, and either more pixels or less noise at 3200.

 

A full-frame M-whatever doesn't have to be perfect - as far as I'm concerned - so long as it is pretty darn good.

 

I'm willing to work WITH Leica, rather than lambast them, as we slouch towards a full-frame M body.

 

As I've said several times in this thread, my real issue with Leica on the subject is their lack of clarity. They have fumbled this question all over the lot. Steve Lee says one thing, and gets canned. Dr. Kaufmann says something different, and removes himself as CEO. What will the new guy say?

 

It's not like there is some proprietary super-secret here. Nikon and Canon and Sony already have full-frame, (and likely don't care WHAT Leica's plans are) - so why the mystery and confusion?

 

I want Leica to - no, I would APPRECIATE it if Leica would - make a clear statement of their intentions.

 

"We do not see any prospect at this time of a larger sensor for M-mount lenses. We have offset the microlenses as far as they will go. We have made the cover glass/IR filter as thin as we can make it. There is no other technological advance on the horizon that will improve the situation in the forseeable future. We do understand that such a sensor would be enormously popular and increase sales, so we will keep looking - but it will require a breakthrough that has not happened yet, so don't count on it."

 

or

 

"Leica fully understands the desire for a M-mount digital rangefinder that employs a "full-frame" 24x36 sensor to make full use of our classic lens designs. We also understand that the M system is at the core of Leica's reputation and product line. THEREFORE, we are making it a top priority, once the S-system is introduced and established, to push ahead with Kodak and our other business partners in moving the technology forward to create such a sensor.

 

We cannot set a precise date for achieving this goal, but we expect it will not be less than (x) years nor longer than (y) years. We also cannot guarantee that it will be compatable with the current M8 body, and thus it may not be available as an upgrade - but we will make every attempt to make it so if that will not compromise other considerations."

 

See? It ain't that hard. Leica's PR guys can copy/paste right from this post.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Adan. Just let us know what the intention is so we can all get on with our own purchase decisions.

 

Having said that it seems fairly inevitable that they will bring out full frame given Kauffmann's comments in LFI. Its just a question of when.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest joewehry

I'm happy with the current sensor. Image quality is wonderful. I've heard no complaints from people looking at my prints saying, "Great photo, but if it had only been taken with a full sensor..."

 

As for composition and perspective, the frame lines already show me what I'm shooting. My subjects aren't being cropped. A full frame sensor will only suggest that either, I substitute a 35 lens where I now use a 28mm, or stand closer/further away depending if I want to change magnification or perspective. Yawn.

 

A full frame might help with the magnification levels at print time for poster-sized prints and beyond, but before that I would be surprised to see how much, if any, it makes in print images.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I sold my M8 some time ago as I couldn't put up with the frame-line inaccuracies: that and the constant threat of the camera giving up the ghost as so many have. Then there is the cracked and broken body / baseplate issue. Unacceptable.

 

Having been a Leica user since M4 R4 days I think that it's fair to say that I'm a Leica fan, although I do have a love / hate relationship with the M series: I hate the fact that it exists in a time-warp.

 

I would love to see a full-frame M9. For me to buy it, it would have to have:

 

excellent low-light capability (i.e. as good as Nikon D3 (had one) or Canon 5d 2 (own one)

better ergonomics - this is not 1950 - a small handgrip please or ditch the built-in shutter actuator and bring back the thumb lever (preferably both)

 

it would have to work (i.e. it must have been tested by Leica and hopefully a few photographers before being sold)

 

it must be weather-sealed (there's a computer in there)

 

all manual would be preferable; based on the MP would be fine.

 

That's it, not too much to ask is it?

 

While I'm on my soapbox, why don't Leica make lenses in other manufacturers mounts? Leica is, primarily, a lens maker. Such an arrangement would provide funds for R&D.

 

Mike.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Now imagining Herr Kauffmann mounting his own soapbox and holding forth:

 

---"Yes, we agree that a M should have a 24x36mm sensor. We intend to bring out such a camera in the future, that's why we produce all M lenses for the full old format. We expect that it will be technically possible to present such a camera at the 2012 Photokina."

 

And then imagine what that would do to M sales. Do you still think he would---or even should---make such a statement? In his three piece suit, I wouldn't, for one.

 

The old man from the Age of Film

Link to post
Share on other sites

I totally agree with Adan. As a matter of fact I don’t understand why there is no representative of Leica on this forum. I think it would be very useful for both sides, the company and the customers. Also the transparency that it could produce would make Leica a company with a human attitude. Let face it, the future of photography is (already) for digital reflex and point-and-shoot cameras in respect to mass market. So what is the best way for Leica to advertise their digital rangefinder cameras? I think it is by word of mouth. And from what I can see among the tradition of rangefinder owners, there is a very strong degree of fidelity toward Leica products. With the severe recession going on, I think there is a great opportunity for a company to find a winning strategy. Let just imagine that people at Leica say to their customers via a serious forum like this one and by official news that in the future they will try to be as honest as possible about products to come because from now customers as a right to know about false and true rumors.

 

Maybe you can argue that if Leica for example say that a FF M should be ready in 2010, the sales of M8 would stop until then. But imagine now that Leica say that they will continue to upgrade the version of the M8 with the limits of this camera even when the FF is there. They could also say that they will continue to sell the M8 because it will be still a very good camera at a price under the FF. I think that an attitude like that would make all the customers of Leica the best ambassadors and the sales of future M cameras could progress. Leica cannot count on traditional publicity to compete with reflex. With all the auto gadgets, reflex will win. But the can count on their customers and it cost almost nothing.

 

Andre

Link to post
Share on other sites

I take your point, Lars - which is why I made the time frame a little vague in my "statement" in favor of 24 x 36.

 

"...not less than [to put in numbers] 5 years and not more than 7 years..." There may be a few willing to take no digital M pictures for 5-7 years, but they probably aren't likely M8 prospects anyway. They're already on the sidelines.

 

And there's a flip side to that - I am not about to drop $6,000 on a 21 f/1.4 that may never be more than a fast medium-wide on digital, whereas I would give serious consideration to a 21 f/1.4 @ $6,000 if I knew it would, in a finite time frame, perform to its full potential as a fast SUPERwide on both film and digital. Especially if the 21 f/1.4 is likely to be up to $8000 by the time an M9 gets here.

 

The same for the 18mm - A very good price, and a reasonable aperture, for a true 18mm FoV. Not a very exciting lens as a crippled "24mm" f/3.8.

 

Another flip side would be those who have M8s but are really ready for full-frame. With no guidance from Leica, they may just dump their M gear and move on, whereas they may stick it out with their M8s if they know for sure that they can move up to a fullframe M body fairly soon.

 

But Leica can leave the time frame even vaguer if they want - at least it would be less vague than "maybe, if the market demands it" which is what Dr. K has said so far.

 

"The market demanding it" sounds like "Nobody's buying the cropped bodies anymore" - which implies a slump in M8 sales regardless.

_________________________________________

 

[edit] I might just add - having re-read the original link that kicked off this thread - that Christian Ernhart's recent statement at PMA pretty much backs up Dr. Kaufmann's (guess he learned from the Steve Lee fiasco - =8^o ) Leica has not signficantly moved off their position regarding short-focus issues (which means they do not, in fact, see any technological change on the horizon).

 

And that Leica says it is not getting much negative feedback on the 1.33 crop.

 

115 posts on this thread (and a fair proportion of those neutral, at best, or worst) out of, what, 20,000 M8 users?, is not going to move the ball very far towards 24x36.

 

OK - but then WHERE is the 16mm f/2.8 lens, Leica? Money where mouth is, and all that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I would love to see a full-frame M9. For me to buy it, it would have to have:

 

excellent low-light capability (i.e. as good as Nikon D3 (had one) or Canon 5d 2 (own one)

better ergonomics - this is not 1950 - a small handgrip please or ditch the built-in shutter actuator and bring back the thumb lever (preferably both) …

 

 

 

… all manual would be preferable; based on the MP would be fine.

 

That's it, not too much to ask is it?

 

 

Mike.

 

I dont think it will have this stuff, so from what you write you wont be getting one.

 

Jeff

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sigh - deja vu, this thread, all those posts that are duplicates, both pro and con, of countless earlier threads...:rolleyes: Leica has clearly implicated they will build a 24x36 sensor M camera when they think it is technically feasible, so has Zeiss... Lets move on guys, it is easy enough to postulate pie-in-the-sky cameras, but it is far removed from reality.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sigh - deja vu, this thread, all those posts that are duplicates, both pro and con, of countless earlier threads....

 

a pretty bizzare thing to write after you have already added 10 previous posts to the thread :rolleyes:

As for the fatherly advice, I started making my own decisions about 35 years ago, perhaps you should have the conversation with your kids, at least you can send them to bed without supper when they have the temerity to disagree...

Link to post
Share on other sites

115 posts on this thread (and a fair proportion of those neutral, at best, or worst)

 

we must be reading different threads!

take out the 10% of the posts being beamed in from that eutopian planet Leica, and I see only a very few posts saying 'I prefer 1.33', I see a proporion saying 'I wont buy because its not FF' and nearly everyone else is 'I would prefer FF IF it was available'...

 

As for a definative statement, I cant see that happening. Advance announcement an FF M would undermine the M8.x and ruling it out would give the perfect incentive to anyone else interested to pull the rug from under Leica at some point in the future (as well as alienating all those who live in hope).

Link to post
Share on other sites

For me the single biggest concern is whether they can make a feasible upgrade for the M8 to a FF sensor.. I'd rather not have to sell it at what will likely be a massive loss and then have to turn around and buy a new M9 or what ever.. Not demanding that Leica does this, just hoping they can.

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...