To Full Frame Or Not To Full Frame?

[plasticman]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Cameras are just tools and with any tool, there will always be limitations to what you can do with them. So you have two choices: Either work within the limitations, or constantly complain about them. I prefer the former.

 

I take exception to the tone of your answer when quoting me - especially as I was very explicitly not "constantly complain[ing]" about this. You probably missed the fact that I recently bought an M8, after holding off for a while. Full-frame, while ideal, was not by any means the reason I waited.

I imagine old enmities die hard, and you simply couldn't resist a personal dig. Just put me on ignore.

[Guest malland]

Agree with Mitch. How many times does this nonsense have to be debated? (A cue for Bill to pipe up.)

Wattsy, I didn't know that this thing had a history here and was always bemused to see the gentleman referred to as "Dr. Andread Kaufman" here when we write about, for example, Steve Jobs as "Jobs" or "Steve". On the other hand, with regard to using given names, it always looks funny to me when people write online referring to Ansel Adams as "Ansel" as if they had been in grade school with him. But, then, tele-marketers call me here in States and say, "Hi, Mitch"...

 

—Mitch/Potomac, MD

Wiang Pa Pao - a set on Flickr

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[tgray]

I won't lie, I'm waiting for full frame. Mainly because I shoot film. And a digital M would be a MAJOR outlay in cash for me, one that I would likely have to live with for a long time. There's no rush to buy one right now, since I'm perfectly happy with film, though I do recognize the advantages of digital for some uses.

 

I like the lenses I have and want to just swap them to a digital if I feel like it. I also don't want to buy a second set of lenses just to accommodate the crop, and I don't think I'd be happy just dealing with the crop. Full frame has advantages for noise/ISO as well. I could probably live with the IR issue, but not having owned an M8, it might be more of a hassle than I imagine. Then again, I shoot mostly B&W.

 

Better high ISO performance looks like it would be nice, but the M8 is already better than film, so I'd be happy there I'm sure. But a digital M, with no IR issue, and a 5D-ish sensor (never mind a D3 sensor) and I'd be in.

[Guest malland]

I...I like the lenses I have and want to just swap them to a digital if I feel like it. I also don't want to buy a second set of lenses just to accommodate the crop, and I don't think I'd be happy just dealing with the crop...

I was holding off because of concerns about the various problems that initially cropped up with the M8 but the FF issue was at the back of my mind. But after the M8.2 came out I decided to buy in January, stimulated by the relatively low price in the UK, from where I bought the camera for about US$1,400 less than the US price. But I don't know why would need a second set of lenses for the M8: in my case I only needed one extra lens, the CV 15 to be able to get close to the 21mm EFOV that I like; but, otherwise my other lenses look as follows:

 

Elmarit 21mm ASPH — EFOV of 28mm

Elmarit-28 — EFOV of 37mm

Summicron-35 — EFOV of 47mm

Summilux-50 — EFOV of 67mm

Tele-Elmarit-90 — EFOV of 120mm

 

...and there is no need for a second set of lenses.

 

—Mitch/Potomac, MD

Wiang Pa Pao - a set on Flickr

[jaapv]

Wattsy, I didn't know that this thing had a history here and was always bemused to see the gentleman referred to as "Dr. Andread Kaufman" here when we write about, for example, Steve Jobs as "Jobs" or "Steve". On the other hand, with regard to using given names, it always looks funny to me when people write online referring to Ansel Adams as "Ansel" as if they had been in grade school with him. But, then, tele-marketers call me here in States and say, "Hi, Mitch"...

 

—Mitch/Potomac, MD

Wiang Pa Pao - a set on Flickr

 

 

A matter of local custom Mitch. One one hand I will be careful to call any central-European with a title Herr Doktor of Herr Professor or whatever, on the other hand I would not dream of giving offense to an American by calling him anything but "hey you!";)

[tgray]

Well maybe not a second set, but I currently shoot with a 15, the 28/2, and a 50/1.4. The 28 is my main lens which means I'm looking at picking up a 21 to replace it (and it would be slower AND bigger, making me unhappy) and a 35 to match the 50. I could get a 12 to replace the 15, but I'd probably just live with it. So to actually match those focal lengths, it'd be a second set (though I do have a 35 right now, I don't use it and would like to recover some money with it).

 

For those whose lenses are spaced by roughly stops (1.4), dealing with the crop means just picking up one more lens on the wide end to recover your focal lengths. Those of us whose lenses are spaced by roughly doubling focal lengths are in a different situation.

 

Like I said, I still shoot film and am very happy with it, so there's no rush to get a very expensive camera that is just going to be second fiddle anyway. I'll wait until the second fiddle is actually one that I'll like more.

[guywalder]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

 

...and there is no need for a second set of lenses

 

 

fair enough, although you are loosing speed at most WA focal lengths:

 

~21mm equiv 2.8 -> 4.5

~28mm 2.8 -> 2.8

~35mm 2.0 -> 2.8

~50mm 1.4 -> 2.0

 

and have no 90mm equiv...

 

I hear that you are ok with that, but not everyone is. I dont go much over 50mm so loosing speed at these FLs is much more of an issue than gaining it on longer lenses.

[fotografr]

I take exception to the tone of your answer when quoting me - especially as I was very explicitly not "constantly complain[ing]" about this. You probably missed the fact that I recently bought an M8, after holding off for a while. Full-frame, while ideal, was not by any means the reason I waited.

I imagine old enmities die hard, and you simply couldn't resist a personal dig. Just put me on ignore.

 

Unfortunately, one thing that cannot be readily discerned from internet posts is tone. There is no need to take exception to what I said, no need to start a battle, no need to do ignore lists. I was simply making a general statement referring to the endless back and forth banter on this forum about people wanting a full frame digital M camera. I have no "old enmity" with you, nor was my comment a "personal dig." Sorry you took it as such.

Edited March 11, 2009 by fotografr

[plasticman]

Unfortunately, one thing that cannot be readily discerned from internet posts is tone. There is no need to take exception to what I said, no need to start a battle, no need to do ignore lists. I was simply making a general statement referring to the endless back and forth banter on this forum about people wanting a full frame digital M camera. I have no "old enmity" with you, nor was my comment a "personal dig." Sorry you took it as such.

 

There are some people (rarely here nowadays - at least one of whom I see on another forum enthusing about a totally different camera these days, incidentally), who've seemed almost willful in their efforts to misconstrue pretty much anything I say about the M8, so that I've probably become too sensitive about it.

Apologies for my combative tone earlier.

[offshore]

A matter of local custom Mitch. One one hand I will be careful to call any central-European with a title Herr Doktor of Herr Professor or whatever, on the other hand I would not dream of giving offense to an American by calling him anything but "hey you!";)

Now see jaapv that's offensive. If you live in the states everyone knows it's "hey yo!":D

[tgray]

I think the whole full frame stems from two obvious desires:

 

1) The upgrade to sensor quality that you get from more sensor area. This should improve image quality across the board with respect to noise, ISO performance, and sharpness. The sole exception of course is vignetting (and IR/cyan shift issues possibly).

2) The desire to shoot with lenses the way they were designed to be shot with. I want to use my 28/2 like a 28/2. If this is not to be, and I have to buy a replacement lens, I'd rather buy a 21/2 or 21/1.4 designed for the crop instead of a 21/2.8 or 21/1.4 designed for full frame. Either way I'm buying a lens I have no use for on film, and at least the 21 lenses for 1.3 crop should be smaller and cheaper than the full frame equivalent.

 

I don't think these are unreasonable desires. Sure the M8 is very nice, the image quality is great, and there are lenses available for it, but it could be better

[buckhorn_cortez]

There must be a way to change this thread into a film versus digital battle ....

 

I like the M8, don't have a problem with the "crop factor" ....and would like something totally different....I'd like an ISO 50 or ISO 25 feature because I like to shoot some things at slow shutter speeds with the lens wide open or stopped down only 1 stop. Don't want to add ND filters - would have to somehow hand-hold a gel or acetate on the WATE...

[KM-25]

So you have two choices: Either work within the limitations, or constantly complain about them. I prefer the former.

 

Actually, there are three choices.

 

The third being forget the M8, use one of your fine film M's or a nice 5D-II or D700 with a great prime. No sense in not getting what you want out of your tools when there are the right ones available now with no silly filters or crop factors.

 

M8 sold in the Fall + no regrets = bring on the M9....:

[ErikFive]

I do with what is availible so I really dont care. Of course it would be cool, but id rather live in the present and embrace whatever the future holds when it comes...

[fotografr]

Actually, there are three choices.

 

The third being forget the M8, use one of your fine film M's or a nice 5D-II or D700 with a great prime. No sense in not getting what you want out of your tools when there are the right ones available now with no silly filters or crop factors.

 

M8 sold in the Fall + no regrets = bring on the M9....:

 

It's not always that easy. I share your love of film and that's what draws me to the M8. I think it produces the most film-like image of any digital camera out there. So, you are wondering why I don't just shoot film? Can't do it in my line of work. My clients have gotten used to getting rapid turnaround and I can't give it to them with film. They also don't want to have to take what I give them and have scans and halftones done. So I'm stuck with digital, at least for my paying work. I do use Canons when I have to, but my strong preference is to use the M8--which I do unapologetically and with considerable enjoyment.

[frederics]

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.

 

Since, you have both, how does the selective focus compare between them with say the 50 1.4 & 35f2mm lenses?

 

Thanks

[frederics]

There must be a way to change this thread into a film versus digital battle ....

 

I like the M8, don't have a problem with the "crop factor" ....and would like something totally different....I'd like an ISO 50 or ISO 25 feature because I like to shoot some things at slow shutter speeds with the lens wide open or stopped down only 1 stop. Don't want to add ND filters - would have to somehow hand-hold a gel or acetate on the WATE...

 

Yes, that would be great. just getting a true iso 100 would be nice, as i think the iso 160 runs more like ISO 200

[KM-25]

It's not always that easy. I share your love of film and that's what draws me to the M8. I think it produces the most film-like image of any digital camera out there. So, you are wondering why I don't just shoot film? Can't do it in my line of work. My clients have gotten used to getting rapid turnaround and I can't give it to them with film. They also don't want to have to take what I give them and have scans and halftones done. So I'm stuck with digital, at least for my paying work. I do use Canons when I have to, but my strong preference is to use the M8--which I do unapologetically and with considerable enjoyment.

 

I hear ya, I am not saying you in particular should shoot all film, I was saying that in a general sense. I shoot mostly digital for paying gigs too, but I found more than anything the lack of reliability and above all the constant swapping of IR filters on and off my lenses for color slide work to be more trouble than it was worth, so I bailed on it.

 

When I photographed Obama signing the stimulus bill a few weeks ago, I had a D3 and a F100 in addition to an M3. The film rigs were loaded with Kodachrome ( shocker ) and the D3 got the images my news agency needed asap. Swapping the F100 and D3 around to get both film and digital was seamless, same field of view and more importantly, no IR filters to swap on and off. I will always shoot film so I like my system integration to be faultless and seamless.

 

I think once the IR filter dilemma is gone, I would be more inclined to get a digital M again. Until then, I use my M system subconsciously and with the same result across the board, I really do notice a difference in that approach.

 

But that's just me and I think I have a fairly unique requirement of how digital and film bodies get along...

[frederics]

I had a D3 and a F100 in addition to an M3. The film rigs were loaded with Kodachrome ( shocker ) and the D3 got the images my news agency needed asap. Swapping the F100 and D3 around to get both film and digital was seamless, same field of view and more importantly, no IR filters to swap on and off. I will always shoot film so I like my system integration to be faultless and seamless.

 

I think once the IR filter dilemma is gone, I would be more inclined to get a digital M again. Until then, I use my M system subconsciously and with the same result across the board, I really do notice a difference in that approach.

 

But that's just me and I think I have a fairly unique requirement of how digital and film bodies get along...

 

Interesting way of shooting KM-25. I never gave a thought of the compatibility issue with IR filter. Why not consider just getting an additional lens, so no swapping of filters, especially if you only use a 35 on the M

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[KM-25]

Interesting way of shooting KM-25. I never gave a thought of the compatibility issue with IR filter. Why not consider just getting an additional lens, so no swapping of filters, especially if you only use a 35 on the M

 

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.