Digital M- will it be full frame?

[lb-]

as long as it plays MP3's I'm happy.

[Spearhead]

<i>I understand that aspect, but most M have a shutter trip delay of around 12 ms. Most SLRs are in the triple digits.</i><p>

 

So which dSLRs have you shot with? The difference is miniscule for most of them. But tell us which ones you've used and how that experience is different.<p>

 

Here's a better test. Offer your Leica M to any professional sports shooter working with a Canon 1D MkII or the equivalent Nikon in exchange for their camera. See how many take you up.

[harvey_edelstein1]

Several years ago Pophoto's Keppler stated that the magazine had concluded that to equal the best film (something like Velvia) in the best camera/lens camera (for sure Leica) of the 35mm format size film would need at least 24MP digital to equal the resolution of film.

 

Dpreview stated in a comparison test of the Nikon D2x vs. Canon 1ds mII stated that the Nikon D2x only had +/- .75 stop latitude, the Canon was several stops in either direction equaling slide film. The color print film is still easier to use when your subject has wide range of highlight to shadow detail. Even the Canon is not yet at 24mp so while digital is good and getting better we are all not kooks for living in our reality where great lenses and good film still have a prominent role in photography. While high ISO detail on the Canon is better than film lugging arround a monster sized camera for handheld shooting is not getting my camera lust going, Leica sized cameras are more my desire.

[Spearhead]

I can't imagine anyone quoting Keppler as an expert in this area.

 

Oh wait, someone just did.

[EricM]

The D2x has 37 ms shutter lag...Most Canon DSLR's are up around 50. But wuld anyone notice? doubt it.

 

One thing I want is the manufactures to start offering a raw file size option. So on the fly we can chose, like iso and white balance, if we want a 4 meg raw, 6, 10 or 16 meg file. It seems pointless to capture everything at such a huge size if one knows they will never print a bus stop poster with it. Those 1dsmkII owners must spend alot of time in front of computer pondering this while going to 4x6 jpg's...

[EricM]

"Several years ago Pophoto's Keppler stated that the magazine had concluded that to equal the best film (something like Velvia) in the best camera/lens camera (for sure Leica) of the 35mm format size film would need at least 24MP digital to equal the resolution of film."

 

he and many others where proven wrong. it was all speculation at that time while they needed 70 meg drum scans to match slide. but sensors got better and now 6meg dslr's surpass drum scanned slide, in my experience at least.

[andrew robertson]

They already have a digital M.

 

Epson and Cosina make it. It works great. It's here today. And, it's much cheaper than the

eventual Leica brand digital M that'll come out.

[jtdnyc]

There's a simple solution for people who would prefer a 1.5 crop factor rather than a 1.3: shoot with the 1.3 -- which is most likely what Leica will produce -- and then crop it down!

 

Sure, you'd be "wasting" part of the sensor area that way...but it's the part of the sensor that wouldn't be there in the first place if Leica granted your wish and made the sensor smaller, which is what a greater crop factor really means.

 

Ellis hit the nail on the head when he said that some of us just don't want to change, but I think the reasons why are worth thinking about. I have a substantial investment in M glass and I'm not talking about finances here. The real investment is that I can pretty much visualize what each of my 5 lenses will cover before I raise the camera to my eye. That's a "feature" of the M system that I'd like to preserve.

 

Unfortunately, it seems to be the case that the present M glass, the wide-angles in particular, will not produce images up to Leica standards on a full frame sensor. I've whined about this in a thread earlier this year, but I think it's time for me (and perhaps others) to accept the technological reality and move on.

 

So, given all the apparent constraints, here's my personal solution: my 35 will probably have the field of view of that a 46 would have on film, which obviously includes the field of view of the 50 on film. So, if I wish I had the field of view of the 50, I'll shoot with the 35 and give the image a haircut. Just a trim, actually.

 

Or keep shooting film for a while longer, depending on the price of the digital M.

[harvey_edelstein1]

And film continues to get better too so maybe the best films offer more resolution than their estimates. Anyway correcting for blown highlights and trying to get shadow detail where none exists is also a problem that has to be solved. Also, what about CA on wide angle shots and uneven center to edge lighting we have seen in tests shown by DPReview and others. Its not yet a slam dunk that 35mm films obituary has been written, some things digital without a doubt is better for but blanket putdowns of film system which except for high end items like Leicas are usually one fifth the cost per image quality of dslrs makes no sense. I don't really care for having my focal lengths converted via digital sensor cropping factors. It doesn't help that the digital M would have different viewfinder frames to show the new framing. And, affording a digital Leica I am sure would take a lot of money, but buying even more Leica lenses to compensate for the crop factor would be really too darn expensive and now amount of savings on film would add up to the systems initial cost including printer, storage, programs and computers.

[jeff_wilson13]

<Oh wait, someone just did.>

 

You're safe from being quooted as an expert.

[Spearhead]

Well he sure ducked it. Quoting someone on some old data that is completely discredited works well on political forums, a bit harder to pass here...

[Spearhead]

And I look forward to being "quooted", whatever that means.

[brambor]

Crop factor sucks. Period.

<p>

Few examples come to my mind.

<p>

For example the lack of fast lenses F2 and F1.4 below 35mm. If you wanted to shoot M with a relative 35mm field of view you would have shoot at 2.8 wide open.

<p>

The more specialized the lenses get (I.e. Superwides) the larger the they get. Forget petite 35mm summicron if you want to shoot 35mm FOV on Dm8

<p>

If you wanted to carry a DM and a M film backup body and shoot the same scene with both bodies it would become a real nightmare with all the conversions. You would not be able to do that reliably.

I tried this with Canon D30 and Canon 1V and got fed up with it.

<p>

Of course if you only wanted to shoot 50mm FOV then 35mm summilux would do the trick but I believe you would long for the wider spectrum real soon.

<p>

IMHO I want a camera where 24mm lens gives you a 24mm FOV shot and 50mm gives you 50mm and so on. Let's call a spade a spade. I see all these Canon users prior 5D buying 15mm lenses and rationalizing every step. When they switched to 5D full frame all of a sudden they would admit how much they missed the return to 'normalcy'

[Spearhead]

<i>Crop factor sucks. Period.</i><p>

 

Then how do you explain pretty much every pj, every celebrity shooter, every sports shooter using a camera with a crop factor? I shoot sports professionally, nobody would use anything else, but you seem to know better. How is that? What have you done with cameras that have a crop factor?

[brambor]

...and btw, just give me the full frame M and let me decide to crop the vigneting if - don't like it.

[mike-images]

As I recall there was a thread here recently quoting Leica execs at the LHSA annual meeting. The guts of it were that it was a 1.33 crop factor and a 20ms lag time goal. See the detail here:

 

<a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00E277"> Digital M</a></p>

 

 

Regards

 

Mike

[simonpg]

All comments by Leica staff and distributors are in line with the CEO's very first comments about a digital M - it will be full frame.

 

Herein lies Leica's greatest challenge as it becomes a dual media company - an M digital. It will need to be full frame; resolve the full capability of Leica M lenses; offer a very wide exposure range (say 100 to 3200 as at least) - or it will risk a "still born" baby. Why? Leica M devotees who would be the quickest buyers will not be satisfied with less. The cashflow needs after development will be very dependant upon current users (already sold on the brand) taking up the new digital M at a very fast rate.

 

Re: Nikon and full frame. As Glenn rightly comments, the D5 is the deepest stab in the guts for Nikon yet. Now Nikon can not resort to "self-justification" of non-full frame sensors much longer. The longer it ignores the inevitible, Canon's market lead gets wider and wider.

 

It's probably even fair to say that many Nikon SLR devotees only remain so because of thier huge investment in Nikon optics. Certainly Canon digital SLR users are happier while Canon offers the most compelling range of digital SLR choices in the game.

 

If you doubt this then ask this of yourself: if I were to be a new entrant into the digiatl SLR market without any legacy lenses to worry about, what would I buy - Canon or Nikon? I bet the answer 80% give is Canon.

 

I will be amazed (and depressed to see Leica shrivel up) if the digital M is anything but full frame. If its current film M users are not the quickest to dive in and buy one, the rest of the market will be way slower to buy if much at all and Leica's fate will be even clearer.

 

And of course, all of this is IMHO!

[Jochen_S]

Well spoken, Eric!

 

I'm waiting for the digital M, at least to lower RD1 prices and crop factor doesn't matter as much as others believe. - O.K. I'm no seasoned pro doing 5 rolls a day, but well, I tried out various formats / systems without cursing why some lenses aren't offering the same AOV like these I started with and can only believe that most people seem to know which lens in a moderate collection might fit best to a certain subject, but there is still some recomposing, moving etc.

 

Ask some seasoned PJ, shooting zooms now, if he's able to predict the zoom setting, I doubt attempts to be very exact. There are stats that zooms are used most at their ends, but I'd doubt there would be a big significance of shots taken at the 35 or 50mm setting of 28-80mm zooms, if data recording was available for evaluation.

 

The primary benefit of a FFsensor might be shooting film and digital side by side during a learning phase. I did it once to try out my new M3 during a concert, but can't imagine situations demanding exactly similar angle of view of both camera systems. If there's no time to walk, there will quite probably be no time to switch between cameras too.

 

From my personal experience digital is worth coping with a crop factor and this is much cheaper and sooner available than waiting for lenses which are optimized to deal with FF sensors and adding a WA won't break your neck.

[Jochen_S]

Sorry, I delayed the previous posting too much.

 

Simon, I believe a Real M should sell better than a Epson because it will offer a RF enableing the user to focus even fast Leica glass, which might be the final argument to buy that camera if one has longer 'luxes or a Noctilux, while the Epson seems to be already challenged with a 50mm 'cron.

 

Among the rumors around there has never been a quote of the framelines available with a digital M. -Will there be one for 135mm or at least for 90mm? Will they start at 21mm with this and 24mm always visible to keep the 0.72 finder in production maybe with a extra switch to disable the lines activated by the 2 widest Leica lenses? Will there be extra camera mountable goggles for 90 and 135mm to increase the finder magnification?

[EricM]

it would be simple enough to hold a 'frameline' button while toggling through a selection of focal lenghts in the menu and volia! there they are in the vf.

 

dealing with crop factors and the complaints seem to come from those that have never delt with them? our papa's at one point had to get used to switching film formats and hence aov, dof changes etc etc and i'm sure we all can too...

 

i'm telling ya guys, you really don't want ff on a 10 meg or better digital camera. this seems to be the threshold of surpassing the limits of glass and a ff sensor will surely disapoint some holding such a high regard for leica glass. just ask the canon people. and they don't even have a decent wide angle. too bad they can't couple up with a Nikkor...

 

Simon, have you shot both a 5D and a D2x? I have. I think anyone considering these two without an investment in glass would pony up the few extra bucks for the D2x. When the D200 comes out, it wont even be an issue. The 5d sure feels like a plastic peice of consumer junk with a crapy view finder an slow af. Sure Canon was/is the first to pump out the next greatest model for mega pixels, like the digi rebel, but then it gets hammered by the slow pokes, and out comes the d70. there's some honest posters in the eos forum that wish for Nikons build quality, less duds off the shelf, view finders, ittl flash, cam 2000 af, etc etc. Big deal, the Nikon crowd had to buy a wide angle or two, ones that are flawless, and in the meantime got super fast glass. Tried a 85/1.4 on a 1.5 dslr? nice. so is the 70-200 2.8 zoom. and the 300 2.8? the list goes on, i'm sure you get it. but ask a canon user what all that glass would cost...And isn't the best performance of a lens the center most part and becomes weeker towards the outer edges? why would you want to record that anyway with any medium, ff or film? And what, 50 odd years of great nikon glass that meters on most of their dslrs? Shouldn't cost much to get kitted up with what really counts, the glass.

 

FF senors have a huge high iso noise advantage over the smaller choices. Surprised no one mentioned it.

[gene_e._mccluney]

It is logical to assume that the sensor will be the same as used in the Leica DMR back for

the "R" series reflexes. They already have the programming worked out for this sensor, as

well as the electronics. To introduce a "new" made in Germany digital camera so quickly

(for Leica) would suggest that as many pre-existing parts as possible will be used. The

10mp sensor used in the DMR is bigger than APS but not full frame. a compromise. We

already know that the shutter will be essentially the same as used in the "R" reflexes. If

Leica use the same shutter and sensor and electronics in both DMR back and new Digital

M, then the design and programming costs can be amortized over a larger quantity of

units. Also, If Sensors are like all other electronic parts, then Leica can get a larger

quantity discount from Kodak (the sensor manufacturer) if they require more sensors.

Remember, Leica is a teeny-tiny company compared to the Japanese camera juggernauts.

They can't afford to start from scratch for each camera every couple of years, no matter

what the have to sell the cameras for. A 10mp sensor is a nice jump from the 6mp of the

Epson RD-1.

 

Gene McCluney

[brambor]

To Jeff Spirer - Jeff, I believe that major reasons for some sport's photographers shooting cropped sensors are related to frame rate and availability than a simple prefference for cropped sensor.

<p>

A 1.3 sensor is basically a Full frame sensor with the edges cut out. It does not magnify an image it simply doesn't catch the edges of the lense's field of view. If sports photographers had a FF camera with MP boosted and frame rage of !DMarkII they would preffer that and then crop their image if necessary. I'm sure they would want to use their wide angle lenses and not slow fisheye bubbles.

<p>

A cropped senspr is an intermediate solution dictated by the state of Leica's R&D and economics.

[anthony_brookes5]

Why do you want a full frame? Experts appear to say that Canon digital doesn't use the full frame to its limits because of the lenses. Better to have a 2/3rds frame with a top class lens.

[brambor]

I hate to say this on a Leica forum because I prefer Leica lenses over Canon's but many Canon's lenses (especially their L line) are good enough for FF sensor.

[working camera]

Rene Braun , nov 29, 2005; 07:16 a.m.

I hate to say this on a Leica forum because I prefer Leica lenses over Canon's but many Canon's lenses (especially their L line) are good enough for FF sensor.

 

Rene I don't see why your assertion should be considered controversial at all. Lots of Canon lenses are wonderful optically.

 

The weird thing was, that when the 1Ds was initially released Canon's reps by inference started talking down their own lenses inorder to make their new "full frame" sensor look good. The general assumption then took hold in Canon circles, that if the sensor is so good, image quality issues from the 1Ds must lay with the optics. Everybody started talking about colour fringing as chromatic aberration and what not.