Digital M- will it be full frame?

[working camera]

Jeff (www.spirer.com) , nov 28, 2005; 09:52 p.m.

"So which dSLRs have you shot with? ....But tell us which ones you've used and how that experience is different."

 

 

G'day Jeff,

 

nice to see you still haunt the place and still in fine fettle.

 

As I recall the last time I took a photograph was in 1977 with a borrowed Pentax Spotmatic. I don't think that it was a dSLR but.

 

Oh I did see a Hassy H1 wid Kodak back in use once but my job was to steady the model. So I spent the entire afternoon looking up her skirt. So I guess that doesn't count. True storey BTW.

 

I shot some sport with an M3, week before last. Test Cricket got lots of pics of tiny little white specs against a big green background.

[brambor]

<i>Jeff Spirer:

 

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?</i>

 

Jeff I've shot Canon D30 1.6 crop for the past 3 years. I run a hockey league with 40 teams, I am a webmaster for 2 hockey businesses and for the league as well. For those I shot primarily with Canon D30 1.6 crop, although i shot also with M6ttl, M3 and Canon 1V.

<br>

I have recently upgraded to Canon 5D. All I can say is that it has better ISO at 1600 than Canon D30 had at 400. That's the biggest selling point for me. Actually it's low light availability and full frame now are tempting to use in street photography.

<p>

Second selling point is Full Frame. Along with film based Canon 1V I can shot side by side without tinkering with FOV. It means a lot to me. I still prefer the look of film shots, however, the digital shots, in most cases give me the feeling of sterility. The 5D is similar to D30 although the viewfinder is very good compared to any other digital I used.

[malcolm_tentt]

{Then how do you explain pretty much every pj, every celebrity shooter, every sports shooter using a camera with a crop factor?}

 

Jeff me boy they've all been using autofocus too for a dozen years, and most IS/VR as well. Same for the successful ones doing wildlife photography. But you've got to understand that Leica users live in their own wonderland, where one takes pictures to admire the kit, not the other way round as it is in our world.

[steve_swinehart]

Egads...you people talk like a "crop factor" is the end of the world. I shoot: 35mm, 6x6, 6x7, 6x12, and 4x5. I had to "learn" all of the lenses I have for each format. I did. What's the problem with learning FOV with a new camera?

 

I shot with the DMR for two days, and learned the different FOV with that camera. The Digital M will not be full frame. Get used to it.

 

Next, you'll be moaning about the exhorbitant price tag on it - so, you won't be shooting it anyway.

 

Price is next - don't wait, start now >> Gentlemen, start your whines...

[ellis_vener_photography]

<I>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.</I><P>Are you saying that you don't think you'll be capable of learnign what

thoise focal length numbers mean in relation to a different format size? Doubtful becasue

you strike me as an intelligent person. I have large format lenses that I use on three

camera formats, 6x9cm, 4"x5" & 6x17cm. If I can do a pretty good job of keeping in mind

what I'll get with the same lens on all three formats, I think you can too.

[j.martin___]

Re crop factor: As someone who bought an R-D1 without owning any 35mm rangefinder lenses, I bought 35mm and 50mm Voigtlander lenses, and simply think of them as 50mm and 75mm lenses. Maybe it's more of an issue when someone is used to a particular angle of view from a given lens, but it has not been an issue or problem for me.

[lot_wxs]

This month I was at Leica Solms and they told me that the digital M that will be presented at Photokina 2006 will carry the name M8 and it has not the big sensor, but it will have the same size as the DMR, so your M lenses will have a 1,33* narrower field. The sensor will be built by the same company as the one Zeiss cooperates with, so not the same as in the DMR (so we may hope for unpostponed delivery).

 

Apart from that I heard a rumor that the M8 can handle film also, but I can hardly believe that myself.

[ellis_vener_photography]

Bob Atkins writes:<P><I>Nikon have said they aren't going full frame, but whether that's

because they can't afford to or don't want to is debatable.</I><P>No one at Nikon has

ever said any such thing. Nikon's position on 24x36mm sensors , according to the Nikon

executives I'm spoken with , is that they are still studying this possibility for the future.

[terry_rory]

www.leica-camera.com have a chat room every Tues and Thurs from 18:00 CET - 22:00 CET. These are often frequented by Leica personnel to answer specific questions. Register, log on and ask. It does not cost anything.

 

I would never be able to afford a Leica M digital so it is not my place to ask but I am sure those nice Leica chaps could help you on issues like whether it will be FF or film + digital etc etc.

 

Lots of questions about the DMR got answered this way whilst it was undergoing development.

[terry_rory]

For those who dont know how to get out of photo.net here is a link...

 

http://www.leica-camera.com/markt/forum/chat/login/index_e.html

[malcolm_tentt]

{Ellis Vener Photo.net Hero, nov 29, 2005; 01:56 p.m.

Bob Atkins writes:

 

Nikon have said they aren't going full frame, but whether that's because they can't afford to or don't want to is debatable.

 

No one at Nikon has ever said any such thing.}

 

Catfight!

[harvey_edelstein1]

Their still studying !!! More like waiting to see how the Canon 5D sells and how many more Nikon users sell their gear on ebay and go Canon.

 

Last week someone posted that the 5D is selling at a reliable computer store for $3,000. Some Leica R and Zeiss Contax users have adapters and are using their wide angle lenses on Canon FF dslr and are getting good results, better than with Canons WA lenses.

 

The L series Canon lenses seem to work best for normal wide angle and longer lenses and of course a 35mm, 50mm and 85mm field of view is the same as on their film counterpart so film backup is possible.

[Troll]

What is the big deal? They don't have to build a new camera. Just take the M6, replace the pressure plate with a digital sensor on the back door, resize the frame lines, and attach a digital control and power module like the present winder. How difficult can that be?

[simonpg]

I had a closer read of comments here last night. Three things in particular AMAZE me and IMHO lead to some anticipation!

 

1. HOW MANY STEPS BACKWARD for a few steps forward? - we all know that 135 format is the "small format" and was "invented" to enable convenient shooting from compact equipment. Since then Leica lead the way in optical quality and rangefinder (the most compact of 135 format) design.

 

It is misleading to compare a cropped image's impact on a SLR camera to a rangefinder camera. In SLR land (as Canon users can chose and Nikon users must adapt to) a cropped image can have benefits in telephoto shooting. But rangefinders are not practical telephoto shooting cameras (even Leica limits its focal length to 135mm on M cameras).

 

And, since the 135 format was "invented" other "cropped 135 format frames" entered the market and were ultimately a failure, such as: half frame (Olympus); APS and 110. Why? Because the film size was too limited to enable quality enlargements of any really useful size. A full 135 format frame has been enduring since it allowed useful enlargements from even that relatively small piece of film. Smaller frame equipment had insufficient practical benefits to make the significant enlargement limitations worthwhile so ultimately these died.

 

SO WHY on earth would everyone be so willing to accept cropped digital frames with all the optical and image implications that go with it.

 

WHY would we continue to invest in Leica optics when faced with these limitations.

 

Digital has certainly involved many steps backwards in imaging quality to gain a few steps forward (and I am not anti- digital but I don't want to take so many steps backward myself).

 

So for Leica M users, and as said by many above here, a cropped digital frame has very very wide-reaching implications that may see resistance to a cropped frame digital M.

 

So a Leica M user who prefers say a 35mm or a 50mm lens as a "normal" lens and does not shoot wide angle (21, 24 or even 28mm) would be "forced" to outlay significant money to by a 28mm, 24mm or even a 21mm lens to achieve his "normal AOV! I can see resistance to that even if he benefits from increased DOF characteristics from his new "normal" lens.

 

2. IMAGE QUALITY and the ability to resolve what Leica optics resolve - today film enables Leica users to "see" the full (or most anyway) capabilities of Leica optics. Why would they accept a digital M which uses a sensor that does not achieve the same resolving quality (and as said by the Leica CEO). But these qualities IMHO are not just the resolving power - they include the characteristics of the focal length's AOV and DOF characteristics.

 

Agian, WHY would we continue to invest in Leica optics when faced with these limitations?

 

Harvey E and Rene B make these points well.

 

A cropped frame messes with that and as said by many above - where would a digital M fit among users' M kits if it involves such cropping and changed AOV and DOF characteristics?

 

More than in any other manufacturer's case, Leica users have not just a huge investment in Leica optics, but a huge commitment to these optics' attributes. Good cameras lead to multiple lens sales!

 

3. LEARNING FROM PAST EXPERIENCE - Leica has experienced many periods of user backlash when it has introduced new products - it's greatest advantage (user loyalty) is also its greatest threat (abandonment).

 

The introduction of the M5 and its poor take up was one thing; but, the introduction of the M6TTL and M7 with their logical enhancements were still met with some shock/horror. The marketing exercise necessary must have been very expensive. The MP helped overcome some of that shock - M6 classic and earlier M users finally had "somewhere to go" as the MP maintained the legacy of mechanical components and traditional functionality such as shutter dial direction etc..

 

Most earlier comments ignored a key factor of a cropped image, which Jochen picked up - the viewfinder! One of Leica M's key attributes - so how will that be handled?

 

AL OF THIS IS SAYING to my mind that a cropped image will ensure the digital M is not an M camera at all and maybe should not be called that or Leica risks an expensive backlash from loyal M users.

 

 

But it could get worse.

 

Think about this: Leica M cameras - a mostly battery independent camera (even the M7 can be used without batteries allbeit on 2 shutter speeds only - but my point stands), will become TOTALLY battery dependent.

 

An instrument mostly used with 50mm, 35mm and even 28mm focal lengths with all of their optical attributes that will become confused by a cropped image size.

 

An instrument backed by superlative hand made optics with a tradition of use and imaging characteristics now altered by a cropped image size.

 

An ideal low light instrument matched to film's increasing resolving power in such very low light that enables superb ambient light images now limited by digital sensor technology where today such low light and super fine film (low speed) characteristics are not equalled. The first itteration will be the most important one.

 

An "environment proof" camera in extreme cold and heat due to its mechanics and construction with limited electronics, will become environment sensitive.

 

And then think of it physically (despit how masterfully Leica's design and engineering teams may dsign it): all the extra buttons and menue garbage that GET IN THE WAY OF CREATIVE thinking (just as Leica has promoted against for many many decades in the battle against super elecronic Japanese cameras) for things like white balance, colour balance, various imaging settings - all in addition to basic shutter and aperture controls.

 

How could it be an M camera?

 

And then what about the seemingly essential rear LCD screen............ a digital M? Nope, just another digi rangefinder even if it is well executed.

 

While Epson's digital rangefinder has been well executed it still has SO MANY LIMITATIONS compared to a good film rangefinder. Not the least of which are the viewfinder magnification, lens focal length characteristics and ultimate image quality.

 

Wow, Leica is taking a big risk calling whatever it is a digital M! A very tough gig!

[tom_halfhill]

I think this thread has wandered way off track...

 

My reason for posting the focal-length table wasn't to protest the idea of a crop factor, but instead to protest a crop factor that doesn't make sense with existing lenses. A factor of 1.5x makes the most sense (to me), because it converts to the most familiar and popular Leica focal lengths. A factor of 1.33x makes less sense (to me), because it converts to mostly oddball focal lengths.

 

Sure, Leica could introduce an odd crop factor along with several new lenses to compensate for it. But compatibility with existing lenses is supposedly the reason for designing a Digital M in the first place. Anybody who's willing to invest in a bunch of new lenses along with a new camera might be tempted to switch to a different camera system. Presumably, Leica wants to keep those customers in the M system.

 

Someone mentioned cropping the pictures in Photoshop to turn 1.33x into the equivalent of 1.5x. But the viewfinder frames will show the fields of view at 1.33x, not what the pictures would look like after cropping later in Photoshop. The photographer would have to imagine a 1.5x frame within the 1.33x frame and shoot to crop. That's no way to shoot intuitively.

 

My point isn't to achieve a certain pixel resolution. My point is to use a camera whose framelines show fields of view that are familiar to those of us who have been using 35mm, 50mm, and 90mm lenses as if they were second nature. The Epson RD-1 crop factor of 1.5x preserves that compatibility. The only other crop factor that makes sense (to me) is none -- in other words, full frame. But I think that's too expensive now, even for Leica.

[andrew robertson]

The only 'limitation' of the R-D1 is the crop factor, and with the much better high ISO

performance of the R-D1 compared to a film camera, and the new breed of ultra wide

lenses, this is only barely just a limitation.

 

When Leica eventually does release their digital M, even if it's only half the camera of the

Epson it'll garner thrice the praise (and an equal multiplier in price) just because it's a

Leica.

 

Bottom line? If you so desperately want a digital M, you can have one today. It might not

be perfect, but it is damn good.

[harvey_edelstein1]

The chart told me that in addition to my line up of 35mm f2; 50mm f2 and 90mm f2.8 I would need to get a 24mm f2 and still I would not have a replacement for my 90mm FOV. I never felt at home with the Leica 75mm lens because it was not selective enough so the my 50mm would wind up being a focal length that is not tight enough. If I bought another $2000 dollar lens the 75mm f2 then it would wind up a long 112mm lens, too far in the other direction. All these years I used only 3 portrait lenses on my 35mm cameras. On my Pentax LX I have a 90mm f2.5 macro, on my Nikon F100 I use an 85mm f1.4 afd and on my Leica the 90mm f2.8. I have tried 105mm and 135mm also and didn't click as well as the 85-90mm lenses they just seem to right for the distance I work from the subject and provide natural look to the pictures.

 

This is why folks who like the simple 35- 50- 90 kit spacing reject buying high priced Leica wider angle lenses just to give us what we got already and we would need a 60mm lens to be introduced just to give us our 90mm fov. Lets budget a cheap $3000 for the two lenses and add it to the camera body budget instead and we get a full frame sensor M digital rangefinder body instead of the crop factor body and then forget about needing the additional lenses. When I take the Leica kit bag I like that I have 3 small lenses and a compact camera. Better than needing 5 lenses and two bodies one digital and one film.

[andrew robertson]

You might try a bit of flexibility. You may not be able to get the exact fields of view back,

but you certainly could do ultra-wide, wide, normal, and tele.

 

The difference between a 55mm lens on the R-D1 (at 85 equiv) and a 90 is minimal.

 

If you can't adjust to a very small field of view difference, you should probably abandon

the idea of getting a digital RF altogether.

 

But it doesn't hurt me one bit if you and folks who are not able to make minor

adjustments don't buy a DRF. It only hurts you (or maybe not). But if you ache and yearn

for a digital RF, you will have to make some adjustments whether it's from Leica or Epson

or Konica or whoever.

[andrew robertson]

BTW, the 21 * the 1.53 crop of the R-D1 comes in at a comfortable 32mm, right between a

35 and a 28. I really like the view.

[simonpg]

Harvey - spot on!

 

Andrew, you make it sound simple, but just like Harvey says, it is not that simple, by a long shot.

 

And, "the only limitation of the RD1 is the crop factor...". IMHO that is not the only limitation - again too simplistic. Just as Leica failed to do in the past as thoroughly as it might have; one needs to think through the deeper implications of any change brought about by a new model - especially one called a Leica M. Fine for point-and-shoot for happy snappers lloking for Leica quality. Not fine enough for dedicated rangefinder shooters seeking superlative quality in product and imaging.

 

The RD1 viewfinder/rangefinder has limitations that virtually eliminate traditional 135 format rangefinder users (Leica ones especially) from owning one - restricting the use of traditional "normal" lenses of 35mm and 28mm (as become more common in the past 10 years) and their full characteristics.

 

Secondly, the sensor has good quality imaging but nowhere near the standard of a Leica M with film.

 

Finally while it has a reasonable ISO range compared with other digital cameras - it is not up with Leica M film cameras nor is its performance at each end of the range up to the Leica lens resolving power in terms of image quality.

 

Near enough will not be good enough in the case of a digital M.

[bill_marshall1]

And then there's the cost factor . . .

 

Harvey says that he's now going to need a 24/2 to replace his 35/2. But where will he find a 24/2? Nowhere right now.

 

Let's assume that Leica can make one. Let's assume that it will cost the same $500 for the extra stop that it costs for the extra stop on a 28 mm lens. Well, since the 24/2.8 costs $2600, a 24/2 will cost $3100.

 

So not only will a 24/2 replace a 35/2, but a $3100 price tag will replace a $2000 price tag. And there's no buying this one on the used market.

 

Bill

[bill_marshall1]

Oh, yeah, and imagine the cost of a 24 Summilux to replace the 35 Summilux. I shudder at the thought.

 

Bill

[andrew robertson]

By many accounts a 6 MP sensor is about as good as film.

 

I have printed up to 20x30 inches from a 6 MP sensor, and the results are fantastic.

 

But, as I said above, if the crop factor will kill the deal for you with the R-D1 it will with the

digital M as well.

[socke]

What is most funny IMHO is the film resolution argument. Yes, most slow slide films have very fine grain, no doubt about it. But you are hard pressed to get the resolution out of the film, except when projected.

On the other hand, color rendition and exposure latitude aren't that great. You have to switch film for different lighting and blown out highlights are common with slide film.

A $10,000 filmscanner as an alternative to a $5000 DSLR or digital RF? Not for me!

 

Then exposure latitude, jep Tri-X is much better than current digital solutions. But then we have a DMax of 1.8 in silver prints and get more than 3 out of the digital sensors. At least I can deal with less exposure latitude and less dynamic range as long as it is in the region of slide films. The better digital sensors give us 5 to 7 stops at the moment, more than I can get on paper.

 

And now to shutter lag, no SLR, wether digital or not, is as fast as a rangefinder. There is a mirror which has to be moved out of the way before the shutter is opened! A digital rangefinder won't have this problem.

Then there is the problem of AF speed, no, it's no problem! No AF with Leica lenses :-)

 

That leaves me with the crop factor as my biggest problem. The widest frame on the RD-1 is for the 28mm lens which provides the FoV of a 42mm lens on 135 film. I mostly shoot 35 or 28mm now and so the widest frame on the RD-1 is not wide enough for me, an external viewfinder is not an option!

Same problem with cropped dSLRs. I don't want a slow 10-22 zoom to replace a fast 35 or reasonably fast 28! F4 doesn't cut it for me.

 

If they give me a viewfinder with at least 60 degree FoV and a matching f2 lens, I'm in without looking at the crop factor, if not, hey, what was the price for an Imacon scanner?

[tom_halfhill]

Theoretically, a 24mm f/2 (to replace a 35mm f/2 with a 1.5x sensor) could cost less to make than has been suggested, because it wouldn't have to cover the same image circle as a 24mm f/2 for a film camera. But that's only in theory. In practice, Leica's small production runs and high build quality account for more manufacturing cost than the savings of making a slightly smaller lens.

 

I think Harvey has made the best point in this discussion. If existing Leica users have to buy even one lens to fill the focal-length gaps created by a small sensor, then the price of that lens could cover the price difference between a small-sensor camera and a full-frame sensor camera. Especially at Leica lens prices. And chances are, existing Leica users would have to buy at least two new lenses to fill the focal-length gaps.

 

So for existing Leica M users, a full-frame sensor makes the most sense. For newcomers to Leica, it matters less or not at all.