Ad
Ad
Ad
Poll
Question: Why do you own a digital M Leica?  (Voting closed: October 30, 2011, 07:03:58 AM)
Because I prefer shooting with a rangefinder. - 9 (45%)
Because I want to use Leica and other M lenses. - 11 (55%)
Total Voters: 20

Pages: « 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: M Leica – Camera or Lenses?  (Read 79802 times)
erickb
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 235


WWW
« Reply #120 on: April 17, 2012, 10:33:57 PM »
ReplyReply

But 54MP doesn't hurt
with any of the bests lenses in the world you will get diffraction at f/8
why do you need 54mp ?   do you plan to print 3 meters posters ?
Logged
shadowblade
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 689


« Reply #121 on: April 17, 2012, 11:25:16 PM »
ReplyReply

with any of the bests lenses in the world you will get diffraction at f/8
why do you need 54mp ?   do you plan to print 3 meters posters ?


Yes. For viewing at 10cm as well as appreciating from afar.

Sure, you'll get some decreased contrast at f/8 at the pixel level, but you will still continue to gain overall resolution. And, even regarding a circle of confusion of 0.008 as being sharp (as opposed to the usual 0.03, which isn't really all that sharp) you can still shoot most landscapes at f/6.3. At worst, you won't suffer a huge hit by stopping down to f/10 for more DOF - and, if tilt becomes available, all bets are off the table.
Logged
erickb
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 235


WWW
« Reply #122 on: April 17, 2012, 11:30:36 PM »
ReplyReply

54mp on 24x36   is the worst that can happen in digital photography
Logged
shadowblade
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 689


« Reply #123 on: April 17, 2012, 11:48:44 PM »
ReplyReply

54mp on 24x36   is the worst that can happen in digital photography

It's the same pixel pitch as 24MP on the NEX-7 - and that camera has great IQ even at the pixel level. 54MP would make it two-and-a-quarter NEX-7s stuck together, with the advantage of a 14- or 16-bit A/D converter.

And, if it's depth of field you're worried about, then there's no point to 80MP on the IQ180 either - the larger photosites are cancelled out by the longer focal lengths used.
Logged
erickb
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 235


WWW
« Reply #124 on: April 18, 2012, 12:39:00 AM »
ReplyReply

there is no reasons to get 54 mp , no needs and no reasons 99.99...% of photographers pro or not never print over A2
« Last Edit: April 18, 2012, 12:40:33 AM by erickb » Logged
shadowblade
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 689


« Reply #125 on: April 18, 2012, 12:42:15 AM »
ReplyReply

there is no reason to get 54 mp , no needs and no reasons

Why not, if the technology is there?

If the concern is pixel pitch, then there's no reason for the NEX-7 (same pixel pitch as 54MP full-frame), 7D (45MP full-frame) or D7000 (36MP full-frame) either.

If the concern is total megapixel count, then there's no reason for the IQ160, IQ180, P65+ and any number of other MF backs either, nor is there a reason for large-format film.
Logged
erickb
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 235


WWW
« Reply #126 on: April 18, 2012, 01:02:16 AM »
ReplyReply

Why not, if the technology is there?

If the concern is pixel pitch, then there's no reason for the NEX-7 (same pixel pitch as 54MP full-frame), 7D (45MP full-frame) or D7000 (36MP full-frame) either.

If the concern is total megapixel count, then there's no reason for the IQ160, IQ180, P65+ and any number of other MF backs either, nor is there a reason for large-format film.
when you buy a IQ 180 you need it for your job , I am not really sure it is the same situation for a Sony Nex 7

if there is no needs for so many pixels why do you want to buy it ?  me not
Logged
shadowblade
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 689


« Reply #127 on: April 18, 2012, 01:25:00 AM »
ReplyReply

when you buy a IQ 180 you need it for your job , I am not really sure it is the same situation for a Sony Nex 7

if there is no needs for so many pixels why do you want to buy it ?  me not


Because, with a high enough resolution and sharp enough lens, you'd be able to use a 35mm sensor for things you'd previously require a MF back to shoot - effectively, you'd be able to replace the MF back for all but the most specialised purposes. 54MP on a full-frame sensor equates to 150ppi on a 40x60" print - a fairly significant milestone. At 21MP, you're getting just 96ppi.

Theoretically, an 80MP MF sensor should have no advantage over an 80MP 35mm sensor, apart from high ISO capability. In practice, it doesn't have an ISO advantage either, because all current MF sensors use CCD rather than CMOS technology. The 35mm sensor will be diffraction-limited at a wider aperture, but this is offset exactly by the fact that the MF sensor needs to be shot at a narrower aperture to achieve the same depth of field. The 35mm sensor requires more precise lenses, but it's easier to build a precise lens to cover a 35mm sensor (plus movements) than to build one to cover a MF sensor (plus movements). The MF sensor, built using the same technology as the 35mm sensor, will have less per-pixel noise, but, owing to the narrower aperture, will need to be shot at a higher ISO to achieve the same depth of field at the same shutter speed. Therefore, the MF back will only have an advantage when shutter speed doesn't matter - if you can expose for as long as you like and have the cameras on a tripod, the MF sensor will give a cleaner image, at the expense of having a shutter speed 3 to 4 times as long (the difference in total sensor area between the two sensors).
Logged
erickb
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 235


WWW
« Reply #128 on: April 18, 2012, 01:26:59 AM »
ReplyReply

Because, with a high enough resolution and sharp enough lens, you'd be able to use a 35mm sensor for things you'd previously require a MF back to shoot
only if you need it   , who need it ?
and no it will never replace a sensor twice larger
Logged
shadowblade
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 689


« Reply #129 on: April 18, 2012, 01:58:00 AM »
ReplyReply

only if you need it   , who need it ?
and no it will never replace a sensor twice larger

Even if you don't need it, there's no harm in having it - particularly if there's a pixel binning option for those who are desperate to save disk space.

There's no technical reason it can't replace a sensor twice the size with the same megapixel count for almost every purpose, bar extremely thin DOF shots. The larger sensor's only advantage is twice as many photons per pixel. But to collect these photons takes twice as much time, if depth of field is to remain the same (you'd have to shoot at a narrower f-stop to achieve the same DOF). It takes a narrower f-stop before diffraction kicks in, but this is exactly offset by the narrower f-stop needed for the same DOF as a 35mm sensor. If you're shooting with an f-stop depth that isn't affected by diffraction (around f/5 on a full-frame 80MP sensor, or f/8 on a 54x36mm 80MP sensor) and can either increase your light source (e.g. flash) or lengthen your exposure time (tripod and non-moving subject) you can get a cleaner image from the MF sensor, although this is marginal at low ISO anyway. Other than that, you won't get any real advantage from the MF sensor. And, to top it off, f/5 on full frame and f/8 on a 54x36mm sensor (i.e. both just short of diffraction limited at 80MP) will give you exactly the same depth of field when shooting at focal lengths that give the same angle of view!
Logged
erickb
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 235


WWW
« Reply #130 on: April 18, 2012, 02:08:00 AM »
ReplyReply

I give up
Logged
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12215


« Reply #131 on: April 18, 2012, 10:39:08 AM »
ReplyReply

The 35mm sensor requires more precise lenses, but it's easier to build a precise lens to cover a 35mm sensor (plus movements) than to build one to cover a MF sensor (plus movements).




Man, where were you some weeks ago when I fought a lonely corner stating exactly that in another thread to do with using larger format lenses on smaller cameras, the expectation of those suggesting it being that they'd get better results doing that because larger format lenses covered larger areas, but not understanding that the appearance of higher quality from the larger lenses was because of the lower magnification to reach the same size of print from both formats, not that the larger format lens was as good as the 35mm format lens within the 35mm format area and beyond.

Sometimes, like erickb, I too feel like giving up.

;-)

Rob C
Logged

Jorge Recio
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7


« Reply #132 on: May 03, 2012, 06:40:16 PM »
ReplyReply

99.99...% of photographers pro or not never print over A2

so, there is a lot of people that would want to print over A2

oops
Logged
Sam Kanga
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1


« Reply #133 on: May 17, 2012, 09:35:49 AM »
ReplyReply

Hello Michael,

I’ve been shooting for many years, so it’s been mostly film. Sadly, I cannot afford an M9, however, as more appear on the used market, chances are that I will have one sooner or later. I typically stay off the forums, however I do enjoy your site, and would like to contribute to this discussion.

To answer your question, yes, I do like shooting with a rangefinder, or perhaps even a small size camera for that matter, as most of my photography requires that I am quick and unobtrusive, and a small camera lends itself to that. It is certainly possible to shoot that way with a larger and noisier camera, the small camera just makes it easier (“chapeau” to the photographers who use larger cameras).

My goal is to find a smallish digital camera that will let me work as quickly and confidently as the rangefinders. I haven’t tried the Nex-7 in any real situation, and the X-pro1 apparently has slowish auto-focus (I only had a chance to play with it at the Fuji event in Toronto, so I don’t know about that).

One can be blazing fast with rangefinders – I only know the Leica Ms, but I’m sure the Zeiss are just as quick. With the simple Leicas, I can be fast, rarely miss a shot, and can’t think of 10 shots I’ve missed in 30 years due to focus. I've missed way more shots because I've not been prepared (the 8th deadly sin, I believe). Regarding lenses – they’re lovely! I really only go between my 50, 2 Summicron, 35, 2.8 Summaron (both probably from the 60’s) and occasionally the 28, 2.8 Rokkor. I guess I could really use the tri-elmar.

In the interest of keeping this response short-ish, I'll keep it at that.

Sam
Logged
Pingang
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 117


« Reply #134 on: May 22, 2012, 02:23:07 AM »
ReplyReply

A Poll For Those Owning a Leica M8 or M9 Only

I'm working on an article on the future of rangefinder cameras. I have my own ideas, but I am therefore curious as to what you think.

If you own (or have owned) an M8 or M9, I'd like to know whether this is primarily because you like shooting with a rangefinder / viewfinder style camera, or because you want to be able to use Leica M lenses (including Voigtlander and Zeiss).
I have use probably each Leica M (except some special edition models) since M6 to M9, when using film it is more for the purity of fine color, sharpness of the lens, and of course the mechanical feel. Going to digital, it is more for the memory of using M and sometimes for personal pleasure - because I believe I have overall better tools to produce digital image.  In short, it is less arguable of Leica M might represent the best of 135 quality image using film than with M9 in digital era, and I personally don't believe Leica would ever reverse it. But will Leica stays, I believe it will, photography for many is not a job, it is fun.

Pingang
Shanghai
Logged
davisline
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1


« Reply #135 on: June 01, 2012, 07:19:57 PM »
ReplyReply

This is my first post. I have been Canon DSLR/L glass user since jumping back into photography about a decade ago. Several weeks ago I made the decision to join the Leica world - starting with a M9, 24mm/f3.8 and 50mm/f1.4 lenses. At 54, I decided to migrate to a lighter weight system without having to compromise on sensor size or glass quality.  I wanted to invest in a system that I could comfortably use well into retirement and lenses that will perform well as sensor performance expands. Purchasing the lenses was an easy decision (save the cost) however I pondered the M9 for some time. Would a M10 be released soon or would we see a full-frame Fuji or other mirrorless camera announced. Rather than wait I decided to start learning how to use a rangefinder now. So far, I am enjoying the rangefinder experience although I have to admit the LCD monitor and small histogram are disappointments as I expected. Thinking about the next full frame Leica rangefinder, I hope Leica makes higher ISO performance and iPhone-like LCD monitor (where precise focus and exposure confirmation are possible) as top priorities. My interest is landscape photography so precise focus (especially given my aging eyesight) and exposure confirmation are important to me. Other features might be a bonus but not at the expense of adding complication to the future camera's use. I hope Leica continues to manufacture outstanding glass and improves the rangefinder experience rather than give us another high pixel, feature laden DSLR-like camera. I hope Leica's business plan keeps simplification and quality as top priorities.
Logged
DaveL
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 131


WWW
« Reply #136 on: July 06, 2012, 06:28:00 PM »
ReplyReply

M3; M4P

DaveL

prefer shooting with a rangefinder.
Logged
georgl
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 140


« Reply #137 on: August 18, 2012, 04:25:37 AM »
ReplyReply

54MP on 24x36 would be quite interesting, maybe even ideal with current technology. It can lead to very sharp results under ideal conditions (tripod, best lenses), avoids aliasing/moire-issues and would allow for an interesting pixel-binning-mode like on the Phase One-backs to reduce file size and noise and still create decent sized images @13.5MP.
 
Logged
erickb
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 235


WWW
« Reply #138 on: August 18, 2012, 04:59:06 AM »
ReplyReply

54MP on 24x36 would be quite interesting, maybe even ideal with current technology.
 
a nonsense
Logged
georgl
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 140


« Reply #139 on: August 19, 2012, 07:46:54 AM »
ReplyReply

Nonsense?

Not necessarily - processing power and memory is no issue today anymore. The file size of 54MP doesn't compromise handling much.

But more importantly the fill-rate of sensors has increased (certain designs are close to 100%) so by increasing the number of photosites on a given sensor area the light-sensitive area is no longer dramatically reduced.

But the high resolution would have following advantages:

1. higher resolution under ideal conditions (combine a NEX-7 with an excellent lens on a tripod and you can imagine the potential of a sensor with 2.25x the size (full frame)

2. less IQ-loss due to aliasing or AA-filter

3. Higher quality downsampled files (maybe even in-camera) with higher per-pixel quality. In cinematography, the most successful professional camera uses 1.5x downsampling to compensate for the AA-filter, increase contrast below nyquist and decreases color-artifiacts due to bayer interpolation - just like creating a 24MP-file from a 54MP-source (6000x9000 ->4000x6000)

4. Possibility of pixel-binning and still getting decent output sizes (like 2x2 binning which would result in lower noise and/or higher DR 13.5MP files)

Therefore I think a cleverly implemented 54MP-sensor is indeed better than a 24MP-sensor, not just for pixel-peepers...
« Last Edit: August 19, 2012, 07:48:46 AM by georgl » Logged
Pages: « 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad