Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 [3]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Leica has 20% market share in digital MF  (Read 7704 times)
gerald.d
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 382


« Reply #40 on: October 01, 2012, 03:53:34 PM »
ReplyReply

Huh, this doesn't make sense [ unless I don't understand you ]. Calling something a 'crop' does only make sense when a camera was designed for a larger (film) format but is now used for a smaller digital sensor.
Medium Format SLR in the film time never had the ultra wide lenses as the 35mm SLRs. That didn't make them cropped 35mm.

What I was trying to point out is that if you put the same focal length lens on an S2 (which, I'm sorry, does have a 1.3 crop MF sensor, whichever way anyone tries to spin it) as a "FF" MFDB, then the S2 will crop the field of view that you get from the FF back.

This means that - if wide angle is important to you - the Leica is limited compared to FF MFDB, because the focal length of the widest lens available for the Leica and a MFDB on a tech cam are pretty much the same (and that's ignoring the possibility of using a 17mm lens on an MFDB).

In the 35mm world, there are of course lenses with shorter focal lengths available - 14mm if you care about quality, 11 or 12mm if you're not that fussed. That's why it makes no sense to try to think of the Leica as some sort of "super sized 35mm". It's not. Because the systems simply aren't equivalent.

None of this is in any way meant as a criticism of the Leica camera, nor the wider system. It's simply a fact that for those people who are looking for very wide angles, it simply isn't a viable solution. There will of course be plenty of people for whom this simply isn't a concern.

Back to the point that was originally claimed, and that I questioned:

"Until someone comes out with a 3"x5" sensor and thereby creates a new threshold for "large sensor format" I don't see the point fussing over all these similar sized sensors.."

Well, fair enough. Maybe Paul doesn't. Maybe for what he shoots, the above described limitation simply isn't an issue. But many people would see the point fussing over the fact that the widest lens available for the two systems being compared was the same focal length, and yet one system had a sensor size 1.3x the size of the other.

For some, that kind of stuff is important.
Logged
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5120


« Reply #41 on: October 01, 2012, 04:28:03 PM »
ReplyReply

What's the shortest focal length lens (non fisheye) available on the Leica S2, and what field of view does it give? I believe it's the 24mm, yes?

The same focal length lens on a FF MFDB (they are available) would give a larger field of view.

You have to compare like for like from a system perspective.
I agree that the Leica S lens system is, for now, rather limited in wide-angle options. Indeed it is rather limited overall -- hence the stop-gap measure of the adaptor for using H-mount Fujinon lenses. But a system having limited focal length options is nothing to do with cropping. For example, as far as I know, no 645 and 6x7 systems matches the extremes of rectilinear wide-angle coverage offered by the main 35mm format systems, or even the alleged "2x crop format" Four Thirds, but no one calls 645 or 6x7 "crop systems" on that account.
Logged
paulmoorestudio
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 239


WWW
« Reply #42 on: October 01, 2012, 06:10:09 PM »
ReplyReply


None of this is in any way meant as a criticism of the Leica camera, nor the wider system. It's simply a fact that for those people who are looking for very wide angles, it simply isn't a viable solution. There will of course be plenty of people for whom this simply isn't a concern.

Back to the point that was originally claimed, and that I questioned:

"Until someone comes out with a 3"x5" sensor and thereby creates a new threshold for "large sensor format" I don't see the point fussing over all these similar sized sensors.."

Well, fair enough. Maybe Paul doesn't. Maybe for what he shoots, the above described limitation simply isn't an issue. But many people would see the point fussing over the fact that the widest lens available for the two systems being compared was the same focal length, and yet one system had a sensor size 1.3x the size of the other.

For some, that kind of stuff is important.
[/quote]
I find it interesting that we have become very spoiled with the "small format".. extreme wide angle available on high resolution formats was never easy in the film era.  Maybe I am stuck in the last decade but it seems if you need an extreme wide angle there are a ton of cameras that will give you a damn good file.. at least for professional work.. I know that personal desires often exceed commercial necessity and it is human nature to want the cake and eat it too.  24mm on the S format is extremely wide for me..but I am a narrow view kind of guy.
Logged

ndevlin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 504



WWW
« Reply #43 on: October 01, 2012, 08:40:08 PM »
ReplyReply

The newly announced Leica "S" 24mm is a 19mm equivalent. Few need go wider than that. Leica is not much stronger on the wide-end than any other system, especially considering the quality of the glass. Indeed, with the 30-90 zoom, their system will be pretty complete but-for a tele-zoom.

All that's missing is the lottery win to buy one!

- N.
Logged

Nick Devlin   @onelittlecamera
Wim van Velzen
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 354



WWW
« Reply #44 on: October 02, 2012, 08:32:55 AM »
ReplyReply

Ah, I can see your point. My problem is that my wallet is cropped...
Logged

I don't have a signature.
Pages: « 1 2 [3]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad