jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
It is interesting to note that the current controversy on sensor sizes has parallels to the struggle of the film formats in the first half of last century. Then all the arguments like loss of wide-angle capacity and lower resolution were used against the new miniature format Leica had introduced.Only after WWII did 35 mm film finally get dominant versus 6x9 and sheet film. It is very funny really, to see this mini-format presented as large now. Anyway, now as then there is a great confusion between field of view, focal length and DOF. I would like to put a few things in perspective.
The focal length of a lens does not change for different sensor formats. That is a property of the lens, not of the camera. What does change is its angle and with that field of view. So if you use a wide-angle just because no other lens will take in the bulk of Aunty Mathilda, when you use a smaller format with the same lens you will simply have to step back a few metres or, if that would land you backwards into the swimming-pool, then you will have to take advantage of the friendly terms offered by your camera-manufacturer and buy a shorter lens, as is fitting for the smaller format.
The same goes for the main use of short focal lengths, i.e. perspective control. As the perspective is controlled solely by the distance of camera to subject, the choice is either to crop closer or use a lens with a larger angle of view. Fortunately lenses as short as 12 mm are being offered for rangefinders.
On the other side of the spectrum the story is essentially the same. Those of us that constantly have to crop our photographs down will welcome the smaller field of view of their longer lenses. A smaller sensor will, among other things enable one to use a smaller, fast lens for portraits. A Summilux 50, for instance, is a lot more handy than a Summilux 75. And a field of view equivalent to 180 mm on 35 mm film is something quite new for a rangefinder.
Then there is DOF. If we have to use a 35 mm lens to get the angle of view we are used to with a 50 mm on a 35 mm film camera, obviously we will not get the same DOF. The main thing will be that we will enlarge the smaller sensor more, so we will need a smaller circle of confusion. A 27 mm sensor, as a ballpark figure, will need a 0.02 mm circle of confusion as opposed to the standard 0.03.
The net result wil be that the 35 mm will, on a 1.33 sensor, behave like a 43 mm lens on a 35mm sensor. I have the impression that on a sensor, the transition between sharp and out of focus is more sharply defined than on film, maybe because of the recording medium, maybe because grain and noise behave differently, maybe because we are using the sweet spot of the lens. Anyway, this effect reduces the impression of DOF to about 40 mm equivalent. No big deal between the formats.
Better quality on a larger sensor. Clearly, that is as true for small vs large sensors as it is for 6x9 film vs 35 mm. However, as soon as the smaller format is good enough, like the small film size, this argument loses relevancy. The new book by Pölking, <Digitale Naturfotografie in der Praxis> has a full spread high resolution print comparing all the formats offered by Canon, from 6Mp APS to 16.9Mp 35 mm. The differences, albeit discernable, are extremely small, although the older 6Mp APS loses out slightly.
So the future will teach us to choose our format to our purpose and our lenses to our format. Nothing changes. In the case of the Leica M8 it will mean trading in our 135 mm lens for a 19 mm one. Or just keeping the 135 and adding to our lens stable, as most posters on this forum seem to be doing all the time. Leica is sensitive to this and will be offering "attractively priced" (though what that means with Leica is unclear) wide-angle lenses.
Where does this "full-frame" hype come from? I feel, but I know I'm fighting a losing battle here, that full-frame is a nonsensical term. Not only is 35 mm far from full-frame photographically speaking, it refers to a negative/sensor size that is printed directly without enlarging. So the "full-frame" Canon 5D is in this reference only suitable for taking passport portraits.
Canon has some difficulty competing with Leica, Nikon and Sigma in the extreme wide-angle segment. Surprising as it may seem, this is not a situation that lends itself to a quick fix. As an example, Leica needed 15 years and a lot of expertise from Minolta and Sigma to catch up (and overtake) in the field of zoom lenses.
But Canon does own their private chip factory and Cmos sensors, which are a bit less expensive to produce than CCD's anyway. So the obvious solution is to produce camera's with a larger chip, needing less short lenses.
This has, of course, to be marketed. So imagine this poor marketing executive sitting in his office on the 95th floor in Tokyo. He has to find a catch-phrase. He doesn't know the first thing about camera's but he does know about selling products. The above has been explained to him by a technical executive, but it does not add up to a positive twist to his advertising campaign. A bright young underling, who has read a Readers Digest about Ansel Adams, remembers the words: Full Frame. It sounds even better than "more megapixels"!! They cook up a 100 million dollar campaign to ram this down the collective throats of an unsuspecting public, and there you are: Full-Frame is the hallmark of a quality camera! The guy is probably a vice-president now.
The focal length of a lens does not change for different sensor formats. That is a property of the lens, not of the camera. What does change is its angle and with that field of view. So if you use a wide-angle just because no other lens will take in the bulk of Aunty Mathilda, when you use a smaller format with the same lens you will simply have to step back a few metres or, if that would land you backwards into the swimming-pool, then you will have to take advantage of the friendly terms offered by your camera-manufacturer and buy a shorter lens, as is fitting for the smaller format.
The same goes for the main use of short focal lengths, i.e. perspective control. As the perspective is controlled solely by the distance of camera to subject, the choice is either to crop closer or use a lens with a larger angle of view. Fortunately lenses as short as 12 mm are being offered for rangefinders.
On the other side of the spectrum the story is essentially the same. Those of us that constantly have to crop our photographs down will welcome the smaller field of view of their longer lenses. A smaller sensor will, among other things enable one to use a smaller, fast lens for portraits. A Summilux 50, for instance, is a lot more handy than a Summilux 75. And a field of view equivalent to 180 mm on 35 mm film is something quite new for a rangefinder.
Then there is DOF. If we have to use a 35 mm lens to get the angle of view we are used to with a 50 mm on a 35 mm film camera, obviously we will not get the same DOF. The main thing will be that we will enlarge the smaller sensor more, so we will need a smaller circle of confusion. A 27 mm sensor, as a ballpark figure, will need a 0.02 mm circle of confusion as opposed to the standard 0.03.
The net result wil be that the 35 mm will, on a 1.33 sensor, behave like a 43 mm lens on a 35mm sensor. I have the impression that on a sensor, the transition between sharp and out of focus is more sharply defined than on film, maybe because of the recording medium, maybe because grain and noise behave differently, maybe because we are using the sweet spot of the lens. Anyway, this effect reduces the impression of DOF to about 40 mm equivalent. No big deal between the formats.
Better quality on a larger sensor. Clearly, that is as true for small vs large sensors as it is for 6x9 film vs 35 mm. However, as soon as the smaller format is good enough, like the small film size, this argument loses relevancy. The new book by Pölking, <Digitale Naturfotografie in der Praxis> has a full spread high resolution print comparing all the formats offered by Canon, from 6Mp APS to 16.9Mp 35 mm. The differences, albeit discernable, are extremely small, although the older 6Mp APS loses out slightly.
So the future will teach us to choose our format to our purpose and our lenses to our format. Nothing changes. In the case of the Leica M8 it will mean trading in our 135 mm lens for a 19 mm one. Or just keeping the 135 and adding to our lens stable, as most posters on this forum seem to be doing all the time. Leica is sensitive to this and will be offering "attractively priced" (though what that means with Leica is unclear) wide-angle lenses.
Where does this "full-frame" hype come from? I feel, but I know I'm fighting a losing battle here, that full-frame is a nonsensical term. Not only is 35 mm far from full-frame photographically speaking, it refers to a negative/sensor size that is printed directly without enlarging. So the "full-frame" Canon 5D is in this reference only suitable for taking passport portraits.
Canon has some difficulty competing with Leica, Nikon and Sigma in the extreme wide-angle segment. Surprising as it may seem, this is not a situation that lends itself to a quick fix. As an example, Leica needed 15 years and a lot of expertise from Minolta and Sigma to catch up (and overtake) in the field of zoom lenses.
But Canon does own their private chip factory and Cmos sensors, which are a bit less expensive to produce than CCD's anyway. So the obvious solution is to produce camera's with a larger chip, needing less short lenses.
This has, of course, to be marketed. So imagine this poor marketing executive sitting in his office on the 95th floor in Tokyo. He has to find a catch-phrase. He doesn't know the first thing about camera's but he does know about selling products. The above has been explained to him by a technical executive, but it does not add up to a positive twist to his advertising campaign. A bright young underling, who has read a Readers Digest about Ansel Adams, remembers the words: Full Frame. It sounds even better than "more megapixels"!! They cook up a 100 million dollar campaign to ram this down the collective throats of an unsuspecting public, and there you are: Full-Frame is the hallmark of a quality camera! The guy is probably a vice-president now.
Last edited:
Finder
-
Why all this hatred toward manufacturers? Have you actually worked for a camera manufacturer and know how they develop their marketing?
Toby
On the alert
It is slightly misleading to say that the 24 x 36 frame is just a product of marketing hype. What you forget to mention is that as the sensor gets smaller the number of pixels crammed on to the chip get higher placing more demands on the resolving power of the lens. A larger sensor with the same Mp rating places less demands on the lens. For ultimate image quality from a leica M series or any other 35mm lens the sensor should match the field of the lens to optimise its performance, then the pitch of the pixels should match the resolving power of the lens. Even if the leica lenses can match the demands the APS sensor puts on it the fact is that you have to enlarge the file 33% more for any given picture size. In other words a canon lens on a 26x36 sensor camera that was 25% poorer in resolution would still produce a more detailed image at an A3 enlargement because the leica lens was not given a sensor large enough to match its full potential. I know this is slightly simplistic because of factors such as micro contrast and colour rendition but I hope you see what I mean.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Finder said:
Hatred?? Where did you see that? It is just that I feel free to offer some, slightly tongue-in-cheek reply to marketing.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Toby said:
This is true, but as I argued in another post, even the "lesser" 8Mp APS crop sensor exceeds the capabilities of the human eye in all but the most extreme photographic situations. Like in audio: you might be able to record (a lot) more, but you cannot hear,see or even reproduce it. Your argument moves us into the stratophere of ayrie disks, central light-mountains, reslution definitions and the like. Suffice to say that the optical impression I get on A3 prints from my outmoded, 6Mp Canon 10D is closer to midformat than to 35 mm.
Btw, as you correctly imply: smaller sensors at the same resolution demand better lenses, only strengthens my argument that Canon needs large sensors to compete in extreme wide-angle.
Last edited:
Toby
On the alert
jaapv said:
8mp corresponds to A4 at 300dpi (the standard for print reprodution) I don't know if I would call that "extreme". I've heard all sorts figures bandied about for the optimum Mp resolution and I don't know which is right or even if you can tell the difference, it's often a subjective argument often dictated by the self justification of the owner of a particular camera. In reality very few of us and certainly not me have access to all the cameras and prints we need to make an informed decision, we just exchange theories.
nrb
Nuno Borges
Current 35 mm lenses were designed for the 24x36 mm format in the same way half-format lenses were designed for the 18x24 mm format, or medium-format lenses...
Rangefinder photography equals in many of us view 35 mm film photography, hence the use of the expression full-frame format in this context. For we'd love to see our current 35 mm lenses to behave like 35 mm lenses in the event that film is substituted by digital sensors. To keep and uphold our lenses and a tradition that is so dear to our hearts. Not to mention that larger sensors are prone to be better sensors. Not to mention that it is our firm belief that lesser sensors are prone to have the terminal and final destiny of all lesserhood...
Rangefinder photography equals in many of us view 35 mm film photography, hence the use of the expression full-frame format in this context. For we'd love to see our current 35 mm lenses to behave like 35 mm lenses in the event that film is substituted by digital sensors. To keep and uphold our lenses and a tradition that is so dear to our hearts. Not to mention that larger sensors are prone to be better sensors. Not to mention that it is our firm belief that lesser sensors are prone to have the terminal and final destiny of all lesserhood...
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
nrb said:
A good argument to ditch 135 film for 120, and only take 6x9...
But I share a lot of your sentiment I must confess. Newer is not always better, not by a long shot. But I love to embrace the future as well and I am prepared to drop old concepts, better to use new developments. So I will erase all preconceptions about focal lenghts from my brain when using a smaller medium and use the lenses in their own context there, and vica versa. It comes from using different formats over time, I guess.
Last edited:
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
I do take 645 negative, 35 mm negatives and 6Mp digitals, and enlarged to A3 the 645 clearly look best, the digital comes second and the 35 mm last by a fair margin. I won't open the whole argument here, but after all factors are considered a 6Mp image has enough resolution for any print, provided that print is viewed at the correct distance. You would, I am sure, not print a billboard at 300 Dpi....
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
Jaap: Thanks for a clear, insightful post. I too was puzzled by the "hatred" comment. Having worked with marketing folks for a long time, I have a pretty clear idea of how their campaigns develop, and they can be, shall we say "creative"?
While I would prefer a 24x36 sensor size to take advantage of my current lenses and maintain my sense of FOV, perspective when composing, etc., I can live with a different size and am not too worried about the resolution/definition aspect of digital capture, though good wide angle primes are very important to me. What I value far more is an image with "film-like" appearance, minimal post-processing work, and camera handling/"user interface", all in roughly equal measures of importance to me. For me, these are far more important considerations that sensor size.
While admitting not having enough hands-on experience to judge those priorities, my sense from reading lots of posts here and elsewhere is that so far only the R-D1 interests me. I'm interested in seeing what the M8 is like and, eventually, the Zeiss Ikon digital RF.
Earl
While I would prefer a 24x36 sensor size to take advantage of my current lenses and maintain my sense of FOV, perspective when composing, etc., I can live with a different size and am not too worried about the resolution/definition aspect of digital capture, though good wide angle primes are very important to me. What I value far more is an image with "film-like" appearance, minimal post-processing work, and camera handling/"user interface", all in roughly equal measures of importance to me. For me, these are far more important considerations that sensor size.
While admitting not having enough hands-on experience to judge those priorities, my sense from reading lots of posts here and elsewhere is that so far only the R-D1 interests me. I'm interested in seeing what the M8 is like and, eventually, the Zeiss Ikon digital RF.
Earl
V
varjag
Guest
Jaap, let's not get through this superior resolution argument again. To me it seems like you have set on getting an M8, and now trying to rationalize your choice. Please don't, you don't have to
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
No-no Eugene,this is not a resolution thread,sorry for being sidetracked, I am just trying to stop the "I wanna fullframe" posts
As for sensor-size and rationalizing, I already have-and like- a canon 10D- 22 mm sensor and Digilux2 (love-for its film-like quality) a 15 mm sensor. So I just want to make clear that size matters not a hoot....
, I am just trying to stop the "I wanna fullframe" posts As for sensor-size and rationalizing, I already have-and like- a canon 10D- 22 mm sensor and Digilux2 (love-for its film-like quality) a 15 mm sensor. So I just want to make clear that size matters not a hoot....
Last edited:
V
varjag
Guest
Oh, I see.
Well, format probably doesn't matter if you don't have an array of lesnes for the system already (witness Olympus E). So far in SLR world the promises of smaller formats (smaller, cheaper, faster lenses) have not yet materialized and it is questionable if they ever will. And if you have that 50 'cron you used for a decade and can focus in your sleep, I can see how problematic would be re-accepting it as a portrait lens..
Well, format probably doesn't matter if you don't have an array of lesnes for the system already (witness Olympus E). So far in SLR world the promises of smaller formats (smaller, cheaper, faster lenses) have not yet materialized and it is questionable if they ever will. And if you have that 50 'cron you used for a decade and can focus in your sleep, I can see how problematic would be re-accepting it as a portrait lens..
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
I think somebody who is willing to shell out 4500 Euro for a camerabody will probably be involved in the M system to a considerable extent.But the relatively small difference of 1.33, equivalent to 1 focal length, only necessitates one addition at the short end, unless, like me , the 21 is the least used lens anyway.
for a camerabody will probably be involved in the M system to a considerable extent.But the relatively small difference of 1.33, equivalent to 1 focal length, only necessitates one addition at the short end, unless, like me , the 21 is the least used lens anyway.
Last edited:
Ben Z
Mentor
Thanks to the immediacy of digital and some willing friends I was able to do a lot of experimentation prior to getting my used Canon 20D. The camera I was comparing it to was of course the 5D.
First thing I noted was that the dimensions of the 5D sensor are 60% larger than that of the 20D and has roughly (actually a bit less) 60% more pixels. Therefore if one were able to mask the 5D sensor down to the dimensions of the 20D sensor, the # of pixels per square inch would be quite nearly identical. I took tripod mounted shots with each camera and then cropped the 5D shot down to the 20D crop and indeed the file sizes were nearly the same. Thanks to Canon's wizardry the noise is also very nearly equal between the 2 cameras. Bottom line is that between the two cameras it is the total # of pixels, and not sensor size, that directly relates to how big a print can be made and that was what led me to my choice to forego the 5D. The 20D can give me an un-interpolated print at the largest size print my printer is capable of, which is also the largest size print I can hang in my home with enough room to stand back and view it at a comfortable distance. Granted the 5D would allow more cropping, but as a long-time 35mm shooter I am disciplined to compose full-frame and rarely crop more than is necessary to fit a standard print size.
I got my used 20D for under $900, and a new Tokina 12-24mm lens for a bit over $400. In most cases my printer driver would be tossing out all the extra data I would've paid double for by going with the 5D. I'm perfectly willing to go without having the biggest, newest and most expensive camera when I see it offers me no tangible reward other than bragging rights.
However as to the often debated issue of depth of field, from my tests a 35mm lens on the 20D and 5D have exactly the same dof, but the fov due to the crop means it's functioning like a 56mm lens. The upside is that in most instances I'm grateful for the extended dof relative to fov. And the downside, the lessening of shallow dof for subject isolation, hasn't appeared as significant as I would have thought. It's nothing like the situation with the tiny sensors and crop factors in pocket digitals.
So for me, who is completely satisfied with the 20D with its 1.6 factor, the M8 with its 1.3 factor is bound to be satisfying. The difference is that I could amerliorate the loss of wide angle fov on the 20D in one fell swoop by purchasing an EF-S wide zoom. With the M8, I have to resort (maybe too negative a word) to Voitlander lenses because 1) Leica so far doesn't have a 15mm to replace the 21mm fov, and 2) If and when they do, I'm sure I won't be able to afford it. But then again I bought a Tokina lens for the 20D at a saving of 35% over the Canon lens (and got better build quality in the bargain), and I've been very happy with both the 15 and 12mm Voitlander lenses on my film Leicas.
First thing I noted was that the dimensions of the 5D sensor are 60% larger than that of the 20D and has roughly (actually a bit less) 60% more pixels. Therefore if one were able to mask the 5D sensor down to the dimensions of the 20D sensor, the # of pixels per square inch would be quite nearly identical. I took tripod mounted shots with each camera and then cropped the 5D shot down to the 20D crop and indeed the file sizes were nearly the same. Thanks to Canon's wizardry the noise is also very nearly equal between the 2 cameras. Bottom line is that between the two cameras it is the total # of pixels, and not sensor size, that directly relates to how big a print can be made and that was what led me to my choice to forego the 5D. The 20D can give me an un-interpolated print at the largest size print my printer is capable of, which is also the largest size print I can hang in my home with enough room to stand back and view it at a comfortable distance. Granted the 5D would allow more cropping, but as a long-time 35mm shooter I am disciplined to compose full-frame and rarely crop more than is necessary to fit a standard print size.
I got my used 20D for under $900, and a new Tokina 12-24mm lens for a bit over $400. In most cases my printer driver would be tossing out all the extra data I would've paid double for by going with the 5D. I'm perfectly willing to go without having the biggest, newest and most expensive camera when I see it offers me no tangible reward other than bragging rights.
However as to the often debated issue of depth of field, from my tests a 35mm lens on the 20D and 5D have exactly the same dof, but the fov due to the crop means it's functioning like a 56mm lens. The upside is that in most instances I'm grateful for the extended dof relative to fov. And the downside, the lessening of shallow dof for subject isolation, hasn't appeared as significant as I would have thought. It's nothing like the situation with the tiny sensors and crop factors in pocket digitals.
So for me, who is completely satisfied with the 20D with its 1.6 factor, the M8 with its 1.3 factor is bound to be satisfying. The difference is that I could amerliorate the loss of wide angle fov on the 20D in one fell swoop by purchasing an EF-S wide zoom. With the M8, I have to resort (maybe too negative a word) to Voitlander lenses because 1) Leica so far doesn't have a 15mm to replace the 21mm fov, and 2) If and when they do, I'm sure I won't be able to afford it. But then again I bought a Tokina lens for the 20D at a saving of 35% over the Canon lens (and got better build quality in the bargain), and I've been very happy with both the 15 and 12mm Voitlander lenses on my film Leicas.
jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
varjag said:
A weird thing happened when I got my Epson R-D 1 and started using it with the lenses I already had for my Canon and Bessa RFs:
At first I'd do a lot of mental arithmetic and think, "Okay, normally in this situation I'd be reaching for the 50mm lens, and 50/1.53 is 32.67, so I ought to get out the 35mm lens now..."
But shortly I got tired of that, and just stopped thinking about it deliberately and went back to taking pictures with whatever lens seemed to work best. (Brief round of appreciative applause for the feature of rangefinder cameras that lets you preview several different lens views before sticking the lens on the camera.)
What I found, oddly enough, is that generally I still use a 50mm lens on the R-D 1 in situations where I'd have used a 50mm lens on the film camera and so on. This makes absolutely no sense in terms of geometric optics, but it seems to work out OK in practice. Yes, I did buy a 21mm lens so I'd be able to cover wide-angle shots, but it seems as if I don't use it very much.
(I may be getting away with this because I always shot b&w film and did my own printing, so was pretty accustomed to framing loosely and then cropping a bit when I printed; now with the R-D 1 I just frame the shot the way I would have printed it. Inveterate slide shooters might have a more difficult adjustment.)
But I suspect this whole FOV-crop thing seems like a bigger hurdle to people who haven't experienced it than it is to people who actually live with it day-in and day-out. The human animal is marvelously adaptable.
zuikologist
.........................
Notwithstadning jlw's last sentence, I think Trius has hit the point that the marketing men/women have tried to exploit - human nature and our inability/unwillingness to relearn something we think we are good at - photography.
We can buy a 5D body for a little more money than a 30D that makes us happy, we can use existing lenses (though the 5D sensor demands good lenses apparently) and we can use existing photographic techniques with intuitive use of DOF etc. The 5D sensor also apparently happens to be very good and of course there are bragging rights that go with "full frame".
We can buy a 5D body for a little more money than a 30D that makes us happy, we can use existing lenses (though the 5D sensor demands good lenses apparently) and we can use existing photographic techniques with intuitive use of DOF etc. The 5D sensor also apparently happens to be very good and of course there are bragging rights that go with "full frame".
willie_901
Mentor
What full-frame means
What full-frame means
The term full-frame means you can use your 35mm format lenses as you intended to use them when they were first purchased. Specifically, the relationship between the size of objects in the foreground relative to objects in the background will not change. That is, "distant objects appear larger in relation to the foreground object" [1] when longer focal length lenses are used. Using your legs can not change this (but using your legs will negate the crop-factor change in perspective).
The crop factor means you must use a shorter focal length lens to maintain the same relative size of foreground and background objects. For some subjects the relative size of foreground and background objects is unimportant. But when you use your feet (or zoom) to negate the digital-sensor crop factor, some images will look quite different compared to a full-frame sensor with the same focal length lens.
Full-frame means if you have a multi-lens RF kit, the longer focal length lenses will not sit on the shelf unused. It means if your widest focal length lens now is 28 or 35 mm, you won't have to purchase another lens just to have what you had before.
In the case of DLSRs, (moot for the M8 and RD-1) it also means:
o you do not have to suffer the ergonomics of zoom lenses that were not designed for manual focus operation, you can use MF lenses
o you do not have to tape DOF charts to your camera because modern lenses for DSLRs (with few exceptions) do not have DOF rings.
o you do not have to suffer with low-speed (affordable) zoom lenses (DSLR users seem to change out lenses infrequently). It means if you want a medium speed lens (f 2.8) you don't have to spend more than the camera body cost and then lug around a heavy, bulky zoom lens.
I have 35/2, 50/1.2 and 85/2 35mm format RF lenses.
So if I go out and buy a RD-1 or an M8
camera: $2,500 - $5,000 (of course, the upper range is a guess)
and
one 21, 24 or 25mm f2.8 lens: $1000 - $2,500
My cost to become a digital RF photographer is $3,500-$7,500.
Is film so inconvenient, inferior or expensive to justify this kind of expenditure?
And, what is my motivation to switch?
Do I regularly use commercial airline travel for my photography?
Do I feel left behind by the tidal wave of DSLR/P&S popularity?
Is color and monochrome film dommed to become unaffordable in 5, 10, 15 years, so I might as well just give up now?
While Zeiss's position regarding their decision to sell a new film RF instead of digital body is marketing propaganda, like most propaganda there is some truth behind it.
Digital-sensor photography is to immature to be attractive to me.
I follow new developments in the field with interest.
[1] H.S. Newcombe, "35 MM. Photo Technique",The Focal Press, London, 1953, pp 80-89.
What full-frame means
The term full-frame means you can use your 35mm format lenses as you intended to use them when they were first purchased. Specifically, the relationship between the size of objects in the foreground relative to objects in the background will not change. That is, "distant objects appear larger in relation to the foreground object" [1] when longer focal length lenses are used. Using your legs can not change this (but using your legs will negate the crop-factor change in perspective).
The crop factor means you must use a shorter focal length lens to maintain the same relative size of foreground and background objects. For some subjects the relative size of foreground and background objects is unimportant. But when you use your feet (or zoom) to negate the digital-sensor crop factor, some images will look quite different compared to a full-frame sensor with the same focal length lens.
Full-frame means if you have a multi-lens RF kit, the longer focal length lenses will not sit on the shelf unused. It means if your widest focal length lens now is 28 or 35 mm, you won't have to purchase another lens just to have what you had before.
In the case of DLSRs, (moot for the M8 and RD-1) it also means:
o you do not have to suffer the ergonomics of zoom lenses that were not designed for manual focus operation, you can use MF lenses
o you do not have to tape DOF charts to your camera because modern lenses for DSLRs (with few exceptions) do not have DOF rings.
o you do not have to suffer with low-speed (affordable) zoom lenses (DSLR users seem to change out lenses infrequently). It means if you want a medium speed lens (f 2.8) you don't have to spend more than the camera body cost and then lug around a heavy, bulky zoom lens.
I have 35/2, 50/1.2 and 85/2 35mm format RF lenses.
So if I go out and buy a RD-1 or an M8
camera: $2,500 - $5,000 (of course, the upper range is a guess)
and
one 21, 24 or 25mm f2.8 lens: $1000 - $2,500
My cost to become a digital RF photographer is $3,500-$7,500.
Is film so inconvenient, inferior or expensive to justify this kind of expenditure?
And, what is my motivation to switch?
Do I regularly use commercial airline travel for my photography?
Do I feel left behind by the tidal wave of DSLR/P&S popularity?
Is color and monochrome film dommed to become unaffordable in 5, 10, 15 years, so I might as well just give up now?
While Zeiss's position regarding their decision to sell a new film RF instead of digital body is marketing propaganda, like most propaganda there is some truth behind it.
Digital-sensor photography is to immature to be attractive to me.
I follow new developments in the field with interest.
[1] H.S. Newcombe, "35 MM. Photo Technique",The Focal Press, London, 1953, pp 80-89.
photogdave
Shops local
Funny, how you take a crack at marketing executives, yet your comments on full frame sound like they come straight from Nikon marketing!
I will add only two things:
First, one aspect of photography often overlooked by the general public but cherished on this forum, is the joy in the actual process of capturing the image. Bringing the viewfinder to the eye, focusing etc. The world looks a lot brighter through a full-frame viewfinder compared to the little tunnels you have to squint through on smaller-chipped DSLRs. That alone has sold more than a few 5Ds.
Second, for the working professional, it can be imperative that a lens behaves the way it was designed for. Although you mentioned FOV and DOP, you didn't mention distortion. Wide angle lenses distort much more than standard, even if your not using the whole image circle. Example: shooting a wedding with the Canon 20D and EF-S 17-85 (so in this case I was using the whole image circle). Despite being a digital design, at 17mm the lens still give you a FOV of almost 28mm. It looks like 28mm through the viewfinder. From past experience of shooting with 28mm lenses I am confident that I can frame people close to the edges without their heads going too wobbly. But wait! IT IS STILL A 17mm LENS! When I finally view these group shots on a full-size monitor the people at the edges have oval heads. Not too cool.
Rather than change my technique and style, I would buy a 5D if was to shoot weddings on a regular basis.
Actually after the whole experience I decided to return to film for weddings anyway (IF I ever shoot another!)
I will add only two things:
First, one aspect of photography often overlooked by the general public but cherished on this forum, is the joy in the actual process of capturing the image. Bringing the viewfinder to the eye, focusing etc. The world looks a lot brighter through a full-frame viewfinder compared to the little tunnels you have to squint through on smaller-chipped DSLRs. That alone has sold more than a few 5Ds.
Second, for the working professional, it can be imperative that a lens behaves the way it was designed for. Although you mentioned FOV and DOP, you didn't mention distortion. Wide angle lenses distort much more than standard, even if your not using the whole image circle. Example: shooting a wedding with the Canon 20D and EF-S 17-85 (so in this case I was using the whole image circle). Despite being a digital design, at 17mm the lens still give you a FOV of almost 28mm. It looks like 28mm through the viewfinder. From past experience of shooting with 28mm lenses I am confident that I can frame people close to the edges without their heads going too wobbly. But wait! IT IS STILL A 17mm LENS! When I finally view these group shots on a full-size monitor the people at the edges have oval heads. Not too cool.
Rather than change my technique and style, I would buy a 5D if was to shoot weddings on a regular basis.
Actually after the whole experience I decided to return to film for weddings anyway (IF I ever shoot another!)
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
I'm not sure I quite follow what you are trying to say, Willie. Perspective is not a function of focal length, perspective is solely dependent on the relative position of the subject and the camera. If you take a 28 mm photograph and crop it to the field of view of a 135 in the darkroom, there is absolutely no change in perspective. The same goes for the use of larger and smaller film or sensor sizes. Don't move the camera, don't change the perspective. The effect your book is referring to is that the perspective changes as you keep the subject the same size in your viewfinder using different focal lengths. You will have, however, have to change your position relative to the subject then. If this is what you meant to say, indeed your signature sums it up that way, I didn't understand your post and apologize for the lecture.
I wonder why one should not be able to use manual lenses on any sensor size DSLR. I know of many photographers that do so on Canon D30-'s, various Nikons, Olympus etc.
Speaking for myself, I enjoy using digital for the vista of possibilities it opens for me. I do not think film is bad, or finished, but I like to explore morethan just that. And yes, I am prepared to spend such sums on this. Over the years I have spent and often wasted much more on film photography.
I think that Ben and JLW, who posted a real "report from the field" gave a pretty good picture of the realities of the whole thing.
Yes Dave, you are partly right about distortion and specifically three-dimensional distortion, but as I recall that is one of the areas where Leica lenses are deemed to be superior. Don't ask me to explain, it is far beyond my capability of understanding, but as far as I know three dimensional distortion is an aberration that can be corrected for in lens design. As far as I have read on Canon forums the lens you mentioned is indeed infamous for its high degree of egg-headedness towards the corners.
Btw, I would have hoped you would have said:" Nikon technical staff" instead of "marketing"
I wonder why one should not be able to use manual lenses on any sensor size DSLR. I know of many photographers that do so on Canon D30-'s, various Nikons, Olympus etc.
Speaking for myself, I enjoy using digital for the vista of possibilities it opens for me. I do not think film is bad, or finished, but I like to explore morethan just that. And yes, I am prepared to spend such sums on this. Over the years I have spent and often wasted much more on film photography.
I think that Ben and JLW, who posted a real "report from the field" gave a pretty good picture of the realities of the whole thing.
Yes Dave, you are partly right about distortion and specifically three-dimensional distortion, but as I recall that is one of the areas where Leica lenses are deemed to be superior. Don't ask me to explain, it is far beyond my capability of understanding, but as far as I know three dimensional distortion is an aberration that can be corrected for in lens design. As far as I have read on Canon forums the lens you mentioned is indeed infamous for its high degree of egg-headedness towards the corners.
Btw, I would have hoped you would have said:" Nikon technical staff" instead of "marketing"
Last edited: