James Brannan
Established
How will the M8 change that? In the minds of some any RF is obsoleter already. In the minds of some RF users I'm sure any of the older Leica bodies lacking metering are obsolete. Take it ever farther, I'm sure there are those that consider any Leica without ap to be obsolete.shutterflower said:
I've got an old DSLR that was considered state of the art just a few short years ago. It was in fact in the "Leica" realm speaking of price. Now you can buy it all day long on eBay in "pristine" shape for easily under $700. Does that make the images it still produces "obsolete". My newer D200 sure has alot more bells and whistles but do the old bodies cease to function simply because a newer body is now on the market or because Nikon discontinues and older one? Absolutely not but sadly this is the thinking of many young "photographers" these days. If I sell a print this weekend I will bet that the buyer won't ask if it was produced using a DSLR, a RF, a film SLR, or even one of my Polaroids!
James Brannan
Established
If you have something that works for you then I say stick with it. I fail to see why so many Leica users are so excited over the prospect of any digital body. Of note there are currently APS sized sensors that blow away film in many ways.nrb said:
James Brannan
Established
Off-topic...
Off-topic...
http://www.naturfotograf.com/need_speed00.html
http://www.muellerworld.com/exhibits/fast_lens/
The first is by Bjorn Rorslett. He is without a doubt my inspiration when it comes to high speed photography. Two of the many I've aquired since (warning on the second link, may not be suitable for small childern)...
http://mynakedsoda.smugmug.com/gallery/1051721
http://mynakedsoda.smugmug.com/gallery/974877
Off-topic...
You make excellent points. I did want to highlight this one part of your post. Are you needing macro style high speed shooting in the dark? If so there are some really interesting options out there. Some suggested reading...John Camp said:
http://www.naturfotograf.com/need_speed00.html
http://www.muellerworld.com/exhibits/fast_lens/
The first is by Bjorn Rorslett. He is without a doubt my inspiration when it comes to high speed photography. Two of the many I've aquired since (warning on the second link, may not be suitable for small childern)...
http://mynakedsoda.smugmug.com/gallery/1051721
http://mynakedsoda.smugmug.com/gallery/974877
rvaubel
Well-known
I don't got to show you no stinking compression "Treasure of the Sierra Madres"
I don't got to show you no stinking compression "Treasure of the Sierra Madres"
LCT
There is no "compression". If you compose a scene and change focal lengths AND crop factors both, the perspective will NOT change unless you MOVE YOUR FEET. If you stay in exaxtly the same place, no matter what you do, NOTHING will change except framing.
That being said, its true that you do move your feet when you change to a crop format because you are trying to preserve the original relative size of your subject with regards the background. From a practical point of view smaller sensors do tend to produce images with a more open perspective. But what is so bad about having another perspective availiable in your photo toolbox?
The full frame sensor guys seem to think that there is something intrincically better about the 35mm film frame perspective. I would suggest that, in fact, the 35mm perspective is simply the one most of us are used to. It doesn't take a whole lot of heavy mental lifting to adjust to a different perspective. Those of us that have shot in other film formats have been doing it for years. There is nothing new here except opportunity to break out of the perspective one is accustomed to.
I still shoot 35mm film, not so much for perspective reasons, or other supposed advantages. The reason I still shoot film is because I enjoy it,,, I like the tactile qualities. I like developing film and I like printing in a wet darkroom. All the romance of film and mechanical cameras (especially rangefinders) comes down to an esthetic appreciating of beautiful analog things. Really nothing more or nothing less.
Rex
60 years old but still changing
I don't got to show you no stinking compression "Treasure of the Sierra Madres"
LCT
There is no "compression". If you compose a scene and change focal lengths AND crop factors both, the perspective will NOT change unless you MOVE YOUR FEET. If you stay in exaxtly the same place, no matter what you do, NOTHING will change except framing.
That being said, its true that you do move your feet when you change to a crop format because you are trying to preserve the original relative size of your subject with regards the background. From a practical point of view smaller sensors do tend to produce images with a more open perspective. But what is so bad about having another perspective availiable in your photo toolbox?
The full frame sensor guys seem to think that there is something intrincically better about the 35mm film frame perspective. I would suggest that, in fact, the 35mm perspective is simply the one most of us are used to. It doesn't take a whole lot of heavy mental lifting to adjust to a different perspective. Those of us that have shot in other film formats have been doing it for years. There is nothing new here except opportunity to break out of the perspective one is accustomed to.
I still shoot 35mm film, not so much for perspective reasons, or other supposed advantages. The reason I still shoot film is because I enjoy it,,, I like the tactile qualities. I like developing film and I like printing in a wet darkroom. All the romance of film and mechanical cameras (especially rangefinders) comes down to an esthetic appreciating of beautiful analog things. Really nothing more or nothing less.
Rex
60 years old but still changing
ampguy
Mentor
I think the digital full frame vs cropped digital sensors affects mainly the new effective focal lengths for those with a lot of M lenses AND new digital users.
For previous dslr or rd1 users, they will have adjusted to this and accept it, and/or bought into the new designed for digital lens families for their brands. For dslr users (nikon), they have had the option for a 35mm full frame digital back for some time to use their existing lens at the same lengths they've used, or use with film.
For new to digital users, the cropped M8 sensor will give these folks reasons to buy new wide angle products, and maybe whole sets of new lens sizes, and still be able to utilize their existing lenses at greater than previously used focal lengths.
I personally think the M8 will be technologically, and wide angle lens challenged in the market, even if it came out two years ago, yet it may still fill a niche market for m-mount lens users wanting a status symbol to carry around.
For previous dslr or rd1 users, they will have adjusted to this and accept it, and/or bought into the new designed for digital lens families for their brands. For dslr users (nikon), they have had the option for a 35mm full frame digital back for some time to use their existing lens at the same lengths they've used, or use with film.
For new to digital users, the cropped M8 sensor will give these folks reasons to buy new wide angle products, and maybe whole sets of new lens sizes, and still be able to utilize their existing lenses at greater than previously used focal lengths.
I personally think the M8 will be technologically, and wide angle lens challenged in the market, even if it came out two years ago, yet it may still fill a niche market for m-mount lens users wanting a status symbol to carry around.
Last edited:
ffttklackdedeng
Registered User
IMHO the FF DSLRs are better than the cropped ones because the viewfinder is better (bigger). As far as I rememeber from a recent magazine, the VF 'enlargment' was approx. 0.5 for D50 etc, while it was approx. 0.7 for the 5D (the calculation was taking all points into consideration, i.e. crop factor, VF enlargment w/ 50mm lens, VF coverage in percent; the final number being the ratio of a scene viewed through a 50mm 36x24mm equivalent).
For a rangefinder this doesn't make a difference at all, since 'only' a wider lens has to be attached.
Regards, Robert
For a rangefinder this doesn't make a difference at all, since 'only' a wider lens has to be attached.
Regards, Robert
James Brannan
Established
The 5D does in fact have a superior viewfinder in comparison to most other DSLR's. This is not (only) because it uses a different sized sensor.ffttklackdedeng said:
I must say that it isn't an issue where viewfinder couldn't be made better though. I'm thinking between my D100 and D70 (D50 also) vs. my D200. The others really are marginal for manual focusing and make you think "tunnel". The D200 is a great improvement in this area. All are 1.5 crop bodies and all have a built in flash taking up space near the top of the body. By the same token not all SLR viewfinders are made equal. I love my Nikon F65 for it's compact size but the viewfinder is dim, small, and hard to use compared to my Nikon F100.
I agree it shouldn't be an issue with a RF.
nrb
Nuno Borges
After all is said and done, obviously any future M8 or 9er is worth a full frame sensor and should have it for the sake of the glorious glass that belongs in it.
LCT
ex-newbie
I disagree, Rex.rvaubel said:
Perspective and compression are not the same thing.
Each focal length has its own way of compressing, quite easy to check with long tele lenses but it's true for other lenses as well
Best,
LCT
Finder
-
LCT, Rex is right. Linear perpective, the relationship between the size of a foreground and background object, is changed in relation to the ratios between the camera and those two objects which can only be made by moving toward or away from them. Changing the angle of view either by focal length or format does not change the relationship between the object sizes in the image. BTW, it is easy to check. Simply view a picture in photoshop and change the magnification. The picture gets bigger, by the ratio between the foreground and background object sizes do not change (and how could they).
The neat tunnel effect you see in the movies where the background is getting larger or smaller compared to the person in the frame is done by changing the camera distance to the person while changing the focal length to maintain the image size of the person. The difference in foreground (person) to background size is caused by the change in distance. The change in focal length is just maintain the foreground image size otherwise it would just look like you are receeding from the subject.
The neat tunnel effect you see in the movies where the background is getting larger or smaller compared to the person in the frame is done by changing the camera distance to the person while changing the focal length to maintain the image size of the person. The difference in foreground (person) to background size is caused by the change in distance. The change in focal length is just maintain the foreground image size otherwise it would just look like you are receeding from the subject.
rvaubel
Well-known
Finder said:
LCT
You can do the same test with zoom lens. Stay in one spot, and zoom around a bit. Check out the perspective when zoomed to telephto. Now, WITHOUT MOVING, zoom back and look at the perspective of the same area. It will not change. How could it? All you have done is inclided more area in the frame, not changed the perspective of the original telephoto area.
Another test is to take a normal or wide angle shot and crop the **** out of it and blow it up to 400%. It looks compressed, doesn't it? But its the same lens, so the cropping made it "look" compressed. Lenses don't compress anything in and of themselves.
BTW dont confuse rectilinear distortion found in wide angle lenses, with linear perspective. Thats another can of worms.
Rex
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
photogdave said:
As the M8 will , given the lens mount, use 99.9 % CV,Zeiss or Leica lenses,ranging from excellent to exceptional, I would say that in this case, this is rather irrelevant.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Sorry, in this context, compression and perspective are exactly the same and are determined exclusively by the camera standpoint.LCT said:
LCT
ex-newbie
I beg to differ as well as i'm still able not to move my feet in spite of my great agejaapv said:
How about showing me some little piccies to demonstrate your theory?
I did it already above, so i wait for your evidence with a great interest.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
It is not my theory, it is basic photographic fact. Stay in one place and change your focal length, and perspective (compression as you call it) remains the same. It even stays the same for a pinhole lens, that has no focal length at all. If you crop a wideangleshot to the FOV of a long lens the result is exactly identical, except for grain etc. Change your standpoint and change focal length to keep your subject the same size and the perspective changes, making the long lens (after moving backwards) show a "more compressed" effect. Use any of the methods suggested by other posters in this thread.Check any photography primer.
LCT
ex-newbie
Did all that for 30 years my friend!
Show me your lil piccies as i did above and it'll me my turn if you prove me wrong.
Show me your lil piccies as i did above and it'll me my turn if you prove me wrong.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
VinceC
Mentor
>>It even stays the same for a pinhole lens, that has no focal length at all. <<
I think a pinhole lens has the focal length of pinhole-to-film plane.
I think a pinhole lens has the focal length of pinhole-to-film plane.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
I should have said -of its own-
Last edited:
JohnL
Very confused
I have a 35mm FF RF camera and a 35mm FF SLR camera.
I have a FF (=35mm) DSLR camera.
I have an APS format DSLR camera 6MP. It is a fine camera. I intend to keep it and use it (or maybe someday upgrade to another APS format DLSR with a few more MP if I can get a decent price for the old one).
In DSLRs, the APS format is very useful for long tele lenses, especially when the resolution is not too much less than on the FF DSLR. This implies need for a higher pixel density, so noise at high ISO may be an issue (or maybe not). And it's more of a challenge to the lenses.
However, like most everybody else, I only use my RF with wide, normal and very mild tele lenses. I wanna FF DRF !!!
Perspective of course depends only on where the camera is. However, with long tele lenses the issue becomes less critical. If you get something framed at (say) 100 yards with a 400mm lens, then walk forwards 50 yards and take a similarly framed shot with a 200mm lens, you'll be hard-pressed to notice much difference in the compression. Both shots will have a distinctly tele-type (!) perspective. Now if you walk in to 25 yards and shoot with a 100mm lens, you'll probably start to see the difference, if the thing hasn't flown away.
I have a FF (=35mm) DSLR camera.
I have an APS format DSLR camera 6MP. It is a fine camera. I intend to keep it and use it (or maybe someday upgrade to another APS format DLSR with a few more MP if I can get a decent price for the old one).
In DSLRs, the APS format is very useful for long tele lenses, especially when the resolution is not too much less than on the FF DSLR. This implies need for a higher pixel density, so noise at high ISO may be an issue (or maybe not). And it's more of a challenge to the lenses.
However, like most everybody else, I only use my RF with wide, normal and very mild tele lenses. I wanna FF DRF !!!
Perspective of course depends only on where the camera is. However, with long tele lenses the issue becomes less critical. If you get something framed at (say) 100 yards with a 400mm lens, then walk forwards 50 yards and take a similarly framed shot with a 200mm lens, you'll be hard-pressed to notice much difference in the compression. Both shots will have a distinctly tele-type (!) perspective. Now if you walk in to 25 yards and shoot with a 100mm lens, you'll probably start to see the difference, if the thing hasn't flown away.