M8 gossip

New hassei is very interesting, I think it will be fully fuji all around as whole H system and that explains everything why fuji was so silent :D
 
Nemo,
The interesting question of course is: does the human eye at normal viewing distance of a A3 print, say one metre, really need more than 3 lp/mm. The biological answer is: no, it cannot resolve more for most persons. In practice I find your value of 5 lp/mm more comfortable, so there is no need for 22Mp at all, except for heavy cropping. But that dilemma affects film just as much.
If one looks at it from the lens side of the question there appears no gain at all to be had from the increasing of the pixel density. The Airy disks will start overlapping the pixels etc. The present 8-10 Mp for APS, 10-12 for 1.33 and 15-18 for 35 mm sensors is not such a bad choice at all.
Hasselblad's 37x37 will of course yield a larger pixel-number, but the pixel density/size will be similar again. And of course we are talking mid-format here, which makes this a rather cropped sensor.. I can see the increased MP being interesting for various professional applications. But for our type of photography? Well..not really.
Of course it does make marketing sense to have huge numbers of pixels.
 
Last edited:
This whole 1.33x crop conversation reminds me of when Nikon brought out their first DSLR, the D1. My God the sky was falling and the world was ending but it all worked out. There will be some who will hate loosing the wide angle but others who love what happens at the other end. I am still commited (deposit placed) with the M8, it can't get here soon enough! Many who swore they would never buy the D1 because of the crop, ended up, quietly, doing so anyway. :eek:

The M8 does not "threaten" any of the emulsion based Leicas, only some of the owners!:(
 
Last edited:
Nachkebia said:
it never did..... Canon 5D beats all of the digital nikons ever created...
Click to expand...

I will not argue the Canon/Nikon thing, but both companies had "cropped" DSLRs at first! :p

I have used the 5D, it is not the best I have ever used:eek:

Glad you are defending your equipment!:)
 
nachkebia said:
it never did..... Canon 5D beats all of the digital nikons ever created...
Click to expand...

In what way?



greggebhardt said:
This whole 1.33x crop conversation reminds me of when Nikon brought out their first DSLR, the D1. My God the sky was falling and the world was ending but it all worked out. There will be some who will hate loosing the wide angle but others who love what happens at the other end. I am still commited (deposit placed) with the M8, it can't get here soon enough! Many who swore they would never buy the D1 because of the crop, ended up, quietly, doing so anyway. :eek:

The M8 does not "threaten" any of the emulsion based Leicas, only some of the owners!
Click to expand...

It is funny to read some of the "miniature" (read 35) mm vs "real size" (read 6x9) wars of the 30-ies to 50-ies of last century. Identical to now, only with our current "full-frame" at the receiving end. One would have thought that some new arguments would have been thought up over the last sixty years, but no, the same old leftovers recooked.....
 
Last edited:
It is funny to read some of the "miniature" (read 35) mm vs "real size" (read 6x9) wars of the 30-ies to 50-ies of last century. Identical to now, only with our current "full-frame" at the receiving end. One would have thought that some new arguments would have been thought up over the last sixty years, but no, the same old leftovers recooked.....
Click to expand...
Is there any doubt that 6X9 is better? no! it is just bigger! but full frame is not bigger if technology is mature! Got the point? :)
 
Nachkebia said:
Is there any doubt that 6X9 is better? no! it is just bigger! but full frame is not bigger if technology is mature! Got the point? :)
Click to expand...

Not really, I don't quite see what you mean. Maybe you could rephrase?
 
jaapv said:
In what way?





It is funny to read some of the "miniature" (read 35) mm vs "real size" (read 6x9) wars of the 30-ies to 50-ies of last century. Identical to now, only with our current "full-frame" at the receiving end. One would have thought that some new arguments would have been thought up over the last sixty years, but no, the same old leftovers recooked.....
Click to expand...

my local lab uses 402dpi as a standard print resolution so with a 5400 scan of a 24x36 neg I can give them a 35mp/200mb file; from a technically good neg I get a 12x18” print.
Now if I drop the dpi to 300 I’m not sure I can see any difference in the print, but I can see a marked difference at 200 so while 10mp may well be good enough that’s what it will be, good enough not as good as it can be, in the same way that 35mm was good enough in the 1950s
 
6x9 has better quality then smaller format (miniature as you call it) does it? yes indeed! is it bigger in size? and it is much heavier? is it hard to drag it everywhere? is it hard to change films? can you take it with you everytime you go out? can you handheld it? NO! so thats why 35mm is a valuable compromise, now tell me what crop can do and full frame can not? :) got the point? just don`t bring arguments like 6x9 vs 35mm....
 
10mp will be more than enough and it does not have to be full frame either. The has been argued so many times. 35mm is NOT the Gold Standard and IS a "compromise".

Every thing is a compromise!
 
Excuse me? It is exactly the same argument and nothing has changed in sixty years.
And why should one not be able to handhold 6x9?And are there not desirable mid-format rangefinders around that are a pleasure to "drag around"and use? And your argument about a valuable compromise is an argument for the smaller 1.33 sensor, not against it, as it is for the miniature 35 mm format. So I do not see any reason to be dogmatic about the historical decision of St.Barnack to choose the 35 mm film for his camera, although there were plenty of larger format apostles fulminating against it. There have been a number of posts explaining why 1.33 is probably the best compromise for a rangefinder and why 35 mm sensorrs may be preferable on DSLR's. So use your search function on those instead of asking for the same thing to be repeated over and over again. If in future the 35 mm-sensor rangefinder becomes possible it will make sense to debate this question and make a reasonable decision based on basis of personal needs. But for now we may safely assume that a 1.33 M-type rangefinder is the best camera of this type we will see for some time. So it seems rather silly to wish for the moon.
Btw I did not invent the term miniature format. It is the historical name of the 35 mm format.
 
Mark Norton said:
The sooner Leica reveal this thing to the world, the better. Rejecting the camera simply because it has a crop factor of 1.33 is hardly a valid reason.
Click to expand...


It is if it would mean that you would have to re-tool with a bunch of new lenses.
 
Marco, September 15th is the day we find out that the new Tri-Elmar is not €2500 and the M8 is not €3800... ;)
 
Last edited:
sgy1962 said:
It is if it would mean that you would have to re-tool with a bunch of new lenses.
Click to expand...
Just one - and you can trade in your longest lens on that one :)
 
jaapv said:
It is funny to read some of the "miniature" (read 35) mm vs "real size" (read 6x9) wars of the 30-ies to 50-ies of last century. Identical to now, only with our current "full-frame" at the receiving end. One would have thought that some new arguments would have been thought up over the last sixty years, but no, the same old leftovers recooked.....
Click to expand...
Actually it's not that simple. There are really two arguments at work here. One is a resolution/pixel count argument that says that "bigger" sensors with more pixels give more fine-grained results. This is the "old" argument that you mention, and it is so trivial that I wonder how people even manage to argue about it. Also it has little to do with sensor format except that bigger sensors give more pixels, but that's not rocket science either. Still, this argument got resuscitated to no end throughout the history of photography. The other, newer argument in the DSLR context is the crop factor argument, where people are upset that the same lens gives different perspectives on bodies with different sensor sizes. This is also trivial, but it is more difficult to accept because it means people have to invest into new wideangles and nobody wants to spend money (or those new wideangles aren't available in the first place). The crop factor argument is actually quite new, I don't think you had that in the 1950s simply because back very few people used the same lens on medium-format and 35mm bodies. And those that did didn't bother about the different perspective, perhaps because they were more used to making compromises.

Philipp
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top