Corran
Well-known
Yeah yeah you know what I meant. Field of View.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
In this case angle of view 
You have not defined a subject distance.
As for DOF, a 1.33 sensor like the M8 will not make a huge difference. The change in DOF will be less than one stop, which one will be hard put to see in print and if you change your position to equalize the field of view difference (which will change the perspective, though) it will be even less noticeable. A jittery finger on one of the contrast-driven tools in PS or LR will negate it completely.
An APS-C like the RD1 will have a bit more pronounced deeper DOF though, but still well within the bounds of creativity.
You have not defined a subject distance.As for DOF, a 1.33 sensor like the M8 will not make a huge difference. The change in DOF will be less than one stop, which one will be hard put to see in print and if you change your position to equalize the field of view difference (which will change the perspective, though) it will be even less noticeable. A jittery finger on one of the contrast-driven tools in PS or LR will negate it completely.
An APS-C like the RD1 will have a bit more pronounced deeper DOF though, but still well within the bounds of creativity.
Ben Z
Mentor
This question depends entirely on one's definition of value.
Right now a Leica-warrantied "pre owned" for <$5000 would fit my definition...it is the "latest" generation with the best balance of price and repair-cost risk.
An M8 would be a distant second. It is the oldest and least-expensive Leica M digital, and thus will have the lowest depreciation. Downside is if anything goes wrong, even if the parts are still available it is likely the cost would be disproportionate to the camera's worth. That said, a complete write-off of an M8 would be about what that used M240 will depreciate in the next year or two.
At this point I would not consider any of the M9-based cameras good values. Right now there is no permanent solution to the sensor corrosion problem, which appears both inevitable and ubiquitous. Even if Leica continues to replace them free ad infinitum, it would be a real PITA if one had to keep sending it back again and again and be without it for a month or three. If the M9 derivatives were selling at fire-sale prices (<$2000) I would say it might be worth the risk to bet on long-shot odds Leica will re-source new sensors that won't delaminate. I'm really glad I'm rid of my M9, much as I liked it (and never had sensor problems with it).
Right now a Leica-warrantied "pre owned" for <$5000 would fit my definition...it is the "latest" generation with the best balance of price and repair-cost risk.
An M8 would be a distant second. It is the oldest and least-expensive Leica M digital, and thus will have the lowest depreciation. Downside is if anything goes wrong, even if the parts are still available it is likely the cost would be disproportionate to the camera's worth. That said, a complete write-off of an M8 would be about what that used M240 will depreciate in the next year or two.
At this point I would not consider any of the M9-based cameras good values. Right now there is no permanent solution to the sensor corrosion problem, which appears both inevitable and ubiquitous. Even if Leica continues to replace them free ad infinitum, it would be a real PITA if one had to keep sending it back again and again and be without it for a month or three. If the M9 derivatives were selling at fire-sale prices (<$2000) I would say it might be worth the risk to bet on long-shot odds Leica will re-source new sensors that won't delaminate. I'm really glad I'm rid of my M9, much as I liked it (and never had sensor problems with it).
Corran
Well-known
In this case angle of view
Come on now, let's not be pedantic.
The simple fact is I don't care to deal with a crop sensor. I have a set of lenses that work on my Nikon SP, Leica M6, and Leica M9.
It seems that some people can't understand the idea of personal preference. I will never buy a crop sensor digital camera for photography. It's a pointless endeavor in my eyes. If I were to ever buy a digital medium format camera I would want a 6x7 sensor to go with my 6x7 lenses, not some weird crop. That's just my preference.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Nobody is denying your right to have a preference. Let's face it, if it were not so we would all be using cell-phones.
However, my - and anybody's preference is not an universal truth.
However, my - and anybody's preference is not an universal truth.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
I am sure it won't be another sensor - just another IR filter.
aeturnum
Established
I voted for the M9. To me, the 'crop' rangefinders lose a lot of value because my 35mm lens(es) aren't 35mm anymore and I must go get a 23mm or 26mm lens (an impossible task in m-mount as far as I know).
That said, if you don't care about focal length and just want a RF, the Epson wins hands down. Can be had for a steal.
That said, if you don't care about focal length and just want a RF, the Epson wins hands down. Can be had for a steal.
Ben Z
Mentor
That's what I would figure too. No reason to throw the baby out with the bath water. In my mind it made sense to call it a "new sensor" because it comes from the manufacturer as a pre-assembled unit. I can see where that was confusing.
To me, none of them are a great value... unless you absolutely want a digital camera with a mechanical rangefinder. M9 issues aside...I would say M9 based on usefulness, price, and convenience. Best value doesn't mean cheapest.
Cropped sensors bothered me too, until I shot the RD1 and 8.2. Real world I found it was something I quickly adjusted to.
Sometimes it was to my advantage, like turning a 50/1.4 into a fast portrait lens.
Once you become used to the crop factor, which is likely to take no more than a couple of days at most, its no problem at all.
Stephen
raid
Dad Photographer
I use the M8 with 50mm lenses as portrait lenses, and I use it with a 17mm lens as a great 22mm lens without vignetting or color problems. It is not a problem at all.
emayoh
Established
So you're saying no need for any different focal length in lenses at all? 50mm for everyone. Just change your position if you want to see more or less in the frame. I guess that is well within the "bounds of creativity."
But, in seriousness I would say that the vast majority of my wide angle shooting has not afforded me a lot of leeway in "changing my position." If I have a 15mm lens on my FF camera, I have it there for an actual reason. If I wanted a 20mm lens on my FF camera I would put it on my camera. For me it makes a difference that is important to me. To say that there is "no noticeable difference" is frankly not very friendly.
aeturnum
Established
It's more about bag and kit space for me. I used cropped sensors for years when I started out (Canon DSLRs) and it was great. However, once I got into film cameras as well and started getting lenses, it really bothered me (and my wallet!) that I needed to buy two parallel lens catalogs to work at the same distances.
I should amend my previous answer to read that if you don't mind lenses changing focal length, crop is great and cheap. If you do mind, then a crop sensor RF won't be good value.
f16sunshine
Moderator
I think of it ths way.
One only needs to add one lens on the wide end to your existing kit.
For example:
If 21mm is your widest with FF add a 15mm to become 21-ish with a aps-c or aps-h size sensor.
Considering traditional focal lengths for 35mm rangefinder photography , the crop factor just has us skipping down one FL to get to the FOV you might have with full frame.
How big is a single RF lens really?
Just choose your wides and skip down one length.
12,15/18,21,24,28,35,50,75,90,135
With the above way of thinking. Only a 12mm shooter would be left without that lens. Which does not perfrom well on the FF bodies anyway
M9/ME/MM/M240I'm not advocating away from FF. I just don't see it as a big deal at all to have a crop with a rangefinder (or Mirrorless EVF cameras).
I want Full Frame with DSLR bodies where smaller sensor means smaller mirror and viewfinder. Here crop suck and FF is huge!
Ben Z
Mentor
The only reason the M8's crop didn't bother me was because Voitlander made the 15mm that gave me back the FOV of a 21mm which is one of my most-used lenses on full frame, without having to spend thousands on a WATE just to get the one focal length I wanted.
uhoh7
Mentor
here are some recent shots in Nepal, not by me, from that "no value" camera, the M8.
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/920070/1112#12794251
In my opinion, the M8 is the most underrated camera today. The thinnest filter stack ever over the sensor, and very modest 1.3x crop, I have seen so many jaw dropping images from that machine.....
No, I don't own one, and like you I covet FF, but I would never discount the M8 myself. At 1500 or so, it is a fantastic value, if results trump specs on paper, or romantic thoughts of what was meant to be.
Pablito
coco frío
What Godfrey said in post #11, so long as we're not taking "value" to mean price.
Corran
Well-known
I'm not sure why some can't separate "value" from "results."
In fact the whole idea to start with is rather asinine. If we want to talk about results, any $200 point and shoot can do 95% of what any Leica M(x) can do in decent light. Let's not kid ourselves here. The soccer mom with a Nikon D3200 has more technical image quality and value in her camera than an M8 or M9, if all we compare things to are the "results," given a constant photographer.
I am one of those that values the experience as much as the results, and sometimes those two things do coincide. To be frank, I have hardly shot my M9. I've shot more with my M6, but have shot 10x more with my Nikon SP. And I prefer shooting 4x5 to any 35mm camera in many situations. What has more value? What I enjoy has more value.
Frankly I should never have even bothered, because it's clear I hit a nerve and no one is getting anything out of this conversation. I'm going to shut up and go make images. Well not right now it's 12am but you know what I mean.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
I think of it ths way.
One only needs to add one lens on the wide end to your existing kit.
For example:
If 21mm is your widest with FF add a 15mm to become 21-ish with a aps-c or aps-h size sensor.
Considering traditional focal lengths for 35mm rangefinder photography , the crop factor just has us skipping down one FL to get to the FOV you might have with full frame.
How big is a single RF lens really?
Just choose your wides and skip down one length.
12,15/18,21,24,28,35,50,75,90,135
With the above way of thinking. Only a 12mm shooter would be left without that lens. Which does not perfrom well on the FF bodies anyway
I'm not advocating away from FF. I just don't see it as a big deal at all to have a crop with a rangefinder (or Mirrorless EVF cameras).
I want Full Frame with DSLR bodies where smaller sensor means smaller mirror and viewfinder. Here crop suck and FF is huge!
I actually have a 9,5 mm 1.8 lens
Here it is on the M8:
Sparrow
Mentor
... well it looks like Epson got it right with the very first Digital RF ever made, even all these years later Leica are struggling to make one we think is of equal value ... imagine if Cosina and Epson were to take what we've learned in the meantime and add a modern sensor in a new version of the RD1