panos.v wrote:
Yup. I think people just get a bit funny because they're not used to multiple formats and the "Full Frame" implies that this is the one and true format. I mean...my Schneider 135mm is standard-wide on the 4x5. If I were to mount it on a FF camera it becomes a mid tele. Should I be complaining about it?
4x5 still hasn't figured out eye AF, so that is not an option for serious photographers anyway
If you can't take great images with any modern camera, the issue is you, not the camera. With the exception of really specialist gear (astro photography, micro imaging), any modern camera can take great images. I sold 3x A1 prints from an XT-5 this month. Most photographer harp on about sensor size and readout speeds and just spend days in the park photographing their dog or grandkids or some pretty scene over some valley somewhere near sunset. *Maybe* this used to be true with film but since pretty much any digital camera can resolve as wel as some 6x7 film stuff I think we've moved past IQ being that important in the imaging chain. When you see a truly great photograph, sensors and other technical bs goes out the window. If the strongest attribute of an image is how clean it is or how aberration free it is, it's already failed,
Fuji's 40MP sensor is sensational. Run it through DXO and enjoy. There's little it can't do. Sure you get incremental gains to 24x36 but only at base ISO and with equivalent glass. And if you aren't going to schlep the lenses around then there's no photo to take. This is why M exists because it's the only system that allows apsc sized lenses on a slightly larger sensor.
Camera choice comes down to ego, aesthetics, handling, menus and lens options. The X100 isn't on backorder because it's the best camera. It's fashionable and it's pretty. Sure, there are some technical niceties like the OVF but really an A7CR thumps it, technically and a XE5 with good glass can be almost indistinguishable except there'll be more frames in focus. And if you want the best IQ in an M sized body, that's the A7CR, not an M11.
Most of us choose a camera because we like how we feel when we hold it and how it feels in the hand. Leica knows this and sells solid premium feeling cameras. Fuji sell lighter retro rip offs. But I doubt that 99% could tell the image difference in a blind test if both cameras are in skilled hands. I like medium format but I don't kid myself I need it to sell prints. I just like the cameras, files and format. It suits the way I want to see the world. I love the way it feels in hand and they make most of the lenses I want to use 95% of the time. But I sell more images from smaller formats because that's the camera I had when I took that shot. I hang APSC and medium format shots next to eachother and no one ever asks about the technical differences.
I've been really tempted by the XE-5. I already have 3 cameras with that exact same sensor and an A7CR but it's pretty and I like the EVF position and small AF lenses. I'm desperately trying not to buy every camera released in 2025 and mostly failing but I have resisted. I did buy the EV1 and I'm really enjoying it. I just don't think that it'll make better photos than the XE5. For every slightly cleaner pixel the EV1 has the XE5 matches it with IBIS and AF. I'm just not sure I want to punch on with Fuji's menus again.
I choose cameras based on how much I enjoy shooting with them. Sensor size basically never comes into it, except for a few really specialist things.
panos.v wrote:
Yup. I think people just get a bit funny because they're not used to multiple formats and the "Full Frame" implies that this is the one and true format. I mean...my Schneider 135mm is standard-wide on the 4x5. If I were to mount it on a FF camera it becomes a mid tele. Should I be complaining about it?
Or if they think the number actually makes a difference. There are a lot of misconceptions about "compression" and other things that doesn't really exist.
This has me wondering: If Leica released an updated version of the CL (typ 7323), would it be more successful today? Would it be more popular than the EV1? And what if it was full frame (but still L mount)?
I'd be much more interested in that for sure. Even in the EV1 as-is, but with L mount instead of M mount.
The CL was a nice camera but too expensive and with not enough lenses. You really want to buy Leica to buy it instead of Fuji, Sony, etc. I doubt it would be different today.
Plenty of people are still pissed that Leica abruptly stopped the CL. The lenses were spectacular and the camera was just lovely. All a V2 needed was IBIS and they wouldn't be able to make enough of them. Leica dumped it because it was too cheap for them. Same with the Summarit M lenses.
