full frame = 36 x 24 mm

this is the thread where we talk about/lust after full frame cameras, inspired by the official unveiling of the smallest FF camera to date: the Leica M9!

on one end you have the Sony A850 which makes FF "affordable" at $2000 - on the other hand, the M9, at (last I heard) $7000. which do you go for?

I love that Phil Askey on DPR includes the disclaimer that prior to reviewing the M8 he has never ever used a rangefinder before. says a lot about the kind of photographer that site is aimed at, really...

I think I must be that sort of photographer, cos I've never used a rangefinder either. They've become pretty nichey in the last 30 years, you have to admit. And Voigtlander and Leica ain't cheap.

For a household so heavily Canonised, it would have to be the 5Dii for me. I already have an excuse never to consider buying EF-S (or Tamron Di II, Sigma DC or Tokina DX) lenses - we have a couple of Canon EOS film bodies - but really I'm being optimistic about a future in which I somehow own (or have tracelessly stolen without subsequent repercussions) an FF DSLR.

There is some suggestion that Canon have got one more camera announcement left this year and it might be FF. Then again, it might just be the 1Div (1.3x crop).

i went for a nikon d3, although would have definitely "settled" for a d700 if it had been out when i was buying. would love something the size of an m9 but can't afford to pay leica-tax for it. plus, i just looked at the sample images at dpreview and iso1600 is a bit disappointing for a big sensor like this.

MJ - hah, no disrespect at all intended by my comment! just find it surprising that the guy running arguably the most popular camera website currently wasn't familiar with RFs for such a large portion of his career. RFs are pretty niche-y, but they're great fun. you can easily track down an old Canonet G-III for (at least in the US) under $60 on eBay. some new black foam and it'll be good as new, with a wonderfully sharp and fast 40mm lens, makes for a great snapshot camera. it's somewhat of a moldy chestnut, but that extra space around the brightlines of a RF viewfinder really helps in composition.

when I 'worked' for my university newspapers photog department I got to shoot with a 1D (mk 2, I think.) utterly superfluous for a uni newspaper photo department to have, considering they already had a 1Ds for sports, and never published webshots above 400x400. always dreamt about making it 'disappear' one day, and think I probably could have gotten away with it, considering the things that routinely went 'missing' in the photo department. bolted my 17-40 to it once and was blown away by the FOV compared to my 10D at the time.

xp good call on the ISO 1600 performance joe - wonder what the M9 would be capable of if Nikon's engineers had a go at the image processing, especially given the (relatively) large pixel size compared to the other FF cameras. it's offset a bit though by all that fast M glass - in a situation where you'd shoot 2.8 @ 1600, you could shoot 1.4 @ 400 with the M9...

yeah but i shoot at 1.4 @1600 all the time! (live music mainly.) i don't think it's just image processing, there's a lot of new technology in some of the latest dslr sensors and i suspect kodak is a bit behind the times, mostly making medium format sensors where high sensitivity isn't such a priority.

hah! my bad for assuming you'd use it with some kind of zoom lens. how's the focusing in that situation - Nikon's got some pretty bang-up algorithms don't they?

also, I realize I confused the 1D and 1Ds - the 1D is the 1.3x sports shooter, the 1Ds is the FF.

I mean I know voigtlander isn't cheap per se, but it's still like 1/5 the price for an r3a than it is for an mp or m7

True. I'd love a VL Bessa - I can remember looking at a case of them in Jessops Vintage Cameras in Bloomsbury about 10 years ago when Pam got her FTb. We did seriously consider it for about 10min. Pam has shot with a rangefinder so she would've known what she was doing. It's that gorgeous logo as much as anything.

(Still, R3A + 40/1.4 Nokton = close to a grand; I could buy, er, one L-grade Canon lens for that).

I have a 5D that needs to go in for cleaning and then I'll probably sell it and the 35L & 24-105L.

D700 is fabulous, I can't imagine what they could bring out that would make me need to upgrade in the next few years. I need to get the new 50/1.4 from Nikon.

Those L lenses keep their value reasonably well; just did a search for used/completed listings on eBay (UK) and the 24-105L is going for £600-£700 (current new UK price ~£940) and the 35L for £675-£800 (~£1100). Anyone buying a 24-105L may as well stump up for a 5Dii kit (assuming their plastic will stand it) and sell the camera body - the whole transaction would probably undercut the eBay secondhand price.

I'll give you 50 quid for the lot, Milo.

Intro of the M9 just helped the value of my 35 'Lux ASPH, maybe?

I haven't shot a roll of film in two years, but I still can't make myself sell the M7/35. Pretty sure it'll be a cold day in hell before I can get my hands on an M9.

I spend my idle time thinking about just how little food I could get by on in order to save for a M9...

M8 and 8.2's seem to go for around $2-2500 now, good deal

Yeah, I've been wondering what long-term effect the M9 will have on the M8's prices.

Milo: I'll be interested in the 5D if you do decide to sell it. I really want to get FF back, but am in no way earning enough from pics just now to justify either a 5Dii (and any ardour I had for that cooled when I saw how good everything-bar-the-sensor is on the 7D) or a sell-and-swop to d700. Suspect there's a few folk in this basket, as 5D prices seem to be holding up better than expected on ebay UK (where the 5DII is still hit by Canon tax, and is £250-£300 more expensive than the d700).

Am probably going to sell the 70-200 f2.8L IS as well, though it's a lovely lens, and incredibly sharp.

FYI for you British folk it seems the M9 is "only" £4850!