Jump to content

Making a M10 Macro & Telphoto friendly - a modern Viso or whatever

Guest BigSplash

By Guest BigSplash
in Digital Forum

Recommended Posts

Guest BigSplash

Guest BigSplash

Posted
Posted

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Mostly I use my M8 in the 21mm to 90mm category, and if I compare the M camera to any DSLR competitor (DSLR seems to be the only really high end cameras with interchangeable lenses) then I see that the M has at least these advantages, and that is why we all like the M camera:

  • Its much smaller and more easy to handle than any DSLR
  • It is quieter and therefore discrete.
  • Focussing accuracy is better (theoretically) than a DSLR below 90mm and in poor light.
  • Continuous mode should be faster than a DSLR (as there is no mirror to move) however apparently for some reason this is not the case when compared to best Canon and Nikon models. I do not know why and if this critique is correct Leica should address.
  • It is easy to fit a 21mm, TriElmar 90mm and a M8 body in a small case...try that with a DSLR where the lenses need to be physically bigger and have motors on them.
  • There is less to go wrong on a M compared to a DSLR so in theory if Leica build them right they should be more reliable and rugged. (Shutter hardware issues suggest that Leica should look at the internal linkages perhaps?)
  • There is a wide range of fast Prime lenses available that are not offered by Nikon and Canon.
  • The CMOS sensor seems just fine to my eyes and the results are more like film than what I have seen from Nikon and Canon. An EVIL solution suggests moving to CMOS and if that degrades the image quality due to the need for an antialiasing filter or whatever I would not be pleased.
  • It is using the relatively simple M mount very quick to change lenses compared to a DSLR with AF, AE, motor drives.

ALL OF THE ABOVE ARE THINGS THAT ARE SUPER USING A "M" CAMERA AND SHOULD NOT BE TINKERED WITH!

 

Unfortunately what I cannot do with my M8 used with today's Leica offer is Macro and Telephoto. and that is were I would be attracted to any solution that allows this on a M. However Macro is only about 10 to 20% of what I do and I today use a Visoflex with bellows, despite the usual negative comments I get whenever I mention that here.

 

I would like to see Leica address this niche within the context of a M camera and by applying latest technology.....how they do it does not matter to me. I would like to see some Leica lenses being offered with detachable lens heads for use on a bellows as was once the case.

 

Frankly if Leica introduced a new generation Visoflex with built in light metering, slimmer size, quieter mirror mechanism better ground glass screen, that complimented the M8/9 I am sure they would sell "some", possibly many.

 

I also believe that such a strategy would return Leica to being a true system camera offering while keeping the obvious strengths of a M unchanged as listed above.

 

If this new Viso offered Autofocus, and Auto exposure and some lenses were made available including a zoom I could see it would widen significantly the capabilities of a Leica. I suspect that the development cost would be trivial compared to a M9 or S2 or X1...

 

Using the old Viso certainly has some drawbacks, and perhaps that is why some on this forum do not like it. Many compare the 40 year old technology of an old Viso with a modern DSLR and that IMHO is a ridiculous comparison

  1. It is NOT well balanced compared to a DSLR, but then how balanced is anything with a large Telephoto fitted? How balanced is anything with a Bellows and lens unit fitted?
  2. It offers no electronic control of AF or AE.and getting the expousre correct using the camera sensor requires the mirror to be lifted and then returned to the firing position. Not easy compared to a modern DSLR.
  3. Alternatives based on EVIL etc force the usage of CMOS sensors that arguably are not giving the film look that Leica offers and we all like.
  4. Focussing is best at full aperture, and then setting the aperture to its correct value is a manual operation...on a modern DSLR it is not.
  5. The mirror housing was super large and NOT well dampened in the original Viso...presumably this today could be fixed

Imagine a mirror housing that was well balanced with the M body and had electronics built in that did the following:

  1. Received ISO value selected from a M10 (or manually for M8/M9 users)
  2. Received Shutter speed selected from a M10 (or manually for M8/M9 users)
  3. Recognised light value from the mirror and knew the aperture value set at the lens (Requires a new generation lens for macro and telephoto or an old R lens)
  4. Made the appropriate aperture / shutter speed calculation at the given ISO value and send that to the camera to force the shutter speed (ie Aperture priority). This could be done manually for M8/M9 users.
  5. If new lenses for telephoto or Macro were introduced the housing could force a given aperture (ie Shutter priority selected) when the shutter is triggered.

Presumably the mirror assembly could learn from R9 or S2 technology in terms of damping. The electronics presumably could be taken from existing modules used in the Maestro chip (ISO / Shutter Speed / aperture calculations) while the other modules for white balance, JPEG conversion etc could be left in the M10 camera

 

An arrangement such as the above it seems to me would be great for Sports Photographers that could have prime telephotos or long focus zooms fitted ready to use on mirror housings and allow then to switch to a basic M10 with 135mm or 90mm lens for shots that are nearer to the subject.

 

I am interested in any CONSTRUCTIVE comments that explain what is wrong in my analysis, or how it can be improved.

I am not much interested in hearing about "Groundhog day", or raising again a "dead dog of an issue". It is a fact that I know many very credible people do use the old Visoflex and like me would presumably see an opportunity to improve such an offering.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 212
  • Created
  • Last Reply
jaapv

jaapv

Posted
Posted

Why teach a pig to waltz?:confused:

For SLR subjects, use an SLR... If you want to stick to Leica, get a DMR, or use your beloved Visoflex if you like to go primitive. Leica will come up with their R solution too, you can wait for that if you wish. Tinkering with the M that is simply not suitable for that kind of work is pointless. Such a machine as you propose would probably cost more than a DSLR. I'm sure Leica has more sense than to go that road.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest BigSplash

Guest BigSplash

Posted
Posted

John Jaapv thanks for your reply.

I have never been precise about the specification / approach a modern mirror housing could take, and how it would work with a M10 that had the appropriate interfaces.

I suppose that the mirror housing would cost say £1000 to £1500 ....

 

 

 

 

If that allowed:

  • R lenses and Viso lenses to be used
  • Heralded new generation Macro and Telyt lenses

I would for one want such a thing. I also would be buying a M10 whereas there is not enough in a M9 for me today to get my cheque book out. Basically it would position the M camera as a true system offer.

 

The DMR is no longer mainstream Leica and my belief and hope is that Leica M will see many more evolutions of a great offering. If I invest going forward why should I buy a used DMR and not go with a M10 when it is available?

 

On previous occassions people have said that an old Viso is cumbersome and poorly balanced and they are right. However look at the press photographers below at the recent Monte Carlo Tennis final ....these cameras are not cumbersome?

 

If you look at the sports section on this forum you will see shots I took with just a 90mm from the stands. I think the images shows what can be done without a press pass with a M8. I recognise that at a football match there will be a need for some large focal length lenses or long reach zoom but I wonder whether this should be used 100% of the time, and if it is occassional why not with a high tech Viso?

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Link to post
Share on other sites
jaapv

jaapv

Posted
Posted

Well, triple or quadruple that amount and it would be more realistic. This horse you are flogging is quite dead, I would say it is decomposing by now.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest BigSplash

Guest BigSplash

Posted
Posted

So you are saying it would be the same price as a complete M9. If the M9 was mass produced in huge volume and the Next generation Viso was a specialist hand built item for a niche market I could see your point. However Jaapv you and others love the fact that the M9 is built in small volumes by specialist technicians, and there is no compromise towards producing volumes.

The high tech Viso by comparison to a M9 has:

  • No shutter with several interlocking manually adjusted bits (see Mark Norton shutter lock up photos),
  • No shutter firmware
  • No sensor with its fine shims that are adjusted by hand to achieve the required tolerances,
  • No LCD display and its associated electronics
  • No DSP graphics board (JPEG conversion, capture, firmware for corner fix, white balance, lens selection / vignetting correction etc)
  • No SD card and associated electronics
  • No firmware for managing the various on camera processes (frame counter etc)

I ask how can the above be about the same price as a high tech Viso which is a mirror housing plus some existing software / electronics assembled by technicians manually....or are you saying that Leica could price the thing to value and that would drive such a high price?

Link to post
Share on other sites
stunsworth

stunsworth

Posted
Posted
...it would work with a M10 that had the appropriate interfaces.

I suppose that the mirror housing would cost say £1000 to £1500 ....

 

If that allowed:

  • R lenses and Viso lenses to be used

It's like deja vu all over again.

 

Frank, as has been mentioned time and time again whenever you raise this issue, there isn't enough space between the registers of an R and M lens to allow use of a mirror, so unless the M10 had an "always on" EVF there's no way of seeing what the camera is pointing at, or what it's focused on. In fact if the camera had an EVF (and I am not for a second advocating that it should), there'd be no need for a Visioflex, just an adaptor ring.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest BigSplash

Guest BigSplash

Posted
Posted
It's like deja vu all over again.

 

Frank, as has been mentioned time and time again whenever you raise this issue, there isn't enough space between the registers of an R and M lens to allow use of a mirror, so unless the M10 had an "always on" EVF there's no way of seeing what the camera is pointing at, or what it's focused on. In fact if the camera had an EVF (and I am not for a second advocating that it should), there'd be no need for a Visioflex, just an adaptor ring.

 

People have indeed said that but:

1 Are you really telling me that there is no space for the Telyt lenses because of the mirror dimensions! The Telyts came in two variants ...one for the Viso and one for the Lecaflex. The actual lens head is well forward of the camera.

2 Are you saying that there is no room for a lens head used in Macro with a Viso and bellows...

 

Those that say there is insufficient room are referring to converting a M camera to a pseudo SLR for photography in the 135 to 18 mm range and that I would agree is daft. Why would anyone want to do that.

 

Andy ....clearly although I have admittedly raised this issue before (many times) it is clear that people think:

  1. I am trying to modify the M for use as a pseudo SLR in the 18 to 135mm range...which I am not
  2. They say go out and buy a completely new system as a Leica mirror housing would cost as much as a complete handbuilt M9 , which maybe is the case if leica are pricing to value.
  3. They feel it is old technology and have no suggestion about what could be done today IF a M10 had the right inputs and outputs to the accesory mirror box or whatever.

My critiques seem always to come from people who have no Visoflex or support a DMR or Nikon / Canon and do not want Leica to widen the scope of the M SYSTEM.

 

Now if Leica bring out a new DSLR "R" system then maybe that solves the problem but the rumour suggest that such a back would be somewhere between £5k and £18K and all I want is something less performant

Link to post
Share on other sites
andybarton

andybarton

Posted
Posted

Where have you heard that rumour about a dSLR from Leica?

 

Read my response to your thread about why you think pro sports photographers should shoot Leicas (presumably with Visos) for my reasons why I don't think Leica will or can even afford to build a new SLR. £18 grand for a body? Are you mad?

Link to post
Share on other sites
stunsworth

stunsworth

Posted
Posted
Those that say there is insufficient room are referring to converting a M camera to a pseudo SLR for photography in the 135 to 18 mm range

 

Frank, you referred to using R lenses on an M camera in your original post - please read again what you wrote. It doesn't matter if the R lens is 19mm or 560mm THERE ISN'T SUFFICIENT SPACE FOR A MIRROR BOX BETWEEN THE REAR OF AN R LENS MOUNT AND AN M's BODY.

 

The only way you could use R lenses would be either to have a mirror box - this would mean you could only use the vast majority of R lenses for macro work. The alternative is that you could use lenses intended for the original Visioflex. Do you _really_ think that there are enough of those out there - with owners prepared to buy an M9 and 'improved Visioflex' to make the project viable for Leica?

Link to post
Share on other sites
jaapv

jaapv

Posted
Posted

My critiques seem always to come from people who have no Visoflex

:confused: I have three Visoflexes and use them regularly, post the results too. Still, your idea is err...unrealistic.

Link to post
Share on other sites
stunsworth

stunsworth

Posted
Posted
Still, your idea is err...unrealistic.

 

I expect Frank still has acquaintances in the electronics industry. Since Leica obviously isn't interested in following up his idea I think it's time he tried to convince his electronics people that it's a project worth sinking a few hundred thousand Euros into. Since it's such an obvious winner in Frank's eyes I'm sure they'd jump at the chance of selling a device to all those M9/Telyt owners out there.

Link to post
Share on other sites
jaapv

jaapv

Posted
Posted

I don't want to encourage Frank, but I suppose it would be possible to make a short box that would have the right register distance for R lenses with a small sensor/optical evil system inside that "jumps" up to allow exposure. The mind boggles at the expense...:eek:

Link to post
Share on other sites
stunsworth

stunsworth

Posted
Posted
I don't want to encourage Frank, but I suppose it would be possible to make a short box that would have the right register distance for R lenses with a small sensor/optical evil system inside that "jumps" up to allow exposure.

 

The problem being that the jumping sensor wouldn't be in the same plane as the main digital sensor, so nothing would be in focus.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...