M9, last of the line?

[giordano]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Actually I did in posts #6 and 28. My point remains that Porsche has introduced all kinds of changes, but the basic 911 remains (albeit larger and water cooled), and more radical designs have come the way of new lines altogether.

 

Larger, heavier, stuffed full of electronics and gadgetry - and the only accessory that works with every model since 1963 is the key-ring. Not a very helpful analogy.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Jeff S]

Larger, heavier, stuffed full of electronics and gadgetry - and the only accessory that works with every model since 1963 is the key-ring. Not a very helpful analogy.

 

Doesn't sound like you've driven one lately. That's how you tell it's a 911. Last I checked, it still had a motor in the back. The rest, as I said before, is fluff. And I've already commented on the unfortunate larger size, which I hope the M doesn't follow. If you, too, want to be helpful, maybe read all the comments.

 

Jeff

[stunsworth]

Zeiss, Konica and CV, are nibbling away at Leicas turnover & profit.

 

What M products do Konica have?

[hoppyman]

This thread is YOUR FAULT Jaap!

I think the USA folks might say 'out of left field' for you!

Just where have you been holidaying recently? Dare I ask if it was the South of France? :)

[jaapv]

Was the larger mount really caused by optical reasons?

 

As far as we know Leitz experimented with a bayonet mount since the first years after the war at a times when they had not yet reached the optical limits of contemporary screw mount lenses (Summicrons were still ahead). And we have seen "modern" optical designs like the 50 Summilux and Summicron being retrograded to screw-mount some years ago without any loss. At screw-mount times the transmission of optical information was no problem for the mount size, when we remember the 1.9/73, 1.5/50 and 1.5/85 lenses. It was lack of coating, lack of experience and the quality of the glass. Progress of coating, and glass production made possible big steps forward in optical performances of lenses like the last version of the 50mm Elmar, even the Anastigmat for the retro "O-Serie", or some Voigtländer lenses; they weren't bigger than their historical ancestors.

 

On the other hand: where do you see a great step forward in optical design depending on mount size? The R-lenses were bigger, but only better in regions beyond the M-System (makro and tele). Are Zeiss-lenses with (bigger?) mounts for Sony, Canon or Nikon generally better than their ZM-lenses? May be the S-Summarit-lenses are better than M-lenses - I haven't seen a comparison yet. They should have better resolution, less vignetting and distortion at their price with a rather low max. aperture of f/2.5. If Leica would offer M-lenses at a comparable price with this opening, I think those lenses will outperform any other one (I am still dreaming of a 3,5/50 Elmar asph.)

According to some sources it was the main reason. The increase in geometrical flux would eable the design of faster, shorter lenses with fewer aberrations. Lenses like a 2.0/50 would not benefit that much, there you are right, but a LTM Noctilux would have been impossible, for instance. Simirlarly a larger mount now would enable us to dream of a Summilux 18 for instance. And it would, as Ruben points out, solve digital problems like the red edge.

[jonoslack]

 

The M mount patents expired 2004, Zeiss, Konica and CV, are nibbling away at Leicas turnover & profit.

 

 

Hi Noel

Or you could say that cheaper M lenses from Zeiss and CV are encouraging more people into the fold to buy M cameras . . . and then M lenses as well. Thus adding to Leica profits.

 

Currently they don't seem to be able to make as many lenses as they could sell, so it's hard to see how Zeiss and CV are nibbling away at their profits.

 

. . . . . . . and Konica?

[jonoslack]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

According to some sources it was the main reason. The increase in geometrical flux would eable the design of faster, shorter lenses with fewer aberrations. Lenses like a 2.0/50 would not benefit that much, there you are right, but a LTM Noctilux would have been impossible, for instance. Simirlarly a larger mount now would enable us to dream of a Summilux 18 for instance. And it would, as Ruben points out, solve digital problems like the red edge.

 

Ahh - all in aid of a Summilux 18

As for the red edge, it might go away for newer, more telecentric lenses, but I've yet to see a convinced description of the cause of it, so postulating a new lens mount to get rid if it seems to be a leap in the dark (might it not make it worse?).

[jaapv]

That the red edge is caused by lack of telecentricity seems to be a reasonable assumpttion, as it is a WA problem. I'm sure the development department at Leica knows more than they are telling

[XK50]

With a fair amount of traffic in this section of the Forum being related to "I can't see to focus my M", "I can focus my M but my lens(es) don't" and "I've sent my kit back to Solms for adjustment", I was struck by the Vimeo video where, way back last September, Stephan Daniels volunteered that a CMOS sensor would give the "advantages" of focus confirmation, Liveview and video to the backscreen of the M9.

 

IMHO there's life in our old dog, yet, and therein lies my twopennuth for the central theme of the M10..

 

Regards,

 

John

[dpattinson]

With a fair amount of traffic in this section of the Forum being related to "I can't see to focus my M", "I can focus my M but my lens(es) don't" and "I've sent my kit back to Solms for adjustment", I was struck by the Vimeo video where, way back last September, Stephan Daniels volunteered that a CMOS sensor would give the "advantages" of focus confirmation, Liveview and video to the backscreen of the M9.

 

IMHO there's life in our old dog, yet, and therein lies my twopennuth for the central theme of the M10..

 

Regards,

 

John

 

Unfortunately that wouldn't solve the problem of rangefinder mis-calibration, which is the main source of the focus difficulties. (Unless of course you went for EVIL ttl focusing...)

[jonoslack]

That the red edge is caused by lack of telecentricity seems to be a reasonable assumpttion, as it is a WA problem. I'm sure the development department at Leica knows more than they are telling

 

The lack of telecentricity doesn't CAUSE the red edge in itself, it's just that it only happens in lenses which have a wide angle of incidence. It might be possible to fix the red edge problem without binning all the wide angle M lenses made to date (or most of them), but first of all the actual reason needs to be elucidated, and I still haven't met anyone who claims to really understand this (could be the non-symmetrical bayer filter for instance).

[jonoslack]

HI John

With a fair amount of traffic in this section of the Forum being related to "I can't see to focus my M", "I can focus my M but my lens(es) don't" and "I've sent my kit back to Solms for adjustment", I was struck by the Vimeo video where, way back last September, Stephan Daniels volunteered that a CMOS sensor would give the "advantages" of focus confirmation, Liveview and video to the backscreen of the M9.

 

IMHO there's life in our old dog, yet, and therein lies my twopennuth for the central theme of the M10..

 

Regards,

 

John

 

I missed that one . . . . sounds like a good idea .

 

Unfortunately that wouldn't solve the problem of rangefinder mis-calibration, which is the main source of the focus difficulties. (Unless of course you went for EVIL ttl focusing...)

 

I assume John is talking about caldav focusing for the focus confirmation (otherwise why the CMOS) - It would certainly make it easier to confirm that the rangefinder was calibrated properly if you could also focus from the sensor plane!

[jaapv]

The lack of telecentricity doesn't CAUSE the red edge in itself, it's just that it only happens in lenses which have a wide angle of incidence. It might be possible to fix the red edge problem without binning all the wide angle M lenses made to date (or most of them), but first of all the actual reason needs to be elucidated, and I still haven't met anyone who claims to really understand this (could be the non-symmetrical bayer filter for instance).

It could be a non-symmetrical filter, but it seems doubtful, as there have been other cameras with the same problem. Another thing that points at telecentricity is that it does not happen with my 16 mm Fisheye - but that is an R lens with a long register. It may not be the cause, you are right there - but it seems to be the cure.

[ohnri]

Focus confirmation with a CMOS sensor wouldn't need to rely on the sensor panel would it?

 

A spot focus in the center of the sensor, coincident with the RF patch but smaller and inside it could be used with a simple LED system in the viewfinder, similar to the exposure system used now.

 

The data from that tiny central spot could be sent electronically to a processor for evaluation (if it can be sent to the rear screen for live view it can be sent to a processor instead or in addition).

 

When focus is sharp a light goes off in the VF.

 

I don't think this is beyond current technology in the CMOS world.

 

That would give a manual focus lens which relies on the RF mechanism but with the option of electronic confirmation.

 

Then, if Leica could come up with a clever way of letting the user easily adjust the RF calibration we could have a RF that works perfectly for each lens.

 

So, there you have it. The M10 can be the Leica that focuses perfectly with every lens, every time.

 

And for lenses like the Zeiss 50mm f/1.5 C you could set the RF patch to focus best wide open or slightly closed down, whichever mood strikes you at the moment.

 

Similarly for the Leica 35mm 'lux (not the brand new one which doesn't apparently need it) and for the Noct f/1.

 

Who would like that in their M10?

 

Best,

 

Bill

[adan]

Focus confirmation with a CMOS sensor wouldn't need to rely on the sensor panel would it? A spot focus in the center of the sensor, coincident with the RF patch but smaller and inside it could be used with a simple LED system in the viewfinder, similar to the exposure system used now.

 

I don't think this is beyond current technology in the CMOS world..

 

DId you mean "a CMOS sensor wouldn't need to rely on the WHOLE sensor panel..." ?

 

You'd be relying on the CMOS sensor if you used any part of it. It is all one chip. It's like saying "I'm not relying on my computer's CPU - just a little piece in the center."

 

Otherwise, yes, you could have the camera circuits IGNORE everything except a small portion of what is feeding off the CMOS.

______________

 

On the diameter of the lens mount:

 

1. Realistically, Leica enlarged it in 1954 (and also made the register 1mm shorter) mostly to allow space for an LTM-to-M adapter. Backwards compatability to avoid ticking off the owners of 25 years worth of LTM lenses. The switch to a bayonet was for faster lens changing (and coincidentally allowed the use of a flange for auto frameline selection).

 

I'd point out that the 85 f/1.5 Summarex was built for the screw-mount cameras a decade before the M came out, and if you do the math, it already required a bigger mount opening than a 50 f/1 does (85/1.5 = 57mm, 50/1 = 50mm).

 

2. As to fixing the "red edge", that is not really dependent on a wider mount - just a longer backfocus, to keep the angle of incidence more perpendicular. If it will accept the rear element of a 75 f/1.4, (or 21 f/1.4, which apparently from reports has no red-edge problems) it will accept the rear element of a hypothetical 18mm f/1.4 without modification.

 

3. Always be careful "enlarging" anything on the M (can we say "M5?"). Its size is one of its prime selling points - the only reason I pay the extra cost over a similarly-speced SLR.

[Xmas]

What M products do Konica have?

Hi Steve

 

The lenses are good

 

Konica Hexar RF

 

Noel

[Xmas]

Hi eeeeek

 

@@@@@@

1. Realistically, Leica enlarged it in 1954 (and also made the register 1mm shorter) mostly to allow space for an LTM-to-M adapter. Backwards compatability to avoid ticking off the owners of 25 years worth of LTM lenses. The switch to a bayonet was for faster lens changing (and coincidentally allowed the use of a flange for auto frameline selection).

@@@@@@

 

You are believing Leitz adv copy text the real reason was patent protection, Singer patented the hole at the sharp end of needle.

 

The CV, ZM and Konica lenses are hurting Leica's bottom line badly. I've spent a lot of money on CV and ZM lenses I'd a given to Leica otherwise...,

 

Noel

[stunsworth]

The lenses are good

 

Konica Hexar RF

 

Indeed they are, but I doubt that Leica are losing much revenue to lenses that didn't sell in large numbers and are now discontinued <grin>

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[ohnri]

DId you mean "a CMOS sensor wouldn't need to rely on the WHOLE sensor panel..." ?

 

I meant it would not need to rely on the LCD panel on the back of the camera. In other words, you could have electronic focus confirmation without holding the camera out in front of you, your eye could still be looking through the optical VF.

 

Best,

 

BIll

[zlatkob]

The CV, ZM and Konica lenses are hurting Leica's bottom line badly. I've spent a lot of money on CV and ZM lenses I'd a given to Leica otherwise...,

I'm not sure it's that bad. CV, Zeiss, Konica and other lenses also compete with used Leica lenses from decades past. So if CV, Zeiss, etc. didn't exist, one might spend the same money on used Leica lenses, from which Leica earns $0.