Why did Leica drop their R-clients so unceremoniously?

[wildlightphoto]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I think that you're always going to have a problem with a "Universal Mount" that is capable of flicking levers for Leica lenses, different levers in different directions for other manufacturers' and a multiplicity of electronic triggers for yet more.

 

All the camera would have to provide is signal and voltage. A smart adapter could translate the signals and voltage into either mechanical action or the correct signals and voltage as required by the lens. What's needed is an interface between the camera and adapter that is flexible and extendible enough to handle a variety of lens requirements. I develop software interfaces every day at my desk job. This is nowhere near a show-stopper.

 

This mule camera is going yo have to be completely in a different league from the top end Canon, Nikons and Sonys to make users of these even think about buying one. There has to be a killer feature, and I suspect that can only be the sensor.

 

What about being able to use Canon T/S, Coastal Optics macro, Nikon AFS 14-28 and Leica APO lenses on the same camera, with no loss of function when using any of the lenses? I don't know about you but if I wanted to use lenses from a variety of makers I'd prefer a consistent user interface and output quality. That IMHO is a killer feature.

[Advertisement]

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

[andybarton]

Fair enough.

 

But, how many people own all these different mount lenses?

 

I still think the market is going to be pretty small.

[wildlightphoto]

Fair enough.

 

But, how many people own all these different mount lenses?

 

I still think the market is going to be pretty small.

 

You don't have to own all those mounts. I own Nikon AI and Leica-R lenses. One camera that can use both without losing auto-diaphragm or infinity focus is very appealing, especially because I'd want a backup. Carrying a single primary camera plus a single backup camera for all of my lenses is much more appealing than carrying primary plus backup for Leica-R and primary plus backup for Nikon.

 

The options I have now are: use a Canon and lose auto-diaphragm and full-aperture metering on all of my lenses, use a Nikon and for the R lenses lose the auto-diaphragm and ability to use them on the Leicaflexes, or use a smaller format like 4/3. Not interested.

[ho_co]

I think that you're always going to have a problem with a "Universal Mount" ...

 

As an example, the Alpa 35mm Reflex Cameras had a universal mount, with adapters, many of them (semi-)automatic, mechanically linked, for everyone's lenses. (They were a camera maker only and didn't produce any lenses of their own.)

[giordano]

Howard, I don't think Alpa is a fair comparison because, unlike any modern SLR, there was no two-way communication between the lens and the body. (I'll skip the details unless people want them.)

 

I used to have the "auto-aperture" Nikkor-Alpa adapter and it worked just fine, but the only other such I've ever seen or heard of is the one for M42 mount. AFAIK all the others - and there weren't many of them in the catalog although it wouldn't have been hard to make them - were manual-only, like the current adapters for using various lenses on EOS bodies.

[andybarton]

I'm with John on this one.

 

I see absolutely nothing compelling enough with such a beast to make a Canon or Nikon user think "OK, that's a great idea. I will pay (probably) twice what a top end Canon/Nikon will cost, just so that I can use my lenses on a different body".

 

It's not going to happen.

 

I bet if this idea was floated on a Canon /Nikon forum (I assume that there are such things, with dozens of users complaining about dust and spots on sensors and other stuff ) it would be flamed from here to the fire station in the middle of next week.

 

As far as I can see, there would be only one set of reflex lens owners needing such a solution - us. Those who used to have those old Canon mount lenses moved on years ago. Contax users, maybe? How many of them were there?

 

Yes, it might be nice to be able to use really old lenses on a modern body, but that isn't going to deliver a profit to a manufacturer, when he could be making other cameras that DO make him some money.

[pgk]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Realistically what is needed is a 35mm full frame digital back with a shutter unit placed immediately in front of it and a manually dialable shutter speed. In this scenario any lens with an aperture control could be used and focus could be by means of live view and potentially a bellows type system. I am sure that such a mechanism will be viable at some point in the future and it will have a great deal of potential for 'technical' uses. I have built a not dis-similar system for technical uses already - except of course that the digital back is a Canon 5D2 with all the problems of flange distance that this brings with it (much modified since pic below) although with perseverance R lenses can be used happily enough although its shown with an OM lens. Any ideas of such a camera having software interfaces and mechanical levers, etc. are IMHO unlikely as the market and users of such a system will always be pretty small.

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!

[ho_co]

... I don't think Alpa is a fair comparison because, unlike any modern SLR, there was no two-way communication between the lens and the body....

I'm with John on this one....

I agree with you both. The Alpa adapters were kludgey to say the least. Even the "automatic" ones relied on an external mechanical linkage.

 

I think we're on the same page (though I'm more likely there in a footnote ). The then "universal mount" didn't save even beautifully crafted camera from cult status or oblivion, as you prefer.

 

People buy Nikon or Canon because they've got a lot of nice features; you lose those features when you mount a Leica lens. In a sense, it's like the Visoflex: Interesting; doable; an achievement; surprisingly useful; and woefully out-of-date.

 

I respect and admire you folks like Doug who are getting such good service out of your film cameras and your DMRs. But I would venture that there aren't enough people who go that way to float a 'universal-mount' camera.

 

How much would the creation of the miniaturized components alone cost to put just auto-diaphram, diaphragm setting and lens ID into an R to 'universal mount' adapter? And how much more to make that information transmissible in both directions? I doubt it would be possible to let the camera set the aperture on an R lens, for example, but an adapter to do that would be a work of art!

[giordano]

The Alpa adapters were kludgey to say the least. Even the "automatic" ones relied on an external, mechanical linkage.

 

...just like "native" Alpa-mount lenses.

[wildlightphoto]

I see absolutely nothing compelling enough with such a beast to make a Canon or Nikon user think "OK, that's a great idea. I will pay (probably) twice what a top end Canon/Nikon will cost, just so that I can use my lenses on a different body".\

 

I didn't know a retail price had already been set. Who says it has to be a Leica-branded product?

 

How much would the creation of the miniaturized components alone cost to put just auto-diaphram, diaphragm setting and lens ID into an R to 'universal mount' adapter? And how much more to make that information transmissible in both directions? I doubt it would be possible to let the camera set the aperture on an R lens, for example, but an adapter to do that would be a work of art!

 

This technology is built into every Canon EOS and Nikon G lens, and every third-party lens to fit CaNikon. It's not rocket science, and electronic stuff is tiny and cheap in big enough quantities.

 

Honestly, you guys are showing very little imagination. I'm a mechanical engineer and my day job is writing engineering software. Technologically this is all kindergarden stuff.

[andybarton]

[ho_co]

...just like "native" Alpa-mount lenses.

:)

Talk about trying to sell a silk purse when all you've got is a mouse's ear!

[ho_co]

... Honestly, you guys are showing very little imagination. I'm a mechanical engineer and my day job is writing engineering software. Technologically this is all kindergarden stuff.

 

Doug, I appreciate your expertise and your artistry; clearly I'm off base.

 

I know there are AF motors and automatic apertures in every current camera company's lenses, and automatic apertures in R lenses.

 

I would think that incorporating a mechanical diaphragm-activator (motorized?) for an R lens, which could be triggered electrically from the camera would be likely to come off rather crude. I also think that transferring the rotary position of a cam into a digital signal to tell the camera where the diaphragm is set would be trouble-prone.

 

I'm sorry to have upset you; I'd love to see done what you propose; and I'm talking off the top of my head to boot. To me it seems that designing this kind of miniature apparatus to give full control to the camera to drive a fully mechanical lens would be a daunting task, far more difficult than designing the circuits to do it all in a new design, as Nikon, Pentax, etc have done.

 

Maybe I'm asking for a more developed solution than you're demanding, or maybe I have no idea what I'm talking about. I'm always willing to learn.

[giordano]

I'm sure that adapters could be made to link a variety of lenses to a "universal" body with and interface all the various electronic and mechanical communication between them.

 

The question is whether it can be done profitably at a price and quality that will attract enough buyers.

 

I feel it's significant in this context that Tamron dropped their Adaptall-2 series ("universal" lens with adapters for various bodies) rather than update it for autofocus and electronic coupling. These days their lenses are made in different mounts for different bodies.

[Krauklis]

I'm using a 1970 90mm Summicron-R on the R8 with DMR and a 180mm f/2.8 APO ROM on the SL. Full-aperture metering and auto diaphragm working, no optical compromises. Any of the last R lenses works perfectly on the 1976 R3, most older lenses can be updated with newer metering cams (as my 90 'cron was) or ROM.

 

A ROM lens on the SL? I've always thought that wasn't possible, or did you carry out some modification?

As Leica told me that in my 3,4/180 R at least one lens is out of centre and that the repair costs would be about 600€, I'm considering the replacement of the 3,4/180 and a 2,8/180 R would be fine then, but what about the use on my Leicaflex I, SL and SL2?

(My 2/90 R is about the same age, 250xxxx, step by step updated to 3-cam).

 

-krauklis (Leicaflex, R, and DMR user)

[Xmas]

A ROM lens on the SL? I've always thought that wasn't possible, or did you carry out some modification?

As Leica told me that in my 3,4/180 R at least one lens is out of centre and that the repair costs would be about 600€, I'm considering the replacement of the 3,4/180 and a 2,8/180 R would be fine then, but what about the use on my Leicaflex I, SL and SL2?

(My 2/90 R is about the same age, 250xxxx, step by step updated to 3-cam).

 

-krauklis (Leicaflex, R, and DMR user)

Hi

 

e-mail Solmss to see what modifications they will still do. Think they needed to remove the SL cam to get the ROM in... and recoprocally etc.

 

Noel

[wildlightphoto]

A ROM lens on the SL? I've always thought that wasn't possible, or did you carry out some modification?

 

It's very slight modification to both lens and camera. Unfortunately it won't work with the Leicaflex or SL2, only the SL, and the mirror box clearance issues still apply.

 

The modification involves adding the 2nd metering cam to the lens, trimming the inner diameter of the SL's mount flange, and in some cases the SL's lens lock pin needs to be made slightly narrower. It won't work on the Leicaflex or SL2 because these cameras use the first cam, and the ROM contacts occupy this location. These bodies' cam follower for the first cam would foul the ROM contacts.

 

 

e-mail Solmss to see what modifications they will still do. Think they needed to remove the SL cam to get the ROM in... and recoprocally etc.

 

Nope, they need to remove the first cam, which the SL doesn't use. Don Goldberg knows how to do this modification.

[Krauklis]

It's very slight modification to both lens and camera. Unfortunately it won't work with the Leicaflex or SL2, only the SL, and the mirror box clearance issues still apply.

 

The modification involves adding the 2nd metering cam to the lens, trimming the inner diameter of the SL's mount flange, and in some cases the SL's lens lock pin needs to be made slightly narrower. It won't work on the Leicaflex or SL2 because these cameras use the first cam, and the ROM contacts occupy this location. These bodies' cam follower for the first cam would foul the ROM contacts.

 

 

 

 

Thanks for the quick and detailed response(s).

As I like to work (to play, truth be told ...) with my Leicaflex(I) and my SL2, I might have to swallow the bitter pill and have the 3,4/180 repaired.

 

-krauklis

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[dickgrafixstop]

Wonder if there will be this same level of emotion when Leica drops the "S" system in

several years "because the technology curve has been so steep that a small company

like Leica can't compete well with the 40-50 megabyte sensors that Canon and Nikon

use in there $4000 SLR bodies"? Oh yes, we will have a path someday for those loyal

red dot customers who mortgaged the house to buy "S" lenses.

[hoppyman]

Leaving aside any reference at all to the R system in this response

 

With the S System, Leica Camera is not trying to compete with the 24x36 dSLRs from Canon and Nikon. They are trying to compete in the 'medium format' niche against Hasselblad and the like.