Fuji rumored to bring new M mount camera.

[MarkP]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Will it definitely have a smaller sensor?

 

As expected. As an amateur, and not wanting to buy a second M9, a high quality M-mount 'compact' camera with optical VF albeit a smaller sensor) would be an acceptable backup. The best camera you have is the camera you have with you when you want to take that photograph.

 

Things may change when the M10 eventually arrives and if I buy one then the M9 would then be demoted to backup status.

 

Regards,

Mark

[Advertisement]

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

[Ronan]

No, they won’t. It makes no sense. Though surely you will be able to adapt M lenses, just as you can do now with all the other mirrorless cameras out there.

 

Again, why not? Because its an M mount? It makes NO SENSE to make your own mount, start up a new lens of series, and have users be stuck to it = FAIL.

 

The only reason Nikon did that with theirs... because you can stick F lenses with an adapter.

 

Fuji is smart, they will make a M mount, or make it very cheap/easy to adapt M lenses to their system.

 

Both is fine with me. Stick in their OVF and EVF and we are set to go.

 

Sensor APS-C or FF. Fuji already stated it won't be 4/3 size but bigger.

[mjh]

Again, why not? Because its an M mount?

The M mount has an unnecessarily long flange distance for an EVIL system (20 mm would surely be enough), it doesn’t support AF or indeed any kind of communication between lens and body – it just doesn’t fit into any modern camera design. If there was a painless way to switch to a new mount, I bet even Leica would switch. You don’t create an entirely new system and choose a legacy mount designed in another era by another vendor for a completely different kind of camera.

 

or make it very cheap/easy to adapt M lenses to their system

Well, you don’t really have to do anything to guarantee the adaptability of M lenses (or pretty much any lenses). You can adapt M lenses cheaply and easily to any of the EVIL systems out there, whether their vendors thought of that possibility or not.

[Ronan]

The M mount has an unnecessarily long flange distance for an EVIL system (20 mm would surely be enough), it doesn’t support AF or indeed any kind of communication between lens and body – it just doesn’t fit into any modern camera design. If there was a painless way to switch to a new mount, I bet even Leica would switch. You don’t create an entirely new system and choose a legacy mount designed in another era by a different vendor for a completely different kind of camera.

 

 

Well, you don’t really have to do anything to guarantee the adaptability of M lenses (or pretty much any lenses). You can adapt M lenses cheaply and easily to any of the EVIL systems out there, whether their vendors thought of that possibility or not.

 

But people are asking for an M mount camera, also didn't RICOH figure out how to let M lenses communicate with their body? Also what stops Fuji from using the same system as Leica when focusing. No one is asking for AF, and nothing stops Fuji from creating their own line of AF M mount lenses via contacts.

 

They can have their own mount + AF lenses, and all we need is a small adapter to use our M glass. That would be a win/win scenario.

[pico]

An M-Mount rather than modular adapters which we already have (for 4/3)would be so stupid that I think it reflects the jackass mentality of the rumor monger. Just forget it. But don't forgive him.

[lars_bergquist]

The M mount has an unnecessarily long flange distance for an EVIL system (20 mm would surely be enough), it doesn’t support AF or indeed any kind of communication between lens and body – it just doesn’t fit into any modern camera design.

 

The brutal fact is that the 27.8mm flange distance of the M mount is too short for a full frame digital sensor. Only with the latest firmware version do wide angle lenses produce acceptable rendering. This reveals the difficulties it engenders. The throat of the mount is also narrow enough to be a limitation for some lenses. With a APS-C size sensor, the M mount will probably be just right. And there is absolutely no reason why the appropriate contacts for AF and even auto aperture cannot be added to the M mount without creating any additional inconvenience for the users of 'naked' Leica lenses. Nikon did essentially just that.

 

So Fuji could create a compact line of AF lenses computed for the APS-C sensor size but using a completely M-compatible mount. And that would be a smart thing to do, nothwithstanding Pico's invective. To be fully useful it would demand focus confirmation from the sensor, however.

 

Ther old man from the Age of the M42 Thread

[Washington]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I don’t know anything about something that doesn’t exist… but I do know that I have been

getting fantastic results from Sony Nex ….. with a useable very high iso performance

that just puts the M-9 to shame! As I use some slow long focus lenses…. this

alone is a blessing!!!

[giordano]

The brutal fact is that the 27.8mm flange distance of the M mount is too short for a full frame digital sensor. Only with the latest firmware version do wide angle lenses produce acceptable rendering. This reveals the difficulties it engenders.

 

Short flange distance is never a limiting factor in lens design because it can always be compensated for by making the lens mount longer or the rear element larger (e.g. the Fuji X100 or even the Olympus X1).

 

The throat of the mount is also narrow enough to be a limitation for some lenses.

This is the real limitation, because it restricts the size of the rear element - directly, if the rear element is actually inside the throat, or indirectly if it's further away from the image plane.

 

The throat diameter of the M mount inside the rangefinder cam is only c.31mm, compared with sensor diagonals of c.43mm (FF) and c.28mm (APS-C).

 

With a APS-C size sensor, the M mount will probably be just right.

Especially as lenses designed for this hypothetical camera wouldn't need the rangefinder coupling, usefully increasing the effective throat diameter.

 

And there is absolutely no reason why the appropriate contacts for AF and even auto aperture cannot be added to the M mount without creating any additional inconvenience for the users of 'naked' Leica lenses. Nikon did essentially just that.

There's very little room for these contacts in a traditional M lens and Leica body, but they could easily be provided once the RF cam is deleted.

[lct]

...With a APS-C size sensor, the M mount will probably be just right. And there is absolutely no reason why the appropriate contacts for AF and even auto aperture cannot be added to the M mount without creating any additional inconvenience for the users of 'naked' Leica lenses. Nikon did essentially just that...

+1

[lars_bergquist]

Short flange distance is never a limiting factor in lens design because it can always be compensated for by making the lens mount longer or the rear element larger (e.g. the Fuji X100 or even the Olympus X1) ...

 

Short flange distance is no limitation for even a 135mm lens ... just make the mount longer! That is not the problem; it is that backward compatibility had to be preserved, which I thought was understood. The more telecentric a lens is, the less problematic it is.

 

The old man from the Age of the M42 Thread

[leicanet]

Have you not read my blog?

 

Regards,

 

Bill

 

Hi Bill,

 

so do you know if can you use Leica R lenses on the GXR M mount using the Leica M to R adapter 14127?

 

Thank you

[jaapv]

I cannot see that would pose any problem, barring a weight-unbalanced combo, just like R lenses on a 4/3 rds camera.

[gyoung]

They could use the NEX mount, so M with adaptors and there are soon to be Zeiss lenses for that as well

 

Gerry

[gyoung]

I don’t know anything about something that doesn’t exist… but I do know that I have been

getting fantastic results from Sony Nex ….. with a useable very high iso performance

that just puts the M-9 to shame! As I use some slow long focus lenses…. this

alone is a blessing!!!

 

But how does it do with short focal lengths, that is the question, how about the 15mm Voigtlander or a 21mm Elmarit?

 

Gerry

[janki]

So after all this, does it begin to emerge a picture of which camera manufacturer in ASIA who is going to build Leica's new EVIL camera?

[stunsworth]

So after all this, does it begin to emerge a picture of which camera manufacturer in ASIA who is going to build Leica's new EVIL camera?

 

No.

[sblitz]

this all begs a bigger question -- when you buy a digital m what exactly are you buying? the lenses? i read of many people buying the m9 and using all sorts of zeiss (i used 21mm biogon) and voigtlander lenses. so these people are buying the sensor and in-camera processor? or we really buying a digital box that allows user to use leica lenses. after all, what exactly makes the leica sensor/processing sensor so great that other high end cameras can match it, especially with what one can do in pp. so which is it? if we believe its the combo that makes it unique and worth all this money, then let fuji come with whatever. but if, in truth, its the ability to use the lens on a high-end digital box (fuji would likely make one) then why buy an m9 or even an m10 for the price it will be offered at. just a thought.

[lct]

You're buying the smallest digital FF and/or the unique digital rangefinder.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[sblitz]

to be clear, i love what i am buying and am very happy with the camera, shortcomings and all. it is this fascination with fuji that has me asking the question. if the latest speculated fuji-cam is ff and the size of an m9 or smaller -- is it better than the m9 when joined with a leica lens?

[lct]

The next Fuji EVIL « will likely be smaller than 24x36mm » according to The Online Photographer and the lack of AA filter makes a difference i favour of Leica as far as resolution is concerned.