Will M-240 EVF change M lens ecosystem?

[Einst_Stein]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

My personal opinion, the M system's best strength is its small size, the feeling of the mirror-less shutter and the environmental-aware view finder.

 

It's also my understanding, through the reading of many experts's posts, such as Erwin Put's the Tao of Leica, that there is some significant cost to get the small size. Zeiss for example, can produce lenses with quite comparable optical quality, but generally falls behind in achieving the small size. Zeiss's SLR lenses are generally superior to its G counter brother/sister lenses, albeit due to the relaxed size limitation.

 

This leads me to think that, at least potentially, Leica's genuine (that is, other than the Minolta or Sigma OEM) R lenses could have better optical quality than the M. The R 35-70mm f2.8 and f4, for example, is much more preferable than the M tri-elmar 28-35-50mm in terms of optical quality. And R 70-180mm f2.8 can't even find a M counter part.

 

Now, since M-240's EVF allows to use any R lenses, I tend to believe that there is less reason to stick to the M lenses. -- assuming:

1. The EVF is reasonable acceptable to the M owners.

2. The R lens size is reasonable acceptable than the M style lens size.

 

If so then today's M lens ecosystem could get quite some impact.

 

What do you think?

[earleygallery]

I think that the 35/70 f4 was made by Kyocera (Minolta) for Leica.

 

I also think that if you want to mostly use R lenses on a FF digital body then there are better solutions than the M.

[Advertisement]

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

[Einst_Stein]

I think that the 35/70 f4 was made by Kyocera (Minolta) for Leica.

 

I also think that if you want to mostly use R lenses on a FF digital body then there are better solutions than the M.

 

Not the 35-70mm.f2.8.

What are the better solutions? Why? Explain.

[rramesh]

I am not sure if the ecosystem will change but with the M240, the buying pattern will change.

 

Leica users fall into 3 broad categories, I think.

 

1. Those that desire and buy the best technology. They will continue to seek for and buy the latest e.g. 50 APO, 50 Summilux, 28 Summilux etc.
   
2. Those that will seriously consider lenses they could not easily use on the M9 and which are somewhat cheaper. They will purchase older models now made more interesting.
   
3. Those that will continue to use what they have and will experiment in a limited way. No real change here.
   

This is already being seen in the higher prices in the resale market for R and other older M lenses and the easy availability now of many M lenses (of course production post Christmas has also gone up).

 

The real challenge for Leica will be predicting demand for current lenses and we will occasionally see shortages of one or more as production picks up. If someone is looking to making a quick buck (buying and then selling at a profit in 3-6 months), I am not sure if this would be wise.

[algrove]

Ram-28 Summilux?

[rramesh]

I assume it will be coming soon and it will be the greatest and best 28.

[rscheffler]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

My personal opinion, the M system's best strength is its small size, the feeling of the mirror-less shutter and the environmental-aware view finder.

 

It's also my understanding, through the reading of many experts's posts, such as Erwin Put's the Tao of Leica, that there is some significant cost to get the small size. Zeiss for example, can produce lenses with quite comparable optical quality, but generally falls behind in achieving the small size. Zeiss's SLR lenses are generally superior to its G counter brother/sister lenses, albeit due to the relaxed size limitation.

 

This leads me to think that, at least potentially, Leica's genuine (that is, other than the Minolta or Sigma OEM) R lenses could have better optical quality than the M. The R 35-70mm f2.8 and f4, for example, is much more preferable than the M tri-elmar 28-35-50mm in terms of optical quality. And R 70-180mm f2.8 can't even find a M counter part.

 

Now, since M-240's EVF allows to use any R lenses, I tend to believe that there is less reason to stick to the M lenses. -- assuming:

1. The EVF is reasonable acceptable to the M owners.

2. The R lens size is reasonable acceptable than the M style lens size.

 

If so then today's M lens ecosystem could get quite some impact.

 

What do you think?

 

First of all, I can't think of many R lenses that are similar in size to M counterparts. Maybe the 75/80 f/1.4s and 90/2 versions.

 

Secondly, I think it will depend on each photographer's reasons for buying the new M. Since I can only speak for myself, the M interests me primarily because it improves on the operational weaknesses of the M9: loud shutter recocking, shallow and slow buffer, slow start-up, battery life, poor LCD, lack of weather sealing; and retains the M9's strengths: size, FF sensor, rangefinder operation, build quality. One of the reasons I added the M9 to my DSLR kit, and why it eventually replaced the DSLRs for most 50mm and wider shooting, is the M-system lenses. Especially because the lenses are smaller and typically of higher optical quality. I don't see a benefit to adding R or other SLR lenses to an M kit because I can typically match or exceed the capability of those lenses (benefitting from AF and IS) by using my DSLR instead.

 

My guess is those who are in the M system because it's the M system (rangefinder shooting, small, high quality lenses) won't be considerably tempted to invest in large SLR lenses. They will continue to buy M lenses.

 

But the new M will attract some who traditionally would never have purchased a Leica M camera. Probably because of the full frame sensor and the ability to adapt virtually any lens to it. From these customers, I don't think Leica is losing M lens sales if they never buy M lenses, rather, they're selling more bodies than they would have, had the M been an M10 without live view or video.

[Tonki-M]

the use of EVF isn't going to change the core of rangefinder. it will simply...expand the usefulness of the M system. I, for one, am not going to start picking up R lens to use with the new M just because it is available. Zoom is rather nice, but that is hardly anything you can't live without. Most M users have been making due with prime lenses, carrying 2 or 3 focal lengths at a time and the weight is likely to be lighter still compare to the big zoom. But then again, i've never felt much lost when i departed from zoom lens.

[luigi bertolotti]

To answer the original question of this thread, I think that it is quite possible, and it will depend on two factors :

 

1) The success of the M240 in itself, and expecially how many NEW users it will attract (to say, people that come from FF DSLR and/or from APS/m43 system cameras)

2) Within the number of M240 sold, the presence/acceptance of the EVF (a figure that Leica will surely scrutinize with care, taking into account also the alternative to Leica's original EVF)

 

If both the two above figures will be in the high side, cleraly there will be new opportunities for Leica optical department ; to follow the traditional image of compactness of the Leica system, they could start with a Macro (80 - 100 mm) and a lightweight Tele over 135 (a 180 f 4,5, just for instance) ... to say, lenses which NEED the usage of LV/EVF... it will be a sort of little shock for traditionalists (M lenses largely un-compatible with classic Ms... ) but also a broaden of the M usage for the new users.

[jaapv]

As a matter of fact, Leica R lenses always used to outperform M lenses in general, albeit slightly, due to the size restrictions on the M lenses. On the other hand Leica has brought a number of amazing M lenses to the market over the last decade whilst development on R lenses has stopped.

[firstlight]

As a matter of fact, Leica R lenses always used to outperform M lenses in general, albeit slightly, due to the size restrictions on the M lenses. On the other hand Leica has brought a number of amazing M lenses to the market over the last decade whilst development on R lenses has stopped.

 

Compared with the latest lenses from the M segment as well?

I think the newer M lenses outperform the old R stuff or am I completely wrong?

 

Besides that I don't like to carry these big guns with me, then I would go for DSLR instead.

[jaapv]

That is exactly what I was saying. The newer M lenses are ten to twenty years younger designs -or even more-, with an improvement to match.

Edited February 19, 2013 by jaapv

[Einst_Stein]

I am always amazed by Leica M's capability, Given the size restriction, theoretically Canon or Nikon has the chance to outperform Leica M in the prime lenses, in terms of the optical and image quality. (Obvious they did it in AF, anti-shaking, tele-lens, etc.) But, ..., did I miss something?

[efreed2754]

Like Luigi's #9 post.

 

In the pre digital days, would carry M2R with 21, 35, 50 and 90 lenses in one bag and R8 with 28, 50, 90 and 180 in another bag. Yes know they overlap but am sure there were good reasons at the time. When sensible, like trip to China, brought M with 21, 35 and 50 and R8 with 90, 180 and double extender in one bag.

 

Like close ups and telephoto at times, so for moi the new M will handle my M range of 18 to 75 (with MATE) and R lenses of 100 and 180 with APO double extender. One body and everything covered!

 

Now if Leica is listening to Luigi and others, perhaps they can make a 100 macro and 180 that's lighter than the R counterparts. Quality, weight and price will dictate whether I buy the new offerings if made!

[Einst_Stein]

While there are a lot of sensible comments about M vs. R, I'm a little disappointed about the lack of feedback on EVF. To me the decisive factor is how would EVF work out.

[lct]

The EVF will work with both M and R lenses so i'm not sure if i see your point. I have a dozen R lenses that i do like but they are earlier and bulkier than their M counterparts. So i think i will use R macro lenses, perhaps some R zooms and of course R telephotos but otherwise my M lenses will remain my favorites because they are smaller and generally better than their R counterparts.

[IkarusJohn]

Interesting question.

 

The traditional M, for the traditionalists, was a rangefinder only camera, with compact lenses. There were some alternatives (Visoflex), but the M was largely constrained by these two factors - that meant no wider than 16 and no longer than 135 were available.

 

With the M, this paradigm has shifted, much to the angst of traditionalists. We have to accept that the format has shifted to the M with live view and all the consequences that entails. Yes, the M-E, Monchrom, M7 and MP continue to be available, but they are not the future as outlined by Leica. I pray that a CCD based digital camera will continue for a long time yet, and hopefully enough people will want it to warrant Leica's support, but we have to be realistic. The environment has changed.

 

So, why would Leica limit itself to only compact, CRF lenses when its M camera will take wider and longer lenses, and not be constrained by size? It makes no sense. Look at the forum - there is no shortage of members keen to use their longer lenses. There's a potentially huge market of photographers who want to use longer lenses, which do not need to be coupled and which would excel on the new M.

 

When I still used my F5, my two lens kit was a 17 - 35 zoom and a 180/2.8 telephoto. I was surprised when I switched to an M9 that 135 was the longest focal length available, and when I looked at the optical view finder, I felt that 90 mm was as long as I'd want to go. Live view changes all that.

 

If you look at SLR users, they are happy handholding up to 200 mm or so, and longer with a tripod. I was happy at 180, as the lens was reasonably compact, easily hand held and gave as much reach as I wanted, with a usable depth of field. I think Leica would be mad not to fill this market with new lenses.

 

Before the traditionalists tear their hair out, I don't think for a minute that the premium end will be affected, because even those who come to the M camera expressing no interest in the rangefinder side of life will change - that's what happens with Leica. You get it after a while.

 

Cheers

John

[algrove]

The EVF will work with both M and R lenses so i'm not sure if i see your point. I have a dozen R lenses that i do like but they are earlier and bulkier than their M counterparts. So i think i will use R macro lenses, perhaps some R zooms and of course R telephotos but otherwise my M lenses will remain my favorites because they are smaller and generally better than their R counterparts.

 

I'm with you on this point. M lenses for mostly wide, even though I own some long ones, and R for macro, zoom and long. The APO extenders are also very good pieces.

 

I do not have my APO 135/3.4 here (it is being 6 bit coded), but many do not realize that the R APO-Elmarit-R 180/2.8 which is about the same length as the M 135/3.4 albeit the diameter is 25% more, became E. Puts R benchmark lens, replacing his earlier benchmark lens the APO-Macro-Elmarit-R 100/2.8 which is no slouch. Quite an achievement.

 

So this lens is not all that bulky for a lens (Ver. II) that can take APO 1.4x and APO 2x extenders with ease. Meaning you are carrying a 360mm lens, equal to the length of an M 135/3.4, if need be.

[lct]

....I do not have my APO 135/3.4 here (it is being 6 bit coded), but many do not realize that the R APO-Elmarit-R 180/2.8 which is about the same length as the M 135/3.4 albeit the diameter is 25% more... is not all that bulky....

Well 132mm vs 105mm is not really the same length and 970g vs 450g is not the same weight either. Adding the adapter, your R+M combo will be bulkier than your M+M one by a significant margin. Even the "big" Elmarit-M 135/2.8 (114mm, 780g) will look rather anemic by comparison because he won't need the adapter.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[earleygallery]

Not the 35-70mm.f2.8.

What are the better solutions? Why? Explain.

 

You mentioned the 35/70 f4 too, that's what I'm correcting you on.

 

Better solutions? How about a Canon 5d? Optical viewfinder (better than a laggy EVF) and SLR form factor. I'm not convinced as to how well an M & EVF will work with tele/zoom R lenses for sport or action shots.