rosuna Posted May 11, 2015 Share #121 Posted May 11, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) Any mainstream camera would have to support AF which rules out the M mount. The M mount is also too small for a modern mirrorless camera whereas the flange distance could be even shorter. The Contax G has a flange distance of 29mm vs 27,9mm for the Leica. The M mount throat diameter is 44mm but I cannot find the number for the Contax G. Is the Contax's mount much wider? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted May 11, 2015 Posted May 11, 2015 Hi rosuna, Take a look here The next speculation. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
mjh Posted May 11, 2015 Share #122 Posted May 11, 2015 The Contax G has a flange distance of 29mm vs 27,9mm for the Leica. The M mount throat diameter is 44mm but I cannot find the number for the Contax G. Is the Contax's mount much wider? The Contax isn’t what I would call a ‘modern mirrorless camera’. In fact it is much closer to the M than to today’s mirrorless systems. Also as an ultimately failed attempt the Contax G might suggest which road not to pursue. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosuna Posted May 11, 2015 Share #123 Posted May 11, 2015 My question is if the M system may be compatible with a limited set of AF lenses. I mean new lenses of a special M camera, not the classical rangefinders. The MF lenses for M cameras could be used on this camera without adapters. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted May 11, 2015 Author Share #124 Posted May 11, 2015 It is always said AF would not be truly compatible with existing lenses as the mount is too small. I must say I have more trust in Leica's ingenuity. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dkCambridgeshire Posted May 11, 2015 Share #125 Posted May 11, 2015 My question is if the M system may be compatible with a limited set of AF lenses. I mean new lenses of a special M camera, not the classical rangefinders. The MF lenses for M cameras could be used on this camera without adapters. If a new Leica FF AF camera is under development it seems highly likely that it would be compatible with existing M lenses. The APS format Leica T is compatible with M lenses via the M adaptor offered at release date - thus similar would likely be offered for a FF version … but also with an R adaptor in addition to an M adaptor. Whether Leica decides to call the camera an 'M' is another matter … that seems unlikely … more likely to call it something else And you can probably count on the fact that a prototype already exists - given that it probably takes minimum of 12 months to develop a working prototype and it would be a natural progression from the 'T' So … it will not be a 'T' … or an 'S' … or an 'M' … or an 'R' … or an 'X' … and 'A' 'C' 'D', 'E', F, G, 'J' 'K', 'L', 'N' 'P' have been used by other manufacturers or by Leica for other models … Maybe 'W' … which is an upside down 'M' … but does not roll off the tongue well especially in some Asian countries. How about 'r' as in r1, r2, r3 … the New 'r' series? dunk Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdk Posted May 12, 2015 Share #126 Posted May 12, 2015 How about H for "hell" which in German means clear, light, bright, or high. That would be a good name, except for the negative connotation in English. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmahto Posted May 12, 2015 Share #127 Posted May 12, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) It is always said AF would not be truly compatible with existing lenses as the mount is too small. I must say I have more trust in Leica's ingenuity. Can someone explain why mount size is related to AF possibility? You simply need electrical contacts in the mount for the lens. Rest can be done in the lens (by increasing lens size for the motor). Similar to Canon FD to EF. (edit - cross the Canon mount comment. It was more than just electrical connection. But my original question remains). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmahto Posted May 12, 2015 Share #128 Posted May 12, 2015 The Contax isn’t what I would call a ‘modern mirrorless camera’. In fact it is much closer to the M than to today’s mirrorless systems. Also as an ultimately failed attempt the Contax G might suggest which road not to pursue. Contax's issue was relying on parallax to judge focusing distance which doesn't work well with longer distance (M users know that). If this rangefinder method (superior for short distances) is combined with on sensor phase/contrast measurements (for long distances) then it will be the best of both the worlds. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted May 12, 2015 Author Share #129 Posted May 12, 2015 As said, I don't buy this argument either. Can someone explain why mount size is related to AF possibility? You simply need electrical contacts in the mount for the lens. Rest can be done in the lens (by increasing lens size for the motor). Similar to Canon FD to EF. (edit - cross the Canon mount comment. It was more than just electrical connection. But my original question remains). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bocaburger Posted May 12, 2015 Share #130 Posted May 12, 2015 Can someone explain why mount size is related to AF possibility? I recall reading that the reason Nikon used the shaft-drive AF mechanism instead of an in-lens motor was that they would've had to scrap the F mount and backward capability as Canon had done, and which raised a lot of ire with people heavily vested in FD glass. Not sure if it was Nikon's official statement or just internet speculation. But after they had a lot of defectors to Canon they came up with AF-I telephotos, then AF-S and eventually a whole slew of in-lens-motor AF lenses, while still retaining the F mount. Given the small size of micro 4/3 and EVIL mounts compared with Leica, it seems like the M mount shouldn't be an obstacle. NEX and other EVIL mount lenses are pretty small, so I don't see where the size of AF M lenses would need to be increased that much, but I'm not a camera designer. What definitely would have to go would be those beautifully-damped brass mounts though, most likely leading to shouts of "cheap and plasticky". Especially since they would most likely be just as expensive than the manual lenses if not more. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosuna Posted May 13, 2015 Share #131 Posted May 13, 2015 I don't know if a new system with a new mount for AF lenses and 24x36 format makes any sense... I doubt it. Leica will find difficulties trying to be competitive with companies like Sony or Fuji. Leica's strategy before the blackstone entry and the expansion goal was to avoid direct competition, and it worked very well. The M and S systems are different to any other system out there. The difficult step in this strategy was to design a new system for the mass market (lower price, small in size) but keeping this differentiation factor. The T system was the answer, clever in some points and not so clever in others. It may work after an exposition period to the market. But the difficulties would be the same or worse for a mirrorless 24x36. More conservative would be an approach based on the evolution of new branches in the M tree, like a EVF based M (for MF lenses). They know better, but the general economic outlook and the particular problems in the camera industry, plus the T system experience, recommend prudence. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosuna Posted May 13, 2015 Share #132 Posted May 13, 2015 I recall reading that the reason Nikon used the shaft-drive AF mechanism instead of an in-lens motor was that they would've had to scrap the F mount and backward capability as Canon had done, and which raised a lot of ire with people heavily vested in FD glass. Not sure if it was Nikon's official statement or just internet speculation. But after they had a lot of defectors to Canon they came up with AF-I telephotos, then AF-S and eventually a whole slew of in-lens-motor AF lenses, while still retaining the F mount. Given the small size of micro 4/3 and EVIL mounts compared with Leica, it seems like the M mount shouldn't be an obstacle. NEX and other EVIL mount lenses are pretty small, so I don't see where the size of AF M lenses would need to be increased that much, but I'm not a camera designer. What definitely would have to go would be those beautifully-damped brass mounts though, most likely leading to shouts of "cheap and plasticky". Especially since they would most likely be just as expensive than the manual lenses if not more. The Nikon F and the Contax G are good counterexamples, although the Nikon register distance is much larger because of the mirror. The Sony 7 (originally NEX) mount is also very small relative to the format 24x36 (46mm, vs 44mm for the M and F mounts). I was surprised when Sony presented the first Sony 7 camera. It seemed like they decided to expand the format of the previous system (NEX) instead of designing a new system from scratch with optimal proportions. The point is the relation between diameter of the mount and diagonal of the format, not the diameter itself. The E-Mount of Sony is large compared to APS-C diagonal, and the same goes for the micro 4/3. The Leica M system is not the best set of parameters for an AF mirrorless system, but I don't know why it is impossible, if you can use a large set of MF lenses as a complement for a small set of AF lenses with moderate specifications (like the Summarits). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dante Posted May 13, 2015 Share #133 Posted May 13, 2015 I recall reading that the reason Nikon used the shaft-drive AF mechanism instead of an in-lens motor was that they would've had to scrap the F mount and backward capability as Canon had done, and which raised a lot of ire with people heavily vested in FD glass. Not sure if it was Nikon's official statement or just internet speculation. But after they had a lot of defectors to Canon they came up with AF-I telephotos, then AF-S and eventually a whole slew of in-lens-motor AF lenses, while still retaining the F mount. Just speculation. The AF-s lenses disprove the theory, since they fit the traditional F mount and have their own motors. It probably had more to do with lack of access to ultrasonic motor patents. Dante Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dante Posted May 13, 2015 Share #134 Posted May 13, 2015 Any mainstream camera would have to support AF which rules out the M mount. The M mount is also too small for a modern mirrorless camera whereas the flange distance could be even shorter. I suppose the M line will never become mainstream and I’m OK with that. Michael - What is the source of the limitation in M mount? There are issues about where you might place contacts for an ultrasonic motor (without causing scratches on bodies and lenses when you mix and match AF and non-AF pieces). But it's not obvious why the dimensions of the current M mount could not support AF. And the mount-to-sensor register of the Fuji XF series is even shorter than Leica's. I think the bigger problems with AF with what would essentially be an oversize mirrorless would be (a) the size of the lenses, which would have to get bigger to accommodate motors and ( the huge battery drain associated with using the sensor to focus. One of the biggest advantages of the M system is being able to focus, meter, and shoot with the shutter closed and sensor off. Dante Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjh Posted May 13, 2015 Share #135 Posted May 13, 2015 The Leica M system is not the best set of parameters for an AF mirrorless system, but I don't know why it is impossible, if you can use a large set of MF lenses as a complement for a small set of AF lenses with moderate specifications (like the Summarits). It is not like it was impossible, it is just that one wouldn’t go that route. While the M mount is just fine for a rangefinder, it has nothing whatsoever to recommend it as the mount for a modern AF-based mirrorless camera. Adding electronic contacts wouldn’t change that. If, on the other hand, one would design an optimal mount for such a camera, it would look nothing like the M mount. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted May 14, 2015 Share #136 Posted May 14, 2015 It is not like it was impossible, it is just that one wouldn’t go that route. While the M mount is just fine for a rangefinder, it has nothing whatsoever to recommend it as the mount for a modern AF-based mirrorless camera. Adding electronic contacts wouldn’t change that. If, on the other hand, one would design an optimal mount for such a camera, it would look nothing like the M mount. The bit in bold may be true from a technical perspective, but from a marketing perspective to add an AF option to the M mount has everything to recommend it. I should add that I would not be a buyer - I really don't seem to get along with AF lenses. What would concern me more is not any technical difficulties, but the potential dilution of the M as a manual focus camera. Like PeterH above, I would hate any AF option to result in the beautiful M lenses losing their pride of place. For years I used manual AI Nikkor lenses alongside my (one only) AF-S zoom on my F5. I remain of the view that there is a significant gap ion Leica's line up. The T was supposed to fill it, but apparently (according to the experts here) it hasn't. It would be good if Leica thought long and hard why that is the case - it isn't the T body; it isn't the user interface ... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pop Posted May 14, 2015 Share #137 Posted May 14, 2015 I should add that I would not be a buyer - I really don't seem to get along with AF lenses. I think you will not be the only M owner to say that, and that would be a strong incentive for Leica not to invest in a development of this kind. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dkCambridgeshire Posted May 14, 2015 Share #138 Posted May 14, 2015 I think you will not be the only M owner to say that, and that would be a strong incentive for Leica not to invest in a development of this kind. Leica probably have the resources to continue production of the traditional M manual focus M systems and also the development and production of a completely new FF AF system … latter will appeal to a whole new market and is inevitable …regardless of traditional Leica users' wants. Leica have already successfully outsourced AF lens production to the far east and will continue to do so - regardless of traditional M users opinions. Leica would not abandon the M system but M lens development has reached the point where it's stuck in the groove as a pure manual focus system - when there probably is a good potential demand for Leica FF AF lenses on another platform. And any new platform could be compatible with both M and R lenses via adaptors … for all those M & R users currently satisfied / partly satisfied with Sony, EOS and Nikon cameras (used with their M and R lenses) but which can never offer fully Leica tweaked image processing engines. A large % of Leica production is sold to the far east where the potential market is probably enormous for a new Leica AF FF platform. dunk Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted May 14, 2015 Share #139 Posted May 14, 2015 Yes there would be a classic M and a modern M this way. The latter would have a larger mount to fit AF/IS and an adapter for current M lenses but it would lack an optical rangefinder so it would be significantly less expensive and could perhaps gain market shares this way... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pop Posted May 14, 2015 Share #140 Posted May 14, 2015 ... any new platform could be compatible with both M and R lenses via adaptors ... I don't think so. The short register of the M lenses makes them - the shorter focal lengths, in any event - perform at less than their optimum on most sensors. Even with the M's sensors you have to accept some compromises, such as digital in-camera corrections. The sensor of a newly designed fully digital camera system most probably will be designed for another lens geometry. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.