NEW M.. This year.. This Fall...

[flyalf]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

FWIW, I think the Q EVF is superb, the best I have used.   When I picked up my camera earlier this year I turned it on and looked through the finder.  Then I turned the camera around to the front to look for the finder window; I was thinking it must be a rangefinder.   It is not, and it is not like looking through an optical view/rangefinder but it is very good for an EVF.  The way I use it often is to set it for 35mm. Then I am looking through a finder with 35mm framelines and can see around them.  It is the closest you can come today to an optical finder IMHO.  I hope when the new M comes out it has as good an add on EVF as the Q's internal one.  I would also be willing to use a Q type finder built in to an M-type body.

Thanks.

 

Just curious; do you use the Q EVF for MF of "people" photography as well? Is so, whats your experience? The reason I ask is that I use the external EVF on M for slow tripod work to have precise framing in order not to wast pixels, but for taking photos of people nothing beats the RF for me.

[edwardkaraa]

Let's not forget that some of the best autofocus lenses ever made, the Contax G series, were notably small and light.

 

The bulking up of digital era lenses is almost certainly driven primarily by optical rather than AF issues. A lot of people here have dismissed the Sony A7 series on the basis of the supposedly large size of the lenses, so it will be interesting to see how they respond to the new Leica lenses which I suspect (and presumably you know) will be at least as big as their Sony/Zeiss equivalents. You can see the same thing happening in the DSLR world - pretty much every Canon updated lens, like the new 35mm f1.4, has a larger/longer form than its film era predecessor.

The Contax G lenses had screw drive AF, so the motor was in the camera.

[almoore]

The Contax G lenses had screw drive AF, so the motor was in the camera.

 

And that option still exists. It worked very quickly and accurately in the Contax Gs.

 

It's not AF that's driving the increasingly large size of lenses.

[wildlightphoto]

The Contax G lenses had screw drive AF, so the motor was in the camera.

 

A motor in the camera makes the most sense where the range of focal lengths is limited.  Where the motor must drive a wide variety of lens sizes, i. e., a 15mm lens or an 800mm lens, a motor in the camera must be sized to drive the lens with the biggest anticipated power needs.  In this case putting the motor in the lens sized to meet the power and speed demands of that lens is more effective.

[Exodies]

Do AF lenses with floating elements/groups have separate motors for each element or are they moved by gearing?

[edwardkaraa]

And that option still exists. It worked very quickly and accurately in the Contax Gs.

 

It's not AF that's driving the increasingly large size of lenses.

 

But this option is quite noisy.

[edwardkaraa]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

A motor in the camera makes the most sense where the range of focal lengths is limited.  Where the motor must drive a wide variety of lens sizes, i. e., a 15mm lens or an 800mm lens, a motor in the camera must be sized to drive the lens with the biggest anticipated power needs.  In this case putting the motor in the lens sized to meet the power and speed demands of that lens is more effective.

Screw drive AF does not prevent from putting an ultra sonic motor in the lens. Look at the Alpha system, some lenses are screw drive AF, some are SSM. The designer can decide to use screw drive AF for small RF-like lenses, and use a motor in heavy telephoto or zoom lenses,

[luigi bertolotti]

Any idea how long we have to wait to find out the what the new products are?

 

I'd bet... sufficiently long to reach 50 pages of this thread (but not doubling...  )

 

 it was page 36... odds of my bet are on the low side

[edwardkaraa]

Let's not forget that some of the best autofocus lenses ever made, the Contax G series, were notably small and light.

 

The bulking up of digital era lenses is almost certainly driven primarily by optical rather than AF issues. A lot of people here have dismissed the Sony A7 series on the basis of the supposedly large size of the lenses, so it will be interesting to see how they respond to the new Leica lenses which I suspect (and presumably you know) will be at least as big as their Sony/Zeiss equivalents. You can see the same thing happening in the DSLR world - pretty much every Canon updated lens, like the new 35mm f1.4, has a larger/longer form than its film era predecessor.

That's very a interesting point. The trend seems indeed to be longer and larger lenses. Most manufacturers are also using software corrections, seemingly to reduce size, but I really don't see how. The Zeiss Batis and Sony FE lenses are mostly enormous. I suspect they want to reduce cost, which they don't make the client benefit from. The balance goes into the manufacturer's bank account.

[jaapv]

The Contax G lenses had screw drive AF, so the motor was in the camera.

If we look at the instantaneous "snap" of the Q AF we can expect something like that to become the norm in the near future. A screw drive could never meet that standard.

[rosuna]

The Sony E mount and the 24x36 is not a good match. The mount is too narrow. I suppose that is one explicative variable of the size of those lenses. 

 

I expect Leica will do better.

[almoore]

That's very a interesting point. The trend seems indeed to be longer and larger lenses. Most manufacturers are also using software corrections, seemingly to reduce size, but I really don't see how. The Zeiss Batis and Sony FE lenses are mostly enormous. I suspect they want to reduce cost, which they don't make the client benefit from. The balance goes into the manufacturer's bank account.

The Batis lenses are fairly large for their specification, but the current Zeiss philosophy seems to prioritise performance over miniaturisation. The Sony/Zeiss offerings vary from the small (28 and 35f2.8) to at worst being directly comparable to their SLR equivalents. The good thing is that the weaker lenses, like the much and mistakenly maligned 24-70, are every bit as good as their SLR counterparts and the stronger lenses like the 35s and the 55 are right up with the best that Leica offers.

 

We should be pleased that Sony and Zeiss have collectively set the bar reassuringly high for full frame EVF camera lenses. I've no doubt that the forthcoming Leica AF lenses will be similarly excellent, but I'll be amazed if they're significantly more compact, not least because without the issue of rangefinder blockage it's less of an issue.

[mmradman]

If we look at the instantaneous "snap" of the Q AF we can expect something like that to become the norm in the near future. A screw drive could never meet that standard.

AF motors on old Nikon AF beasts were snappy but cameras were built like battleships plus they sounded like rock crusher, OK maybe not as loud like rock crusher but older style dentist drill, on the other hand new Q is extremely snappy and totally silent.

[jonoslack]

Let's not forget that some of the best autofocus lenses ever made, the Contax G series, were notably small and light.

 

The bulking up of digital era lenses is almost certainly driven primarily by optical rather than AF issues. A lot of people here have dismissed the Sony A7 series on the basis of the supposedly large size of the lenses, so it will be interesting to see how they respond to the new Leica lenses which I suspect (and presumably you know) will be at least as big as their Sony/Zeiss equivalents. You can see the same thing happening in the DSLR world - pretty much every Canon updated lens, like the new 35mm f1.4, has a larger/longer form than its film era predecessor.

Pentax make some lovely small AF lenses too . . . . but the motor is in the body rather than the lens - as I think it is in the Contax G lenses too - and it was also excruciatingly slow!

(It was Peter Karbe who pointed this out to me about the size of AF lenses)

[almoore]

Pentax make some lovely small AF lenses too . . . . but the motor is in the body rather than the lens - as I think it is in the Contax G lenses too - and it was also excruciatingly slow!

(It was Peter Karbe who pointed this out to me about the size of AF lenses)

Another lovely and astoundingly compact AF lens is the Canon 40mm. As far as I'm aware, all of the Canon lenses have internal motors.

 

I note that you're not contradicting my guess that the forthcoming Leica AF lenses will be larger than M users are accustomed to.

[edwardkaraa]

Another lovely and astoundingly compact AF lens is the Canon 40mm. As far as I'm aware, all of the Canon lenses have internal motors.

 

I note that you're not contradicting my guess that the forthcoming Leica AF lenses will be larger than M users are accustomed to.

I think that's a certainty. There's nothing in the current Leica line up to compare them to, except maybe the S lenses. I would expect the SL lenses to be around 30% smaller.

[mmradman]

I think that's a certainty. There's nothing in the current Leica line up to compare them to, except maybe the S lenses. I would expect the SL lenses to be around 30% smaller.

Maybe smaller than S primes as lesser circle diameter is required but new rumored SL f2.8-f4 xx-280mm zoom would be similar in size to the old R f4.2 105-280mm zoom.  If anyone is expecting miracle of miniaturization and solid metal construction old R manual focus zoom is not a small or lightweight lens.  

[saxo]

I hope this rumor does not become true:

 

http://www.mirrorlessrumors.com/new-leica-sl-system-camera-to-be-announced-along-three-new-sl-lenses-here-are-the-specs/

 

If the new system (SL-system?) will only take the new AF-lenses and does not allow to adapt current M-lenses (flange-to-film distance to big), I wouldn't go for it, because I like using small manual focus lenses for many purpose (travel etc.) with the comfort of an EVF and the option to use an AF-lens when needed. But if I'm forced to use big AF-lenses only, I wouldn't go for that system. Then I switch definetly to sony.

 

Martin

[Mistral75]

I hope this rumor does not become true: http://www.mirrorlessrumors.com/new-leica-sl-system-camera-to-be-announced-along-three-new-sl-lenses-here-are-the-specs/ If the new system (SL-system?) will only take the new AF-lenses and does not allow to adapt current M-lenses (flange-to-film distance to big), I wouldn't go for it, because I like using small manual focus lenses for many purpose (travel etc.) with the comfort of an EVF and the option to use an AF-lens when needed. But if I'm forced to use big AF-lenses only, I wouldn't go for that system. Then I switch definetly to sony. Martin

 

How do you infer from the focal lengths and apertures of the three first lenses in the SL line that the SL system will only work with the dedicated AF lenses and won't allow to adapt current M lenses, the flange-to-sensor distance being too big?

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Mistral75]

Maybe smaller than S primes as lesser circle diameter is required but new rumored SL f2.8-f4 xx-280mm zoom would be similar in size to the old R f4.2 105-280mm zoom.  If anyone is expecting miracle of miniaturization and solid metal construction old R manual focus zoom is not a small or lightweight lens.  

 

I presume that the Apo-Vario-Elmarit-SL 90-280mm f/2.8-4 will be bigger and more expensive than the Vario-Elmar-R 105-280mm f/4.2 (1.95kg, €6,200 in 2006) since the former (i) is brighter (f/2.8-4 instead of f/4.2), (ii) has a larger focal range and (iii) is an apochromatic, hence better corrected lens.