k-hawinkler Posted November 6, 2015 Share #401 Posted November 6, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) Won't happen. Sure, you need a cover glass, and Leica puts huge effort into making it as thin as possible. I don't see that changing. Of course not for the M. That would be madness! No, Leica didn't have a choice to make the cover class thin. They were forced to do that because of their existing M lenses. And they had to deal with the consequences ever since. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 Hi k-hawinkler, Take a look here Leica SL (Typ 601) - Mirrorless System Camera Without Compromise. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
edwardkaraa Posted November 6, 2015 Share #402 Posted November 6, 2015 Won't happen. Sure, you need a cover glass, and Leica puts huge effort into making it as thin as possible. I don't see that changing. The cover glass on the SL is thin as well, though not as thin as on the M. So, ok, that was speculation on my part, so I could be wrong. But do you have another explanation on why the M 28 lux is designed for the SL cover glass and not the M? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
k-hawinkler Posted November 6, 2015 Share #403 Posted November 6, 2015 The cover glass on the SL is thin as well, though not as thin as on the M. So, ok, that was speculation on my part, so I could be wrong. But do you have another explanation on why the M 28 lux is designed for the SL cover glass and not the M? Edward, if what you say is true, then the advantage would be that the cover glass of the SL, whatever it is, has been fully considered in the optical calculations for that lens. As a consequence Leica has to do a hell of a lot less work with the in-camera corrections and the combined system - SL camera and lens - has been optimized. IMHO all good! Would there be an implication for used Leica M lens prices? Good question. Up or down? In this case it would be good to guess the sign + or - correctly. I think you made an excellent observation. It wouldn't surprise me at all if you were correct! Thanks. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
k-hawinkler Posted November 6, 2015 Share #404 Posted November 6, 2015 Another question that comes to my mind is, what did Kaufmann and the CEO have on their minds when in the interview they expressed an interest in older Leica M lens designs? Could it be that they intend to optimize some of their lenses for the SL including AF? That wouldn't surprise me either. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted November 6, 2015 Share #405 Posted November 6, 2015 What is sure is they don't intend to make a cover glass as thick as the Sony's. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramarren Posted November 6, 2015 Share #406 Posted November 6, 2015 What a weird conversation these last messages have been! If Leica were designing the 'Lux 28 for the SL, surely they'd have put it into an SL mount. They didn't. Just because some reviewer happened to get slightly better results with the SL than the M doesn't mean that Leica optimized it for the SL. That would make no sense at all. I doubt very much that more than a tiny percentage of users buying the SL would ever buy a $7000 M lens just to use it on the SL; most buyers will use it on the M that it was intended for. This whole turn of the conversation has been daft as far as I'm concerned. It makes no sense. G Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
edwardkaraa Posted November 6, 2015 Share #407 Posted November 6, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) What a weird conversation these last messages have been! If Leica were designing the 'Lux 28 for the SL, surely they'd have put it into an SL mount. They didn't. Just because some reviewer happened to get slightly better results with the SL than the M doesn't mean that Leica optimized it for the SL. That would make no sense at all. I doubt very much that more than a tiny percentage of users buying the SL would ever buy a $7000 M lens just to use it on the SL; most buyers will use it on the M that it was intended for. This whole turn of the conversation has been daft as far as I'm concerned. It makes no sense. G Slightly? hahaha We must have very different standards Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted November 6, 2015 Share #408 Posted November 6, 2015 I would be surprised if the 28/1.4 is significantly better on the SL. As an M lens it could not be optimized for the SL i guess but it was made with the SL in mind most probably. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
k-hawinkler Posted November 6, 2015 Share #409 Posted November 6, 2015 I would be surprised if the 28/1.4 is significantly better on the SL. As an M lens it could not be optimized for the SL i guess but it was made with the SL in mind most probably. Why? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted November 6, 2015 Share #410 Posted November 6, 2015 Because it is an M lens no? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
edwardkaraa Posted November 6, 2015 Share #411 Posted November 6, 2015 I would be surprised if the 28/1.4 is significantly better on the SL. As an M lens it could not be optimized for the SL i guess but it was made with the SL in mind most probably. The 28 lux is actually a large lens by Leica standards and there is a significant VF blockage. I wonder if Leica expects it to be used on the SL rather than on the M. Just guessing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
k-hawinkler Posted November 6, 2015 Share #412 Posted November 6, 2015 Because it is an M lens no? Well, you are probably correct. However, to play the devil's advocate, one could truly optimize it for the SL, no holds barred, and then fudge it in in-camera M processing, like everything else, no? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott kirkpatrick Posted November 6, 2015 Share #413 Posted November 6, 2015 ... ... ... ... Whether a mechanically coupled rangefinder is capable of more critical focusing accuracy than a ground glass or reflex focusing system has been a classic debate for seventy years. An EVF is similar to a ground glass or reflex focusing system in that the eye is judging perceived sharpness rather than using geometry and coincident or aligned edges to determine focus setting, but it brings to the table the additional advantage of image processing to illuminate edges and/or magnify details. I suspect that the EVF may allow even more accurate critical focus than either optical ground glass or rangefinder due these capabilities. I think this is the key issue for early adopters of the SL. It seems to be proving itself as a worthy 24 MPx successor, slimmed down and with enhanced functions (GPS?), to the 10 MP DMR. For those with an investment in Leica lenses it can use all R and some M glass. Handheld, there should be no difference in image quality. It comes down to how you prefer to work. scott Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramarren Posted November 6, 2015 Share #414 Posted November 6, 2015 Why? Because, by definition, if it is made for the M, it is optimized for the M. The Pentax FA 43 Limited is a lovely lens ... It works beautifully on Pentax 35mm film cameras for which it was designed. But when it is used on a Pentax APS-C DSLR or K-01, I find it has a special loveliness to its rendering that out-classes its performance even on the film cameras it was designed for. Does this mean that it was "optimized" for the APS-C digital cameras? OF COURSE NOT. It's a happy accident, that's all, that most of the Pentax DSLR sensors bring out the very best in this particular lens. I'm sure that if the 'Lux 28 performs so much better on the SL, it is simply another happy accident. Discovering happy accidents like these are occasions to enjoy, not moments to think dark thoughts of conspiracy theory and consider what underhanded motivations are driving Leica to intentionally undermine their own products. That kind of thinking is just ridiculous. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
k-hawinkler Posted November 6, 2015 Share #415 Posted November 6, 2015 Conspiracy? Not at all. Simply a way to make that lens work very well on both the SL and M, on the SL just a bit better. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
edwardkaraa Posted November 6, 2015 Share #416 Posted November 6, 2015 Because, by definition, if it is made for the M, it is optimized for the M. The Pentax FA 43 Limited is a lovely lens ... It works beautifully on Pentax 35mm film cameras for which it was designed. But when it is used on a Pentax APS-C DSLR or K-01, I find it has a special loveliness to its rendering that out-classes its performance even on the film cameras it was designed for. Does this mean that it was "optimized" for the APS-C digital cameras? OF COURSE NOT. It's a happy accident, that's all, that most of the Pentax DSLR sensors bring out the very best in this particular lens. I'm sure that if the 'Lux 28 performs so much better on the SL, it is simply another happy accident. Discovering happy accidents like these are occasions to enjoy, not moments to think dark thoughts of conspiracy theory and consider what underhanded motivations are driving Leica to intentionally undermine their own products. That kind of thinking is just ridiculous. I have no problem with your assessment that it might just be a happy accident. After all, we're all just guessing here. Until there is more solid info and maybe an email from Leica (if anyone is interested to ask them), it's just speculation. However, in this modern age of computer assisted lens design, I don't believe much in accidents. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted November 6, 2015 Share #417 Posted November 6, 2015 The 28 lux is actually a large lens by Leica standards and there is a significant VF blockage. I wonder if Leica expects it to be used on the SL rather than on the M. Just guessing. The M has an EVF as well... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted November 6, 2015 Share #418 Posted November 6, 2015 Because, by definition, if it is made for the M, it is optimized for the M. [...] Makes sense. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
edwardkaraa Posted November 6, 2015 Share #419 Posted November 6, 2015 Makes sense. Indeed, it makes sense that an M lens should be optimized for the M body. But then, if you have evidence that the lens works better on a non M body, it starts not to make sense anymore, hence the confusion Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
edwardkaraa Posted November 6, 2015 Share #420 Posted November 6, 2015 The M has an EVF as well... Evidently Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.