Jeff S Posted January 5, 2017 Share #961 Posted January 5, 2017 Advertisement (gone after registration) I am an MF chauvinist. The only 6x9cm I respect is the original Plaubel Veriwide, and of course my own 6x9 + 3cm, AKA 47mm Super Angulon f/5.6 over 4X5 inch and any universal adapters to smaller formats. Nice....I've seen your arsenal before. I owned various 6x4.5, 6x6 and 6x7 cameras....Plaubel Makina, Mamiya, Pentax and Hasselblad.....along with 4x5 view cameras. I once owned 8x10, but could only accommodate contact prints. Never got around to the XPan that I wanted. Time marches on....to M12 and beyond... Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 5, 2017 Posted January 5, 2017 Hi Jeff S, Take a look here Leica M 10. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Distagon Posted January 5, 2017 Share #962 Posted January 5, 2017 Go back and re-read this thread. The problem with M lenses is that they are 'dumb' lenses which cannot communicate with the camera except to tell it what they are (if coded). This means that regardless of whether adapters are used or a native M mount, M lenses can only be 'optimised' to a limited extent. Lenses for an L mount can be fully 'intelligent' and relay lens data including focal length, aperture used and distance focussed on. Why would a manufacturer limit a camera to a bayonet (M) that cannot communicate with lenses when a newer bayonet can accommodate both intelligent lenses or 'dumb' ones using an adapter. You are mistaking optical excellence for ability to deliver image 'quality'. In the future its about integrated software and optical design - you may not like this but it is the way manufacturers will have to go to keep lenses to viable prices. FWIW and as far as I can ascertain, the prime requirement of 'lenses designed for digital' is the ability to produce an extremely flat image which is projected onto the sensor as perpendicularly as possible (a very simplified way of putting it). This appears to produce distortions which are easier to correct in software than optically. Unfortunately M lenses don't do this, or its mostly the latest that can, so they may well be eclipsed by lenses that do/will. And sensor micro-lenses are always a compromise too. And FWIW a well built adapter really shouldn't introduce alignment errors. I sense a bit of bizarre hostility in your "Go back and read the thread". Relax. There is no mistake in relating optical excellence with image quality. Every software correction algorithm starts with measurement of light on a sensor. Well-characterised optical distortions can be corrected in part, but there is no substitute for throwing light onto a sensor with minimal distortion. No correction algorithm can synthesise information that is not already in the measured signal and above the noise floor. If it were otherwise, lens design would not matter. M lenses are not just about optical quality, they are also about compact form factor. That is why some have an optical design that is not as telecentric as lenses designed for digital. So, yes, current digital sensor technology can struggle with them. According to your argument, we ought to abandon M lenses and mount for all future digital designs. And - FWIW - every manufactured object is made to tolerances. Every time you add in a new mechanical component, especially one that is subjected to wear by being added or removed from a body, alignment will be progressively altered. It also introduces another electro-mechanical component prone to damage or failure. Adapters are no panacea. If I had a choice between a native mount or an adapted mount, the native mount will win every time. I'm not claiming that there is not a case for Leica to produce a camera in the L mount. Indeed, I explicitly stated that there was indeed a strong argument for them to do so. What I did say was that, for someone substantially invested in excellent M lenses, I would prefer to buy a body that is optimised for those lenses. There is nothing unreasonable about that. A manufacturer would "limit", as you say, a camera to M mount if there are enough people who would buy that camera. That's how this game works. That's why digital Ms (still) exist. All the best. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
imants Posted January 5, 2017 Share #963 Posted January 5, 2017 eventually lenses as we know them will be superceded http://www.hitachi.com/New/cnews/month/2016/11/161115.html Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted January 5, 2017 Share #964 Posted January 5, 2017 [...] What I did say was that, for someone substantially invested in excellent M lenses, I would prefer to buy a body that is optimised for those lenses. There is nothing unreasonable about that. A manufacturer would "limit", as you say, a camera to M mount if there are enough people who would buy that camera. That's how this game works. That's why digital Ms (still) exist. [...] Bodies optimized for M lenses are called M indeed but many M lenses work fine on the SL i've been told and even when i use my A7s mod with my 20+ M lenses i tend to forget that i don't use a Leica body. Also the M's microlenses don't do miracles by far. Suffice it to shoot at a grey monitor with an M wide to see more or less color shifts in corners and/or edges anyway. Now if one wants the best possible results with M lenses, M bodies are the way to go obviously. Those are rangefinders with accessory EVFs for now. Will we have a sans-RF mirrorless camera smaller than the SL some day, i would not hold my breath but it would not have an M mount most probably so it would not be an M body in any sense of the word anyway. FWIW. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
derleicaman Posted January 5, 2017 Share #965 Posted January 5, 2017 Nicely succinct I'd say . . . I'd certainly like to see a camera in an M shaped body (and with similar controls and layout) with an EVF instead of a rangefinder - fantastic idea BUT It would be completely crazy not to give it an L mount, so that it had the possibility of using the SL and TL lenses as well as the M lenses - using the L mount would have no disadvantages and a host of advantages. . . . and if so, I'd contend that such a camera wouldn't sensibly be part of the M system - and ought to have a different name! Jono and I have been going back and forth in emails for almost a year on the subject of a new Leica CL. My original thinking was an interchangeable Q camera with an M mount. Jono has argued that it makes more sense to have an L mount with an M adapter to bridge the past and the future. I see the logic of his argument and he has convinced me this makes the most sense. I have been using a Fuji XE-2 and earlier a Sony Nex6 with M adapters along with my M9 and MM. Certain situations just demand an EVF over an OVF. Same as its always been with the M. I always used an SLR, either a Leica R or Nikon DSLR for the studio, sports, macro, etc. Since I acquired the M9, I have not used my D700 once and need to sell it off. But I do use the X-E2 with my 60 Macro Elmarit with appropriate adapters. Works a treat! I use this combo to take all of my studio shots of gear for Viewfinder. For laughs, I dug up on of my Visoflexes and the 65 Elmar to shoot on the M9. Ugh, what a nightmare! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
derleicaman Posted January 5, 2017 Share #966 Posted January 5, 2017 Oh yes, and I have tried the SL. Leica loaned me one with the 24-90 and the M adapter to test. Wonderful, fantastic, beautiful camera! But not for me. For one, the bulk and weight of the SL lenses is just too much for me. The M lenses and adapter worked just fine, but again, the bulk of the camera just killed it for me. Give me a Q with a L Mount and M adapter and I would be in heaven. And no, it would not take sales away from the M. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
uhoh7 Posted January 5, 2017 Share #967 Posted January 5, 2017 Advertisement (gone after registration) Oh yes, and I have tried the SL. Leica loaned me one with the 24-90 and the M adapter to test. Wonderful, fantastic, beautiful camera! But not for me. For one, the bulk and weight of the SL lenses is just too much for me. The M lenses and adapter worked just fine, but again, the bulk of the camera just killed it for me. Give me a Q with a L Mount and M adapter and I would be in heaven. And no, it would not take sales away from the M. After M10, that is the camera they should make. I'm not sure if there is enough room between L and M for Techart style AF adpater, but that would sell many cameras. and BTW there are new mods which put the A7r2 in M240 territory (which current Kolari mods don't quite reach): http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1465200/0?keyword=thin#13839278 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmahto Posted January 5, 2017 Share #968 Posted January 5, 2017 eventually lenses as we know them will be superceded http://www.hitachi.com/New/cnews/month/2016/11/161115.html Industrial usage is driving these imaging techniques. Photography world will certainly benefit at some point but my guess is that it will be more for consumer crowd first (phone camera). Image processing algorithms can do magic. Just look at iPhone's output from the tiny sensor. I also remembered image processing being used to eliminate atmospheric disturbances for the pictures of heavenly bodies (stars and all) shot from Earth, rivaling orbital telescope output. Now only if I were awake when my professor was teaching Fourier Transformation in college... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
imants Posted January 5, 2017 Share #969 Posted January 5, 2017 Fourier Transformation I think I may process that with my new chip insert just behind my left eyeball.......I wonder if their is an app out yet. Nice to see the consumer crowd getting first bite ....... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wlaidlaw Posted January 5, 2017 Share #970 Posted January 5, 2017 Surely if you put a T mount into an M body then replace the OVF with an SL quality EVF, you end up with an SL. If I read people's wishes correctly, then the desire is for an M camera somewhat smaller than the current M240 series. I cannot imagine how cramming all the SL components into a body could result in a smaller camera. Over the last few weeks, for film, I have been using the smallest of the M mount cameras, the CL and what a pleasure it is to use. It fits in a jacket pocket, with a 35 or 40mm Summicron mounted. It is so light, I barely notice it. I know there would have to be some compromises but a CL sized and weight full frame digital RF would result in an immediate order from me. Wilson Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
oronet commander Posted January 5, 2017 Share #971 Posted January 5, 2017 But an EVF M camera will of course mean that one will not be able to see around the framelines when planning/composing one's photograph, one of the great advantages of the optical RF system. That doesn't mean that I couldn't find use for an M-lens compatible EVF camera that was more compact than the SL. I do understand the appeal of that but, to be honest, I find it feasible only with 50 mm lenses onwards, which means that the easiest to use that advantage the harder is framing and focusing with accuracy. I am unsure the compromise is worth it for most. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted January 5, 2017 Share #972 Posted January 5, 2017 That defines the design some of the later Voigtlander lenses, in particular their fast lenses and their 10mm M-mount lens which is the result of uncompromising genius. There has never been such a lens before. . And this is a very valid point. The 21SEM is extraordinarily good. But in reality M users often have a variety of lens of different ages and with very different characteristics. Current M cameras do a good job in dealing with their varying idiosyncrasies but expecting many Leica M lenses to be as good as current designs or even these to be as good as optimised 'intelligent' software adjusted lenses just isn't realistic. We live in a changing world. There appears to be a ludditism amongst some and an expectation that traditional optical excellence should produce 'better' images than digitally adjusted ones. Wake up! It isn't so regardless of what you may think. Even now some cheap cameras are delivering amazingly good images. I will repeat my 'mantra'; the M rangefinder is and will continue to be a superb camera, but it needs to fill the niche it has held for a long time and survive because of its unique OVF and small, optically excellent and mechanically superb lenses and body form. What it cannot do is to compete with newer technologies. Accept it for what it is and it will continue to deliver wonderful images. Modify it and it will simply become another, albeit quirky, EVF camera. Any EVF camera from Leica needs to feature an intelligent mount (L) and building an M only EVF camera is IMO a waste of resources, because its a dead end. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Distagon Posted January 5, 2017 Share #973 Posted January 5, 2017 There appears to be a ludditism amongst some and an expectation that traditional optical excellence should produce 'better' images than digitally adjusted ones. Wake up! It isn't so regardless of what you may think. Even now some cheap cameras are delivering amazingly good images. I will repeat my 'mantra'; the M rangefinder is and will continue to be a superb camera, but it needs to fill the niche it has held for a long time and survive because of its unique OVF and small, optically excellent and mechanically superb lenses and body form. What it cannot do is to compete with newer technologies. Accept it for what it is and it will continue to deliver wonderful images. Modify it and it will simply become another, albeit quirky, EVF camera. Any EVF camera from Leica needs to feature an intelligent mount (L) and building an M only EVF camera is IMO a waste of resources, because its a dead end. Do you really know what a Luddite is? Is a person who wishes to use an EVF on an M camera really a Luddite, or have you misjudged your language? What is the problem with a person who has M lenses wanting to mount them on a digital camera with a native M mount? Truly bizarre. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
honcho Posted January 5, 2017 Share #974 Posted January 5, 2017 But an EVF M camera will of course mean that one will not be able to see around the framelines when planning/composing one's photograph, one of the great advantages of the optical RF system. That doesn't mean that I couldn't find use for an M-lens compatible EVF camera that was more compact than the SL. Fuji have had the the answer for you for some time. They produced the blueprint, the rest is up to Leica. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
imants Posted January 5, 2017 Share #975 Posted January 5, 2017 Maybe that's why no other manufacturer explored a digital rangefinder as they knew it was a dead end Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted January 5, 2017 Share #976 Posted January 5, 2017 Is a person who wishes to use an EVF on an M camera really a Luddite, or have you misjudged your language? If you read my post the use of the term was about those who see the traditional use of optical excellence as being 'better' than the use of optical/software integration. What is the problem with a person who has M lenses wanting to mount them on a digital camera with a native M mount? The problem is technical. There is little information exchange and non of it active. As I've said before M lenses are both an incredible asset to the M rangefinder and a limitation to its progress forward. Modifying the M rangefinder away from being purely a rangefinder has technical limitations which will need to be overcome. On the other hand an M shaped EVF body with an L mount has far fewer. I don't think that a manufacturer should utilise its resources to overcome M mount issues when a simple solution exists already - L mount and M adapter. Why limit a camera to an M mount? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted January 5, 2017 Share #977 Posted January 5, 2017 [...] Why limit a camera to an M mount? For only one reason but a good one imho, fast manual focusing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted January 5, 2017 Share #978 Posted January 5, 2017 For only one reason but a good one imho, fast manual focusing. Which, with when using a rangefinder works really rather well ( ) ...... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted January 5, 2017 Share #979 Posted January 5, 2017 Which, with when using a rangefinder works really rather well ( ) ...... Exactly but within the limits of the optical rangefinder so far. Hence the hopes RF lovers may have in electronic rangefinders if any. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
derleicaman Posted January 5, 2017 Share #980 Posted January 5, 2017 Surely if you put a T mount into an M body then replace the OVF with an SL quality EVF, you end up with an SL. If I read people's wishes correctly, then the desire is for an M camera somewhat smaller than the current M240 series. I cannot imagine how cramming all the SL components into a body could result in a smaller camera. Over the last few weeks, for film, I have been using the smallest of the M mount cameras, the CL and what a pleasure it is to use. It fits in a jacket pocket, with a 35 or 40mm Summicron mounted. It is so light, I barely notice it. I know there would have to be some compromises but a CL sized and weight full frame digital RF would result in an immediate order from me. Wilson I would agree, you don't need to cram an SL into an M mount body, and I fear it would be just as bulky and heavy with only the mount being the difference. Leica already has an SL and you can use M lenses on it with an adapter. I still have my CL which I bought when it was first announced. I agree with everything you say about the wonderful attributes of it. When the Q came out, my thoughts were 'what a lovely little camera, and wouldn't it be even better to have one with an M mount?' It certainly feels to be a quality piece, even better than the CL, which was certainly not as well put together as the M cameras. To fully exploit your M lenses, such a camera needs to be full frame. That is where cameras such as the Fuji XE-2 and Sony non-full frame models just don't cut it. Jono has argued that a Q type camera with an L mount, using an M adapter which already exists would be the way forward. I agree. Who else would be in the market for such a camera? I think quite a lot of you. As far as the M camera, keep it as an OVF camera. After all, that is what the M is all about. Always has been, always will be. Also remember that trying to make or believe that the M camera can be all things to all people was Leica's problem from long ago. Back in the M3 days, thinking that the Visoflex solved the problem of the M not being an SLR. They pushed the Visoflex system for years, but delayed coming out with a true SLR as the Japanese had done. This was certainly to their detriment in not coming up with the obvious solution and when they did bring an SLR to market, it was over priced and obsolete the day it was introduced. As has been pointed out, Leica currently has quite a few choices as far as the numerous models it has for each system. The interchangeable Q would most likely kill off the T and TL camera line, but would it really be missed? I think a digital CL could certainly be priced even lower than a Q with lens, and it would nicely fill a niche. The other 'problem' Leica has is the dual nature of the company itself. Is it a camera company or a lens company? The simple answer is of course it is both. It seems at times that the company is conflicted to decide who they are. Is the point to sell cameras or to sell lenses? Hence the argument that the CL stole sales from the M5. Really? Or was the M5 a dog (even though it was a fine camera) but was perhaps a bridge too far with the CL only replacing sales that the M5 lost from its lack of market appeal? Years ago, on a dealer trip to Wetzlar, the Leica people asked how they could improve sales. Mind you, this was back in the R5 days. My answer was to offer their best lenses, such as the 100/2.8 APO, in Nikon mount. They looked at me like I had a third eye in my forehead. But why not? They certainly could have sold thousands and added greatly to the bottom line at the time. I say lets start a petition for Leica to make an interchangeable Q camera with L an M mount adapter. And keep the M an OVF. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.