Canon, Nikon, and Sony with Leica M glasses

[Kim Dahl]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

5 hours ago, rramesh said:

I went through this exercise not too long ago when I sold my M9-P and thought that I could get a Sony or Nikon and use an M adapter. I tried several bodies (A7RIII, A7S, Z6, Z7) and eventually I came to the conclusion that I will desire and eventually buy an M10 anyway. And then I bought an M10-P.

To do justice to M lenses, you need a Leica camera. With any other body, there will be compromises and the result will less than satisfactory. Why pay a lot for a Leica lens only to compromise?

On the other hand, if I had a Sony or Nikon and desired an M lens, I will buy a cheap Voigtlander lens.

 

I understand that leica M lenses are best with Leica but I think it is very important to find the best solution with M lenses on another brand. Sony, Nikon or Canon.

I have Leica MD and can use my M lenses on it. But I want a autofocus kamera. And I have been waiting for the SL or CL series to be good enough. But I think there is a long way to go before they reach the same level (not optically) as the others.

So it is an "added value" that they can be used on other brands.
Otherwise it will happen that the leica M lies more and more in the closet and collects dust. 

So if it's correct that the Leica M is not ok on other brands (not pixel pipe) I would start thinking in other options even though the Leica M is a pleasure to work with. So I would be really sorry about that. 
But I read on Reid Reviews that Nikon Z is is good solution?

Edited March 24, 2021 by Kim Dahl

[Keith (M)]

2 hours ago, Einst_Stein said:

People might be more interested in the comparison with Sony native lenses. And, native Leica combination. 

??? Isn't this thread about using M lenses on Sony, Canon & Nikon etc mirrorless bodies?

[Einst_Stein]

14 minutes ago, Keith (M) said:

??? Isn't this thread about using M lenses on Sony, Canon & Nikon etc mirrorless bodies?

The original question was about which non-Leica camera works better with Leica prime lenses, the particular concern is the popular standard to wide angle primes (28~50) . I had some experience with Sony but not Canon and Nikon. I am looking for opinions of various experiences. 

But soon I had a chance to try out Nikon Z50. I also got some pictures from Canon M50. There are some differences, but I can't see the justification to buy non-Leica digital just to use Leica lens. It is very clear to me, though I haven't try all cameras and all lenses and all combinations yet, but enough to conclude that if budget is the consideration and canon, Nikon, Fuji, or Sony is the target camera but not Leica, then it's simply the best choice to stay with native combination. 

So, back to the intention of the original question, it should be about the comparison of Leica native combination, non-Leica native combination, and hybrid. Particularly, it has unspoken consideration about budget.  

 

[jaapv]

Please limit the number of examples in your posts. Posts with a multitude of images will be moved into the appropriate photo orum.

[jaeger]

On 3/22/2021 at 12:06 PM, mmradman said:

I have used selection of M wides on Z7, these include WATE, Summilux 21, 28 and 35FLE plus Super Elmar 21mm, no noticeable problems, in fact Z7 IBIS provides extra dimension of sharp shooting of static subjects at low shutter speed. I also tried normal and moderate tele, 50, 75 and 90mm, as expected no issues.

Biggest conclusion out of this exercise is that native Z lenses are truly excellent, I mean much much better than F mount predecessors and as good as M lens would be on M camera.

you didn't get screwed by the latest firmware update?  the ibis on my z7 is as noise as a diesel engine.  their customer service is at new low.  im seriously thinking to switch to fujifilm.

when you say native z lenses are excellent, do you mean by sharpness?  i personally think that they are like smartphone photos.  i actually am using the oldest G lenses in FTZ adapter.

 

[lct]

On 3/24/2021 at 9:04 PM, Einst_Stein said:

It is very clear to me, though I haven't try all cameras and all lenses and all combinations yet, but enough to conclude that if budget is the consideration and canon, Nikon, Fuji, or Sony is the target camera but not Leica, then it's simply the best choice to stay with native combination. 

Matter of tastes but i would not generalize or include Kolari mod bodies in your generalization. The Kolari's Ultra Thin sensor stack does marvels with M lenses to the point that even so-called difficult lenses (S-A 21/3.4, CV 21/4 e.g.) work as well or better than on my M240. I have a couple Sony/Zeiss lenses too but never use them except when i need AF. BTW IBIS work fine and silently with M lenses too. Camera is A7r2 mod. FWIW.

Edited May 3, 2021 by lct

[mmradman]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

5 hours ago, jaeger said:

you didn't get screwed by the latest firmware update?  the ibis on my z7 is as noise as a diesel engine.  their customer service is at new low.  im seriously thinking to switch to fujifilm.

when you say native z lenses are excellent, do you mean by sharpness?  i personally think that they are like smartphone photos.  i actually am using the oldest G lenses in FTZ adapter.

 

When you say latest firmware do you mean the one released in April 2021, I didn’t upload that one as it doesn’t appear to provide any noticeable improvements.

Excellent by sharpness across the frame and also good focus and out of focus transition, Nikkor always had smooth bokeh, they are Japanese design after all. Compared to my M Spherical/ASPH lenses less onion rings and no ninja stars.

I think the smartphone photo effect may be related to your camera settings, mine has noise reduction switched off to avoid “Canon” images that often look like plastic - noise reduction baked in. I expect high iso pictures to look noisy/grainy.

[jaeger]

10 hours ago, mmradman said:

When you say latest firmware do you mean the one released in April 2021, I didn’t upload that one as it doesn’t appear to provide any noticeable improvements.

Excellent by sharpness across the frame and also good focus and out of focus transition, Nikkor always had smooth bokeh, they are Japanese design after all. Compared to my M Spherical/ASPH lenses less onion rings and no ninja stars.

I think the smartphone photo effect may be related to your camera settings, mine has noise reduction switched off to avoid “Canon” images that often look like plastic - noise reduction baked in. I expect high iso pictures to look noisy/grainy.

I see... I contacted Nikon support and Z doesn't allow roll back FU, and worst they delete my support ticket! 

Good point, back in a while I've enabled many corrections features for shooting product samples and I forgot to reverse them.  The high ISO NR is one of them but I forget why...  Now I have every correction features disabled and see how it goes.  Thanks for the head's up!

P.S. I actually love all sort of distortions, it's probably why I love vintage lenses.  

 

 

Edited May 3, 2021 by jaeger

[oldwino]

I enjoyed most of my M lenses on my Z6, when I had it. I thought the Z6 was better than the Z7 in that regard.

Now I have a Lumix S5 which has joined my CL and I am trying to use only L mount. But, of course, I have to try a few M mount as well. I think the Lumix does pretty good with them, especially the "character" lenses that I have (28 Hektor, 50 Summar, etc). These look better on digital than they ever did on film. I can even mount my old Nikkor AI lenses and get good results. 

The Sigma I series lenses that I have (35, 65) are nearly as compact (well, almost nearly) and very sharp, and have lovely rendering...There's little point, I think, to use more modern M lenses when these L mount lenses are so good. 

[LBJ2]

20 minutes ago, Steven said:

I posted a blind test earlier this year on another thread. 
35fle on m10p vs a7siii. about 30 side by side images. 
80% of the Time, no one could tell the difference. Whenever people saw a difference, they chose the Sony over the m10. 
My 28 Lux works great as well on my Sony’s. I now switched the a7siii for the a1 and don’t notice a change in performance. 
that being said, I still hate using my Sony camera and find the dng of the Leica to be easier to turn into something I like in post. 

Yes, I think I remember your blind test on this topic. Did you happen to try the new M 35 APO on any of your Sony cameras? BTW, for someone that "hates" Sony cameras and colors so much, you certainly seem to be attracted to buying the latest greatest Sony camera technology--must be a torturous experience for you...😉 😁 

Thankfully I am able to swap all of my Leica M glass between the M10 and my Sony cameras without any worries. But I bought the M10 because I wanted the very best IQ for my M glass and very happy to carry and use both cameras often. 

As an everything Apple/mac person, I agree, Leica DNG files "just work" on all my devices regardless of iOS, iPadOS or macOS and any OS upgrades so far. Sony RAW files on the other hand have never been fully compatible with any of these Apple OS's and sometimes I lose functionality with OS upgrades along the way. But not to the point that I can't work with the Sony files to a great degree, more like PITA small issues/nuances that come to my attention from time to time. I'm not sure if it's an Apple thing or a Sony RAW file thing. But my Leica DNG files have been 100% smooth sailing on all my editing devices, at least up until now.

I close this comment with... Anyone else out there try the new Leica M 35 APO on their Sony FF camera ?

[LBJ2]

2 hours ago, Steven said:

I've tried it. It works fine, but as most M lenses, it looses it's character a little when mounted on the sony. Just like the summilux 35 pre asph one which it "kills" the wide open glow, it removes a little bit of the 3D pop from the APO. Sony has this way to mute the life out of the M lenses. 

Possible a result of one of the thickest FF sensor stacks on the FF market and lack of specialized micro lenses for M glass. That's exactly why I bought the M10 for my M glass. Very handy to be able to adapt to the Sonys, but I wanted a real adapter--the M10 😎

Edited May 4, 2021 by LBJ2

[lct]

16 minutes ago, LBJ2 said:

Possible a result of one of the thickest FF sensor stacks on the FF market and lack of specialized micro lenses for M glass. That's exactly why I bought the M10 for my M glass. Very handy to be able to adapt to the Sonys, but I wanted a real adapter--the M10 😎

Rangefinder to adapt a Sony? Suffice it to replace the thick sensor stack by a thin one and you'll get IBIS, close focusing, silent shutter and even autofocus with M lenses if you like that. No red dot and not expensive enough though. Just kidding. I like much rangefinders but comparing them to a Sony is like comparing Jurassic Park to Star Wars if you ask me .

[Boojay]

26 minutes ago, Steven said:

I haven’t read much about M glass on the R5. Anyone with experience to share ? 

R6 not R5.  I did a short test with 50 Noctilux, 35 FLE and 90 Summicron, I was quite satisfied with the results. Honestly, I'd be just a happy using them on the R6 as on my SL2, however, that's not why I have the R6 (action and telephoto stuff) Canon has some pretty good lenses too😉.

 

 

 

 

[LBJ2]

15 hours ago, lct said:

Rangefinder to adapt a Sony? Suffice it to replace the thick sensor stack by a thin one and you'll get IBIS, close focusing, silent shutter and even autofocus with M lenses if you like that. No red dot and not expensive enough though. Just kidding. I like much rangefinders but comparing them to a Sony is like comparing Jurassic Park to Star Wars if you ask me .

One of the miracles of mirrorless mounts. I have had the pleasure to use many great lenses that I would have otherwise only been able to read about precisely because I was able to adapt to my mirrorless cameras. There are benefits to adapting lenses to the newer technology cameras as you listed and some can take it a big step further and modify their mirrorless sensor stacks too. I've never felt the need to modify any sensor to adapt any lenses I've worked with, but a very interesting option.

Jurassic Park and Star Wars. I like the comparison and maybe also why I am so attracted to these two very different cameras systems. 

[LBJ2]

11 hours ago, Boojay said:

R6 not R5.  I did a short test with 50 Noctilux, 35 FLE and 90 Summicron, I was quite satisfied with the results. Honestly, I'd be just a happy using them on the R6 as on my SL2, however, that's not why I have the R6 (action and telephoto stuff) Canon has some pretty good lenses too😉.

 

 

 

 

I figured as much, but don't seem to read many people commenting about adapting Leica M glass to their R5/R6 cameras. But then again I really don't visit Canon forums very often and as you wrote, Canon already has an excellent lens system in record time I might add, for their new mirrorless mount.

[mmradman]

11 minutes ago, LBJ2 said:

I figured as much, but don't seem to read many people commenting about adapting Leica M glass to their R5/R6 cameras. But then again I really don't visit Canon forums very often and as you wrote, Canon already has an excellent lens system in record time I might add, for their new mirrorless mount.

From my observations with respect to full frame i would suggest it is Sony brigade who are heavy adaptors of thirs party lenses.  Main reson being Sony was first to roll out mirrorless cameras and second is affordability (for base models) and veritality (A1, A9, A7R mk4 etc) of alpha models.  There may be also addtional factor that early sony E mount had limited native lens offering. Remeber, Leica lenses have strong reputatoion and mostly derision for cameras outisde Leica comunity - expensive, special editions, perception of specifications behind market leaders.  In contrast Canon and Nikon are latecomers to mirrorless full frame, even Leica SL came before.

I am into Nikon Z system, i got it primarily for Z lenses with AF capability - excellent optics on par optically and more utility than L system at Nikkor prices, if you dont belive me check out Z lens lineup, focal ranges and F stops offered. If ever I need long or specilised F mount (or EOS for Canon shooter) AF lens not covered by Z offering i can get it and use it via dedicated adpator without losing any funtionality.  Being able to use M and R lenses on mirrorles platform of the veritality ofered by Z7 is just an added bonus for me. 

[LBJ2]

3 minutes ago, mmradman said:

From my observations with respect to full frame i would suggest it is Sony brigade who are heavy adaptors of thirs party lenses.  Main reson being Sony was first to roll out mirrorless cameras and second is affordability (for base models) and veritality (A1, A9, A7R mk4 etc) of alpha models.  There may be also addtional factor that early sony E mount had limited native lens offering. Remeber, Leica lenses have strong reputatoion and mostly derision for cameras outisde Leica comunity - expensive, special editions, perception of specifications behind market leaders.  In contrast Canon and Nikon are latecomers to mirrorless full frame, even Leica SL came before.

I am into Nikon Z system, i got it primarily for Z lenses with AF capability - excellent optics on par optically and more utility than L system at Nikkor prices, if you dont belive me check out Z lens lineup, focal ranges and F stops offered. If ever I need long or specilised F mount (or EOS for Canon shooter) AF lens not covered by Z offering i can get it and use it via dedicated adpator without losing any funtionality.  Being able to use M and R lenses on mirrorles platform of the veritality ofered by Z7 is just an added bonus for me. 

I like what you wrote here. I happen to be one of those who has been with the Sony full frame emount rollout since the very beginning. In the very early days, we were starved/frustrated for native glass and it took Sony some time to roll-out their FF mirrorless lens system. Adapting lenses was for those early years what I might describe as a necessity. But it left its mark in a big way. Even today many Emounters still using some of the finest optics adapted, including Leica M as their primary kit. 

For some reason, I do see many more comments about adapting Leica M glass to the Z mount and I don't really visit Nikon forums much either. Just something I noticed, not sure what it means. 

I agree, there is a huge benefit to being able to adapt lenses easily between our systems. 

[mmradman]

1 hour ago, LBJ2 said:

I like what you wrote here. I happen to be one of those who has been with the Sony full frame emount rollout since the very beginning. In the very early days, we were starved/frustrated for native glass and it took Sony some time to roll-out their FF mirrorless lens system. Adapting lenses was for those early years what I might describe as a necessity. But it left its mark in a big way. Even today many Emounters still using some of the finest optics adapted, including Leica M as their primary kit. 

For some reason, I do see many more comments about adapting Leica M glass to the Z mount and I don't really visit Nikon forums much either. Just something I noticed, not sure what it means. 

I agree, there is a huge benefit to being able to adapt lenses easily between our systems. 

Leica SL601 was in a similar boat at launch, only one native lens, 24-90mm zoom with variable F stop. Also the lens was and still is on somewhat big side to be universally accepted. 

The premise of the system was to fall back on legacy lenses unil such time native lenses come to market.  Use M lenses via an earlier lens mount adaptor for Leica T,  T-M adaptor which was quickly renamed Leica L-M and R lenses via earleir R-M adapter, native L-R and i tihink L-S adaptors followed.  Lesson, no doubt, learned form Sony mirrorless.

[LBJ2]

13 minutes ago, mmradman said:

Leica SL601 was in a similar boat at launch, only one native lens, 24-90mm zoom with variable F stop. Also the lens was and still is on somewhat big side to be universally accepted. 

The premise of the system was to fall back on legacy lenses unil such time native lenses come to market.  Use M lenses via an earlier lens mount adaptor for Leica T,  T-M adaptor which was quickly renamed Leica L-M and R lenses via earleir R-M adapter, native L-R and i tihink L-S adaptors followed.  Lesson, no doubt, learned form Sony mirrorless.

My finger has hovered over the SL and L-M adapter buy button more than too many times 😉 Creature of habit I suppose. In the end,  I am always reminded of how much I adore the M10+ plus M glass. OTOH, I also know if I do buy an SL, then I must, must have the SL 35/2 APO and so goes the need for restraint. Besides I've also promised myself to buy the M 35/2 APO at some point 😳

Edited May 5, 2021 by LBJ2

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Thury]

I use M mount lenses on a Nikon Z6. Why ?

• I absolutely hate the geometric distortion of the Z lenses raws (f/4 zooms) it may be corrected in post by commercial software but it feels like a terrible kludge to me.
• I already had a number of M mount lenses when I began adapting them on the Z6. I also still have an analog M4-P.
• They are much smaller than Nikon auto-focus offerings (color skopar 21 f/3.5, ultron 35 f/2, tele-elmarit 90 f/2.8). I also have a number of older Nikon manual focus lenses that work fine (for my use) but the whole camera and lens system becomes huge.
• I get high ISO and IBIS (3200 ISO, 1/8th hand held with a 90mm) for night photography.
• Quality of the whole camera and lenses system is sufficient for me (I do not pixel peep and mostly look at the whole image with little cropping).
• I have no need of any auto-focus capability. Aperture priority mode and exposure correction are sufficient.
• Prime lenses force discipline on me.

Very specific reasons certainly but seeing the number of Leica M to Nikon Z adapters offered on the web, I guess there are others who use M mount glass on the Nikon Zs.

Now this is not ideal and mostly the fault of Nikon's marketing department my biggest gripe is why can one not use the light meter when in manual mode (the computer inside has all the information necessary to display the right combination of the 3 symbols that are already in the viewfinder)?