Canon, Nikon, and Sony with Leica M glasses

[mmradman]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, Thury said:

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)?

My advice, find good Nikon forum and explain issues you encounter.  I have Z7 and use native and M/R lenses also old Nikkor and Zeiss and don’t see your metering or distortion problems.

[Thury]

I checked after your message :

• The manual mode metering does work, my bad. I had not tried to use it in quite a while after a frustrating first experience.
• The lenses (at least the 24-70 f/4S and 14-30 f/4S) do have a lot of distortion that is corrected in post.
  • The in camera produced jpegs are corrected for distortion and look fine.
  • The raw files directly out of the camera show a lot of geometric distortion when opened with post production software that does not automatically correct for the lens. Opened in something like Lightroom that does correct distortion, they look fine.

I just got the pleasure of manual mode metering back, so thanks.

Edited May 6, 2021 by Thury
message went unfinished

[250swb]

13 minutes ago, Thury said:

I checked after your message :

• The manual mode metering does work, my bad. I had not tried to use it in quite a while after a frustrating first experience.
• The lenses (at least the 24-70 f/4S and 14-30 f/4S) do have a lot of distortion that is corrected in post.
  • The in camera produced jpegs are corrected for distortion and look fine.
  • The raw files directly out of the camera show a lot of geometric distortion when opened with post production software that does not automatically correct for the lens. Opened in something like Lightroom that does correct distortion, they look fine.

I just got the pleasure of manual mode metering back, so thanks.

Thank you for the clarification, you had me baffled by some of your comments. 

I think you'll find most manufacturers zoom lenses, and ultra wides, are software corrected nowadays. Even Leica. It makes them more efficient, cheaper, and lighter. To which I ask, 'what's the problem'?

As for M lenses, I use mine on a Z7 and it's a very nice combination, together with my old Nikon lenses. But it's not recommended for a worrier, because my old Nikon lenses aren't so far behind Leica, and are sometimes ahead of the nearest Leica M equivalent, and my M lenses aren't so far ahead, and are sometimes behind even the Nikon 24-70mm 'kit' lens. The Z prime lenses are in another world, but it's a world where everything gets bigger, more clinical, and less tactile.

[Thury]

Regarding software correction of geometric distortion (and other optical imperfections), I quite understand the rationale from the manufacturer point of view. Looking at it from mine is a bit different. I am not concerned about the quality of the image after correction which is excellent in most cases but for some of these lenses (zooms mostly) corrections are quite complex and you end depending on post production software (or must use jpegs). I have seen so many software wonders come and go that I do not trust that those corrections will still be available in some not so distant future.

More generally, I still use some lenses I bought in the 1970s, manual focus, aperture ring, they can be mounted on any camera with a short enough register and work more or less the same way they used to when bought (I lost the auto aperture on some). The image quality may not be at the current level but they work well enough for me. Current lenses without aperture or focus rings and depending on software (in camera or post) to produce a correct image look like products with a very real obsolescence prospect baked in from the start. The trade-in deal of more convenience through automatism and better image quality through optical computations freed from past constraints versus bigger size, less durability and less versatility just does not appeal to me.

Basically, I am too old for this world...

[safox]

Hello everyone, I am choosing the second system for M lenses, in APS-C. In particular, I plan to use summilux 50 / 1.4 asph. I am considering Sony because it can be equipped with an AF adapter. I want to use it in a studio, as it is not very convenient with the m240.
What do you think of the a6500?

[mmradman]

4 hours ago, Thury said:

Regarding software correction of geometric distortion (and other optical imperfections), I quite understand the rationale from the manufacturer point of view. Looking at it from mine is a bit different. I am not concerned about the quality of the image after correction which is excellent in most cases but for some of these lenses (zooms mostly) corrections are quite complex and you end depending on post production software (or must use jpegs). I have seen so many software wonders come and go that I do not trust that those corrections will still be available in some not so distant future.

More generally, I still use some lenses I bought in the 1970s, manual focus, aperture ring, they can be mounted on any camera with a short enough register and work more or less the same way they used to when bought (I lost the auto aperture on some). The image quality may not be at the current level but they work well enough for me. Current lenses without aperture or focus rings and depending on software (in camera or post) to produce a correct image look like products with a very real obsolescence prospect baked in from the start. The trade-in deal of more convenience through automatism and better image quality through optical computations freed from past constraints versus bigger size, less durability and less versatility just does not appeal to me.

Basically, I am too old for this world...

Zoom lenses are there to provide convenience, ulitmate image qulity will always be with primes.  In case of Nikon Z 24-70mm f4 is currently covered with 3 primes, 24, 35 and 50mm plus nearest long end prime which is 85mm.  All primes are f1.8 whic is over 2 stops difference in light gathering.

My most poular Leica lens on my Z7 at the moment is Elmarit R 28mm mk2.

 

[lct]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, safox said:

Hello everyone, I am choosing the second system for M lenses, in APS-C. In particular, I plan to use summilux 50 / 1.4 asph. I am considering Sony because it can be equipped with an AF adapter. I want to use it in a studio, as it is not very convenient with the m240.
What do you think of the a6500?

No idea about a6500 but the Techart adapter works fine on my A7r2 mod with 'Lux 50/1.4 asph and most of my M lenses. Some lenses with low focus tabs (CV 21/4) don't fit though. 

[hdmesa]

On 5/4/2021 at 4:15 PM, Steven said:

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

TLDR version: good for portraits and subject isolation at close distances, but disappointing at infinity across the frame.

//

At close distances wide open, the M lenses I’ve tried on the R5 will work well, including using a helicoid macro adapter for close up stuff. But try a 50 or wider M lens at infinity on the R5, and it turns ugly fast. Even stopped down to f/5.6, the 50 Lux at infinity has a soft glow across the frame, and the corners are laughable (not the far corners where the Lux is smeared even on the M10-R, but anywhere near the corners). Results on the GFX 50S/R are even worse for infinity, but like the R5, nice results can be had for centrally-placed subjects at wide apertures.

[RolandLy]

On 5/4/2021 at 11:10 PM, Steven said:

https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folders/1WClYBcwQb_i2Nw6DHF8-4vHfUtxCPF31

A bunch of side by side with the a Lux 35 Asph 

Sony A7S3 vs M10P

Thank you for the great comparison pics, Steven! It will helps a lot for me and others who using M-lenses with SONY.
I'd like to ask you a question. All these pics are taken with Leica Summilux 35mm ASPH or with Voigtlander Nokton 35mm f1.4 II as seen on your self portrait?

[jaapv]

I’m afraid Steven won’t answer as he is no longer a member. 

[RolandLy]

On 8/29/2022 at 6:25 PM, RolandLy said:

Thank you for the great comparison pics, Steven! It will helps a lot for me and others who using M-lenses with SONY.
I'd like to ask you a question. All these pics are taken with Leica Summilux 35mm ASPH or with Voigtlander Nokton 35mm f1.4 II as seen on your self portrait?

 

On 8/29/2022 at 6:55 PM, jaapv said:

I’m afraid Steven won’t answer as he is no longer a member. 

Thank you for your kind reply
Oh... I'm too late to find the topic and ask a question...

[JIEFACHE]

I'm using everything M from Summilux Asph. 35mm to Tele Elmar 135mm, no magenta cast, no smearing when mounted on an EOS R. Precise focusing (1,4/75mm) is an advantage, thanks to the EVF's loupe function.

Below 35mm: magenta, smearing etc...

The day my M digital dies, I'll replace it with an SL, so I can use all Ms, even the CODED(!) 15mm to 28mm WA lenses.

[mark r.]

after many different lenses/cameras my favorite combo now is A7r4 and Summilux Asph 50mm. At 1.4 the Sony allows pinpoint razor focus in the EVF while my M10 with my eyes can't do it. I think a M10R would work too but haven't tried it yet.