Jump to content

when did leica lenses begin to be optimized for digital cameras?


fridgebuzz

Recommended Posts

All lenses since the introduction of the M8 have been designed with the use of digital cameras in mind. Actually this is only relevant for wide angle lenses. Above about 35 mm there is no significant difference between a sensor and film  as far as lens design is concerned. Of course there is a progression over time as technology improves. Especially the advances in mechanical precision have enabled present-day APO and ASPH designs   
There is no reason to think that pre-digital lenses are in some way inferior when used on a digital camera. In fact, the performance is usually improved by the higher precision. The only redesign because of digital “ problems” was the Summilux FLE. The higher precision of the sensor enhanced the focus shift of the older model so Leica added a floating element. 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I would say the 16-18-21 f/4.0 Tri-Elmar-M, introduced with the M8 in 2006, would qualify as the first new lens (not a redesign) introduced with digital in mind. Both 1) as a practical solution to covering the super-wide range on the cropped M8 (on which it was an effective "21-24-28mm") with minimum effort, and 2) because its design seems to indicate a certain amound of telecentricity (straighter light paths through a long tube, to avoid the color vignetting of short-back-focus wides on silicon architecture: pixel wells, microlenses and so on.)

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

The first redesign of an existing lens after Leica began offering digital M cameras was the FLE version of the 35 Summilux-M ASPH (2010).

Although it can be argued that the 2008 replacement of the 21/24mm f/2.8 Elmarit-M ASPHs with the 21/24 f/1.4 Summilux versions (and the f/3.8 24mm Elmar, and later the 21 f/3.4 Super-Elmar (2010)) also incorporated some digital-friendly characteristics, although not direct redesigns. The 21/24 Summiluxes, like the Tri-Elmar, are quite l-o-n-g and possibly have some telecentric character.

The 28 Summicron and 28 Elmarit ASPH, and the 35mm Summicron-M ASPH underwent minor redesigns to (reportedly) improve corner performance when shooting through a sensor cover glass/stack, sometime in the middle 20-teens (as well as changing the lens hood style to external metal screw-on in place of plastic clip-on).

As Jaap says, it was the wide-angles that needed "digital revision" the most, simply to cope with non-film imaging issues.

Better overall resolution as such was not as big a factor until the all-new 90 f/1.5/75 f/1.25/50 f/2/35 f/2 APOs (year?).

We must remember that up until 2004, Leica was saying that a digital M was not possible at all. Which tells me that that is the earliest they began putting any effort into M-digital lenses (after the arrival of Dr. Kaufmann, and a major management shake-up).

Edited by adan
  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, adan said:

The 28 Summicron and 28 Elmarit ASPH, and the 35mm Summicron-M ASPH underwent minor redesigns to (reportedly) improve corner performance when shooting through a sensor cover glass/stack, sometime in the middle 20-teens (as well as changing the lens hood style to external metal screw-on in place of plastic clip-on).

 

However, the Elmarit 28 asph was introduced in 2006 as part of the standarized Summarit series, which was certainly designed with digital aspects in mind as far as needed. (i.e. the 35) 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, adan said:

We must remember that up until 2004, Leica was saying that a digital M was not possible at all.

They never said that. They said "not possible to our standards with present technology."

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Whereupon Leica

1) ejected the Board Chair and CEO responsible for the statement (whatever the precise wording, it was not helpful to Leica), and

2) under economic pressure (ahem) - adjusted - their "standards" to use that "present technology."

Same early-2000s Kodak CCD 6.8-micron pixel architecture as used in the previous DMR, and Kodak medium-format sensors.

And (to get back on topic - sorry, fridgebuzz ;)) began optimizing lens behavior for that present technology, via both 6-bit coding and firmware corrections, and actual optical changes (which took a little longer, except for the Tri-Elmar and 28 Elmarit ASPH).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Side way thinking ...

as user of film and digital Leica M, I use old lenses (definitely not  "optimized for digital ...") and they stand quite well "digital use".

Side note, even I do suspect that in digital use they help to render "pleasing pics" more than asph.and co. newer lenses that I use also.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, jaapv said:

However, the Elmarit 28 asph was introduced in 2006 as part of the standarized Summarit series, which was certainly designed with digital aspects in mind as far as needed. (i.e. the 35) 

However... they introduced a redesign of the 28mm Elmarit asph in 2016 (No. 11677 in stead of 11606) and I do well remember the presentation in this forum of some results with the older version from the M Typ 240 which showed the "Italian flag" rather disturbingly. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, UliWer said:

However... they introduced a redesign of the 28mm Elmarit asph in 2016 (No. 11677 in stead of 11606) and I do well remember the presentation in this forum of some results with the older version from the M Typ 240 which showed the "Italian flag" rather disturbingly. 

They did, but the Italian flag problem was basically a matter of a minuscule mount misalignment. Mechanical precision was improved. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, adan said:

Whereupon Leica

1) ejected the Board Chair and CEO responsible for the statement (whatever the precise wording, it was not helpful to Leica), and

2) under economic pressure (ahem) - adjusted - their "standards" to use that "present technology."

Same early-2000s Kodak CCD 6.8-micron pixel architecture as used in the previous DMR, and Kodak medium-format sensors.

And (to get back on topic - sorry, fridgebuzz ;)) began optimizing lens behavior for that present technology, via both 6-bit coding and firmware corrections, and actual optical changes (which took a little longer, except for the Tri-Elmar and 28 Elmarit ASPH).

No. Mr Lee was fired for suggesting that the M8 was upgradable. The statement in question was made before the company was taken over by Mr Kaufmann and any firing was done for reasons that were linked to said purchase and running the company down to (actually beyond) the brink of bankruptcy.
 The technology involved was not the sensor as such but the micro lenses / IR filter, as evidenced by the initial IR problems and vignetting the camera suffered from. Like, BTW, the Epson RD1did as well despite that camera having an even smaller sensor. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jaapv said:

No. Mr Lee was fired for suggesting that the M8 was upgradable.

What does Steven Lee have to do with it?

I was speaking of Hanns-Peter Cohn (Chair of Leica Supervisory Board and CEO 1999-2005) and Ralf Coenen (Member of Management Board, and CEO 1/2005 to 4/2005).

Invited to leave by Dr. Kaufmann in Jan-April 2005 to make room for Swiss turn-around expert Dr. Josef Spichtig on an 18-month contract (CEO 4/2005 to 11/2006), to get Leica out of its near-bankruptcy, and get the delay-plagued DMR and the "not possible with present technology" M8 out the door and into the marketplace.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

That is correct and what I said. Fired for nearly bankrupting Leica. Quite understandably too although the rot had set in many years earlier   But  certainly not specifically for this remark which was made much earlier than the takeover.. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

From our own Leica Wiki: https://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-wiki.en/index.php/Josef_Spichtig

Quote

In his [May 2005] speech to the Company’s shareholders Mr. Spichtig said that the Leica Camera Group in fiscal 2004/2005 (FY end March 31) had recorded a 21% sales decline from 119.1 million to 93.7 million in a difficult market environment. As to the reasons for this development, Mr. Spichtig pointed out that there had been false estimations of the Company’s management concerning the speed at which the photo market would change over to digitalization, combined with weak points in the Company’s structure, as well as external factors such as unfavorable exchange rates.

The dismissive attitude towards a digital Leica M was the proximate and most important cause of the company's financial trouble. The top item on Dr. Spichtig's list of problems in his speech, and the first one he addressed with policy, by lighting a fire under the M-digital development program.

"Not possible to our standards with present technology" > loss of confidence in the brand > loss of sales > bankruptcy > firings. Cause and effect.

Pretty much what one can see right now on the CL threads (but on a much larger scale) - customers abandoning Leica for other alternatives because they can/could no longer see a future for them with Leica.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

True, but it resulted in bringing the M8 to the market in a pre-beta testing stage. I think we all recall the first production run; I certainly do, I had #11 sold...  The horrid IR sensitivity was apparent on the first flash picture I took the evening that it arrived - fortunately I was able to recognize and solve it right away as I had been witnessing the same issue, albeit not as bad, on my cousin's D70, and I was the first to discover the 'beam me up, Scotty" banding (my image was used by Sean Reid ;) ) that was caused by a timing error in the software, the green blobs triggered  a production stop and recall of the first run as they had forgotten a mass connection, then we got a series DOA because of a faulty transistor, and only then did they get around to setting a decent white balance in mixed light - months later. The green band  that occurred  because of insufficient light sealing of the edge pixels was never solved.  They were not even able to write their own software and had Zeiss do it... "Rushed to the market" is a serious understatement and it is a miracle that it did not kill the company off completely. Actually the sheer quality of that Kodak sensor saved the day.

Don’t forget that the same Photokina saw the launch of the Digilux 3, a Leica unworthy cooperation with Panasonic and Olympus  An ugly lump of a camera with the worst viewfinder of the 21st century and a sensor that managed to turn any tree in the frame into spinach soup. I sincerely doubt whether anybody in Solms took a photograph with it before they slapped a red dot on it. The only redeeming feature was that it took R lenses and kept going whenever my DMR got an attack of electronic fainting on Safari.

As it was, the root cause of the trouble was the spending of the money they got from Hermes on the ill-starred R8/R9, which never turned them a profit. Missing the digital transition came later, and only added to the burden.
Anyway, sorry for the OT. and let’s get back to lenses. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Was the M8 rushed to market and a "hot mess" in many ways? Yep.

But you know what? I called my Leica rep when the M8 I had ordered got caught in the 11/2006 recall, and she arranged to have Leica USA swipe one from that first batch right off the pallet going back to Solms for repair and send it to me, waterfall-bands, green-bands and all.

And within the first 2 weeks took some pictures with that "oh-so defective" camera that are still putting cash in my pocket today.

So I am eternally grateful to Dr. Spichtig for kicking the "perfectionist" Leica culture right up the behind (presumably with Dr. Kaufmann's blessing), and shipping a less-than-perfect camera in 2006 rather than a (more) perfect one in 2007 or 2008.

And (to get back OT) introducing the two critical first lenses that were influenced by digital in the form of the M8, the Tri-Elmar, and the 28mm ASPH, as a compact (even tiny) medium-wide that on the M8 approximated the view and feel of the 35 Summicrons on film.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...