The problem with this lens is not only the deep rear element but that it isn't telecentric, even if it would physically fit...it would likely have extreme edge smearing and color shifts.
The X-H1 has .75x and OLED viewfinder, for a lot less $, if you can find one.
Timmyjoe
Veteran
It's a shame you've ruled out Nikon. I find the Nikon Z6 to be a great combination with Leica and Nikon rangefinder glass. It's very easy to focus as it has not only a "Zoom to focus" button which greatly magnifies the center of the image, but it also can be zoomed in even more via a second button on the back of the camera. It is quite easy to nail focus with the Z6 and rangefinder glass.
Best,
-Tim
Best,
-Tim
I use the X-H1...it’s pretty good but not the same resolution... it’s 3.69M.
Nope, and it's not $6000 either.
Not having used an SL2, have no idea if the additional resolution is a marked improvement.
Not having used an SL2, have no idea if the additional resolution is a marked improvement.
Fuji has two magnification levels as well, with the same button/dial.
Scrambler
Well-known
I can't tell you what is best of the modern options.
I CAN tell you that a Sony APS-C camera (NEX or Alpha) will do the job. I have an A3000, the least of the group, and it works fine. Program a button to do the enlargement for more precise focus, or just shoot using the unenlarged view.
I use a CV 21mm/f4 among others. Colour gets wonky but black and white is tolerable. The 50s are fine with it. SLR wides (my usual lenses for this) are fine.
The easiest-focussing APS-C camera for Leica M-mount lenses is the Epson R-D1. And that copes nicely with the wider lenses. The Jupiter-12 is my "normal" lens and the C 21mm/f4 my wide.
Epson prices are not cheap. But they are not really declining. Sony is only slowly declining but a decent NEX will be 1/5 the price of the Epson.
I CAN tell you that a Sony APS-C camera (NEX or Alpha) will do the job. I have an A3000, the least of the group, and it works fine. Program a button to do the enlargement for more precise focus, or just shoot using the unenlarged view.
I use a CV 21mm/f4 among others. Colour gets wonky but black and white is tolerable. The 50s are fine with it. SLR wides (my usual lenses for this) are fine.
The easiest-focussing APS-C camera for Leica M-mount lenses is the Epson R-D1. And that copes nicely with the wider lenses. The Jupiter-12 is my "normal" lens and the C 21mm/f4 my wide.
Epson prices are not cheap. But they are not really declining. Sony is only slowly declining but a decent NEX will be 1/5 the price of the Epson.
Scrambler
Well-known
You can't fit the J-12 on a Sony APS-C camera. But you can on their full frames.
The A7S copes best with wide/non-retrofocal lenses from what I've read. But all digital sensors dislike anything but parallel light entering them.
Your 21mm/f3.4 will fit a Sony full frame but may not be usable.
It would most probably be usable on an Epson but it will be touch-and-go. Some J-12s are that touch too deep.
The A7S copes best with wide/non-retrofocal lenses from what I've read. But all digital sensors dislike anything but parallel light entering them.
Your 21mm/f3.4 will fit a Sony full frame but may not be usable.
It would most probably be usable on an Epson but it will be touch-and-go. Some J-12s are that touch too deep.
v3cron
Well-known
I bought a used Sony RX1 from KEH. If I end up using it a lot, I will pick up an interchangeable lens camera for my Leica lenses later. This will be like my Contax T2 .
.
Nope, and it's not $6000 either.
Not having used an SL2, have no idea if the additional resolution is a marked improvement.
Honestly, me neither ... haha. However, there’s no doubt that with each iteration manual focus is getting easier.
Orthogonal
Established
Pretty much any modern mirrorless is great for manual focusing. It may be blasphemy but most of them are easier to focus most of the time than any RF or SLR. I would personally steer clear of the Fuji since they're effectively half frame cameras, you'll be cropping out a lot of what makes your lenses special. The XPro series may have OVFs, but only the latest XP3 has manual focus aids in the OVF, which essentially just gives you a tiny EVF in the bottom corner and in my experience was technically impressive but functionally underwhelming. YMMV.
I'd suggest looking into one of the first generation A7 series if you're on a budget. The main downside would be that they have pretty thick sensor stacks, mediocre battery life, and don't work great with wides, but you can have that modified (or better yet buy a modified one second hand) by Kolarivision IIRC and get pretty good results. The Nikon Z6 and 7 are supposed to have very thin stacks and do well with some RF wides but I haven't heard of the 21/3.4 being used on one - it may protrude too deeply and hit the shutter.
I'd suggest looking into one of the first generation A7 series if you're on a budget. The main downside would be that they have pretty thick sensor stacks, mediocre battery life, and don't work great with wides, but you can have that modified (or better yet buy a modified one second hand) by Kolarivision IIRC and get pretty good results. The Nikon Z6 and 7 are supposed to have very thin stacks and do well with some RF wides but I haven't heard of the 21/3.4 being used on one - it may protrude too deeply and hit the shutter.
Orthogonal
Established
I bought a used Sony RX1 from KEH. If I end up using it a lot, I will pick up an interchangeable lens camera for my Leica lenses later. This will be like my Contax T2
The Sonnar on that camera is amazing. Hope you enjoy it.
peterm1
Veteran
I will not say much about which camera you "should" buy as everyone has their own views based on their own experience which (as is my case) is usually limited to a few cameras and hence will not be very well informed. Instead I will concentrate on things I think you should look for.
Most if not all modern day cameras have viewfinders with good variable diopters built in. I use specs too for reading and my eyes are progressively getting worse in this respect making image focusing a task. I have never really found a camera which is really comfortable to use with specs -viewfinders are too small and the eye relief is always too short to allow it (demanding the eye be positioned close to the finder). But by relying on the inbuilt variable diopter I can cope pretty well without my specs....I just slip them up onto my brow when I look through the camera and back onto my nose to review the result. It works OK.
Also my eye glasses are made for reading (i.e. they have a closer optimal point of focus) with a second pair for working on computer screens (optimized for slightly longer optimum focus as computer screens are typically positioned a little further away). Not all eye glasses will work well with all finders. For example when looking through a Leica M finder I believe the image you see appears as if it is about 2 (?) meters away and hence further than reading glasses are designed for. This affects the diopter you need in your glasses and hence your existing glasses may not work well. I suppose EVFs in modern mirrorless cameras are similar in this respect.
The next thing to look out for is the viewfinder resolution. Recently these have gotten much much better in most cameras. But I find that even with the same nominal resolution that does not tell the full story. The camera viewfinder needs to be clear and cope with a range of lighting conditions. I have for example, a Sony NEX 7 (a cropped sensor camera) and recently bought a second hand Sony A7s (full frame sensor). Though they nominally have the same finder resolution (2.4 million dots) the A7s, perhaps being the next generation along, is markedly better for manual focusing. it is just nicer to view through and able to cope better with adverse lighting. Even better, the A7s is renowned for good low light shooting because it only has a 12megapixel sensor (kept deliberately modest for that reason). Even better still, when an image is being taken in dim conditions the viewfinder brightens up to give a much brighter image that the ambient conditions would otherwise allow. Makes sense - no point having a sensor that can cope with images made in moonlight if you cannot see what you are focusing on. I have no intention of taking moonlight images but this makes MF a breeze in all kinds of lighting - bright, dim or plainly dark. It is a big plus for me.
My final suggestions relate to focus peaking and image manual focus assist. You would most likely benefit from both and fortunately are likely to find both in most cameras these days (not so perhaps 5 years back). Focus peaking is now found in most cameras as is the ability to press a button on your camera to be able to instantly enlarge part of the image to maximize focus accuracy. The best cameras (which probably means all of them in more recent models) allow you to program a convenient button (which means one you can use without removing your eye from the viewfinder and with a small movement of your index finger (or right hand thumb) so as not to change the grip on the camera) to enlarge the view through the finder (thus allowing you to refine focus) then jump back to normal view the instant you touch the shutter button again. This makes focusing at max. accuracy easy and fast with no fritzing about. (One camera I owned had a button positioned near the bottom of the back of the camera to enlarge the image for MF assist and it needed to be pressed again to turn it off. This made it damn near worthless in my view as it could only be pressed by removing the camera from the eye.)
I tend not to rely wholly on focus peaking when using wide open lenses although it is usually adequate for the purpose when stopped down. Focus peaking gives a good approximation of the max point of focus but it may not be 100% accurate. And if the subject image is inherently low contrast (especially when using an old low contrast lens) the camera may not even be able to discern the maximally focused points so as to be able to display focus peaking highlights. Instead I use focus peaking to find the approx. point of maximum focus and if there is time use manual focus assist (image enlargement as described above) to optimize focus. Or I simply use the inherent sharpness of the viewfinder to assess the image and focus accordingly as you might with a film SLR.
As to specific cameras I can only say this. In my relatively limited experience, I have been most impressed with the viewfinders in two specific cameras I have tried. The first is the Olympus OM D EM 5. Mine is the first model and I never changed up. Later ones are probably better still. It does not have focus peaking. But I found that compared to other cameras I tried the finder is sharp and clear enough to be functional without that when focusing manually (Plus it has afunctional MF assist image enlargement function as described above). The second is the above mentioned Sony A7s. Mine is also an old model and hence cheapish to buy. They are up to an A7s111 now but mine is easily the nicest one to use as a MF camera in my view. Perhaps a third runner to these is the Panasonic GX7. It has a good VF for manual focus plus focus peaking and manual focus image enlargement. It is perhaps not quite up to the Olympus in screen clearness and below the Sony in other respects but overall it works very well never the less and I certainly would not count it out.
Most if not all modern day cameras have viewfinders with good variable diopters built in. I use specs too for reading and my eyes are progressively getting worse in this respect making image focusing a task. I have never really found a camera which is really comfortable to use with specs -viewfinders are too small and the eye relief is always too short to allow it (demanding the eye be positioned close to the finder). But by relying on the inbuilt variable diopter I can cope pretty well without my specs....I just slip them up onto my brow when I look through the camera and back onto my nose to review the result. It works OK.
Also my eye glasses are made for reading (i.e. they have a closer optimal point of focus) with a second pair for working on computer screens (optimized for slightly longer optimum focus as computer screens are typically positioned a little further away). Not all eye glasses will work well with all finders. For example when looking through a Leica M finder I believe the image you see appears as if it is about 2 (?) meters away and hence further than reading glasses are designed for. This affects the diopter you need in your glasses and hence your existing glasses may not work well. I suppose EVFs in modern mirrorless cameras are similar in this respect.
The next thing to look out for is the viewfinder resolution. Recently these have gotten much much better in most cameras. But I find that even with the same nominal resolution that does not tell the full story. The camera viewfinder needs to be clear and cope with a range of lighting conditions. I have for example, a Sony NEX 7 (a cropped sensor camera) and recently bought a second hand Sony A7s (full frame sensor). Though they nominally have the same finder resolution (2.4 million dots) the A7s, perhaps being the next generation along, is markedly better for manual focusing. it is just nicer to view through and able to cope better with adverse lighting. Even better, the A7s is renowned for good low light shooting because it only has a 12megapixel sensor (kept deliberately modest for that reason). Even better still, when an image is being taken in dim conditions the viewfinder brightens up to give a much brighter image that the ambient conditions would otherwise allow. Makes sense - no point having a sensor that can cope with images made in moonlight if you cannot see what you are focusing on. I have no intention of taking moonlight images but this makes MF a breeze in all kinds of lighting - bright, dim or plainly dark. It is a big plus for me.
My final suggestions relate to focus peaking and image manual focus assist. You would most likely benefit from both and fortunately are likely to find both in most cameras these days (not so perhaps 5 years back). Focus peaking is now found in most cameras as is the ability to press a button on your camera to be able to instantly enlarge part of the image to maximize focus accuracy. The best cameras (which probably means all of them in more recent models) allow you to program a convenient button (which means one you can use without removing your eye from the viewfinder and with a small movement of your index finger (or right hand thumb) so as not to change the grip on the camera) to enlarge the view through the finder (thus allowing you to refine focus) then jump back to normal view the instant you touch the shutter button again. This makes focusing at max. accuracy easy and fast with no fritzing about. (One camera I owned had a button positioned near the bottom of the back of the camera to enlarge the image for MF assist and it needed to be pressed again to turn it off. This made it damn near worthless in my view as it could only be pressed by removing the camera from the eye.)
I tend not to rely wholly on focus peaking when using wide open lenses although it is usually adequate for the purpose when stopped down. Focus peaking gives a good approximation of the max point of focus but it may not be 100% accurate. And if the subject image is inherently low contrast (especially when using an old low contrast lens) the camera may not even be able to discern the maximally focused points so as to be able to display focus peaking highlights. Instead I use focus peaking to find the approx. point of maximum focus and if there is time use manual focus assist (image enlargement as described above) to optimize focus. Or I simply use the inherent sharpness of the viewfinder to assess the image and focus accordingly as you might with a film SLR.
As to specific cameras I can only say this. In my relatively limited experience, I have been most impressed with the viewfinders in two specific cameras I have tried. The first is the Olympus OM D EM 5. Mine is the first model and I never changed up. Later ones are probably better still. It does not have focus peaking. But I found that compared to other cameras I tried the finder is sharp and clear enough to be functional without that when focusing manually (Plus it has afunctional MF assist image enlargement function as described above). The second is the above mentioned Sony A7s. Mine is also an old model and hence cheapish to buy. They are up to an A7s111 now but mine is easily the nicest one to use as a MF camera in my view. Perhaps a third runner to these is the Panasonic GX7. It has a good VF for manual focus plus focus peaking and manual focus image enlargement. It is perhaps not quite up to the Olympus in screen clearness and below the Sony in other respects but overall it works very well never the less and I certainly would not count it out.
Evergreen States
Francine Pierre Saget (they/them)
Sony just announced the A7c, which has a full frame sensor but a body like the A6xxx series. I’m looking forward to hearing how users like it for adapting wide angle rangefinder lenses. If you want an OVF, you can use some old auxiliary finders that match your lenses.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
If you don't believe that digital cameras can be premium products, then you won't be satisfied with anything. Why waste everyone's time?
G
G
peterm1
Veteran
I just put up a couple of early test photos from an A7s and have to say I am impressed with its image quality. It really produces images exceedingly well.
The first is largely straight out of camera. But the second has had some work done on it. In either event I am suitably impressed with its rendering.
Cafe Study 43 by Life in Shadows, on Flickr
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
Anything with cropped sensor in it is past century outdated technology wasting M lenses.
Any modern FF mirrorless has focus peaking which is basically showing the DOF in real time. It is so good I could focus on moving objects with M lenses. Not only focus but track moving objects.
The only caveat is to search and find which FF mirrorless is good with wide M lenses.
I have no problem with 35 M mount lenses on cheap and compact (means awesome) Canon RP. With 21 LTM lens, I'm skunked. I recommend to check on Nikon FF Z series for M mount lenses. Some latest Sony A7 series might be also good.
Any modern FF mirrorless has focus peaking which is basically showing the DOF in real time. It is so good I could focus on moving objects with M lenses. Not only focus but track moving objects.
The only caveat is to search and find which FF mirrorless is good with wide M lenses.
I have no problem with 35 M mount lenses on cheap and compact (means awesome) Canon RP. With 21 LTM lens, I'm skunked. I recommend to check on Nikon FF Z series for M mount lenses. Some latest Sony A7 series might be also good.
Ricoh
Well-known
At the risk of divorce I’ve been considering the purchase of a FF mirrorless for my M and SLR lenses. Putting the SLR glassware to one side, I think I already have one of the most appropriate digital camera bodies for the Ms, that being the M240.
Ricoh
Well-known
Someone likes the Sony A7C with Leica M lenses:
https://www.thephoblographer.com/20...ith-leica-m-mount-lenses-is-an-overdue-dream/
And a review of same camera: https://www.thephoblographer.com/2020/09/14/sony-a7c-review/
https://www.thephoblographer.com/20...ith-leica-m-mount-lenses-is-an-overdue-dream/
And a review of same camera: https://www.thephoblographer.com/2020/09/14/sony-a7c-review/
Out to Lunch
Ventor
I am also using the Fuji X-H1 with M mount lenses. Focus peaking is easy as pie. IBIS is a big plus. The X-H1 is out of production but rumor has it that an X-H2 is planned for 2021. Cheers, OtL
Scrambler
Well-known
Ko.Fe, I smiled at the "past century outdated technology." Full Frame digital isn't that old so honestly its "THIS century outdated technology." But that means cheaper. For many (and I'm one) the tradeoff is reasonable. I can use the lens, just differently.