Are Leica lenses a dead end?

OP, out of curiosity, do you honestly believe that if all of the M mount cameras all vanished at the same time but the lenses remained, that people would just let 90 APOs and 50 Luxes just sit on shelves collecting dust?

All I'm saying is that Olympus called OM quits 10 years ago and people are still paying used car money for their OM super teles.
 
redisburning said:
OP, out of curiosity, do you honestly believe that if all of the M mount cameras all vanished at the same time but the lenses remained, that people would just let 90 APOs and 50 Luxes just sit on shelves collecting dust?
Click to expand...

Not sure I ever said that. I'm just not sure that I have as much confidence as everyone else that an affordable full-frame M-mount compatible camera is in the near future.

Btw, great discussion, everyone. I agree that an M8 is one of the more viable options for someone like me.
 
Agreed. Indeed, contrary to the OP's feeling, I think we'll be seeing a full frame mirrorless system in the next 2 years or so. I also like to think of my Leica & Leica-mount glass collection as my photographic 401(k). ;)

Benjamin Marks said:
In addition: we keep seeing digi-platforms that can be adapted to M lenses:

We now have the RD-1 (which price has been stable for years, used copies are currently selling for essentially $100 less than what I sold mine four years ago); M8, M9, m4/3, Sony Nex, Ricoh digital, soon to come Fuji X1 Pro -- seems like the number of competing systems to accommodate M lenses is growing, not shrinking. This does not argue for a "dead end" design, it argues for a niche market, but one that has attracted many players with diverse technologies. This suggests the opposite of "dead end," no? I think there was a stronger argument (although still a losing one) one year before the R-D1 came out, when Leica was saying "can't be done" and the digital revolution was in full cry.


[Edit: Ahem. Full disclosure: the amount of money I have tied up in Leica glass could feed a pack of teenagers through a year or more, so in addition to my argument above, let me add my fervent hope that it is not so.]
Click to expand...
 
A good lens is a good lens. I understand your point about color film, but even those who shoot b&w want a great lens for it, and Leica's lenses are excellent. The demise of color film won't change that much.

Then again, even though I am admittedly guilty of slowly stocking up my freezer full of C41 and E6 film, I don't think the demise of color film is as eminent as many of us think. While it's not necessarily the best comparison, who of us thought that vinyl records would be as popular today as they are? A good chunk of new albums released these days also come out on vinyl, something that was unheard of a decade ago.

Perhaps I'm being overly optimistic, but I believe there will be options for color film for years to come, and I don't ever really see b&w going away completely.

I also agree with those who feel an affordable alternative to a digital M will arrive in the not too distant future.
 
Less than 15 years ago the only camera that would take an M mount Leica lens was a Leica M body! I think today we have an embarrassment of riches, both in film and digital. More and more digital cameras with short flange to sensor distance. No 24X36 mm frame sizes yet, except the M9 of course, but that could change, especially if there is a large demand for M mount adapters for the current crop of mirrorless cameras.
 
anjoca that is a good point.

I actually bought the Black Prarie album on vinyl and it's great. almost anything I want to listen to comes out on Vinyl, and a lot of stuff I dont does too (you can buy Katy Perry, Lady Gaga, etc on vinyl)
 
Eric T said:
Look at this review of the Olympus EM-5: http://robinwong.blogspot.com/.
After reading that and viewing the images, can anyone really say that full-frame is needed or even important? Once upon a time, a full frame sensor was thought to be necessary for noise reduction. .
Click to expand...

As good as the EM-5 images are, the images from a larger sensor will always have the potential to be better.

If the subject does not require high dynamic range and/or the shutter speed needs are not challenged, then the increased information content of the larger sensor is redundant. Otherwise a larger sensor area will always deliver superior results compared to a smaller sensor area with the same
technology.

The value of the large sensor advantage will certainly be different for different photographers because they have different needs. But the physics of light digitization says sensor area is important.
 
In principle, what willie_901 says is correct. A larger sensor should provide an advantage. However, resolution is so high now, even on smaller half-frame sensors, that there is no PRACTICAL need for a full frame sensor. Maybe if you are printing VERY large prints, there is an advantage but that is rarely done by the vast majority of us.
 
Eric: I agree if you were starting from scratch and purchasing a new system. But if you have thousands of dollars tied up in wide angle lenses, you might prefer an option (even at the expense of several thousand dollars) that lets you use them all as you originally intended. Personally, I am glad that my 20mm Nikon AF lens is "still a 20", rather than being a "30" on a 1.5 crop camera. The laws of optics haven't changed either, and the near-far relationship (e.g. subject, foreground, background) of, say, a 50mm lens is not the same as that of a 75mm lens, regardless of the sensor/film size. Personally, I am glad that the D3 came along and I will keep clicking that shutter button until the damn thing croaks.

Ben Marks
 
Eric T said:
In principle, what willie_901 says is correct. A larger sensor should provide an advantage. However, resolution is so high now, even on smaller half-frame sensors, that there is no PRACTICAL need for a full frame sensor. Maybe if you are printing VERY large prints, there is an advantage but that is rarely done by the vast majority of us.
Click to expand...

Print size is mostly irrelevant. So is resolution. Nokia just announced a 808 PureView smartphone with a 41 MP camera. At 300 pixels per inch you could make a very large print. But the sensor size limits the signal-to-noise ratio which limits the dynamic range.

It is always practical to collect the best data you can. As I said before, some subjects do not benefit from the fundamental advantages of larger sensor areas, but many do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom