ZeissFan
Veteran
Rangefinder calibration will become paramount with a sensor crop. Unlike an SLR, if the rangefinder is slightly out, it will be very apparent with the telephoto lenses. Maybe they'll have to offer just a single viewfinder magnification in the neighborhood of 0.8x or so.
Hektor
Leicapile
ZeissFan said:
I don't think so, a rangefinder and lens work together accurately regardless of format, and anyway, smaller formats and shorter lenses have more depthof field.........
Compare Minox sub-min with 5"x4"............
zeos 386sx
Well-known
I've been trying to find a 16462/ZOOEP to fit the lens head from my 135mm f/2.8 Elmarit to a Visoflex. I have doubts about Leica's ability to create a useable 180mm frame in a RF viewfinder - even with the magnified goggles on the Elmarit.jaapv said:I'm happyIt will turn my 135 into a 180, something I've long wished for. I'm not very good at Wide-angle. And if the sensor is indeed similar to the DMR, I'm happier still. There is none better at the moment, if we are to believe the raves on, for instance, the FM forum.
ezio gallino
Member
Hektor said:
Sure you can always cut the image with photoshop
Hektor
Leicapile
zeos 386sx said:
I've got a focussing mount for a 135 on a viso, which I've never used and is surplus to my needs, but I'm not sure exactly which 135 lens head it fits ?
zeos 386sx
Well-known
Leica made different ones for different 135's. It even made two ZOOEP's - one just for the 90mm Summicron and another for both the 90mm Summicron and the 135mm Elmarit.Hektor said:
If you find that your spare adapter is a 16462/ZOOEP let me know.
Hektor
Leicapile
Zeos, what O/D is the thread on the 135f2.8 which goes into the focus mount ?
I tried PM'ing you but RFF says you are not allowed to receive PMs
I tried PM'ing you but RFF says you are not allowed to receive PMs
Last edited:
zeos 386sx
Well-known
Hektor,Hektor said:
Take a look at your adapter. It should have the part number engraved on the outside.
Hektor
Leicapile
Zeos.
You may take it for granted that I've already done that, - it is un-numbered but I'm quite familiar with leica equipment and am aware of the several suitable focussing mounts made for this purpose. I suspect that your specification is insufficiently accurate to be sure of the correct article.
A definate requirement is that the lens head will screw into the mount, - that is why I asked you for the size. I suggest you measure it.
apologies to others for O/T discussion.
You may take it for granted that I've already done that, - it is un-numbered but I'm quite familiar with leica equipment and am aware of the several suitable focussing mounts made for this purpose. I suspect that your specification is insufficiently accurate to be sure of the correct article.
A definate requirement is that the lens head will screw into the mount, - that is why I asked you for the size. I suggest you measure it.
apologies to others for O/T discussion.
Last edited:
zeos 386sx
Well-known
Hektor,
If it is un-numbered then it is probably not the ZOOEP I require. Thank you for checking. Like you, I apologize to everyone for going OT.
If it is un-numbered then it is probably not the ZOOEP I require. Thank you for checking. Like you, I apologize to everyone for going OT.
Hektor
Leicapile
Zeos. I'm happy to leave it there, but in case it helps you in your search, I have origininal Leitz data which quotes a ZOOEP as being equivalent to a 16463, not 16462 as you suggest, and both a ZOOEP and 16462 as being appropriate to a 90f2.
I have personally owned at least two examples of the 135f2.8 with specs and can say they were of differing mount fittings and differing optical construction, although supeficially similar.
Leica production records show production of this lens in at least two periods from 1963-1973, and 1973-1997, they redesigned the lens in detail several times including the mounts and the optical elements.
At this time I personally doubt whether even anyone at Leitz knows for certain which bits fit what lenses.
I hope this might be of some assistance to you, so that you don't accidently end up disappointed and frustrated.
Best Regards, John C.
I have personally owned at least two examples of the 135f2.8 with specs and can say they were of differing mount fittings and differing optical construction, although supeficially similar.
Leica production records show production of this lens in at least two periods from 1963-1973, and 1973-1997, they redesigned the lens in detail several times including the mounts and the optical elements.
At this time I personally doubt whether even anyone at Leitz knows for certain which bits fit what lenses.
I hope this might be of some assistance to you, so that you don't accidently end up disappointed and frustrated.
Best Regards, John C.
GeneW
Veteran
Back to the topic ... I think this camera could do a lot to bring RF photography into mainstream awareness. The Epson, while very nice (and you know I'd love to own one) is not a high-profile camera. If the Leica M digital is really good, it'll attract a lot of attention. The prices quoted are in the ballpark for pro digital cameras. I really want to see RF photography live on, both film-based and digital models.
Gene
Gene
Hektor
Leicapile
We've got to have a digital M.....
An accurate and stable rangefinder is the only way to focus a fast lens, say f1 or f1.2 or even f1.4 in dim light wide open.
The depth of field on such lenses is so shallow no other method is reliable.
An accurate and stable rangefinder is the only way to focus a fast lens, say f1 or f1.2 or even f1.4 in dim light wide open.
The depth of field on such lenses is so shallow no other method is reliable.
fgianni
Trainee Amateur
Hektor said:
John, if the sensor is the same as in the Digital R the crop factor is actually 1.37, only marginally better than the 1.5 of the RD-1
I think I'll wait for the digital M, so a lot of RD-1 owners will flog theirs on the boy, and I'll be able to grab a cheap second body.
fgianni
Trainee Amateur
Hektor said:
They say that the Canon Ef 50mm F1.0 L can be accurately autofocused, I'd love to be able to afford one of those for my 20D ALMOST as much as I'd love to be able to afford a Noctilux
ZeissFan
Veteran
> I don't think so, a rangefinder and lens work together accurately regardless of format, and anyway, smaller formats and shorter lenses have more depthof field.
I would disagree with you, and I'm confused. A rangefinder that is out of calibration will give you out of focus photos, particularly with telephoto lenses. But then you say:
"An accurate and stable rangefinder is the only way to focus a fast lens, say f1 or f1.2 or even f1.4 in dim light wide open."
And that's exactly what I am saying. It's very crucial for the rangefinder to be precisely calibrated, especially with telephotos (as well as fast lenses), which have very shallow depth of field.
I would disagree with you, and I'm confused. A rangefinder that is out of calibration will give you out of focus photos, particularly with telephoto lenses. But then you say:
"An accurate and stable rangefinder is the only way to focus a fast lens, say f1 or f1.2 or even f1.4 in dim light wide open."
And that's exactly what I am saying. It's very crucial for the rangefinder to be precisely calibrated, especially with telephotos (as well as fast lenses), which have very shallow depth of field.
Hektor
Leicapile
Well, ZeissFan, we probably don't disagree.......
My first point was that a lens and coupled rangefinder combination will focus accurately regardless of the format or sensor size, - I agree they must be correctly calibrated, - one takes that for granted with Leica equipment which has been correctly maintained, but personally I'd be less confident with some other makes, e.g. FSU stuff and cheaper japanese and chinese copies.
My second point, which Fgianni also alluded to, is that it is very difficult to focus the image from a very fast lens in dim light, with for example a ground glass screen, I've tried it with Canon reflex 50f1.2 and it's useless compared to a Noctilux on an M3.
To comment to Fgianni, I suspect the autofocus on modern Canons with F1 lenses employs focus assist illumination by infrared or visible light beam to illuminate the subject sufficiently for the autofocus to work. Even then in my experience it doesn't work reliably, and I don't like the idea of artificially illuminating my subjects with a red dot while I'm "shooting" them !
I've got some olympus digital F1.8 equipment which works that way.
Overall you can't beat an M3, Tri-x or fuji 1600, and a Noctilux, except with a 75f1.4 which is even harder to focus.
My first point was that a lens and coupled rangefinder combination will focus accurately regardless of the format or sensor size, - I agree they must be correctly calibrated, - one takes that for granted with Leica equipment which has been correctly maintained, but personally I'd be less confident with some other makes, e.g. FSU stuff and cheaper japanese and chinese copies.
My second point, which Fgianni also alluded to, is that it is very difficult to focus the image from a very fast lens in dim light, with for example a ground glass screen, I've tried it with Canon reflex 50f1.2 and it's useless compared to a Noctilux on an M3.
To comment to Fgianni, I suspect the autofocus on modern Canons with F1 lenses employs focus assist illumination by infrared or visible light beam to illuminate the subject sufficiently for the autofocus to work. Even then in my experience it doesn't work reliably, and I don't like the idea of artificially illuminating my subjects with a red dot while I'm "shooting" them !
I've got some olympus digital F1.8 equipment which works that way.
Overall you can't beat an M3, Tri-x or fuji 1600, and a Noctilux, except with a 75f1.4 which is even harder to focus.
Last edited:
Hektor
Leicapile
Fgianni, I thought they had stopped selling the Canon 50f1 autofocus 'cause it didn't work properly ?
fgianni
Trainee Amateur
Looking at the reviews in Fred Miranda's site is not such a bad lens for an f1.0 autofocus, yes autofocus is slow but it works.
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=153&sort=7&cat=all&page=6
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=153&sort=7&cat=all&page=6
Hektor
Leicapile
Hi Ian, mine is a very personal view but I just can't bring myself to believe that thing works properly in the real (low light) world.
Used 'in anger', wide-open, in dim light, with a moving subject - like a musician, you don't focus a Noct by turning the barrel, - it's too slow, - you focus by rocking the camera and your whole body backwards and forwards a few cms, and watching the split-image on a significant highlight or edge, then bang (softly) release the shutter at the critical moment..........
I just can't believe you can get even close to that with something as clumsy and slow as an autofocus lens. (especially when it 'hunts' and won't let you release the shutter).
You can compose ok with a very bright screen in a reflex, but you can't discern the sharpness of focus in very low light conditions......at least I can't....but I'm an old filmosaurus who wears specs.
Used 'in anger', wide-open, in dim light, with a moving subject - like a musician, you don't focus a Noct by turning the barrel, - it's too slow, - you focus by rocking the camera and your whole body backwards and forwards a few cms, and watching the split-image on a significant highlight or edge, then bang (softly) release the shutter at the critical moment..........
I just can't believe you can get even close to that with something as clumsy and slow as an autofocus lens. (especially when it 'hunts' and won't let you release the shutter).
You can compose ok with a very bright screen in a reflex, but you can't discern the sharpness of focus in very low light conditions......at least I can't....but I'm an old filmosaurus who wears specs.
Last edited: