jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
You are totally correct Rex. Did you notice the size of that standard zoom on the Digilux3? Gargantuan is the right word for it. Any DSLR user would be proud to have it bouncing on his belly.
lubitel
Well-known
Thats funny, this thread is turning into another tech-talk. 35mm 1.0 1,33 factor, half-full-frame.
rvaubel
Well-known
ferider said:
Ya, it's gonna happen eventially. Oh boy, I can hardly wait for the pissing and moaning about the betrayal "of everything that Leica stands for". Barnack, the greatest inovator of a revolutionary film format of all times, would be spinning in his grave if he could hear the naysayers and troglydytes wailing at the moon about something as simple as change.
Oh well, I'm going to bed..... and will be dreaming of new revolutionary lenses based on traditional principles and implimented on a reduced format, digital rangefinder
Rex
...arf, arf (sound of traitorous doggie) :angel:
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
Hi Rex,
People were promised cool fast small APS-coverage wides in the DSLR world. Didn't happen either. Lens manufacturers tend to concentrate on zoom lenses (the Canon EF-S 60/2.8 macro being an exception). There are third-party lenses such as the Sigma 30/1.4, but many people complain about its build quality and an inaccurate AF. You can look at lenses for 4/3, as well; most of them aren't significantly smaller than their APS or full-frame counterparts.
Leica won't make any lenses for reduced coverage. Leica users are typically concerned about protecting their investment. If Leica produced such a series of lenses, it would be a statement that there will be no full-frame digital M9, because the lens would be unusable on such a body. I guess a not insignificant portion of those users who are now disappointed that the M8 isn't full-frame would complain about Leica going down the drain, producing disposable rubbish, and they would probably desert Leica in droves. Instant bad publicity. M5 all over again. Which brings us back to the inflexibility question.
Philipp
Sorry to burst your bubble, but I think we can forget about that.rvaubel said:
People were promised cool fast small APS-coverage wides in the DSLR world. Didn't happen either. Lens manufacturers tend to concentrate on zoom lenses (the Canon EF-S 60/2.8 macro being an exception). There are third-party lenses such as the Sigma 30/1.4, but many people complain about its build quality and an inaccurate AF. You can look at lenses for 4/3, as well; most of them aren't significantly smaller than their APS or full-frame counterparts.
Leica won't make any lenses for reduced coverage. Leica users are typically concerned about protecting their investment. If Leica produced such a series of lenses, it would be a statement that there will be no full-frame digital M9, because the lens would be unusable on such a body. I guess a not insignificant portion of those users who are now disappointed that the M8 isn't full-frame would complain about Leica going down the drain, producing disposable rubbish, and they would probably desert Leica in droves. Instant bad publicity. M5 all over again. Which brings us back to the inflexibility question.
Philipp
Last edited:
Marc-A.
I Shoot Film
rxmd said:
You're absolutely right Philipp. As said Willy Ronis: "Photography: it's seing. You've either got it or you haven't. Given the cricumstances, it can be refined, but it's clear from the start even with the cheapest camera".
Now, that being said, it doesn't mean you're not supposed to have a favorite camera to shoot with. I mean it's like choosing a pencil for writing or a pair of shoes for walking ... you can be more or less comfortable with a pair of shoes; so can you with a camera. IMHO there's no problem in choosing the camera that fits you, even if you're not HCB (God, is there any other photographer?
) ... let say Dorothea Lange. For instance, I'm trying all the cameras I can afford (and I know most people here do the same ... yes GAS it is), but the more I acquire cameras, the more I realize that my M2 is the one. Others realize that THE camera is a Contax IIa, or a Nikon SP, or being disappointed by RF (pure hypothesis, cuz it's impossible
) they find that only SLRs fit them ...etc.It's only a matter of taste, not a matter of photography.
Best,
Marc
PS: if you have a Praktica you don't use, send it to me; I would love to test that one
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
ferider said:What a wonderful example of marketing/branding success. Like the Hermes special edition MP, you mean ?
Not at all. Maybe I did not formulate my post clearly enough.As a Leica customer I think it part of the quality of the system that I can use LTM lenses fully functionally on the M8, or the newest 28 mm on the M2, or the Visoflex on all M camera's etc.
Try that with an old Canon lens, or let Olympus tell you the OM system is "no longer supported" etc.
That is what I meant.
rvaubel
Well-known
rxmd said:
Very good points. I agree that the more traditional Leica fans would scream bloody murder if a reduced coverage lens was produced. And I would agree that a reduced civerage lens was a dead end if a believed that the M8 was a transitional model to eventually be replaced by a full frame M9. And I'm not so sure about that. There is a distinct possibility that a full frame Leica will never be produced.
I await the death squad.
On your point that the manufacures never delivered on the promise of compact APS digital lenses, that's not entirely true. Given the constraints of retrofocus lens design and the consumers need for zooms of every increasing magnification factor, they have actually done a fair job of delivering more lens in less bulk.
In most cases, the APS lens has a one stop advantage on its full frame rquivalent. An example would be the Canon EF-S 17-55/2.8 vs the EF 24-105/4.0 These two lenses are about the same size and weight but the advantage in speed goes to the "S" lens. There are similar stories across the board.
In addition, rangefinder specific lenses don't need to be of a retrofocus design. This in itself leads to a more compact product.
Add in the additional benifit of a reduced coverage design, and you could imagine a 24mm/F1,4 that would be 1/3 the size and 1/2 the weight of the Canon 24/1.4
Well that's my hope anyway.
What I really want to know is why do people get mad? Aren't we just trying to take pretty pictures? I mean its not life or death or anything.
Rex
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Can we suppose a reduced coverage lens would sell? I doubt it. A significant number of M8 buyers will be retaining their film camera's. What sense would it make to buy a lens with limited use?
rvaubel
Well-known
jaapv said:
I plan on keeping and using my film cameras. In fact, I have set up my darkroom for the first timein 35 years because it is such a pain to get film developed and impossible to get real fiber prints. Howver, I use my RD1 more (much more) than my film cameras
I would buy a reduced coverage lens, especially in the range that is ill served by the current product line. Specifically, the fast wides come to mind. I could really use a 24mm/f1.4 on my RD1 . It would be a good choice on the upcoming M8 also. I can think of plenty of lenses that would be useful on the M8 that would be of little interest to me on my R3a or T
Rex
hth
Well-known
No, I was inflexible before I started using Leicas.
/Håkan
/Håkan
ZeissFan
Veteran
With current technology, I don't believe Leica can produce a full-frame sensor camera that can accept all of the older lenses without severe vignetting.
Leica has to cater to the base of users who expect ALL of their lenses to function as intended on a full-frame camera.
Carl Zeiss probably has a better shot at producing a full-frame camera because they have produced their lenses to be digital compatible from the start (supposedly, no vignetting). From a marketing point of view, a full-frame camera that works best with Zeiss lenses would give the prospective buyer another reason to stay with Zeiss bodies and lenses, which would benefit Zeiss but not Leica.
At some point, computer technology will evolve again that will allow the use of wide angle lenses, and Leica will be able to produce a successor model.
The question is how long will this take before the technology matches the demands? Two years? Five years? 10 years? And will such a market then exist by the time a product is developed? Or will most users have migrated to a digital SLR?
Leica has to cater to the base of users who expect ALL of their lenses to function as intended on a full-frame camera.
Carl Zeiss probably has a better shot at producing a full-frame camera because they have produced their lenses to be digital compatible from the start (supposedly, no vignetting). From a marketing point of view, a full-frame camera that works best with Zeiss lenses would give the prospective buyer another reason to stay with Zeiss bodies and lenses, which would benefit Zeiss but not Leica.
At some point, computer technology will evolve again that will allow the use of wide angle lenses, and Leica will be able to produce a successor model.
The question is how long will this take before the technology matches the demands? Two years? Five years? 10 years? And will such a market then exist by the time a product is developed? Or will most users have migrated to a digital SLR?
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
There is an OM/M adapter; Stephen Gandy has them listed on his website, though they are not stocked so are special order. I have toyed with the idea of getting one so as to use with a Bessa T. It is RF coupled:Andy Aitken said:
"You focus normally with your rangefinder, and then transfer the focus distance to the distance scale on your SLR lens. OK, so it's not as convenient as a RF coupled M mount lens, but it is a lot more convenient than guessing the focus distance when you use SLR lenses on your M."
Having a variety of Zuikos, it would be a way of getting back into the M series without having to buy a M glass right away. Naturally I would eventually get "native" M-mount lenses.
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
ZeissFan said:
That's an interesting question. Given that RFs were nearly given up for dead until Mr. K and the ZI came along, I wouldn't bet that dSLRs will wipe them out.
Earl
PS, Mike: Have you stopped our Z-I blog for good? I was enjoying that. I understand the effort it takes and wouldn't blame you for shutting it down for good. But more samples from the ZM lenses are always welcome.
Ben Z
Veteran
rxmd said:
No. Insolvent maybe
Sparrow
Veteran
I’m not sure about inflexible, but one thing the reactionary elements within Leica's customer base must do is restrict their designers and engineers ability to innovate. Now that may not necessarily be a bad thing but traditional materials and operation may not compatible with “uncompromising design”
In the 1930s brass and rubberised silk were state of the art materials; their day’s equivalent of magnesium alloy and carbon fibre, those and modern engineering plastics I suspect would be vetoed by the marketing men in fear of breaking with tradition.
In the 1930s brass and rubberised silk were state of the art materials; their day’s equivalent of magnesium alloy and carbon fibre, those and modern engineering plastics I suspect would be vetoed by the marketing men in fear of breaking with tradition.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
You think so? Jaguar for instance, offers a choice of wood veneers for their dasboard - and carbon-fibre composite. When I visited the Morgan factory, twenty years ago, I noticed a aluminium-layered lightweigt bonded chassis in the development department (I wandered in thinking it was the garderner's canteen) Unfortunately I got booted out before I could take a photograph.
boilerdoc2
Well-known
Inflexible. He-- no! I want the M8. I have it on order sight unseen. If there is any company that can be counted on to design and produce a quality product it is Leitz - altho they almost went bankrupt doing it. And dare I say it: When will we have autofocus? Don't throw stones please! Tired old eyes - well not that old- sure could use a little help sometime.
Steve
Steve
ywenz
Veteran
Leica film M, like all film cameras are less flexible than digital cameras.
Sparrow
Veteran
jaapv said:You think so? Jaguar for instance, offers a choice of wood veneers for their dasboard - and carbon-fibre composite. When I visited the Morgan factory, twenty years ago, I noticed a aluminium-layered lightweigt bonded chassis in the development department (I wandered in thinking it was the garderner's canteen) Unfortunately I got booted out before I could take a photograph.
Yes and in the 50’s they were running D type Jags with the first multi-point injection systems and no choice of dash trim as performance came first not tradition.
Turtle
Veteran
I also largely agree. Some IMO seem to make photography fit their leicas rather than be flexible. I have just bought an MP along with mainly zeiss lenses and hope I dont go the same way. Mind you, I shoot most formats and so the MP is to fill a niche which cannot be filled any other way.
I agree, some are not the most open minded bunch tho many do indeed have a healthy approach. I have just joined the leica forum and done some reading. Like most forums it appears that the same old fanatics do most of the crowing so it is hard to see what the real consensus is.
I would also venture so far as to say that there are 35mm Cartier Bresson chasing Leicaphiles who are comparable in their inflexibility and lack of imagination to the unoriginal LF Adams copying inflexible zonies. polar opposites, but both extreme camps tend to display the same asonishing technical prowess accompanied by utterly uninspiring photograhy.
As you say, the camera is just a tool. For some Leica owners though it is a toy, an investment, something to polish and make themselves feel better about themselves. In such cases they appear to be discussing 'real' photographic issues on these forums but with about as much likely practical application as discussing ice fishing techniques in the Namib desert.
Again, my experience in the Leica world as an owner- non-worshipper has been positive. The forum has been friendly and people helpful. Many seem to share my views and are as amused as the rest when it comes to the more militant lot!
I agree, some are not the most open minded bunch tho many do indeed have a healthy approach. I have just joined the leica forum and done some reading. Like most forums it appears that the same old fanatics do most of the crowing so it is hard to see what the real consensus is.
I would also venture so far as to say that there are 35mm Cartier Bresson chasing Leicaphiles who are comparable in their inflexibility and lack of imagination to the unoriginal LF Adams copying inflexible zonies. polar opposites, but both extreme camps tend to display the same asonishing technical prowess accompanied by utterly uninspiring photograhy.
As you say, the camera is just a tool. For some Leica owners though it is a toy, an investment, something to polish and make themselves feel better about themselves. In such cases they appear to be discussing 'real' photographic issues on these forums but with about as much likely practical application as discussing ice fishing techniques in the Namib desert.
Again, my experience in the Leica world as an owner- non-worshipper has been positive. The forum has been friendly and people helpful. Many seem to share my views and are as amused as the rest when it comes to the more militant lot!