Mark Norton
Well-known
My thoughts on focal lengths are:
1 lens: 35
2 lenses: 28, 50 or Tri-Elmar
3 lenses: 21, 35, 75
4 lenses: 21, 35, 50, 75
5 lenses: 21, 28, 35, 50, 75
I don't see much point going beyond 75 though I will be keeping my 90 Elmarit; wouldn't buy it if I didn't have one though.
1 lens: 35
2 lenses: 28, 50 or Tri-Elmar
3 lenses: 21, 35, 75
4 lenses: 21, 35, 50, 75
5 lenses: 21, 28, 35, 50, 75
I don't see much point going beyond 75 though I will be keeping my 90 Elmarit; wouldn't buy it if I didn't have one though.
LCT
ex-newbie
Mark Norton said:
Depends on the VF magnification i guess.
A 90mm lens would be great with a 1:1 VF a la R-D1.
I'll have to wait the R-D2 or the digital ZI to get such a VF on a new digital rangefinder i'm afraid...
Best,
LCT
rvaubel
Well-known
The 90mm F4 collapsible Elmar is great on the R-D1. Sounds kinda long, but is very stelalthy for outdoor street shooting. When collapsed, its no bigger than a 50mm . Would be even more practical on the M8.
Rex
Rex
Ben Z
Veteran
Believe me, if I spring $5 thou for this puppy with it's "crop factor" I'm going to use it to advantage. One of my all-time favorite focals with 35mm is 180-200mm, and the 135mm is (er, will be) a 180 on the M8. I've got one of those generic zoom accessory finders that goes up to 180 or 200, and the 1.25x magnifyer to increase focusing. Since Leica's said the Visoflex will be compatible (and I've got a III), I just snagged myself a black OTZFO/16464 universal short focusing mount which will accept the lens head from my 135 Tele-Elmar. I intend meantime to try that combo (135 head + short mount + 14167 M-R adaptor + R-EOS adaptor) on my 20D. The 135 T-E is a gorgeous lens.
Nemo
Established
I prefer reflex cameras for extreme condition (superwides, superteles...). I accept that rangefinders are a limited instrument, no as versatile as reflex cameras, but with several strong (competitive) points.
rvaubel
Well-known
I prefer SLR's for extreme conditions too. In fact I would have never considered using a lens longer than 135mm on a rangefinder. But the way Ben Z describes it, I'm starting to get that feeling of an eminent GAS attack. You know the feeling ( well I know I already have 7- 50mm lenses but I have a gap between my f2.8s and my F3.5s).
Mmmmm......I never owned a Visoflex before.........there's a mint one Ebay for........MMMmm...coupled with that cool russian 200mm number.......mmmm....what about macro......
STOP ME>>>PLEASE>>>>HEEEeelp!...
Rex
Mmmmm......I never owned a Visoflex before.........there's a mint one Ebay for........MMMmm...coupled with that cool russian 200mm number.......mmmm....what about macro......
STOP ME>>>PLEASE>>>>HEEEeelp!...
Rex
Mark Norton
Well-known
I agree that rangefinders have a comfort zone and don't work as well outside it. Never understood the point of trying use one for macro, for example. for my M6, 28 - 90 was where I was comfortable, for the M8, it's more like 21-75 and I'll keep the 90 because I have it.
It all depends though on viewfinder magnification and frame lines...
It all depends though on viewfinder magnification and frame lines...
rvaubel
Well-known
Mark Norton said:
Mark
Just for the fun of it.
Rex
Nemo
Established
My thoughts on focal lengths are:
If the price is not a problem :
1 lens: 28 f/2
2 lenses: 28 f/2, 75 f/2
3 lenses: 28 f/2, 35 f/1.4, 75 f/2
4 lenses: 21 f/2.8, 28 f/2, 35 f/1.4, 75 f/2
5 lenses: 21 f/2.8, 28 f/2, 35 f/1.4, 50 f/1, 75 f/2
If there are budget constraints :bang: :
1 lens: 35 f/2
2 lenses: 35 f/2, 75 f/2
If the price is not a problem
:1 lens: 28 f/2
2 lenses: 28 f/2, 75 f/2
3 lenses: 28 f/2, 35 f/1.4, 75 f/2
4 lenses: 21 f/2.8, 28 f/2, 35 f/1.4, 75 f/2
5 lenses: 21 f/2.8, 28 f/2, 35 f/1.4, 50 f/1, 75 f/2
If there are budget constraints :bang: :
1 lens: 35 f/2
2 lenses: 35 f/2, 75 f/2
Last edited:
Mark Norton
Well-known
rvaubel said:
Well I agree that's a good reason!
LCT
ex-newbie
Hi Ruben,
Looks like we're discussing on 2 different forums right now.
One of the digital M's issues, as compared to the R-D1, is the gap between 50mm and 75mm.
50mm lenses are perfect as short teles on the R-D1 but they will be too short on the DM i'm afraid.
Best,
LCT
Looks like we're discussing on 2 different forums right now.
One of the digital M's issues, as compared to the R-D1, is the gap between 50mm and 75mm.
50mm lenses are perfect as short teles on the R-D1 but they will be too short on the DM i'm afraid.
Best,
LCT
harmsr
M5 Nut
My favorite lens on my current Ms is the 50 mm focal length.
Therefore on the digital M:
1 lens : 35 mm
2 lenses : 35 mm & 75 mm
3 lenses : 35mm, 50mm, & 75 mm
Oh yea, I already own these lenses and think I can adjust (even enjoy) the extra from the crop factor.
Ray
Therefore on the digital M:
1 lens : 35 mm
2 lenses : 35 mm & 75 mm
3 lenses : 35mm, 50mm, & 75 mm
Oh yea, I already own these lenses and think I can adjust (even enjoy) the extra from the crop factor.
Ray
Nemo
Established
Would't you need a 28mm lens for a 35mm equiv. FOV?
LCT
ex-newbie
rvaubel said:
Agreed.
Even at f/4, this lens is sharper than both my Tele-Elmarit and Elmarit # 11129 on the R-D1.
Best,
LCT
harmsr
M5 Nut
Nemo said:
Nemo,
Yes, I would. However, I think the 1.33x for my lenses will work just fine as my primary lens is a 50 currently. My 35 will now be very close to my standard of 50. My 50 will really become a short-telephoto basically taking over the 75 spot. The 75 Cron will now give me more reach as a 100, which I never had before.
Best,
Ray
Nemo
Established
Whithin the 28mm-90mm FOV margins the rangefinders are incredible cameras.
There is a point that is of great importance, but it has not been mentioned.
You know the angle of incidence of the light rays is problematic in rangefinder cameras, but there are good news as well. The light transmission depends on the distance beetween the exit pupil and the focal plane. Therefore, the light transmission will be much better in a rangefinder camera!
Kodak sensors are superb at low ISOs. This combination of Kodak sensor and rangefinder design is able to surpass the image quality of the DMR, even if the M8 is a very, very small camera.
See this comparison of image quality of the DMR and the Canon 5D:
http://www.muray-assts.com/leica/proves_optiques.htm
And this comparison between the Kodak 14n and the DMR:
http://www.alexandertufte.com/KodakVSLeica/
My fear was that Leica would present the M8 with a stratospheric price (6000 euros or something like that), but they are emiting positive signals. It seems they have landed in the Earth planet. A price of 3900 euros is adequate and Leica will have a huge success.
There is a point that is of great importance, but it has not been mentioned.
You know the angle of incidence of the light rays is problematic in rangefinder cameras, but there are good news as well. The light transmission depends on the distance beetween the exit pupil and the focal plane. Therefore, the light transmission will be much better in a rangefinder camera!
Kodak sensors are superb at low ISOs. This combination of Kodak sensor and rangefinder design is able to surpass the image quality of the DMR, even if the M8 is a very, very small camera.
See this comparison of image quality of the DMR and the Canon 5D:
http://www.muray-assts.com/leica/proves_optiques.htm
And this comparison between the Kodak 14n and the DMR:
http://www.alexandertufte.com/KodakVSLeica/
My fear was that Leica would present the M8 with a stratospheric price (6000 euros or something like that), but they are emiting positive signals. It seems they have landed in the Earth planet. A price of 3900 euros is adequate and Leica will have a huge success.
Last edited:
leicavidom
Member
optical v/f framing with Leica M8?
optical v/f framing with Leica M8?
If Leica is to keep several generations of Leica M users happy,how will they play
the optical v/f system on the M digital?
Not too many options I think; It will have to be an updated version of a 0.72.
My first guess at it will be the following.
For the 35/135 combi. we will see 31/117 based on using 24/90lenses
For the 28/90 combi. we will get 27ish/97ish based on using 21/75 lenses
For the 50/75 combi. we will get 45 / 65 based on using 35 + 50mm lenses
Any other new lenses that would work with the v/f system would have
be based on those conversion rates.
Or do they have a clever little optical gizmo based on the design of the
1.25x conv.which will allow for a combined use of old and new lenses? :bang:
optical v/f framing with Leica M8?
If Leica is to keep several generations of Leica M users happy,how will they play
the optical v/f system on the M digital?
Not too many options I think; It will have to be an updated version of a 0.72.
My first guess at it will be the following.
For the 35/135 combi. we will see 31/117 based on using 24/90lenses
For the 28/90 combi. we will get 27ish/97ish based on using 21/75 lenses
For the 50/75 combi. we will get 45 / 65 based on using 35 + 50mm lenses
Any other new lenses that would work with the v/f system would have
be based on those conversion rates.
Or do they have a clever little optical gizmo based on the design of the
1.25x conv.which will allow for a combined use of old and new lenses? :bang:
Bob Ross
Well-known
The viewfinder famelines is a mystery at the moment, but Leica has said that the FOV factor will be 1.33X and that the 135mm will be dropped. In one of LCT's posts he indicated that to support the 90/2 a finder magnification of 0.78X would be needed. The lens mount cams that bring up the framelines will supposedly stay the same, so the pairs will do so, too. The 21mm (28mm eqv) may be the entire viewfinder field of the 28/90 set that it brings up. This is the way the M5 is. Another unknown is whether Leica will increase the size of the viewfinder. Using the 0.72X finder for guessing as you did is probably the best.leicavidom said:
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Bob Ross said:
The physical size of the RF will be the same for sure, as goggled lenses will work.
This is impossible; to be able to use older lenses, they cannot change the combinations of focal lenghts as they are irrevocably related to the existing linkage between lens and body.
So it will still be, for instance, still 50 and 75 together, with a FOV of 65/100, etc.
The only thing they can do realistically is add a fixed marking, be it a frameline or the edge, for either the 24 or 21. (FOV 28/35) Would they add both the viewfinder would probably become too cluttered up, but then they will be dropping the 135 and may well add another frameline to that group.
{for clarity's sake I used approximations of the field of view at 1.33 sensor crop. Obviously the actual focal lenghts of the lenses will remain the same}
Last edited:
Mark Norton
Well-known
The capabilities of the viewfinder are a big unknown. The issue is that to accomodate people who wear eye-glasses and the range of available focal lengths, Leica has over time introduced 3 "fixes" to the basic design - different magnifications set in stone when the camera is made, a screw-in viewfinder magnifier and auxiliary finders on the hot shoe.
All of these are unsatisfactory from a cost and usability point of view. In the ideal world, there would be one viewfinder which would handle 15mm - 90mm (accepting that 135 is out), provide an exit pupil which suits eyeglass wearers and provides a variable magnification finder to suit the lens mounted, avoiding the need to choose viewfinder type at purchase and buy these slightly archaic accessories.
If they've gone for minimum change, there will simply be frames for 28/90, 35, 50/75 only and the viewfinder magnification will be 0.72 * 1.33 = 0.96, a bit like the R-D1 with more frame lines. In this "solution", you'd still need to use an aux finder for wider lenses.
If they've been brave, they could have gone for one or more of the following:
- a dual range viewfinder magnification to avoid the need to specify at purchase and use the viewfinder magnifier
- support down to the 21mm (28mm equivalent fov), with frame ambiguity resolved by using the zebra coding
- use of an LCD screen to project framelines and other viewfinder information (shutter speed/flash) into the viewfinder.
Can't see the 15mm being supported without an aux finder but if the 21/24 are not supported natively, a new aux finder will be required for the narrower angle of view.
The viewfinder is a key product differentiator for the M8 and Leica had the opportunity to introduce something really innovative instead of sticking doggedly to tweaking what has gone before. If ever the time was right to re-invent the M rangefinder concept, it was now.
I use the past tense because this has long been decided and my fear is that, like a rabbit caught in headlights, they've been scared of being sufficiently radical. Time will tell.
All of these are unsatisfactory from a cost and usability point of view. In the ideal world, there would be one viewfinder which would handle 15mm - 90mm (accepting that 135 is out), provide an exit pupil which suits eyeglass wearers and provides a variable magnification finder to suit the lens mounted, avoiding the need to choose viewfinder type at purchase and buy these slightly archaic accessories.
If they've gone for minimum change, there will simply be frames for 28/90, 35, 50/75 only and the viewfinder magnification will be 0.72 * 1.33 = 0.96, a bit like the R-D1 with more frame lines. In this "solution", you'd still need to use an aux finder for wider lenses.
If they've been brave, they could have gone for one or more of the following:
- a dual range viewfinder magnification to avoid the need to specify at purchase and use the viewfinder magnifier
- support down to the 21mm (28mm equivalent fov), with frame ambiguity resolved by using the zebra coding
- use of an LCD screen to project framelines and other viewfinder information (shutter speed/flash) into the viewfinder.
Can't see the 15mm being supported without an aux finder but if the 21/24 are not supported natively, a new aux finder will be required for the narrower angle of view.
The viewfinder is a key product differentiator for the M8 and Leica had the opportunity to introduce something really innovative instead of sticking doggedly to tweaking what has gone before. If ever the time was right to re-invent the M rangefinder concept, it was now.
I use the past tense because this has long been decided and my fear is that, like a rabbit caught in headlights, they've been scared of being sufficiently radical. Time will tell.
Last edited: