New M lenses offered with the M8?

Mark Norton said:
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.
Click to expand...

I edited across your post, sorry Mark.
I don't think they will use the zebra coding for the viewfinder, as they announced the camera will work without. And they need the focal-length length information supplementary to the coding to get sufficient combo's to cover all possible lenses.
 
Just supose they do provide a frame for the 21mm lens which after all is no wider than the current 28mm frame. At the moment, they cannot tell whether the lens mounted is a 21, 28 or 90 because they all bring up the same framelines, maybe the 24 does the same, you can tell us soon!

In a world of electronically created frame lines, they could use the lens coding to display just the frame line required because it identifies the focal length. If there's no coding, they would just display the frame line pairs according to the bayonet lug.

By the way, I think the 63 combinations (+ 1 for "none") of the coding is more than enough without having to rely on combinations with the bayonet lug, apart from the Tri-Elmar where they will use a code to identify the lens and the bayonet lug to identify the focal length selected.
 
Yours is a very elegant solution, Mark, but is seems to contradict the claim that all lenses will work correctly without coding, except if they indeed incorporate the extra sensing of the lug with non-coded lenses, as you say. I feel that would really overstress the inventiveness in Solms, however.. ;)
 
Last edited:
Jaap, if there was no coding - which the sensor will read as six "white" dots because the existing lens mount ring will reflect the light - the camera would then just display the frame lines in pairs according to the setting of the bayonet lug, it would be 100% compatible with uncoded lenses.

I think I'm probably dreaming though!
 
jaapv said:
The physical size of the RF will be the same for sure, as goggled lenses will work.
Click to expand...
What I meant by larger viewfinder was the actual "window" rather than the rangefinder base. It might be possible to have a larger window and still use the goggled lenses. It would just mask the virewfinder window, which wouldn't hurt for the tele & macro adapter.
 
I wonder what percentage of users have one of these goggled lenses or, more up to date, the macro adapter. If it's 1%, I'd be surprised and this slavish adherence to supporting old stuff like the Visoflex could have compromised the camera.
 
Mark Norton said:
Yes, the 24 has never been on my radar and as soon as you go shorter than 28, you hit the issue of frame lines. This is the big unanswered question about the Digital M - what will the magnification be and what frame lines will be supported. If we accept the 135 frame is going to be dropped, that leaves a spare frame position which could be used by the 21mm (28 in "old money") but currently, the 21 brings up the 28/90 frame.

My lenses are going off to Solms tomorrow for zebra-dising, and it will be interesting if the new 21mm mount changes the viewfinder frame selection.

As for the 24, I have no idea!
Click to expand...

I just got my new-used 24 in :) :) :) It brings up the 35/135 framelines. If they do drop the 135 frame, that will give scope for 24 framelines.:)
 
It is a Carl Zeiss lense for Contax. A very radical design. How does it fit a M8? Adaptor? And the pictures taken with a M8 with this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom