Sean Reid and digital M

but wasn't 24mm always a black sheep? :D

i don't think they'll issue an accessory viewfinder for 180mm (135mm). it's too long, they'll put it out to pasture. the framelines will be as usual, three pairs, in a .72x viewfinder.

now: 28/90, 35/135, 50/75
then: 21/75, 28/90, 35/50 otherwise known as 27/97, 36/117, 45/65

if leica makes a 15mm lens, they might tweak the 21mm viewfinder into a 19.5mm viewfinder.
 
The only reason I think that they might issue a viewfinder for it is because, though it will be very long, it will still have the depth of field of the 135, so it is still focusable. The real reason that you cannot have a 180 on an M is not so much the framelines (which would certainly be tiny), but because you would not be able to focus it accurately wide open and close up. The 135 is pushing it already. BUT, since it still has the depth of field characteristics of the 135, it could still be usable if it had a nice beefy telephoto finder. Whether it is worth doing or not is another matter. As you said, they may just say screw it as the 90 would pretty much cover the job that the 135 has in the current system. But as Jaap says, the 135 apo is considered one of the strongest performers in the m line, so it is a tough call.
 
I would love to use the 135/3.4apo on a cropped camera as a 180. I'm into wildlife photography as well, and at the moment I am using Canon stuff for that. The 300, 400 and 500 Canon L lenses are fine, nearly as good as the Leica equivalents, but I have never been happy with the midrange and wideangle lenses. They are sharp, for the most part, but they don't have the "look" imho.
 
Last edited:
aizan said:
but wasn't 24mm always a black sheep? :D
Click to expand...
Below is a list of the current Leica lenses with actual focal length and diagonal coverage in degrees for the 35mm format (i.e. angle of view - AOV). The 24mm adds an "intermediate" AOV.

A 21-28-35-50 lens combo would have a degree skip between lenses of 17-12-16 degrees. Add the 24mm and the degree skip drops to 8-9-12-16 degrees.

For some people, choosing the 24mm depends on what they use for a "normal" lens. For some people the 16 degree skip from 50mm to 35mm is too small so they prefer to carry a 50-28mm combo with a 28 degree skip. However, to do the same thing using a 35mm as a "normal" lens you have to drop to 24mm to get a 21 degree skip.

21.3mm ~ 92 degrees
24.4mm ~ 84 degrees
28.2mm ~ 75 degrees
35.3mm ~ 63 degrees
52.3mm ~ 47 degrees

A thread in the Epson R-D1 forum is already talking about using 12-15mm lenses with vignetting being corrected by Photoshop. With a 1.3 lens factor you have to use a 15mm to replace the 20mm AOV. These lens factors must be driving the camera designers nuts.
 
Last edited:
It seems to me that Leica would be shooting itself in the foot by creating more than one digital M model to handle different lenses. This camera would find a stronger market if consumers don't have to get into weird, arcane decisions about viewfinder magnification/chip size.

I just reread an interesting Leica company history in a brochure for the 1950 FotoKina, when the IIIC was the top product. The company explained how Barnack created a new small-camera revolution. Advantages included extreme portability, more depth of field, being able to shoot in low-light and in settings where photography was impractical with larger formats. In short, an entirely new way to take photographs. I've felt for some time that the new digital era has advanced the original Barnack concept another step, at least as far as the consumer is concerned, especially with small point-and-shoots.

Leica would do well to embrace a somewhat smaller chip format. The 35mm frame is really just a vestige of the way movies were made in the first half of the 20th century. Embracing a 1.3 or 1.5 chip would allow Leica to return to its roots and make a fine, small camera with interchangeable lenses that could accomplish professional-level flexibility while remaining much smaller than SLR gear. If Leica can pull that off, we might return to the way things were 15 years ago, when every photojournalists carried a couple of big SLRs to get his/her job done but also had a small M4 or M6 around his/her neck for those special moments or just to make a statement.

Also, creating some new wide primes specifically for the digital M wouldn't be a bad business move. It would help offset the fact that Leica's main competition is with its own used products. Well-heeled technojunkies would be inclined to check out a digital M if it's small enough, and many adopters would have to get some new ulta-wide glass.

Just my thoughts.
 
Last edited:
aizan said:
but wasn't 24mm always a black sheep? :D

i don't think they'll issue an accessory viewfinder for 180mm (135mm). it's too long, they'll put it out to pasture. the framelines will be as usual, three pairs, in a .72x viewfinder.

now: 28/90, 35/135, 50/75
then: 21/75, 28/90, 35/50 otherwise known as 27/97, 36/117, 45/65

if leica makes a 15mm lens, they might tweak the 21mm viewfinder into a 19.5mm viewfinder.
Click to expand...

However they set up the framelines for a different crop factor, 50/75 will always bring up the same framelines for existing lenses -- same with 28/90 and 35/135. I'm not sure about 21 and 24 (don't own them), but I think they bring up the 50mm framelines too. Unless they swap out the mount, putting different focal length combinations together will be a problem.

Scott
 
StuartR said:
The only reason I think that they might issue a viewfinder for it is because, though it will be very long, it will still have the depth of field of the 135, so it is still focusable. The real reason that you cannot have a 180 on an M is not so much the framelines (which would certainly be tiny), but because you would not be able to focus it accurately wide open and close up.
Click to expand...

Don't underestimate the difficulty of making an auxiliary 180mm viewfinder line up accurately with the lens. A standard accessory shoe probably isn't going to be up to the job.

Zeiss-Ikon tried this back in 1936 with the original direct-mount version of its 180/2.8 Olympic Sonnar for Contax; British photographer Merlyn Severn tried out one and drily noted, "Sharpness was excellent, but considerable difficulty was experienced in determining the angle of view."

Anybody here tried the 200mm Komura in LTM mount? That must have been even hairier. Any user-experience stories?
 
leica can always refit the mount to bring up the right frameline, in warranty for free, or out of warranty for a "nominal cost".
 
jlw said:
Don't underestimate the difficulty of making an auxiliary 180mm viewfinder line up accurately with the lens.
Click to expand...
I'm keeping my visoflex just for that reason. I hope the viso's will mount on a digital M.
 
Until we know for sure what crop factor will be used (Leica silence is maximum about it), all we can say is pure speculation.
Sure they take care of many thousand owners of lenses M and LTM sold at extremely high price, and an error can be the end of the brand. Leica stuff (M in particular) is for many a sort of bank account, and if drops value ....
 
So Sean knows a bit or two, and can't reveal anything. Bummer! I hope he can convince Leica to cough up some info.
 
Leica is being really dumb about this. At the very least they should confirm whether current M lenses will work on the digital M. Not even a bad GAS attack will make me pay $2000 to $3000 for a lens that will only work on Leica's FILM cameras. By being this tight with information about the digital M Leica is restricting sales of their current products. That's just dumb.
 
Interchangable lens is risky with digital: dust on sensor.

And the electronic components, especially in APS, are cheap.

DSLR/digicam mechanicals are ultra-cheap.

AND Leica already has trouble, as does CV, producing their current rangefinder with 60's precision, not to mention the quality that would be necessary for an even smaller format (we won't want to hear alibis about DOF being less critical with APS format when we pay $thousands). :eek:

THEREFORE, I think it'd be smartest for Leica to make sets of pocket sized, APS-sensor, fixed format bright frame cameras...3 for $5000, for example. They wouldn't be better in any respect than the $3000 Panasonic equivalent set, but they'd have red dots ;)
 
zeos 386sx said:
Leica is being really dumb about this. At the very least they should confirm whether current M lenses will work on the digital M. Not even a bad GAS attack will make me pay $2000 to $3000 for a lens that will only work on Leica's FILM cameras. By being this tight with information about the digital M Leica is restricting sales of their current products. That's just dumb.
Click to expand...
It was very smart of Carl Zeiss, Epson, and Cosina/Voigtlander before them, to choose the Leica M-bayonet lens mount as a standard for interchangeable-lens RF cameras... both film and digital. It would be incredible for Leica to make the digital-M incompatible with their own de facto standard. Literally unbelievable, to the point it's scarcely worth worrying over. :)
 
Start of Rant

Start of Rant

Doug,

In a fashion you make my point. If it so inbelievable that they would change then why do they insist on a standard of secrecy about it that the world's intelligence agencies would envy. That is what I find unbelievable!

I started this thread to see if I could get confirmation of some very simple information - will the new digital M mount the Viso III and by extension the goggled lenses. Sean, in the other forum, say he can't speak. Leica USA tells me they can't speak. Why?

As far as I can tell the Viso's and goggled lenses will not work on the R-D1 so Epson has already proven they don't give a hoot what the Digital M will look like. Are we to assume that Leica is hiding the information from some other camera manufacturer?

The fact is they are hiding the information from us, their customer base, the very people who should be given the information and that I don't understand. :confused:

GRRrrrrrr......

End of Rant
 
I think Leica would get itself into all sorts of public relations problems by preannouncing details of a forthcoming product. Until a product goes into production, or even after ;) the specifications are subject to change, and many folks react poorly to change. If you want to see obsessive secrecy, look only to Apple Computer!

Zeiss is in a little different position. I think, in that they're trying to gin-up some new camera customers, since they currently have none. They need to build mind-share and interest. Leica has a loyal base, and they don't need to give their competition any early assistance in creating opposing ads. I think all manufacturers would prefer to have full control over what is said publicly about a new product. That's my take anyway, and I guess you can tell I think the secrecy is legitimate and doesn't bother me a bit. :D
 
I am with Doug on this one -- this is definitely standard operating procedure for most companies. if you let out a year beforehand exactly what your product is, you open yourself up to competitors as well as the setbacks of any product development. One only needs to look at Leica and the RD-1. Leica was saying that a digital M was impossible, but then BAM, out comes the RD-1, and Leica was forced to modify their statement and get their butts in gear to catch up. It doesn't behoove Leica to say "we are going to have X megapixels at a 1.X crop and a 2.5" screen with 1/4000th top speed and telescoping viewfinder with digitally projected framelines..." etc etc. I MADE ALL THESE FEATURES UP, but I am just trying to make the point that any innovations they may have do the company a lot better good if their competition does not know about them before they come out. If Zeiss, Epson, Cosina and Konica (crossing fingers) knows about them, then they may try to incorporate them or surpass them in their own design. It does not hurt Leica nearly as much to have a few odd consumers fed up with waiting as it does to have the camera's innovations be copied within a month of its release (or even beforehand). Or at least, that is how I take it. to put it another way, I don't think they are losing many customers by saying "we are making a Digital M" versus "We are making a digital M, here is the spec sheet:", and the second option would do more harm than good for their business.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom