Solms has spoken:

jaapv

jaapv

RFF Sponsoring Member.
Local time
4:55 PM
Joined
May 6, 2005
Messages
8,374
Some more tid-bits of information. The USA market will have priority in the first deliveries of the M8, both in number of cameras and different types of camera's [black vs chrome??]. The 3.4 apo 135 cannot be used at all as the focal point is not on the sensor :confused: :mad: :confused: .
 
Where did these gems come from? Don't tell me! They've only ordered US power cords for the charger and ones for Europe, UK and Oz are on a 2 year lead time!

If the lens will not focus onto the sensor, how did it ever focus on film?

I thought they had said it would be black only to start with. Maybe the variants refer to finder magnifications.
 
jaapv said:
The 3.4 apo 135 cannot be used at all as the focal point is not on the sensor :confused: :mad: :confused: .
Click to expand...

All Leica lenses have to be calibrated to the same register. There's no way that lens could focus on the film plane of an M-film body but not on the sensor plane of the M-digital body.
 
What Jaap has posted is true ... after reading his post, I called my dealer in Tokyo and they already have the official words from Leica Japan.
 
Something must be getting lost in translation, or someone at Leica decided to have a little fun with the speculators on internet forums :D Having some lenses that were able to focus on film but not on the digital sensor is physically impossible.
 
The only problem surely is going to be focussing the thing which we all expected anyway. I agree with Ben Z, the scope of the message getting lost in the translation is very great. It's not a lens for me anyway. 90mm is just fine.
 
To be precise, what I heard was that because of the 1.33x cropping factor, the picture angle would be too narrow so you can't effectlvely focus at all.
 
That's just as nonsensical to me. If right now I can focus my 135 accurately enough that I can crop the negative to the effective angle of a 180mm lens (which I can and have, many times), then there's no reason it matters whether I crop it after the fact or the camera crops it for me due to a smaller area of capture. In fact, if Leica has constructed the viewfinder so that the framelines brought up by the 28mm lens occupies the same outermost position as it does on a .72x film body, they would actually have needed to increase the magnification of the optics so that it would encompass the narrower angle of view of a 37mm lens, thus making the effective baselength longer and therefore more capable of focusing accurately! And, 135mm framelines of the same apparent size as the current ones in the .72 finder would automatically show the coverage of a 180mm lens. So I'm completely confused as to why the 135mm is being blacklisted by Leica.
 
sdai said:
To be precise, what I heard was that because of the 1.33x cropping factor, the picture angle would be too narrow so you can't effectlvely focus at all.
Click to expand...
This may be the case. The 135mm has a FOV of a 180mm and in the finder this may be smaller than the focus patch. Depending on the finder magnification factor, it could be near impossible to see the focus difference. The only rumor that I have read about the finder magnification is that it would be .68, which I haven't quite digested yet as to how small the field of a 180mm eqv would be. The 135mm should at least work at infinity :)
 
If the finder mag is even .58, let alone .68, and the eyepiece threads are the same as the current M bodies and will accept the 1.25x magnifier, that would increase the finder to .72, which is currently adequate for the 135/3.4 and /4.
 
To focus accurately a 135mm lens at f/3.4, the effective base length of the rangefinder should be more than 70mm for a finder magnification of 0.72x due to the smaller size of the circle of confusion caused by the crop factor.
Best,
LCT
 
fgianni said:
Given the crop factor a magnification of 0.85x makes more sense to me.
Click to expand...
I agree with you on the .85x. I wonder what kind of feedback they are getting on the viewfinder from their beta testers? There has to be a few .85x types amonst them.
 
0.85x with a crop factor of 1.33 is equivalent (for lens framig prpose) to 0.64 on full frame, assuming that the physical size of the viewfinder is left unchanged.
The RD-1 has a 1:1 viewfinder with frames for 28, 35 and 50mm lenses, but that has a 1.5 crop factor, equivalent to 0.666.
So a 0.58 will probably have brightlines for 21mm but the brightline for 50mm is going to be really small, and a 75mm will become extremely difficult to use. This could explain why a 135mm lens is considered unusable with the M8.
If this is true I have yet another reason to hold on my RD-1 for a while.
 
Ben Z said:
All Leica lenses have to be calibrated to the same register. There's no way that lens could focus on the film plane of an M-film body but not on the sensor plane of the M-digital body.
Click to expand...


I agree, See my :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:
 
you're not making sense. the crop factor has no effect on viewfinder magnification.

imagine you're using a 35mm lens on a .72x film body. when you get an m8, you want the same thing, so you'll use a 28mm lens on a .72x body. get it?
 
aizan said:
you're not making sense. the crop factor has no effect on viewfinder magnification.

imagine you're using a 35mm lens on a .72x film body. when you get an m8, you want the same thing, so you'll use a 28mm lens on a .72x body. get it?
Click to expand...

The crop factor together with the viewfinder magnification, has an effect on which brightlines can be shown in the viewfinder, i know that with the 1.33 cropfactor 21mm have the same field of view as 28mm, however since the depth of field of a 21mm cropped by 1.33 is greater than the depth of field of a 28mm, i'd rather have useful brightlines for the standard 28, 35 and 50mm lenses (like in my RD-1) and use an external viewfinder for a 21mm (guess focusing is soo much easier on 21mm than on 50mm) than having a brightline for 21mm and a too small one for 50mm.
That's why Epson's choice makes more sense to me, also a 1x viewfinder helps framing quite a bit (I love to be able to keep both my eyes open)
Essentialy so far the only thing the M8 seems to do significantly better than the RD-1 is the wider rangefinder base, and this, to me, does not justify upgrading.
Of course your priorities may be different.
 
That's why Epson's choice makes more sense to me, also a 1x viewfinder helps framing quite a bit (I love to be able to keep both my eyes open)
Click to expand...

We don't even know yet which choice Leica has made, Francesco.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom