Why Does Leica Not Make AE M Lenses?

[das]

I obviously get why not it is not possible on film Ms, but why not for digital Ms to add a program mode or (modes), a shutter-speed priority mode, and the ability to set the aperture via the digital menus instead of the lens? Would seem to be relatively easy with a standard electronic connection between the body and the lens to provide the power to stop the lens down as necessary (you could even use a mechanical / electronic hybrid system to accomplish this as well). You could just have an "AE" setting on the lens for these modes. And then you could still use the "AE" lenses on film and older digital bodies but you would have to select the aperture manually, as normal. It has never made much sense to me that Leica builds an expensive mirrorless camera that lacks many of pro features and menu programming that every other mirrorless camera has today.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

If they would get only electronic shutter (global shutter) it should free some necessary space. But how much lens has to grow?

I think AE came as sub-product on SLRs, where aperture has to open wide for focusing and close for exposure. Ms doesn't have this complications.

 

[Darthfeeble]

You have to ask yourself if you want your M lens to be as big and bulky and heavy as the mirrorless ones are. And that is without going into making the camera bigger.

 

[JeffS7444]

They seem to be doing just fine offering fewer, not more, features on the M-system.

 

[das]

If they would get only electronic shutter (global shutter) it should free some necessary space. But how much lens has to grow?

I think AE came as sub-product on SLRs, where aperture has to open wide for focusing and close for exposure. Ms doesn't have this complications.

SLR lenses have to be physically larger in design to accommodate with full coverage the distance from the rear of the lens, past the mirror, to the film plane. An M lens does not have to be physically larger to accommodate AE nor does the body have to be any larger. Think of Contax G lenses.

And the latest Ms already have hybrid mechanical / electronic shutters. Yes, an electronic shutter would be what you would want.

 

[Bill Blackwell]

I obviously get why not it is not possible on film Ms, but why not for digital Ms to add a program mode or (modes), a shutter-speed priority mode, and the ability to set the aperture via the digital menus instead of the lens? Would seem to be relatively easy with a standard electronic connection between the body and the lens to provide the power to stop the lens down as necessary (you could even use a mechanical / electronic hybrid system to accomplish this as well). You could just have an "AE" setting on the lens for these modes. And then you could still use the "AE" lenses on film and older digital bodies but you would have to select the aperture manually, as normal. It has never made much sense to me that Leica builds an expensive mirrorless camera that lacks many of pro features and menu programming that every other mirrorless camera has today.

To be kind - this is a question/comment clearly coming from a non-Leica M user.

Stating the obvious -
First off, there would need to be a whole series of new automatic diaphragm lenses to be designed and built, which of course, would be bigger.
Secondly, why would you keep the mechanical rangefinder in this case?
Thirdly - this "idea" completely defeats a major draw to the M-system by users - being compact.

Besides, users already have this option - it's called the L-System.

 

[shawn]

Besides, users already have this option - it's called the L-System.

And the R system.....

 

[Ko.Fe.]

SLR lenses have to be physically larger in design to accommodate with full coverage the distance from the rear of the lens, past the mirror, to the film plane. An M lens does not have to be physically larger to accommodate AE nor does the body have to be any larger. Think of Contax G lenses.

And the latest Ms already have hybrid mechanical / electronic shutters. Yes, an electronic shutter would be what you would want.

I could think only good things about G, since it is dead.

I'm on the opposite side from gizmos which are easy to find even within Leica

I want digital M sanc mechanical shutter and no metering. One for less point of failure another is to let go of inaccurate nuisance.

 

[das]

To be kind - this is a question/comment clearly coming from a non-Leica M user.

Stating the obvious -
First off, there would need to be a whole series of new automatic diaphragm lenses to be designed and built, which of course, would be bigger.
Secondly, why would you keep the mechanical rangefinder in this case?
Thirdly - this "idea" completely defeats a major draw to the M-system by users - being compact.

Besides, users already have this option - it's called the L-System.

Appreciate your opinions but I've been shooting film Leica Ms for over 20 years. 🙂. There is no engineering reason why the camera or the lens has to be any bigger to do this.

 

[shawn]

I want digital M sanc mechanical shutter and no metering. One for less point of failure another is to let go of inaccurate nuisance.

If it has no shutter the sensor would be metering directly. The metering could be very accurate like that (literally the sensor knows when it is clipping) and could offer different metering modes to handle different situations. It would not be inaccurate as it is literally metering the same way as capture, perhaps just misused.

 

[shawn]

Appreciate your opinions but I've been shooting film Leica Ms for over 20 years. 🙂. There is engineering no reason why the camera or the lens has to be any bigger to do this.

Have you used a digital M? You can shoot quasi shutter priority already. Turn on auto ISO in manual mode. Set shutter (and aperture) and the camera will set ISO for a correct exposure.. within the limits of your settings of course. Adjust aperture if you go to far in either direction for your chosen shutter speed.

 

[splitimageview]

Lack of demand. Engineering expense, retooling.

You have to ask yourself if you want your M lens to be as big and bulky and heavy as the mirrorless ones are.

It's certainly possible to implement this without increasing the size of the lenses, they wouldn't be adding motors for AF. 😛

 

[Keith]

Personally I've never wanted any camera system to select aperture for me ... aside from framing I think aperture is the most creative part of the process of taking a photograph.

 

[splitimageview]

Personally I've never wanted any camera system to select aperture for me ... aside from framing I think aperture is the most creative part of the process of taking a photograph.

^^^

Hence the lack of demand. Aperture priority is king! 😉

 

[Keith]

^^^

Hence the lack of demand. Aperture priority is king! 😉

Of the several DSLRs I've owned over the years I don't think I have used shutter priority once! 😶

 

[Sonnar Brian]

Disassemble an SLR lens and look at the springs, rods, and levers required to implement the auto-aperture system. Count the number of blades on an SLR lens with auto-aperture. Electronically controlled aperture- would use a servo. More blades, more force required to stop down. There is also a latency associated with stopping the lens down. You end up with a larger lens to accommodate the more complex mechanism, less aperture blades, and increased latency.

 

[splitimageview]

The best comparison to M lenses are the G series Contax lenses, which used a screw drive AF system with the AF motor in the body. So the lens itself only has electronic contacts and no motors. The lenses have only a slight bulge to enclose the AF gearing, not required with what @das is talking about. Otherwise the size is similar (G used 46mm filter standard.) Mechanical aperture ring. The 35/2 G has 7 blades, a Leica 35/2 ASPH has 8 blades. Don't see why this couldn't be done with 8.

Although again, it's not like Leica would sell 10% more units if they offered such lenses...the demand just isn't there. No reason to do this, it wouldn't pay for the effort.

 

[shawn]

Latency is likely a non-issue. Unlike an slr a rangefinder has no need to wait to stop down, it can stop down before the exposure is taken.

 

[splitimageview]

Yes, no need for auto-aperture.

 

[shawn]

Of the several DSLRs I've owned over the years I don't think I have used shutter priority once! 😶

Shooting action/sports or panning shots then shutter priority can be useful. Esp. when you want a specific speed to balance stopping action while still retaining some motion blur. But really for a lot of that type of shooting a rangefinder is not the best choice anyway due to the more limited focal length options.