Why M lenses are suited for Digital Photography

[eleskin]

We all hear this talk as to why new lens designs are better suited for digital cameras because of the unique properties of digital sensors, and increasing demands for resolution for lens designers. Now, I am aware of the issues of older SLR lenses and how they were designed for the depth of film and angle of light. How do our M lenses hold up to the modern DSLR designs? What makes the M lens unique and qualified for digital photography, and will there be a point where DSLR lens designs outperform most modern M optics?

I love M lenses, they are unique, compact, excellent in quality, and hold their value. What does the future hold for these jewels of optics in the digital world?

 

[sleepyhead]

Not everything is about sharpness, resolution, and contrast, so I expect M lenses, even older ones to fare just fine in the digital world.

 

[JoeV]

In digital sensors without micro-lenses the non-telecentric optical design of classic lenses can result in severe light falloff at the edges (something to do with the sensor sites being slighjtly recessed wells, and lacking the dimension of depth found in a gelatin emulsion layer.) This is probably the biggest visual effect of using such lenses on newer digicams.

The M8 excepted, as its sensor has micro-lenses intended to provide some backwards compatibility to legacy M-series glass which would otherwise lack a telecentric design, along with some in-camera software correction.

I suppose I'm indirectly referring to cameras like the Lumix G1, where the partially software-corrected image file makes the kit lens (especially the 14-45) appear to have better edge performance than many classic M-series lenses.

I suppose then it's up to the camera manufacturer to keep alive the classic lenses by offering sensors with micro-lens technology that demand less of a telecentric design. I would hazard a guess that when/if the fabled full-frame digital rangefinder appears, it will offer the possibility of keeping alive the image quality of classic glass onto digital bodies. If one can afford the entrance fee.

~Joe

 

[POINT OF VIEW]

M8 + M lens

M8 + M lens

With today’s editing technology I do not believe that any person, even with the sharpest eye, can tell the difference between 10 well done digital prints and 10 well done chemical prints made with a M lens. I for one have seen many 20” prints, done with a M8 that were technically and artistically perfect. Some names that come to mind are the work of Tina Manley and Ted Grant, both professionals use M8s. You can make all of the technical comparisons in the world but it always comes down to, does the image work. Bottom line, the M lens are perfectly suited for the M8. Bill

 

[jaapv]

I think the division between film and digital is utterly artificial and meaningless in this context. Many if not all Leica M lenses have their own specific character and fingerprint and will deploy that on film as well as on a sensor.
It may be that the more precise nature of the sensor will enhance the differences, but on the M8 it is offset by the sensor crop which will render only the sweet spot of the lens. The end result is that there is no difference.

 

[jaapv]

I suppose I'm indirectly referring to cameras like the Lumix G1, where the partially software-corrected image file makes the kit lens (especially the 14-45) appear to have better edge performance than many classic M-series lenses.

That only holds true for those of us that can digest cooked files.

 

[Pickett Wilson]

If they appear to have better edge performance, they do! I don't see what it matters how you get there.