http://72.32.6.157/~rbensonarch/blog/?page_id=247

Man, if I had Leica glass...

Would an adaptor not do much the same thing?

Yeah, this is a stupid gear-head pursuit if you ask me... and I mean that in the nicest way ;-)

Just buy a Leica if you want to use Leica M glass on FF so badly. The new Leica M is less than I expected it to be.

Marcus Watts wrote:
Would an adaptor not do much the same thing?

I don't think one exists. There is a Leica lens to Nikon body adapter. But it pretty much makes all your Leica lenses Macro lenses, so it's essentially an extension tool. Bought it to play with when I had a D2x for about a month.

It would be a lot easier to buy the new Leica Milestone than chop up a 5D mk2 and render it useless/awkward to use.

my guess is that the Leica has a much shorter register (distance from sensor to back of lens), so no adapter will work in this case. I wonder how he deals with the mirror. perhaps it's live view only?

gpop wrote:
my guess is that the Leica has a much shorter register (distance from sensor to back of lens), so no adapter will work in this case. I wonder how he deals with the mirror. perhaps it's live view only?

I believe you are correct. He uses a loupe on the back

Why not get zeiss... Leica is great but Zeiss has been making glass much longer and is actually serious about it. They have their hands in everything... Zeiss makes optics for everyone including the POTUS himself. When Obama calls up Ratheon for some crazy spy tools to check up on MItt he is asking for Zeiss not Leica.

Now do not get me wrong... Leica is pure sex ... but for practical purposes ...they are um .. not practical.

Yes and no. In this case-it's a waste. But using Leica glass in the accessible digital realm is very easy...I use a Sony Nex7 with an adaptor for Leica M glass and its a phenomenal pairing. I use the Sony as my third camera at weddings to get unique and detail shots with Leica glass and I LOVE IT! And Leica hand grinds/builds their lenses. I shoot with Zeiss, Leica and Nikon and Leica optics is a class of its own. Now don't get me wrong, the Zeiss lenses are amazing as well. But no I wouldn't destroy and camera like that when the Nex series readily accepts these lenses-in fact, it can pretty much take any lens made since the 40's up!

I'm not that familar with Leica so this may not be useful but i found this adaptor on ebay

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Leica-R-Mount-Lens-to-Canon-EOS-EF-Mount-Converter-Adapter-with-AF-Confirmation-/310457003847?pt=US_Lens_Adapters_Mounts_Tubes&hash=item4848adef47

Well to me the key here is Leica M mount. If you've never held one you'd be blown away by how tiny these lenses are! The Nex 7 with an M mount lens could the highest quality/compact system on the market.

hardlyboring wrote:
Why not get zeiss... Leica is great but Zeiss has been making glass much longer and is actually serious about it. They have their hands in everything... Zeiss makes optics for everyone including the POTUS himself. When Obama calls up Ratheon for some crazy spy tools to check up on MItt he is asking for Zeiss not Leica.

Now do not get me wrong... Leica is pure sex ... but for practical purposes ...they are um .. not practical.


A) The origins of Leitz glass started 3 years after Zeiss

B) Oskar Barnack of Leitz was the originator of the 35mm still camera

C) Totally subjective, but I saw a difference between Zeiss glass and Leica glass old or new.

D) Zeiss is awesome and cheaper, but aside from the insanely overpriced new 50 f/2 APO, I'd take a Leica lens (old or new) made for a rangefinder over any Zeiss or VC lens. Even if the prices are extremely inflated.

E) For "any" SLR camera I wouldn't touch Leica glass, but would definitely go with Zeiss.

mosier wrote:
hardlyboring wrote:
Why not get zeiss... Leica is great but Zeiss has been making glass much longer and is actually serious about it. They have their hands in everything... Zeiss makes optics for everyone including the POTUS himself. When Obama calls up Ratheon for some crazy spy tools to check up on MItt he is asking for Zeiss not Leica.

Now do not get me wrong... Leica is pure sex ... but for practical purposes ...they are um .. not practical.


A) The origins of Leitz glass started 3 years after Zeiss

B) Oskar Barnack of Leitz was the originator of the 35mm still camera

C) Totally subjective, but I saw a difference between Zeiss glass and Leica glass old or new.

D) Zeiss is awesome and cheaper, but aside from the insanely overpriced new 50 f/2 APO, I'd take a Leica lens (old or new) made for a rangefinder over any Zeiss or VC lens. Even if the prices are extremely inflated.

E) For "any" SLR camera I wouldn't touch Leica glass, but would definitely go with Zeiss.



I am not arguing about how great Leica or Leica glass is ... what I am saying is that he could have just bought a really really nice Zeiss lens and for wedding purposes never told a difference.
Not all of us are the famed NYC headshot king haha... sometimes we can only afford Zeiss

Haha! I'm definitely not that

I do agree with you though. Rangefinder lenses are a whole different beast of a lens. In fact if I had half the technical knowledge of cameras that you have Doug, I probably wouldn't have wandered into the world I've entered. Ill happily blame Swoop for my introduction into the world that is Leica I owe him a few beers for it. Actually, photovillage probably owes him a few beers for it. There's definitely something different about Zeiss slr lenses against all the others.

Jeff... haha I do not have that much technical knowledge except for maybe weird 4x5 stuff.

I love rangefinders... a lot... if I ever become wealthy I would quickly buy one because they are stupid easy to use.

I am always kind of torn about shooting a rangefinder... I could afford it if I shot film but 35mm film does not do much for me and I feel like If I am going to be shooting film I am going to be shooting MF or LF.

The x100 is actually a really nice compromise between a easy carry and shooting camera and something that operates something like a rangefinder.

Eventually they will have a mirrorless (Fuji) with focus peaking that will be more affordable than Leica.

I hear you Doug. I felt that jumping into an M9 was the kick in the ass that I needed personally. I'm glad I did it. I've also picked up most of the lenses for a really decent price. I'd dump every other camera I possess and keep this is I had to make a choice.

Now if Fuji makes a full frame X Pro, I'll be really excited to give it a go =)