Steve Spencer
Online
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
|
 p.26 #12 · Leica SL images and specs. Looks somehow familiar... | |
uhoh7 wrote:
First, TY to everyone, esp Steve for the review of the latest evidence. 
I had not even thought about the cover on the next M, and of course the cover itself I only care about because of it's effect on lenses. You guys make a strong case the SL does have something going on which at least optically is "thicker".
That makes me cringe, and frankly I regard it as a betrayal, though perhaps a fairly slight one. How's the SEM 21? We would hope the longer register of the R lenses means you would not see much effect at least with that line.
The reasoning is what I'd like to understand. Perhaps the S lenses prefer this? The SL is a bridge camera, connecting S to M and even to T. Why is M performance sacrificed at all?
Incredibly stupid on the face of it, but perhaps there is some thinking I don't get, besides a plot by Karbe to sell new designs.
As to a new M which also performs worse than M240 with M glass? Well you just shot a large portion of your loyal Leica followers, many who have all sorts of older favorites, right in the face. The resistance to CMOS will be nothing in comparison. I don't believe it will happen, but this is the company which gave autofocus to Minolta, dumped the CL, and continues to fatten the M body, so they may actually be capable of such an idiotic move: pissing on Mandler, basically. Not the greatest plan for a system which banks in no small portion on tradition, in a time when extracting great performance from film lenses is getting easier, not harder.
But I'd bet a six-pack to anyone who is inclined to think the next M won't be as good or better with the late M film lenses as the 240 or M9, for hell hath no fury as an M lens lover scorned. Look what happened when Leica hinted support of the M9 sensor might end....Show more →
Charlie,
The 21 SEM seems to do fine on the SL, but more testing may be needed to make sure. Really the troublesome three I mentioned before are the only ones that seem to cause significant problems, but we might find more later. That is of the currently available lenses. So, if the new M has the same cover glass as the SL, it is not a new M that is worse with M glass in general. It is a new M that is worse with old M glass, but not the stuff that has been made in the last ten years since Leica introduced digital cameras. The new M might would also be better with the 28 Lux ASPH, and probably a new 28 cron and 35 cron if they make them. Most older lenses wider than 50mm show problems now (and they can't be coded to handle colour fringing well), so I don't see this as a huge issue, but I am sure others will.
If Leica makes lenses to replace the troublesome three, then the troublesome three will drop in price will and people will still be able to use them on older cameras. Yes, some people will get pissed, but it isn't then end of the world, IMO. You know what I think you get with the thicker glass. 1) less IR contamination which Ron has shown pretty clearly still happens a bit. 2) better durability 3) better control of dust. So, I understand why some might not like it, but perhaps you can see why some might.
Oh, by the way a lot of Mandler glass would be just fine as he seemed to like long exit pupils and retrofocal designs. His fifties and longer M lenses would all be fine. All his R lenses would be fine. If you want a stellar set of Mandler glass the R 19 f/2.8 vII, the R 35 f/2 vII, and everything longer should work fine. Only the M 21 Elmarit, the M 28 Elmarit vIII, and his M 35 crons and lux wouldn't work. This is a very small percentage of his lenses. No need for him to roll over in his grave. The Mandler look would survive very well on such an M camera.
|
Then again, maybe my images aren't that interesting to begin with :P