Didn't you consider to get the 5D for the times when you need AF ?
Or don't you have any Canon glass anymore ?
Anyway this is a reason for me to stick with series-1 bodies. I'm thinking to get either the 19 Elmarit or the 21-35 Vario-Elmar. Not a real need, but it's reassuring to know I can mount every new Leica-R lens on my Canon.
Guy Mancuso wrote:
Seems there is a comprimise with every lens . Boxing it up
Gee, the 5D is a compromise (in many ways), who'd a thunk it. I don't mean that directed at you Guy, but maybe now that you've said it some of those here that treat you like a deity will can it for a while and get down off their 5D boxes.
Don't take this wrong Guy, as I think a lot of you but the 5D _does_ work as designed. It was _designed_ to work with every Canon EF (not EF-S) lens, and it does. You are attempting to do something the 5D was never designed for, don't complain when it doesn't work. Canon does not promise compatibility with every lens made by every manufacturer nor does Leica promise its lenses will work with every other manufacturers' bodies. Who is to blame more, Leica, Canon, or the third party adapter manufacturer? None of the above ... you are to blame for trying to put Ferrari wheels on a Porsche, don't be surprised when they don't fit.
Sorry to hear that, Guy. I had hopes for this combination. I wonder if Canon made it difficult on purpose? Makes me think that 5D + Contax Zeiss is my best bet.
This is quite sad indeed, Guy.
I realize that it would be great to have a 5D as a backup body both for AF with some Canon glass and for your DMR (with the added pluses of being FF with all your amazing Leica-R and having usable high ISOs).
Best of both worlds, I'd say.
I only hope that Canon won't follow this 5D path (regarding mirror's design) with their next cameras.
Strange as it seems, I now look at the DMR with even more interest...
Guy is this a function of the adapter, or the fact that Leica glass sticks further into the body than Canon glass? BTW are you selling the 5D at fire sale price?
Guy Mancuso wrote:
It's a shame for guys like me that have a lot of glass in leica. The DMR backup with Body is 8 grand , i had one and sold it for more lenses
I am a Pro that could care less what name plate is on there
Edited by Guy Mancuso on Oct 10, 2005 at 07:33 PM GMT
Gerry Szarek wrote:
Guy is this a function of the adapter, or the fact that Leica glass sticks further into the body than Canon glass?
It is a function of the lens. The correct adapter will nest the lens at a a ceratin "plane" to make optimum quality images. This is known as Flange-to-Film distance (or flange-back.)
I have never seen adapters that are too thin. They are usually just right or too thick. So if a thicker adapter now allows clearance, (when the correct one did not), then the lens is not nesting at the correct plane, resulting in less than optimum images.
Reflex lens design is much more complicated than large format lens design. Reflex lenses have floating elements, internal focusing elements, elements that move in groups, elements that do not move, etc, etc. There is much more involved than moving locked lens elements back and forth in unison on a board.
mamiya wrote:
Has a lot of leica glass (we hear over and over)
Is a pro (we hear over and over)
Has only one body. A pro with only one body
Uh, if you read, he did have TWO DMRs, and bought the 5D for backup. I know many pros that have only one or two digital bodies, and have sold ALL of their other bodies.
Thanks for the posts Guy. I don't think I can justify buying one of these just to modify the mirror.
As far as the detractors go, I've just started reporting 'em. It may blow up in my face, but I'm becoming more and more reluctant to start a new thread here--to likely to get crap thrown at me. Maybe if enough of these folks can get a stern warning or two, maybe things will go back to being "kinder and gentler".
