Leica RangeFinder Question

Hi all,

I've been looking into Leica's more. With the Digital M coming in 2006 its interesting me even more.

I have a question though. Can someone explain the 21-135 limit of the camera.

Is this a issue of how the focus system works, like they had to choice a min and max, and thats what they picked and there is no way to expand it?

For most of my kind of shooting, this wouldn't be much of an issue. But there are always those long shots. Which would mean going for a R series camera, which then looses some of the pure beauty, compactness, and impressive focusing system of the M.

I've been trying to find a answer to this limit but have had no luck. I'm having to believe its part of the fundamental design and was fixed in 1954 to be forever that way.

I think its a question of the viewfinder - since you see the field of view through frame lines in a fixed magnification viewfinder there are practical limits really - too wide a view and it won't fit in the viewfinder unless you make it really low magnification to start off with which makes telephotos harder to use, too long a focal length and the frame lines occupy a tiny proportion of the viewfinder making it hard to see what's going on - you can increase the viewfinder magnification but then its harder to use wide-angles. Basically the viewing system makes extreme focal lengths impractical.

Voigtlander make 12 and 15mm wide-angles that will fit a Leica (I can't remember if they are M mount or Leica screw fit which will fit the M mount via an adapter) -they've got a good reputation I think and you frame via an accessory hotshoe viewfinder. If you've never used a rangefinder before Voigtlander's Leica-compatible Bessa series are a good cheaper introduction though the build quality obviously don't compare - not that I've ever used a Leica - I'm not that lucky.

What I have tried though is another rangefinder the Hasselblad Xpan. Really its great - simple to operate - mostly manual controls with just the right amount of automation to make things simpler without getting too complex. Its also built like a tank, the lenses are amazing and you get really good image quality (especially in the pseudo-medium format panoramic mode) in what's actually quite a small package comapared to say a Nikon D2X. The lens choice is quite limited but I mostly use it for landscape and travel stuff and I've realised you don't really need extreme focal lengths - three lenses are actually enough 90% of the time. you would think that for landscapes not being able to see the effects of filters through the lens would be a major handicap but to be honest its not as difficult using ND grads or polarisers as you might think.

I agree with you - bascially I would love to see a small well built digital camera with a interchangeable lenses, high image quality, simple operation and a really good viewfinder. Preferably a rangefinder - just compare the size of a DSLR outfit to the size of an XPan outfit and ask yourself which you'd rather haul up a mountain in Iceland at 5.30am. But right now there isn't really anything on the market that meets my needs and I'm continuing to use film. Its not like I'm some luddite or that I grew up in the age of the manual camera - I'm probably younger than a lot of people on this forum you know? Its just that when I got my Xpan I realised that it was pretty much the perfect match for my type of photography and my DSLR didn't come close. I was in Iceland for a long period this summer and the Xpan was a revelation - I ended up leaving my DSLR (and the KM 7D is a great camera and comes closest of all the current consumer DSLRs to my ideal camera - bright viewfinder, good construction, great analogue inspired control layout) back at the campsite since I realised I was just going to use the Xpan anyhow and I didn't want to haul the extra weight from those big SLR lenses when I was hiking across a lava flow.

I'm following developments like the Leica digital cameras and the Epson thing with interest since I hope eventually there will be a digital camera that meets my requirements...but I think it might be a while.

Thanks for the post.

Yeah, I sit here with my KM 7D next to me, and it's just sorta an UGh. To big, to much un-needed stuff. A digital version of a x700 would have been great. But nope. And now there are no modern (as in new development) MD lenses anyways. I like my 7D a bunch in many ways, but it's just not the right camera in the end.

Since I want to be able to lug something through national parks and such, less becomes so much more.

Loosing TTL is a bit of a draw back. Curious if/how one does polarizers on a RF.

The 7D is about as close as you can get to a real camera in my book right now that is digital. Has real knobs, built rugged and so forth. But it's huge. Plus its not great for Manual Focus, since there is zero resistance, and one has to send the camera to KM to try a different focus screen.

But if I did ever go the Leica M route I would have it, and the 100-300 APO for doing long stuff.

The leica R isn't bad either, but it's rather big. And I think I will wait for a R10 with a hope of a more integrated digital solution. Otherwise it's a pretty darn big camera.

Cost is definitely an issue with going leica. But it really gets more into the "buy it once, and have it forever" way of thinking.

PhotoTraveler said:

I've been looking into Leica's more. With the Digital M coming in
2006 its interesting me even more.

Click to expand...

If Leica's previous pathetic efforts are anything to go by, you should not be surprised if a digital M never happens, or it does, it is not what you thought it might be.

PhotoTraveler said:

I have a question though. Can someone explain the 21-135 limit of
the camera.

Click to expand...

I have never heard of this being a "limit" - it's just a range of lenses. The 135 is reasonable in that using anything longer is pretty dumb and time to think about getting an SLR. The 21 could simply be a Leica number because Leica don't make anything shorter. But others do. Cosina make 12 and 15s plus several others for Leica.

PhotoTraveler said:

Is this a issue of how the focus system works, like they had to
choice a min and max, and thats what they picked and there is no
way to expand it?

Click to expand...

With tele, it is simply the practicalities of rangefinder operation and viewfinder construction. Even though the lens movement is greater, manufacturing accuracy and depth of field issues all gang up on you - and eventually win. There are problems making decent tele viewfinders too. That's why you don't see them.

With wide angles, the rangefinder is not an issue. Most don't use the rangefinder. Optical finders for them are usually very large and not used all the time, therefore best not built in to the camera.

PhotoTraveler said:

I'm having to believe its part of the fundamental design and
was fixed in 1954 to be forever that way.

Click to expand...

It was determined long before 1954 but the laws of physics are just as applicable today.

Well with polarisers – I just hold up the filter to the the view I’m photographing and look through it and when I get the right effect I note the position and then attach the filter to the lens and turn the polariser to the same position – so on the Xpan 45mm lens the words “49mm” on the filter is usually at the 12 O’clock position when the polariser is attached so I just move the white mark on the polariser ring to the same position it was when I held it up. Its actually not too difficult though it takes a little bit more time before the shot than with an SLR

For ND grads – I just look through the viewfinder and estimate if say the filter needs to be 30% of the way down and then just measure with a ruler what point the filter transition line needs to be in the holder to cover that part of the lens. I often use soft grads and err on the side of the pushing it a bit further down.

Both these methods seem a bit hit and miss but the surprising thing is they actually seem to work really well. In all my Iceland shots from a month ago I never found one where I had really messed up filter placement/amount of polarisation – messed up plenty of shots in other ways but filters not a problem.

Its certainly less convenient to use filters with rangefinders but I mostly shoot landscapes and urban landscapes with a tripod so I work slowly anyhow.

In doing a bit more looking. It looks like Leica has expanded this range over time in the camera design. Apparently it's a issue of supporting a particular lens with the frames in the viewfinder. Hard to use a 300mm lens if there are no framing bars in the camera for it.

Leica has confirmed they are working on a Digital M. And expect to announce it in 2006 and it will be no less then 10MP.

Unlike the DMR, they don't have a removable back to work with on the M. So I don't see a interchangeable solution happening. Not film/digital that is. They would basically have to remake the whole thing from the ground up and to give the M a film unit that comes off.

I would guess it ends up something similar to the Epson, but I'm thinking maybe a interchangeable CCD (but would give that a low chance), but Leica is traditional, and seeing they mentioned wanting to make a B&W DMR, maybe they will try to leave such options open for the M.

So in the end, i'd guess the M line splits, with M films and M digitals. Afterall, the bodies are small enough that it's not that big a deal to carry two. A M body is probably smaller then the DMR.

In the end they pretty much have to come out with a Digital M, otherwise 50 years just dies in the middle of the street. Plus there would be a massive amount of really really upset people with a line of up extremely expensive lenses that would probably go after them with torches and forks.

PhotoTraveler said:

In doing a bit more looking. It looks like Leica has expanded this
range over time in the camera design. Apparently it's a issue of
supporting a particular lens with the frames in the viewfinder.
Hard to use a 300mm lens if there are no framing bars in the camera
for it.

Click to expand...

And even if there were, the bars would be tiny -- you'd barely be able to see what's being framed.

PhotoTraveler said:

Leica has confirmed they are working on a Digital M. And expect to
announce it in 2006 and it will be no less then 10MP.

Click to expand...

Indeed they have. They're also hanging on the edge of bankruptcy. Something like the Digital M would take millions, even tens of millions to develop, in particular because symmetrical rangefinder lenses present some design challenges for sensors and microlenses that nobody has yet managed to fully resolve in practice.

There's a very real risk that it'll never materialize.

PhotoTraveler said:

Unlike the DMR, they don't have a removable back to work with on
the M. So I don't see a interchangeable solution happening. Not
film/digital that is. They would basically have to remake the whole
thing from the ground up and to give the M a film unit that comes
off.

Click to expand...

I understood (and agreed with) everything until the bit after the last "and." What do you mean by a film unit that comes off?

PhotoTraveler said:

I would guess it ends up something similar to the Epson, but I'm
thinking maybe a interchangeable CCD (but would give that a low
chance), but Leica is traditional, and seeing they mentioned
wanting to make a B&W DMR, maybe they will try to leave such
options open for the M.

Click to expand...

Yup, unlikely it is.

PhotoTraveler said:

So in the end, i'd guess the M line splits, with M films and M
digitals. Afterall, the bodies are small enough that it's not that
big a deal to carry two. A M body is probably smaller then the DMR.

Click to expand...

If it ever happens, that is.

One reason the DMR is so big is that Leica didn't have enough R/D budget and/or expertise to design an electronics package small enough to fold neatly into the back. Why do you think this would be any different for the M digital?

PhotoTraveler said:

In the end they pretty much have to come out with a Digital M,
otherwise 50 years just dies in the middle of the street. Plus
there would be a massive amount of really really upset people with
a line of up extremely expensive lenses that would probably go
after them with torches and forks.

Click to expand...

There's a very real chance of that happening. Fortunately for the upset people, Leica doesn't own the lens mount: they can always go with the Epson R-D1... and I'm pretty sure that someone, some day will make other, better digital rangefinders.

But I'm not sure it's Leica.

Petteri
--
My flickr page: [ http://www.flickr.com/photos/primejunta/ ]
Me on photography: [ http://194.100.88.243/petteri/ ]
Me on politics: [ http://p-on-p.blogspot.com/ ]

By film unit that comes off, I basicly mean give it a film back. I don't see that happening.

The DMR on the R series made sense. That had the ability to do it, since the camera had a back. So it gave them something to make current owners happy. And then they can take a similar concept to the R10, but do it from the ground up and get around some of the headaches.

I think the DMR probably cost them more then a ground up camera. But it gave them a product that current users would love. I'm not to interested in it, because its more of a hack and bulky.

They could make the whole deal a lot smaller if it was a ground up design.

I don't expect the M to be much bigger or anything. Epson has proved you can fit the basics in that package.

Far as them going out a business, I think they have a pretty solid nitch. And by selling the brand some they can get a good bit of cash in. They do face the same problem as Apple had. Their product is so expensive, and holds its value so well, that is has a huge entry barrier. Apple shrunk because of this, but have no turned things around by introducing product to get people in the door (iPods to Digilux) and Cheaper models (Apple Mini to "insert cheap M and a few lenses here").

But still, they will never die, just get bought by someone. I can see Minolta buying them. Would be a good fit. Brings the R series come. Both have similar concepts (less flash, more practical). Would fit in with the name. Alphabetically Leica fits perfect between Konica and Minolta. The two companies combines could do very well.

But still, I think Leica will be ok. But they have to get digital product out.

PhotoTraveler said:

By film unit that comes off, I basicly mean give it a film back. I
don't see that happening.

Click to expand...

Nope. The M body design wouldn't permit it.

PhotoTraveler said:

The DMR on the R series made sense. That had the ability to do it,
since the camera had a back. So it gave them something to make
current owners happy. And then they can take a similar concept to
the R10, but do it from the ground up and get around some of the
headaches.

Click to expand...

Where will they get the R/D budget for that sort of thing?

PhotoTraveler said:

I think the DMR probably cost them more then a ground up camera.
But it gave them a product that current users would love. I'm not
to interested in it, because its more of a hack and bulky.

Click to expand...

Probably.

PhotoTraveler said:

They could make the whole deal a lot smaller if it was a ground up
design.

Click to expand...

Certainly.

PhotoTraveler said:

I don't expect the M to be much bigger or anything. Epson has
proved you can fit the basics in that package.

Click to expand...

Indeed. But then again, Epson is a much bigger company with much deeper pockets.

PhotoTraveler said:

Far as them going out a business, I think they have a pretty solid
nitch.

Click to expand...

The trouble is that the niche isn't big enough to support independent R/D in digital camera design -- they're at an enormous disadvantage even compared to people like Konica-Minolta, not to mention Canon or Sony. They almost went bankrupt already, and are hanging on the edge as it is.

PhotoTraveler said:

And by selling the brand some they can get a good bit of
cash in.

Click to expand...

Only they don't own the brand.

[snip]

PhotoTraveler said:

But still, they will never die, just get bought by someone. I can
see Minolta buying them. Would be a good fit. Brings the R series
come. Both have similar concepts (less flash, more practical).

Click to expand...

I beg your pardon: Leica... less flash??? What do you call lizard-skin, gold-plate, customize-your-own, limited-special-Formula-1-edition stuff?

[ http://www.leica-camera.de/produkte/msystem/alacarte/index.html ]

The big shareholder is Hermes. They treat the cameras like fashion accessories. The biggest market for Leicas are people who do that too -- and Japanese collectors.

PhotoTraveler said:

Would fit in with the name. Alphabetically Leica fits perfect
between Konica and Minolta. The two companies combines could do
very well.

But still, I think Leica will be ok. But they have to get digital
product out.

Click to expand...

If anyone, I think it'll be Panasonic. They're already in bed together -- Leica selling Panasonic-designed and built cameras under their brand, Panasonic using Leica-designed lenses on their cameras.

But I'm still not sure if Leica Camera will survive, even if the brand will.

Petteri
--
My flickr page: [ http://www.flickr.com/photos/primejunta/ ]
Me on photography: [ http://194.100.88.243/petteri/ ]
Me on politics: [ http://p-on-p.blogspot.com/ ]

PhotoTraveler said:

But they have to get digital
product out.

Click to expand...

And the track record so far isn't so good.

Times have changed. They are probably better off selling their badge to somebody who might make better use of it.

and I'm pretty sure that someone, some day

Petteri Sulonen said:

will make other, better digital rangefinders.

Click to expand...

let's hope so!

nickoly said:

PhotoTraveler said:

But they have to get digital
product out.

Click to expand...

And the track record so far isn't so good.
Times have changed. They are probably better off selling their
badge to somebody who might make better use of it.

Click to expand...

Leica Camera licenses the Leica dot from Leica Microsystems, an entirely independent company (makes microscopes, based in a different country, nothing to do with Hermes fashion, etc).

If Leica Camera goes "poof", Leica Microsystems will just license the red dot wo someone like Panasonic.

--

Salvage troll posts! When you see a thread started by a troll, post something useful to it. It will drive the trolls up the wall.

Ciao!

Joe

http://www.swissarmyfork.com

PhotoTraveler said:

Hi all,

I've been looking into Leica's more. With the Digital M coming in
2006 its interesting me even more.

I have a question though. Can someone explain the 21-135 limit of
the camera.

Is this a issue of how the focus system works, like they had to
choice a min and max, and thats what they picked and there is no
way to expand it?

Click to expand...

Sure.

Wide angle rangefinder lenses are symmetrical, or nearly so. That means that a 21mm lens has light that strikes the corners of a "full frame" sensor at 45 degrees from perpendicular. That's far beyond the acceptance range of any sensor with microlenses (necessary to increase sensitivity, or your ISO would range form 25-800, instead of 100-3200). Even if they use microlenses with a 20 degree offset, you're going to see vignetting and color artifacts from a 21 degree wide.

The 12mm Voigtlander mentioned elsewhere in this thread comes in 60 degrees from perpendicular, and isn't going to work, even with 20 degrees of offset on the microlenses.

Telephotos are restricted by the distance from the viewfinder and rangefinder lenses to the axis of the lens. The longer you make the telephoto, the skinnier you have to make it, to keep it out of the viewfinder. A 135mm f2.8 lens (52mm in diameter, 100mm long) is about the biggest thing you can have that won't show up in the viewfinder. A slow 200mm f4 will stick out too far, you'd be composing in a little chunk of the center frame, with the lens poking into the frame almost to that chunk.

Faster lenses simply would extend through the center of the viewfinder frame, and you can't see anything. The rangefinder literally cannot see over the 120mm diameter of a 300mm f2.8, for example. It's like holding a hand in front of the camera.

PhotoTraveler said:

For most of my kind of shooting, this wouldn't be much of an issue.
But there are always those long shots. Which would mean going for a
R series camera, which then looses some of the pure beauty,
compactness, and impressive focusing system of the M.

Click to expand...

The M focusing system is only "impressive" because it's used with the shorter lenses, where focus isn't an issue. If you wanted to do a good jb focusing a 300mm f2.8, with its shallow depth of field and huge focus movements, you'd need to make the rangefinder baseline (distance between the rangefinder and viewfinder lenses) about 10x what it is now.

PhotoTraveler said:

I've been trying to find a answer to this limit but have had no
luck. I'm having to believe its part of the fundamental design and
was fixed in 1954 to be forever that way.

Click to expand...

Why not? It was optimzed for a particular purpose. There wern't 12mm Heliers in 1954, or digital sensors, so no one cared about the 21mm limit. And making the camera bigger to accomodate longer lenses would have compromised the "primary mission" to add a capability for a less common mission.

--

Salvage troll posts! When you see a thread started by a troll, post something useful to it. It will drive the trolls up the wall.

Ciao!

Joe

http://www.swissarmyfork.com

Leica currently makes lenses from 21mm focal length to 135mm focal length to fit the various M bodies. The viewfinder in most M bodies has frames that show approximately the field of view of 28mm, 35mm, 50mm, 75mm, 90mm, and 135mm lenses. 21mm and 24mm lenses are also made and they have their own viewfinders that attach to the accessory mount on top. Accessory viewfinders are aslo available for most focal lengths. For instance, when shooting with a 50mm lens, I frequently use a 50mm accessory finder on top of the body, even though the body has 50mm frames in the rangefinder.

They used to make longer lenses than 135mm as well. Those would be used with a reflex housing called the Visoflex. The Visoflex attaches to teh body just like a lens, but has a mirror and prism housing on top that turns most M Leicas into an SLR. There were quite a few Visoflex specific lenses. And some lenses could work directly on the body and come apart for use on the Visoflex.

--
Peter White

Thanks for the post.

PhotoTraveler said:

Hi all,

I've been looking into Leica's more. With the Digital M coming in
2006 its interesting me even more.

I have a question though. Can someone explain the 21-135 limit of
the camera.

Is this a issue of how the focus system works, like they had to
choice a min and max, and thats what they picked and there is no
way to expand it?

For most of my kind of shooting, this wouldn't be much of an issue.
But there are always those long shots. Which would mean going for a
R series camera, which then looses some of the pure beauty,
compactness, and impressive focusing system of the M.

I've been trying to find a answer to this limit but have had no
luck. I'm having to believe its part of the fundamental design and
was fixed in 1954 to be forever that way.

Click to expand...

As a Leica M user in 'old' days I had the M2 and the M3 - but in simple answer to your question, isn't it the case that the system of the 'M' type really all revolved around the rangefinder 'base'. The reason for the goodness and quality of the M's is that the rangefinder base length is/was so much longer (between input/eyepiece view) because of the longer distance between the two input/output view optics - in the M2 you had a different set of 'illuminated' squares than in the M3.

It's the rangefinder base length design that does it really , and I guess it is THAT which limits what can be done if you wanted to use the old system on any new style Leica digi type...doubt if it can be done the same ...

--
ericN-UK
My Town - http://home.speedfactory.net/rsmithjr/Sigma30-1/index.htm