Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/07/27
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Here's a thought: the only thing that makes our Ms and Hexars and such "luxury" cameras is the fact that they're built like cheapo cameras of long ago. No matter what your modern M-mount is made from (zinc, aluminum, plastic, titanium), it's still not as smooth and solid as a Canon P or a IIIf. Ever notice just how heavy a Canon 50/1.5 is? Heavy as hell. By comparison, modern Summicrons feel like they're made of plastic (well, aluminum). Stuff we say today has a quality feel would be laughed out of the door in the 1950s and 1960s. Even in the Canon line, the build difference between a P and a 7 is obvious - the 7 is proportionately lighter and not quite as solid in the hand (may be the meter and the frameline mechanism). And that was just 2 years' difference. If everything else were equal, it would always be preferable to use an LTM lens on an M body with an adapter. But M-mount lenses have better glass than the typical (old) LTM lenses. Why doesn't Leica make all lenses LTM? The same reason they stopped making LTM in the first place (the original M lenses were LTM with adapters). Greed and planned obselescence (yes, even Leitz did that once). "M.E.Berube - GoodPhotos" wrote: > At 07:28 AM 7/27/00 -0700, you wrote: > >I was just looking at a photo of a Canon 7, and it really looks like one > >could just take the mount off and screw it onto the front of an LTM > >camera. Anyone ever done more than just think about doing that? (Though > >since my 85/1.5 blocks most of my IIIa RF window, I guess the 50/.95 would > >probably do the same thing, right?) > > From what I've read, why wouldn't one with access to a Canon 7 just use > the Canon 7 with a 50/.95 lens? (Also from what I read the .95 is so flare > prone that it is really not that impressive to begin with.) > If anything, I would think you would want to use Leica glass on the more > advanced and user friendly Canon bodies not the other way round. > > Keep in mind I've only ever read about any of them, but I wouldn't mind a > P, 7 or 7s body to play with as a larger back up to the M5 than my CL. > > I also can't imagine why anyone, given an option, would buy an M lens over > an LTM lens...the LTMs have far wider range...I would think that Leica > would make all of its RF lenses in only LTM with an M adapter standard...if > we really are in the midst of an RF revival, they could increase their > sales base over all without having to reintroduce LTM bodies and while > still offering the highest quality product for more options to the user. It > seems to me a win/win situation, but, they must have a viable economic reason. > > Carpe Luminem, > Michael E. Berube > http://www.goodphotos.com - -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dante Stella http://www-personal.umich.edu/~dante