Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/09/17
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I do not believe that a Noctilux rear element can be persuaded to slip into a LTM mount. John Collier > From: Krechtz@aol.com > > In a message dated 9/15/00 12:08:32 PM Eastern Daylight Time, > MEB@goodphotos.com writes: > > << t would seem to me to Leica's advantage to make LTM as their default mount. > Is there any image quality lost when using an LTM version with an adapter > as compared to the M mount version of the same lens? > By making LTM lenses default (sold with an M adapter standard), Leica might > encourage a few budget minded folks to use classic or new C/V LTM bodies > instead of buying an M body first, but they would also make their lenses > more adaptable and desirable to a broader market without lessening their > dedication to their current M clients or costing themselves huge amounts in > retooling. > If anyone sees a flaw in this logic please point it out. >>> > > Flawless. The problem is that the E. Leitz marketing experts evidently > decided in about 1957 (I'm not looking this up!) to encourage sales of M > bodies over TM bodies by discontinuing TM lens mount production, along with > TM body production, knowing that others, notably Canon, were still producing > LTM bodies and lenses. They did not want to encourage cross-pollination > then, and it is doubtful whether Leica wants to do so now. Probably the more > interesting question is why Konica opted to go with the M mount,starting with > a clean sheet of paper. I suspect they wanted to appeal directly to M > owners, easy adaptability of LTM to M regardless. > > Joe Sobel