Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/09/17

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: Re: [Leica] Re: Why are LTM versions so expensive
From: John Collier <jbcollier@home.com>
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 22:35:17 -0600

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