Scott, is there no way to make an adapter that couples the G lenses to the ZI and introduces a focusing ring?
Okay, never mind I guess its too complicated
There is a place in Japan that makes an irreversible conversion from G mount to the M mount.
Maybe I shouldn't say irreversible. It's possible that maybe it could be returned to a G mount, but from what I saw in a photo, it looked to be irreversible.
For the cost of the conversion, you might as well buy a Zeiss (ZM) lens.
To make an adapter, here's what I think would need to do:
-- Is the aperture handled electronically (even though it has manual aperture settings)? That is, with the lens off the camera, does changing the aperture on the lens barrel stop down the aperture blades? If not, then it's controlled electronically, so you would need to first figure out how to control that manually.
-- The next thing would be to determine the flange-to-film distance of both cameras. If the M mount is shallower, then the adapter might need some type of intermediate lens to account for the longer distance in the G mount. That will degrade the image quality, unless you can develop an optically correct element. Without such an intermediate lens, you will not have infinity focus -- ever. If the M mount is deeper, then you simply need to fill that gap.
-- And then you'll need to create a helical so you can focus the lens. If you don't want the lens barrel to rotate, you would need a double helical mount. If you don't mind having the barrel rotate, a simple helical would do. Of course, you'll need to have the correct helical pitch, call up the correct framelines and ensure that it couples correctly to the rangefinder at all distances to give you accurate focusing.
So it's not simply a matter of saying, "Just make an adapter."
In the end, why bother? Probably too much effort to make it worth it.
Last edited by elekm; 02-11-2008 at 11:30 AM. Click to view previous post history.
you're pretty close as to what it would take to do a "conversion", but you've got the issue of the ftf backwards. If the flange-to-film distance on the G-series is less than on the M, you'd need a conversion lens, or live with the fact you couldn't focus to infinity. If the G series ftf is greater than the M series, then you'd just need some kind of spacer ring to bump the G-series flange out to its expected depth. If I recall correctly, the G-series lenses have a manually controlled aperture, so you can operate the diaphragm on or off the camera. The hassle would be the focusing and the lens-mount conversion from the G-series breech-lock mechanism to the M style bayonet mount. That would be an awful lot of custom machine work, to the point it would be cheaper to buy a number of used G2 bodies to keep around as spares.
I don't see Zeiss making a 35mm SLR body anytime soon. Leica never did achieve a truly great SLR body, and ZF and ZK lenses work on some of the best 35mm bodies ever made (No Leica body can touch an F series, or the LX or MZ-S Pentax bodies). They do need to start offering CPU-equipped lenses with the ZF line (The ZK's are fully functional on digital and film, being the more modern KA mount with electrical aperture info communication)
As to the Zeiss Ikon and RF stuff, Zeiss is doing well enough with the Zeiss Ikon and ZM stuff for now, and it's not like Cosina will be leaving that business anytime soon (unlike Kyocera). I don't see Contax coming back unless Zeiss decides to get into MF bodies (Maybe a 501CM clone if Hassy finally kills the V-Series bodies).
The LX was nice but it is not in the class of the R8/9 and I mean that literally.
Originally Posted by mawz
The R8/9 are probably the ultimate manual focus bodies, although the F4 iand LX are in a classes by themselves.
The Pentax beyond the LX are not even close to top bodies from the other manufacturers and the includes the LX.
You will never see a cpu lens in F mount unless Nikon changes its mind.
IF Leica brings out a new camera at Photokina, that may, or may not, have a great influence on what the Zeiss, maybe even Nikon people do.
It is kind of sad, that the photo community seems to have a fit if they cannot have auto-everything.
Something is lacking and it is not in the camera.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
You are correct that the LX is not the same class as the R8/R9, the LX is a full-on Pro-level System SLR(the only one Pentax ever made in 35mm). The R8/R9 are just below the pro bracket, lacking most notably in the viewfinder with it's poor coverage and low magnification (for the coverage, most 100% finders have similar magnification, smaller finders usually run more magnification at that end of the market) and in flexibility in comparison to the LX, which has better (if less flexible) metering, offers a multitude of finder options and a far more flexible TTL flash system.
Originally Posted by BobbyR
I've owned the LX, and tried most of the R bodies. I'm unimpressed with the latter, the early ones are better built than the Minolta's they're related to, but share most of the weaknesses (Especially poor eye relief and mediocre viewfinder coverage) and the later ones seem to be very well built but not quite there copies of the Nikon high-end AF bodies. Build is of course excellent on the Leica's, and they have modern(ish) metering systems, but they aren't even close to being the ultimate manual focus SLR's. Frankly, I'll take any of the higher-end Nikons over an R body any day. Better finders, better handling, particularly the single-digit F's from the F2 on. Leica makes superb lenses and RF bodies. They never quite got the SLR body down.
As to later Pentax bodies, the MZ-S is a superb body. While it's lacking in absolute specs (flash sync, fps) it's simply one of the best handling AF SLR's ever made. And rather well built for a body that retailed for under $1000 new when introduced in 2001. And given its aperture-ring oriented design, it's if anything a better MF body than AF body.
As to CPU's in F mount lenses, well Cosina already offers this in the Voightlander SLII line. Zeiss is going to have to at some point simply to expand their market, as too many Nikon bodies don't support non-CPU lenses properly.
If you had to pick an 'Ultimate manual focus SLR', the Contax RTSIII would probably be my call. Or the FM3a for the minimalist.
Last edited by mawz; 02-19-2008 at 08:50 PM. Click to view previous post history.
If a new Contax see the day it will for sure not be on the par with current Leica. Zeiss went way far ahead of Leica these years. Old Leica lenses are fine but it is not enough so far. Who is buying Leicas any more? or he get M3 on e-bay. Leica pushed themself 7ft under, have a nice trip.
I can't find the link, but I read something about it in a magazine a whille ago when I was looking for a good lens for my Leica M camera. The cost for the conversion was something like 50,000 yen, which is 400-450USD. I remember there were a few other options such as converting Olympus OM lens mount to Leica M mount at the same price. And my impression was that whichever brand you'd pick you would lose more advantage than gain something from doing it...
Originally Posted by elekm
I do love Sebastiao Salgado's photographs and he use(d) Leica R6. So, for me, nothing wrong with Leica R bodies. And when you think which lenses go on those bodies, I wouldn't mind have some of those, if only could afford them...
Originally Posted by mawz
Bosnia... You don't have to be crazy to live here, but it helps...
No things in life should be left unfinis