Leica-Konica compatibility.
It is clear from the facts that the dimensions and tolerances between Leica and Konica differ, even if the M-bayonet and the KM-bayonet fit.
The mismatch that has been reported, may be caused by any of the factors involved: differences in flange to pressure plate distance differences in film channel thickness differences in cam/curve engagement differences in lens flange to focal plane distance differences in tolerances differences in engineering solutions (the Konica roller arm and cam are more sensitive to changes and tolerances than the Leica version differences in film flatness between several film types.
It is quite rash to identify one of these aspects as being the sole source of the reported mismatches between Leica lenses and Konica bodies.
__________________
Tom Hoskinson
______________________________
I have seen this thread only now.
I own both a ZI and an M7 and I wear glasses. The VF of the Leica is much smaller and dimmer, but I have bought the camera, because I like the 50mm frames (I've had the 75mm frames removed for a better vision), and this version (0.85x) almost fills the VF with the 50mm contour. The 35mm frames are practically invisible if I wear glasses. The other nice feature of the M7 is a shutter even more silent than that of the ZI - I believe it is the most silent Leica of them all. So, while this 0.85x M7 commands the 50mm lenses, the ZI commands the 35mm - this is the best coupling by far, the ZI with a 35/1.2 Nokton or 35/2 Biogon deliver images of incredible consistency and technical quality. You can take a look at this slideshow:http://www.flickr.com/search/show/?q...59177039%40N00, all shots taken with the ZI, and most with one of these two lenses. Below 35mm, The Bessa R4A is my tool, down to 21mm using the VF, further, till 12mm with the external finders.
As to the lenses, there are no universal answers, but looking at what I have (several Zeiss lenses, some Leica, a few CV), there are hardly bad lenses on the market now for the rangefinder cameras, and honestly most of them beat the crap out of any Nikon or Canon lens up to 50mm.
I am particularly fond of the ZM line - I use most of it from 21 to 50mm - and I find them to be overall more balanced than other lens lines. They are sharp, quite contrasty, with very pleasant bokeh and great 3d plasticity, and they flare less than any other brand. If you are a bokeh freak, get the 35/1,2 Nokton and the 50/1.5 C Sonnar ( make sure you buy the one optimized for wide open focus - popflash has some in stock now). For landscape the 21/4.5 and 25/2.8 Biogons will make your jaw drop to the floor - just remember to shoot from a steady tripod or at 1/2000th of the second, otherwise you won't see what they can deliver.
Was the M5 mentioned in this thread? If not, here's what I know from using a pair of Leica M5 cameras:
1. The original framelines are: 35/135, 50 & 90. The entire viewfinder frame works fine with a 28mm lens.
2. DAG installed a "modern" set of framelines in my second body before I purchased it. It has the now standard 35/135, 50/75 and 28/90 framelines.
3. Either of the above arrangements work fine for my assortment of lenses: 28, 35, 50, 75, 85, 90 and 135.
4. Through the lens meter: The best meter I own and I own several dating back to the late 50s.
5. 28mm Konica M-Hexanon, 35mm Konica UC-Hexanon, Canon 35mm & 135mm, Leitz 50mm DR Summicron and 90mm Elmarit, Nikkor 50mm and 85mm and Voigtlander 75mm lenses all work on either camera.
6. In practical use, the metering system and shutter speed dial placement function as a very quick aperture priority system. Shutter speeds displayed in the viewfinder.
7. Shutter functions without batteries. Meter does not.
8. Wein cell batteries work just fine.
<snip>
You can take a look at this slideshow:http://www.flickr.com/search/show/?q...59177039%40N00, all shots taken with the ZI, and most with one of these two lenses. Below 35mm, The Bessa R4A is my tool, down to 21mm using the VF, further, till 12mm with the external finders.
Thanks for sharing your photos. I enjoyed many of the images but found the color ones mixed amongst the B+W to be a distraction in the smooth flow of the sequence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by takef586
As to the lenses, there are no universal answers, but looking at what I have (several Zeiss lenses, some Leica, a few CV), there are hardly bad lenses on the market now for the rangefinder cameras, and honestly most of them beat the crap out of any Nikon or Canon lens up to 50mm.
<SNIP>
Really, beat the crap out of any Nikon or Canon? My experience with what I would consider a valid comparison (e.g., same FL, same body, same film, same lighting, etc.,) is admittedly limited, but it does not prove this out. However that involved 85mm lenses and I would be most interested to see some images that validate your claim. Well, maybe not too interested as it might prove a costly lesson.
Celac
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG
have the option to remove this ad.)
I have tested my Nikon lenses against ZF lenses, and the conclusions are quite evident, although the digital is actually making it a bit more difficult to see this than a good resolution film. For example, from about 1.5 meters the Nikkor 50/1.4 has to be stopped down to f4.0 at least, to match my Makro Planar 50/2 wide open. The 24/2.8 Nikkor against the Distagon 25/2.8 was so lousy, that I've given it away, but the real point, relevant to this thread, is, that my Biogon 25/2.8 actually trumps the Distagon... especially in the corners, because of a non compromise design, thanks to a symmetrical lens construction possible on cameras without a mirror. There should be a reason why Leica's SLR lenses at 50mm and below cost 20% of what the M lenses for equivalent fl sell...
I have tested my Nikon lenses against ZF lenses, and the conclusions are quite evident, although the digital is actually making it a bit more difficult to see this than a good resolution film. For example, from about 1.5 meters the Nikkor 50/1.4 has to be stopped down to f4.0 at least, to match my Makro Planar 50/2 wide open. The 24/2.8 Nikkor against the Distagon 25/2.8 was so lousy, that I've given it away, but the real point, relevant to this thread, is, that my Biogon 25/2.8 actually trumps the Distagon... especially in the corners, because of a non compromise design, thanks to a symmetrical lens construction possible on cameras without a mirror. There should be a reason why Leica's SLR lenses at 50mm and below cost 20% of what the M lenses for equivalent fl sell...
Hi,
I accept your conclusions as you have seen the test results. I would certainly like to see some images. As I noted above, the only opportunity I have had to compare the products head to head did not prove out conclusively in favor of the Zeiss. I don't mean by that the Zeiss lens was poor, it wasn't. However, in looking at prints, I did not find conclusive motivation to replace one with the other.
I do understand that a biogon and a retrofocus SLR lens are constructed differently. My intention was not to change the direction of the thread, you simply piqued my curiosity with with what I thought was a bold statement.
Celac
So one thing I would throw out from reading this the original poster has not used a rangefinder before (sorry if I mis-read). I would definitely recommend either renting one or picking up a cheap fixed lens rangefinder to see if using one suits your style and needs before you sell your SLR equipment. A while back I had it in my head that I NEEDED a rangefinder, and while it was a good choice I still find myself using my SLR much more because that's what I prefer.
Linear Mode
