Leica M8

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: ElFenix
try a 50 f/0.6 and see what you come up with for the exit pupil size.

The size of the exit pupil is the merely the size of the projected image of the aperture stop in the downstream optics. It's not used in the calculations of F-stop at all.

F-stop is the ratio of entrance pupil size to focal length. The exit pupil does not factor into the equation anywhere. The only thing that the exit pupil affects is the incidence angle of light hitting the sensor, and even this is controlled by how far the exit pupil ("exit pupil" is the term for the point in space from which the light gathered by the lens appears to originate) is from the film/sensor surface, not by the diameter of the exit pupil.

ZV

i know what an f-stop is, thank you very much. but go ahead and ignore the point and go off on whatever tangent you want. if your exit pupil is too small you will vignette the image. i don't think you can design a 50 f/0.6 for traditional 35 mm photography mounts that doesn't severely vignette and create an effectively smaller aperture because the size of the exit pupil limits the amount of light the lens can pass. maybe an exotic lens design could do it.

obviously canon puts this much glass at the rear of the lens for a reason
the 85 f/1.8 uses less glass at the rear.

if you poke around on photozone, you'll see that the 135 f/2, despite having a larger front element than the 85 f/1.8 (almost as big as the 85 f/1.2 in fact) appears to use less glass at the rear than the 85 f/1.8. seems to me that there is a relationship between f-stop and rear element size.

That's great that Canon uses a large rear element. They don't have to just to maintain that size of aperture. I say again, nowhere in the equations to determine the f-stop of a lens does the size of the rear element come into play.

The size of the exit pupil does not have any effect whatsoever on the amount of light that can pass. All of the light that passes through the diaphragm passes through the exit pupil (neglecting whatever is lost due to the fact that the glass in the lens is not 100% transparent). The exit pupil is not a physical restriction, its size is defined by the size of the projected image in the rear optics of the lens. It doesn't exist as a physical part of the lens; you cannot point to any physical piece of the lens and say "this is the exit pupil".

That said, yes, I have been ignoring practical concerns like vignetting, and it's quite possible that a larger rear element is necessary to maintain rectilinear correction while preventing vignetting, but those are separate issues.

ZV

 

[rudder]

Originally posted by: virtuamike
Very different viewing and shooting experience. It's elegance in refined simplicity. Plus you get to use Leica optics *drools*

Aren't there converters to use Leica lenses on other cameras like Canon's? I woner how the quality would suffer.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: rudder

Originally posted by: virtuamike
Very different viewing and shooting experience. It's elegance in refined simplicity. Plus you get to use Leica optics *drools*

Aren't there converters to use Leica lenses on other cameras like Canon's? I woner how the quality would suffer.

for the first problem, leica's rangefinder lenses won't infinity focus without optical elements in the converter. rangefinders have a much shorter register distance than SLRs (no mirror in the way).

also, RF wide angle lenses tend to project into the body quite a way, so they'd end up destroying the mirror (unless you've got a real mirror lock up; canon doesn't). so, no go for those. or collapsible lenses.

leica's slr lenses for it's R slr can be adapted to canon without issue. register depth on leica r is longer than any of the major mounts. but it's only .5 mm longer than nikon F, so there isn't much room to work with.

 

[jpeyton]

I've been looking at M8 tagged photos on Flickr and I've been very impressed with the overall quality.

Is it just that Leica owners are better photographers in general? Or perhaps they are more serious with their photography, considering the hefty price tag of the camera.

 

[warmodder]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
I've been looking at M8 tagged photos on Flickr and I've been very impressed with the overall quality.

Is it just that Leica owners are better photographers in general? Or perhaps they are more serious with their photography, considering the hefty price tag of the camera.

They're simple to use, so it's kind of a return to roots sort of thing.

Honestly, they're good, but they aren't the holy grail of photography either. Now Hasselblads are another story...

 

[virtuamike]

Originally posted by: warmodder

Originally posted by: jpeyton
I've been looking at M8 tagged photos on Flickr and I've been very impressed with the overall quality.

Is it just that Leica owners are better photographers in general? Or perhaps they are more serious with their photography, considering the hefty price tag of the camera.

They're simple to use, so it's kind of a return to roots sort of thing.

Honestly, they're good, but they aren't the holy grail of photography either. Now Hasselblads are another story...

I doubt I'd travel with a blad