Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/07/28
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I think respondents missed the point :-) Imagine the best LTM camera ever made (IIIf, IIIg?) with the biggest piece of 50mm glass ever made hanging on the front! It almost doesn't matter how well it works :-) Yes, the M mount fits an f/1.0 lens, but the M mount is bigger and closer to the film than LTM. Apples and oranges. - --Michael - -------ORIGINAL MESSAGE---------- Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 02:26:58 +1000 From: "Miro Jurcevic" <miroj@ozemail.com.au> Subject: [Leica] Re: Canon RF mount Message-ID: <011901bff7e7$7c8ec2a0$0500a8c0@optushome.com.au> References: <B5A5CDE0.18EB%rof@mac.com> For some reason I keep hearing the same thing in Cannon circles. Cannon users will say that the size of the mount will limit the max possible design speed of a lense. It has been pointed out to me quite clearly, by Rob, that the Leica M mount is quite old and happily supports the Noctilux 1.0. In terms of physics it only matters how the light is bent with repect to the position and size of the last element. The myth of the EOS series of Cannon SLR's is also another furfy. I often hear that the mount was redesigned to make it possible to implement faster lenses. That is another scientific method of extracting several new lense sales from bummed FD owners. A M leica and an EOS camera are available with a 50mm f1.0 lense. On the other hand, having owned a Nikkor 55 f1.2, I can conceed that the mount is looking a bit tight. >i owned the lens and the 7. the .95 mt is on the outside of the the ltm, >just as the contax ll mt had an inside and outside mt. the reason for the >outside mt on the canon 7 was the enormous weight of the .95 plus the fact >that threading it into a ltm would have reduced its effective aperature. ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com