Re: SLR lenses on M bodies etc

[Albert Yeh <yeh@chaph.usc.edu>]

On Sun, 21 Jan 1996, Gang Huang wrote:

I had a question about the adapter.
Since I knew that Leica has a M-lens-to-R-body adapter, how is it possible
to have a R-lens-to-M body adapter ? bcs if M lens can be used on R body
and can be focus on infinite scene, then it means the thickness of M
body = thickness of R body + thickness of the adaptor. Is it possible to
have a R-to-M and can be used on infinite scene at the same time ?

> There has quite a bit of discussion on the use of SLR lenses on M cameras.
> Yes, it is doable, but what is the advantage? If I have some SLR lenses, the
> chances are that I already have an SLR to use the lenses. Even if I don't
> have a SLR, it is, in most cases, cheaper to buy an SLR body than to come
> up with an adapter plus a finder. I have seen some Minolta to M Leica adapters
> advertized for $175 while you can buy a used Minolta SLR body for less than
> $100.  A Leitz R-to-M adapter costs $250 in some used Leica dealers who also
> sells R3 for less than $300.  It is doubtful that an M3 with a adapted fisheye
> plus an odd looking finder will offer any advantage over an SLR even for
> "candid" shots. Ok, there are times one may not be able to use the SLR's
> finder (when using an opaque IR filter, as being refered to in an earlier
> post, for example). But even in these cases, a finder can be used with an
> SLR just
> as easily as with an M camera.
> 
> Oh, please don't take me wrong. I have experimented various different lenses
> on my M4 and Fed, mostly with a T-mount-to-M39 adapter and a S-M adapter. 
> While I do think it's interesting to talk about what can be done with an M
> camera, sometimes the best solution is to do without one.
> 
> g.huang
> gang@mtdcr.att.com
> 
>