Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/09/17

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: Re: [Leica] Re: Why are LTM versions so expensive
From: Dante A Stella <dante@umich.edu>
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 00:25:56 -0400
References: <12.25c219e.26f539fd@aol.com>

Well, the choice of M for a "clean sheet" camera gives you access to a line of
100+ LTM lenses plus everything that's ever been made in M (and Erwin's new RF
accuracy numbers show that the Hexar's EBL would not prevent you from focusing
any lens in the Leica line, except a 135/2.8, which may be too much for a 0.72).
In sum, you get any Hexanons, any Leica lens, any Russian, Canon, Zeiss,
Voigtlander, or miscellaneous lens.  It's not completely without reason.  I
understand that one of the Hexar concepts involved an electronic rangefinder and
another autofocus.

The funny thing about it was the discouragement of competition - Canon made a lot
of LTM lenses that were very competitive with the contemporaneous Leitz lenses.
There may have been a positive incentive to prevent people from easily or cheaply
mounting 35/2 Canons or 50/1.2 Canons.

Krechtz@aol.com wrote:

> In a message dated 9/15/00 12:08:32 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> MEB@goodphotos.com writes:
>
> << t would seem to me to Leica's advantage to make LTM as their default mount.
>  Is there any image quality lost when using an LTM version with an adapter
>  as compared to the M mount version of the same lens?
>  By making LTM lenses default (sold with an M adapter standard), Leica might
>  encourage a few budget minded folks to use classic or new C/V LTM bodies
>  instead of buying an M body first, but they would also make their lenses
>  more adaptable and desirable to a broader market without lessening their
>  dedication to their current M clients or costing themselves huge amounts in
>  retooling.
>  If anyone sees a flaw in this logic please point it out.
>   >>
>
> Flawless.  The problem is that the E. Leitz marketing experts evidently
> decided in about 1957 (I'm not looking this up!) to encourage sales of M
> bodies over TM bodies by discontinuing TM lens mount production, along with
> TM body production, knowing that others, notably Canon, were still producing
> LTM bodies and lenses.  They did not want to encourage cross-pollination
> then, and it is doubtful whether Leica wants to do so now.  Probably the more
> interesting question is why Konica opted to go with the M mount,starting with
> a clean sheet of paper.  I suspect they wanted to appeal directly to M
> owners, easy adaptability of LTM to M regardless.
>
> Joe Sobel

- --
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dante Stella
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~dante

In reply to: Message from Krechtz@aol.com (Re: [Leica] Re: Why are LTM versions so expensive)