[Leica] Leica T

[leicaphong at gmail.com (Phong)]

Henning,

>> Only if you have a shorter register and a wider mount, optical
possibilities are increased.

Would a shorter register impose more challenges to the design of wide-angle
lenses, given the smaller angle of incidence to the edges and corners of
the image circle ?

- Phong




On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 11:42 AM, Henning Wulff <henningw at 
archiphoto.com>wrote:

> No, and the digital M's all have a bit of that already. Only if you have a
> shorter register and a wider mount, optical possibilities are increased,
> body plus lens thickness can be decreased and you can make a digital body
> that can use manual and autofocus lenses equally well. Or you could have a
> body designed primarily for autofocus use, and you could have a body
> designed for optical rangefinder use and they could use the same lenses.
> Aperture control could be on the body, or the lenses for full frame use.
>
>
> On 2014-04-24, at 7:53 PM, Doug Herr <wildlightphoto at earthlink.net> 
> wrote:
>
> > Henning Wulff wrote:
> >
> >>>>
> > Yes, Leica has had a few areas to struggle over in becoming a digital
> camera manufacturer. One of them was the thickness of the camera. I think
> most film M camera users would like a digital M the thickness of an M4, but
> that won't happen with the sensor, filter pack and display screen adding to
> the thickness.
> > <<<
> >
> > Is there anything wrong with a digital body the same thickness as the M4
> with the lens mount protruding to provide the mount register distance?
> >
>
>