future M with auto focus

[sfokevin]

Originally Posted by Nicoleica

Not wishing to put a damper on these ideas, but Active IR (For AF or range finding.) has one serious drawback. It gets really confused if you try to take a photograph through glass.

And wouldn't Active IR screw up anyone trying to do IR Photography?...

[giordano]

Originally Posted by sfokevin

And wouldn't Active IR screw up anyone trying to do IR Photography?...

No. Just have the imp switch off the IR illumination before he opens the shutter .

[jonathan]

I pined for an Auto Focus, so I bought one, but still kept the M8 and if one had to go. it would be the Auto focus. No lengtly reason why, just like using the rangefinder.

[tomasis7]

if excuse my language, <censored> auto focus. Leica believe people can do without af. I think they can do. I think M is last camera which will not have af at all. It means more different choices in market. Contax AF failed!! Epic fail...

confirmed focus, maybe.. something stick-in module.. as accessory.. for 70 years old gramps

[sfokevin]

Originally Posted by giordano

No. Just have the imp switch off the IR illumination before he opens the shutter .

Shouldn't this happen automatically!...

[RobertW]

Autofocus is handy, I guess, however, I actually prefer the old manual "split image circle, surrounded by microprisms" that are present in the old Minolta SRT 202. Extremely fast and easy to focus with the two focusing systems present.

Why can't that be put into the rangefinder?

Rob

[nzav]

Originally Posted by Nicoleica

Not wishing to put a damper on these ideas, but Active IR (For AF or range finding.) has one serious drawback. It gets really confused if you try to take a photograph through glass.

You make a very good point Nicole, however, I do not suggest totally replacing the rangefinder, nor am I prepared to completely give up the rangefinder patch. My suggestion is for an auxilliary confirmation of focus and I stated the rangefinder patch does not have to be abndoned to incorporate the IR.

I used a 35Ti with the active IR focus for years and have taken some of my most favorite personal photos (which I scanned for printing) with it. If Nikon offered a digital version of the 35Ti today, I would grab one without hesitation. It would make an ideal model on which to base a digital version of the Leica CL (with interchangeable lenses of course). I never encountered issues with OOF images that were the camera's fault, though I must admit there were very few shots that I have taken through glass! The 35Ti does have manual focus override for the rare occasions where IR might fail. I used (and still use) a variety of cameras back then for pro shoots, but the tiny 35Ti always came along with me.

Those who know me know I am not a feature freak. I once had a location system comprised of three Nikon F3T bodies with motor drives. I used them for the better part of a year before I felt comfortable enough with the F3's AE feature to use it for work. I mention this to make a point - I am not advocating an IR focus assist system for the sake of augmenting the M's gadget-lust aspect.

Just as the "A" setting on the M8's shutter dial did not make manual shutter speeds obsolete, I don't believe an IR assist would necessarily make the optical rangefinder obsolete either. My suggestion would still work with any current or past M-mount lens, and would increase the success rate of accurately focussed images. If properly implemented, a confirmation indicator would also aid in faster focussing with the rangefinder by eliminating much of the "hunting" with the rangefinder.

Any forum members who have not handled or shot with a 35Ti may not fully appreciate my suggestions, but I hope Leica will at least look at one and perhaps see the value of adopting some of its advanced features. What killed the 35Ti was not the onslaught of digital, but rather the $1200+ price which was too high back then for a compact "P&S" without interchangeable lenses. Nikon made it extremely well - titanium body, superb optics, excellent design and ergonomics (you should see the analog display on the top plate!).

[nzav]

Originally Posted by sfokevin

Shouldn't this happen automatically!...

I believe you just answered your own previous question - "And wouldn't Active IR screw up anyone trying to do IR Photography?..."

[nzav]

Originally Posted by john_newell

The Collective has read your post. We have decided to punish you. Your sentence:

You're hired!!!

Seriously, that's actually a very interesting set of suggestions.

I am not necessarily an AF advocate but I am imagining Leica owners 75 years ago or so debating whether it spoiled the whole idea of Barnack's camera to integrate a rangefinder?

Is there not still a problem with the lens mount diameter? Maybe you solve that with a motor in body and screw-drive lenses? Dunno, not my field...

John, I just read your response (don't know how I missed it) and upon rereading my original post can see how my comments might cause some readers to misunderstand my intentions.

First, I am not advocating AF in any form for a future M body. What I am talking about is an external IR emitter/sensor setup similar to the one in the 35/28Ti cameras I mentioned, which rather than auto focussing the lens, would indicate in the M's optical viewfinder when the focus is in agreement. This would be in addition to the superimposed focus patch already in use by the M8. The advantage would be obvious under poor light (or no light, actually), and such a confirmation signal would considerably cut down on the "hunting" for the focus point that we experience using just the optical patch. Just imagine such a setup with a Noctilux!

Some might also mistake my LCD framelines statement for a suggestion to adopt an EVF, which is not my intention at all. The Nikon 35/28Ti has an optical viewfinder just like the Leica M8 (it is a film camera, after all), but instead of projecting a set of cutout frames in metal foil (lit by ambient light), the LCD generates a variable frame outline that is projected into the optical viewfinder.

The advantages to this approach are the display can have much finer frame lines than the metal masks produce, and can adjust the in size along with parallax correction as the lens is focussed. This would eliminate the contentious subject of whether to have framelines optimized for close-up, mid distance, or infinity - they can be accurate at any distance. As in the 35/28Ti, they can be illuminated automatically when the light level drops below a predetermined EV, and you no longer have to clutter the viewfinder with multiple framelines for each lens. when I'm using a 24mm, I don't want a 35mm frame also floating around in the viewfinder. A simple slider switch of course, could bring up far more frames for composition than the six currently available.

Those are are some compelling reasons for an M8 or M8.2 user to move up to an M9 in my opinion. Maybe I am just dreaming here, but the technology in the 35/28Ti has been around for at least 17 years so it should not be such a daunting task to implement.

Along the lines of your statement above, the M has evolved considerably since my first Leica IIIG, and I don't see why the next step should not be a small one. There is much that can be improved without changing the beloved classic shape and handling of the current M...

[jaapv]

It need not be so complicated. A simple mirror in the RF array and detector could do this.

[marknorton]

I hardly think the focussing system of the Nikon 28/35Ti provides a model for Leica to follow.

The IR emitter and sensor form a rangefinder which, by triangulation, allows the approximate distance to whatever is reflecting the IR light back to be determined. As I recall, in the Nikon, there's a stepper motor to adjust the lens position and a look up table to map the measured distance to the number of stepper motor "clicks" required. As Nicole points out, if something is reflecting light back which you are not expecting (a piece of glass) or at a wild angle so that the sensor doesn't see the reflected light (a shiny car), you're in trouble.

I'm sure it works well enough for the modest requirements of a 28/35mm f2/8 lens and the less stringent focussing requirements of film. The Leica Digilux 2 uses the same system and the safety net there is a small sensor and short focal length lens.

If, as in the Leica M, there's no possibility to adjust the focus except manually, the best that could be done would be to measure the position of the focussing cam roller and give a focus confirmation when the cam position matches that expected from the measured rangefinder distance. It's just another proxy focussing device, like the Leica ragnefinder itself and the critical alignment problems would still remain. If the focussing aid tells you your subject is in focus, and it's not, it's failed.

The only way to provide sensible focus confirmation in a Leica M would be to sense actual focus where it most matters - at the sensor - and that means some sort of Live View mode. In an M9, I see different operating modes - a) just as we have now, b) live view with LCD off and framing/focussing confirmation in the viewfinder, c) live view with LCD on and zooming focus assist when the focus ring is turned.

[nzav]

Originally Posted by marknorton

I hardly think the focussing system of the Nikon 28/35Ti provides a model for Leica to follow.

Hi Mark, glad you are weighing in on this. I'm aware of the shortcomings of the Nikon 35/28Ti focusing system (as it existed back in 1992) if transplanted into an M. What I am suggesting is taking the concept, applying it in an updated form, and substituting the AF function with a focus confirmation indicator in the viewfinder in addition to the existing rangefinder.

Originally Posted by marknorton

The IR emitter and sensor form a rangefinder, which, by triangulation, allows the approximate distance to whatever is reflecting the IR light back to be determined. As I recall, in the Nikon, there's a stepper motor to adjust the lens position and a look up table to map the measured distance to the number of stepper motor "clicks" required. As Nicole points out, if something is reflecting light back which you are not expecting (a piece of glass) or at a wild angle so that the sensor doesn't see the reflected light (a shiny car), you're in trouble.

Yes, the 35/28Ti used a triangulation method just as the M's rangefinder does with one important difference – it does not rely on visual judgment subject to the numerous conditions and inconsistencies of human vision. The adaption I proposed would be a continuous focus system free of any stepper motors. I used the 35Ti extensively for several years, typically wide open, and had very few focus errors (mostly mine, not the camera's).

Sorry, I am getting off the subject here because we are not discussing AF for a future M, but the 833 steps of the 35Ti were quite sufficient to produce exceptionally sharp chromes at f2.8 and I had no hesitation about the IR system’s accuracy. Perhaps Nikon sent me some exceptionally tweaked cameras to evaluate, but I have not heard of many complaints regarding focus issues – certainly not as many as with the M8.

I am aware of the few instances where IR would fail, they are well documented and any Ti camera user of the would be aware of them. The cameras provided manual focus for those instances. These same exceptions would apply to the IR system in an Mx and the user would rely on the optical rangefinder for focus under those conditions.

Originally Posted by marknorton

I'm sure it works well enough for the modest requirements of a 28/35mm f2/8 lens and the less stringent focussing requirements of film. The Leica Digilux 2 uses the same system and the safety net there is a small sensor and short focal length lens.

Properly implemented, the system would have the much wider triangulation base of the Leica M rather than the 35/28Ti or Digilux.

Originally Posted by marknorton

If, as in the Leica M, there's no possibility to adjust the focus except manually, the best that could be done would be to measure the position of the focussing cam roller and give a focus confirmation when the cam position matches that expected from the measured rangefinder distance. It's just another proxy focussing device, like the Leica ragnefinder itself and the critical alignment problems would still remain. If the focussing aid tells you your subject is in focus, and it's not, it's failed.

We are in complete agreement here. It is another proxy focusing device, but not one subject to human visual problems, inadequate lighting conditions, or even the position of one’s eye relative to the viewfinder. At the risk of repeating myself, I am not advocating removal of the optical rangefinder nor suggesting any form of AF. The IR confirmation would be in addition to what we already have with the optical rangefinder patch.

The IR could greatly increase the percentage of accurately focused images, and once the user is comfortable with it, would increase the speed one can achieve focus with using just the optical patch alone. If you are shooting through a glass window pane (or reflected highlight which would be an easy optical point of focus), just ignore the confirmation signal and continue focussing using the optical rangefinder.

Under conditions where we M8 users are resorting to eyepiece magnifiers, trying to find the ideal location for our eye relative to the eyepiece, or simply do not have enough light to focus, I believe the proposed IR confirmation system would make shooting with an M much more productive.

Regarding mechanical focus alignment, I would hope that if Leica implemented an IR system of confirmation, it would be calibrated to a high standard. Of course, both the optical and IR focussing systems can become misaligned, which is a possibility with any technology.

Originally Posted by marknorton

The only way to provide sensible focus confirmation in a Leica M would be to sense actual focus where it most matters - at the sensor - and that means some sort of Live View mode. In an M9, I see different operating modes - a) just as we have now, b) live view with LCD off and framing/focussing confirmation in the viewfinder, c) live view with LCD on and zooming focus assist when the focus ring is turned.

Your suggested operating modes are excellent ideas and b) is closest to my suggestion except you prefer a contrast-based focus indicator using the sensor. To the best of my knowledge, current sensor-based systems have their own issues that affect performance – poor subject contrast, not enough light reaching to the sensor. As you stop the lens down, you decrease the sensor’s ability to detect focus (not a problem with SLR auto-diaphragm lenses). Since the proposed IR is an active system, it can function in total darkness – if you can frame it, you can focus on it. I have used both and found each has weaknesses, my personal choice is the active IR, which can be outstanding with today’s technological advances.

I suggested the IR system because it can be a small enough package to be added to the existing rangefinder setup, and would augment a focussing system dependent on human eyesight (with all of its limitations) with a precise measuring device.

I assume sensor-based focus confirmation would require more expense in implementation involving a redesign of the shutter as well as the sensor. The IR solution could be implemented as a retrofit possibly using the existing rangefinder arrangement. I am not an engineer, so I will gladly stand corrected if this is not feasible.

The other point I was making involved the archaic viewfinder frames designed over a half century ago. By today’s standards, they are crude, and asking photographers today to compensate their framelines mentally to the various distances they are focusing through is ridiculous. The technology has been around for some time to project accurate framelines into the current optical viewfinder at any distance and for any lens. In addition, these framelines can be illuminated at a variable intensity to match ambient lighting conditions.

Mark, thanks for commenting, I find your responses very informative.

[BrianP]

Originally Posted by plasticman

This sort of thing has been gone over many times, but would definitely be the death of the system and probably the company as a whole.
What each person with their own personal whim about what they think the camera should be like forgets, is that the vast majority of people who use the M-system choose it precisely because they are happy with the way the camera actually is.

Take a look at the recent poll on Rangefinderforum - a pair of the results:
----------------------------------------------------------------
Auto Focus: 11 users
...
None of the above: 152 users
----------------------------------------------------------------

I could not agree more,Thanks for stating the obvious.
Brian

[jrc]

After telling everybody that there was no possible way that I would buy an Oly E-P1, I went out, handled one, and eventually (after 24 hours) bought it, specifically for use with M lenses (using an adapter from Camera Quest.) One thing I've found is that I can (relatively) quickly and very accurately focus the 90, 135 and Nocti; and that because it's manual focus, the Live View screen provides a kind of loose but immediate visual check on exposure (you don't accidentally leave it at f11 when you wanted f4, because you can see live light levels on the LCD *before* you take the shot, which was something I'd never thought of.)

The 135, by the way, becomes a 270 with the 4/3 system, and the good sensor with the long lens provides an interesting Leica experience. And for $800 US, the E-P1 not a bad backup to an M8, although I understand from reputable sources that there are problems with pixel smearing with the shorter lenses.

All of this in the way of saying that live view, which would also provide an easy way of bringing focus-confirm to the M9, also makes accessible a whole range of longer M lenses. At 270 (effective, with the 135) handholding is a little shaky, but it's possible. And a fullframe 250mm f4 Leica with a D3-class sensor would be a lens/camera combo I might be interested in.

The E-P1, by the way, has a tiny plastic grip where the right-hand fingers hold the camera, and it's the most worthless grip I've ever encountered on a camera. Why in God's name would you make a grip out of hard slippery plastic wedge?

[lct]

Originally Posted by nzav

....I suggested the IR system because it can be a small enough package to be added to the existing rangefinder setup, and would augment a focussing system dependent on human eyesight (with all of its limitations) with a precise measuring device....

Wonder if this IR system would emit some visible red rays as my Sony digicam does. Not that unobtrusive i must say. Would suit well the IR-cut filters though.

[nzav]

Originally Posted by lct

Wonder if this IR system would emit some visible red rays as my Sony digicam does. Not that unobtrusive i must say. Would suit well the IR-cut filters though.

The 35Ti's IR beam is very tight, and at 25ft, the projected focus spot was still considerably smaller than an M6's focus patch as I recall.

The IR system I described is totally invisible, only the camera focussing system (oranyone wearing night vision goggles) would see it... Come to think about it, this could be hazardous to a photojournalist covering a tense situation where it would make military or SWAT team members nervous!

I should have mentioned that downside...