future M with auto focus

[Scott Root]

The M series Leica cameras need to incorporate spot auto focus to attract more users, but keep the sacred rangefinder mechanism. The logic of this is as follows:

The rangefinder system is highly accurate and bright, enabling very accurate focus. There is no "blackout" when taking a picture and the peripheral view has become very important to many of us that cannot be matched by SLR or EVF systems.

I have tried to get my extended family members to use M cameras without success--they like it for static shots but want to throw the camera down when subjects move, despite my attempts to explain to them focusing techniques that can be used with moving subjects. Point is that rangefinder cameras will become attractive to a whole new clientele, if autofocus is integrated.

A spot autofocus feature would keep current manual focus users happy by allowing them to continue to use their exisiting lenses, but will open another market for autofocus M mount lenses that can be put under patent by Leica. The old M mount patent expired and is now getting saturated with Schneider and Zeiss lenses. Leica can begin to offer both manual and autofocus M lenses with patent on the autofocus lenses.

The rangefinder mechanism is much like the R series BMW motorcyles. In the late eightees I bought a K100 BMW motorbike on which I traveled Europe and Turkey for the next four summers. I chose the K series because it was modern and I thought the twin aircooled R100 would become obsolete. I was wrong. The R series BMW is stronger than ever and now often favored because it has a low center of gravity and not as heavy as its watercooled K counterpart. BMW has since modified the engine quite a bit by putting in a cam, not overhead cam, that has greatly reduced "floating valves" and the horsepower has been greatly increased by these changes, to mention a few. Nevertheless, the boxer twin R enigne that was designed before the second word war, and copied endlessly in the East Block, is intrinsically a full-proof design that has inherent virtues not challenged by V, inline horizontal, or inline vertical engine types. I submit to you that the rangefinder is also a full-proof design only needing peripheral improvements to bring it up to the 21st century.

I suggest Leica incorporate spot metering to where there is not double movement of the shutter, which would exclude liveview. The spot metering should be denoted in the viewfinder as a dot or small box. Put in the menu the possibility to turn on and off autofocus, but enacted by partial depression of the shutter to engage autofocus. A nipple size button should also be introdued that can be pushed by one's right thumb to readjust autofocus irrespective of whether or not the shutter is partially depressed. A person could then pan to auto expose and then use the nipple size button to spot autofocus on the subject indendent of the auto expose, but it could be simultaeously carried out without deperesing the nipple size button, all carried out without having to search through menus.

Put all of this in a full frame M camera and if there is not enough space hide the battery in the hand grip like the old Hexar grip to make a camera that will sell like hot cakes, not to mention enabling Leica to reinstate a patent on its autofocus M mount to resell autofocus versoins of its great lenses without competiton from Schneider or Zeiss--all done without upsetting manual focus diehards.

[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
----------------------------------------------------------------

[andybarton]

All looks very complicated to me, and unnecessary.

How many Schneider M-mount lenses are there on the market today?

[jaapv]

If you don't want an RF camera and pine for AF, I would suggest there is plenty out there on the market. 90% of the current M users would not have bought it if it were AF.

[Iansky]

I have just traded in my autofocus Canon full frame DSLR and gone back to the M system purely because I wanted a small, compact manual focus system that allows me to see and adjust apertures on the lens without flashing lights/bells & whistles.

The increase in size of both lenses and body to incorporate an effective system to meet Leica's quality standard would change the size, weight and whole ethos of the M system.

Simple decision - if you want autofocus, buy autofocus - don't expect Leica to kill a proven model to fit your needs and perceived desires of others - it is not good business sense and would be too expensive for Leica to be a viable option.

You could in turn wait for the new "S" system - great autofocus.

[Jamie Roberts]

Scott--give your family members a 35 or 28 or 24 and teach them how to zone focus.

Stop the lens down a bit (f4 will do) and show them how the focus on those lenses can be adjusted by looking at the lens, not just through the RF.

For reference, a 35mm lens on the M8 at f4 and focusing at 8 feet has 3 feet of forgiveness, a 28 has 5 feet and a 24 has over 7 feet (2 in front and 5 behind)!

They don't need to be totally accurate with the RF on moving subjects, in other words, but if you show them how this works it will free them up without the distraction of a ground-glass or LCD

FWIW, in my experience, non-pros regularly miss stuff with AF anyway in my experience because they honestly don't know when AF will work or when it won't. They just put it down to user error and accept a bad shot.

Zone focus, on the other hand, can be a revelation to someone who's never done it before.

I would hate to see AF on an M body personally.

[earleygallery]

Yes, the Conatx G series really proved the point. Where are they now?

[Bill Wendlandt]

Many years ago, when I only had an M6, I considered the Contax G. I thought it might be really nice to have auto focus as I used heavy bifocal glasses. After handling the G, I went and got my eyes corrected with laser surgery. Oh and I kept the M6 and then an M7 an M8..........

[ken_tanaka]

Oh dear. I'm afraid you're missing the point, and charm, of the M system, Scott. It's not a volks-camera, never will be, and never should be. Limited practical applications? Yes. Limited consumer appeal? Most certainly. Requires skill acquired through practice? You betcha. But the M8 can sure reward persistence and skill.

No, the M8 doesn't need auto-focus. There are plenty of other cameras to satisfy that. Rather, unlike any other contemporary digital camera, it requires something of its owner. It requires commitment to photographic craftsmanship from a bygone era.

[redbaron]

Why not just make one yourself and see if it sells?

[trs]

It would be tricky to get the M lens to autofocus

In the serious note, why do you want M to be autofocus? You are changing the basics of camera. You can longer user the M lens. Thus, it is no longer M camera, to me anyway. Besides, if you want AF systems, there are plenty. If you small form factor system, 4/3 are showing up.

[topaz]

Originally Posted by trs

It would be tricky to get the M lens to autofocus

In the serious note, why do you want M to be autofocus? You are changing the basics of camera. You can longer user the M lens. Thus, it is no longer M camera, to me anyway. Besides, if you want AF systems, there are plenty. If you small form factor system, 4/3 are showing up.

I agree. (This is a pointless thread)

[markowich]

jamie,
you know very well that DOF or what you call 'forgiveness' has to be discussed in the context of the desired print size. some people do large prints and their DOF margin is often very reduced. zone focus is a concept of the past (hmmm, maybe as the M system) and focus accuracy has become very important in the digital age. on the other hand, if you only print A4 size, then why use leica? a G10 will do, certainly the new oly pen will produce A4 size prints fairly indistinguishable from the M8. reichmann had an article on this a while ago on LL...
peter

Originally Posted by Jamie Roberts

Scott--give your family members a 35 or 28 or 24 and teach them how to zone focus.

Stop the lens down a bit (f4 will do) and show them how the focus on those lenses can be adjusted by looking at the lens, not just through the RF.

For reference, a 35mm lens on the M8 at f4 and focusing at 8 feet has 3 feet of forgiveness, a 28 has 5 feet and a 24 has over 7 feet (2 in front and 5 behind)!

They don't need to be totally accurate with the RF on moving subjects, in other words, but if you show them how this works it will free them up without the distraction of a ground-glass or LCD

FWIW, in my experience, non-pros regularly miss stuff with AF anyway in my experience because they honestly don't know when AF will work or when it won't. They just put it down to user error and accept a bad shot.

Zone focus, on the other hand, can be a revelation to someone who's never done it before.

I would hate to see AF on an M body personally.

[jaapv]

I must defend Scott a bit here.
Yes - AF would destroy the concept of the camera
Yes- It would lose Leica most of its customer base and leave them to find new customers in a sea filled with sharks.
But -
On this forum in the last time we have lost a number of members who had to sell their M system due to failing eyesight.
It would be possible imo to build in one feature to help those that cannot ( as opposed to will not) use the rangefinder.
AF needs a mirror (or liveview, but let's not go there).
There is one in the system - in the optical rangefinder. It cannot be too difficult to build a focus sensor in there that, if switched on in menu, just gives a discreet beep, or a green led, when the optical system is in focus.
That would imo be the limit of what is needed and desirable.

But, Scott, what makes you so sure Leica would be able or even willing to build a vast number of cameras. At the moment, yes they would like to build a few thousand a year more, but that is a mild complaint compared to the rest of the industry, but an increase of even ten thousand would severely overstrain the production capacity.

[jaapv]

Originally Posted by markowich

jamie,
you know very well that DOF or what you call 'forgiveness' has to be discussed in the context of the desired print size. some people do large prints and their DOF margin is often very reduced. zone focus is a concept of the past (hmmm, maybe as the M system) and focus accuracy has become very important in the digital age. on the other hand, if you only print A4 size, then why use leica? a G10 will do, certainly the new oly pen will produce A4 size prints fairly indistinguishable from the M8. reichmann had an article on this a while ago on LL...
peter

That is quite true, but the present RF system is quite capable of focussing on even fast moving objects, to the mm. The main problem is that many people in general are unwilling to put in the effort to learn, preferring crutches like AF.

[rycm]

I have found myself in many instances wishing that the M8 had autofocus. But realize I that it would spell the end of the unique place the M has in my heart. But if it (future M) have a focus confirmation within the viewfnder, that would be great. Just a green dot would do. I would still like to turn/twist the focus ring.

[scaryink]

Originally Posted by jaapv

That is quite true, but the present RF system is quite capable of focussing on even fast moving objects, to the mm. The main problem is that many people in general are unwilling to put in the effort to learn, preferring crutches like AF.

AF is not a crutch, it is a tool - and a very good one at that. Why do most pros use cameras with AF? Because they need to consistently capture a focused images on the fly and get paid for it.

AF would not harm the uniqueness of the M8 in any way shape or form. All glass could still be used. How do I know?

I have a Rollei 6008AF and the standard 80 AF lens. All other lenses are non AF and work perfectly. Actually the absolute great thing about the kit is focus confirmation.

When shooting in manual focus there is a green light that confirms the focus point. It is spot on accurate and would be a tremendous addition to the M8.

This is the same bitching and moaning that everyone said about the M7 A priority, and now? Everyone thinks it is a great addition to the Leica range and allows you to focus on the taking of the picture rather than distracting you with one additional technical issue. I guarantee you that AF would bring a much larger market to the M8, and many of you would snap one up and wonder what all the fuss was about. Just like the M7 automation.

[St Clair]

Originally Posted by Scott Root

Point is that rangefinder cameras will become attractive to a whole new clientele, if autofocus is integrated.

A Porsche 911 would also become more attractive to a whole new clientele if it had four doors and a boot....

[jaapv]

Originally Posted by scaryink

AF is not a crutch, it is a tool - and a very good one at that. Why do most pros use cameras with AF? Because they need to consistently capture a focused images on the fly and get paid for it.

AF would not harm the uniqueness of the M8 in any way shape or form. All glass could still be used. How do I know?

I have a Rollei 6008AF and the standard 80 AF lens. All other lenses are non AF and work perfectly. Actually the absolute great thing about the kit is focus confirmation.

When shooting in manual focus there is a green light that confirms the focus point. It is spot on accurate and would be a tremendous addition to the M8.

This is the same bitching and moaning that everyone said about the M7 A priority, and now? Everyone thinks it is a great addition to the Leica range and allows you to focus on the taking of the picture rather than distracting you with one additional technical issue. I guarantee you that AF would bring a much larger market to the M8, and many of you would snap one up and wonder what all the fuss was about. Just like the M7 automation.

The fact that pros use a certain feature for convenience does not necessarily make it a sensible addition to an M type camera. I seriously doubt that one pro would buy an M# because of an autofocus feature. Much more meaningful on a DSLR. And it would harm the concept. It is impossible to make the lenses as small as they are now. I don't happen to think the M7 automation is a very good idea. I would prefer the MP. The best feature of AE on the M8 is the ability to switch it off.
Focus confirmation, that I would like...

[Jamie Roberts]

Originally Posted by markowich

{snipped}zone focus is a concept of the past (hmmm, maybe as the M system) and focus accuracy has become very important in the digital age. on the other hand, if you only print A4 size, then why use leica? a G10 will do, certainly the new oly pen will produce A4 size prints fairly indistinguishable from the M8. reichmann had an article on this a while ago on LL...
peter

Well, Peter, not all things from the past are wrong, or outdated. Sorry.

In truth, I zone focus on my D3 too all the time because when AF gives out, you're back to basics and wider angle lenses.

Look, to speak frankly, IMO AF mostly sucks when you need it most

It's a wonder when it works, and I have a D3 that is just about the top of the game when it comes to AF these days (and there are times when it gets shots that I couldn't, or couldn't as easily, with the M8), but it often just doesn't work when the M8 (or DMR come to that) simply keeps going.

None of the mini cameras have AF anything like the D3. Ergo... they suck more (except for when the lens causes "inadvertent" zone focus with a fixed or ultra-wide lens made for a cropped body ). Then it isn't so much focus accuracy providing sharpness as, er, "old-fashioned" zone focus. Except the user doesn't know it. Ignorance is bliss, sometimes.

And yeah, as for prints all looking the same at smaller sizes (or larger ones come to that) if you're running all your camera stuff through Lightroom then it pretty much all looks like Lightroom