UliWer Posted October 30, 2009 Share #21 Posted October 30, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) Why would Leica do worst than Epson? I really don't know, therefore I ask. Manually levered Ms never had more than 1/1000. I think the R8/R9 had the same Copal-Shutter as the M8/9. The Rs have 1/8000. Did they have manual levers? As I never touched a R8/9 I don't know. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 30, 2009 Posted October 30, 2009 Hi UliWer, Take a look here bringing more tradition back to m digital. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
tom0511 Posted October 30, 2009 Share #22 Posted October 30, 2009 ok, this is just a question, and it's about your/mine opinion. just asking what you think or whether you would like it. what would you think if a the next m digital had a 'film' advanced lever on it? obviously it would only be re-cocking the shutter. it would increase battery life, and bring back more of the m tradition. i know time have changed, but i personally wouldn't mind an m digital with an advance lever. it'd be more like shooting film, but not. i know it's simpler to have no lever, but it's just more traditional. whether leica can fit the mechanism in is beside the point, i'm pretty sure they won't try it anyway. just asking whether you'd like it or not. i would. the rd1 has it and I like it. However I dont think it would happen. Still I am happy that Leica has achieved to keep the M8/9 pretty tradional overall and not listed to people with funcky wishes like EVF, AF etc If I had to chosse I would prefer the version with a lever. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted October 30, 2009 Share #23 Posted October 30, 2009 ...The Rs have 1/8000. Did they have manual levers? As I never touched a R8/9 I don't know. Yes they did and still do BTW. What is difficult is to get a fast and quiet shutter at the same time but the M9 seems to have made some good progress on this point. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
georg Posted October 30, 2009 Share #24 Posted October 30, 2009 And they later regretted the decision to implement such a complex design into the R8 instead of using a built-in winder, because it's a compromise which makes the motor-driven (with additional winder) version bulkier, slower and noisier. So they rather went the other, non-traditional way with the M8/9. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ModernMan Posted October 30, 2009 Share #25 Posted October 30, 2009 Perhaps something like an optional Leicavit-style baseplate winder. Quick, quiet winding, without taking the camera away from the eye. Simpler in the camera since no winding lever required, only the Leicavit coupling. And, the Leicavit is very traditional. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted October 30, 2009 Share #26 Posted October 30, 2009 And they later regretted the decision to implement such a complex design into the R8 instead of using a built-in winder.... Interesting indeed, would you have a link about those regrets? All film bodies had manual cocking then if memory serves. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
zlatkob Posted October 31, 2009 Share #27 Posted October 31, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) My vote would be no. Firmly no. I don't see the point in a digital camera imitating another technology. That pretty much defines bad design, like making an automobile imitate a horse-drawn carriage. A film advance lever is not a tradition, it's a lever. And it's a lever that belongs to the film era -- where it had a necessity and a purpose. On a digital camera, it's just one more thing to get in the way of making a photograph. Film traditionalists should really use film and get 100% of their tradition, instead of seeking a digital camera with vestigial parts. Adding a "film" advance lever to a digital camera is like adding a "film" rewind knob to a digital camera, or a film-shaped memory card. There is something very absurd about it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
spylaw4 Posted October 31, 2009 Share #28 Posted October 31, 2009 My vote would be no. Firmly no. I don't see the point in a digital camera imitating another technology. That pretty much defines bad design, like making an automobile imitate a horse-drawn carriage. A film advance lever is not a tradition, it's a lever. And it's a lever that belongs to the film era -- where it had a necessity and a purpose. On a digital camera, it's just one more thing to get in the way of making a photograph. Film traditionalists should really use film and get 100% of their tradition, instead of seeking a digital camera with vestigial parts. Adding a "film" advance lever to a digital camera is like adding a "film" rewind knob to a digital camera, or a film-shaped memory card. There is something very absurd about it. Agreed - well said! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leicaiste Posted October 31, 2009 Share #29 Posted October 31, 2009 All film bodies had manual cocking then if memory serves. Nikon stopped from 1985 with F301, F401, etc From 1988 for the F4, F5 etc Only the FM3 had it recently. Nikon SLR camera models from 1980-1990 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted October 31, 2009 Share #30 Posted October 31, 2009 ... Adding a "film" advance lever to a digital camera is like adding a "film" rewind knob to a digital camera, or a film-shaped memory card. There is something very absurd about it. Nothing to do with film. Just a cocking lever. Saves battery life as well. Very ecological if you ask me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted October 31, 2009 Share #31 Posted October 31, 2009 1) Just so we know - no camera with a vertical blade shutter has ever been made with the ratcheted type of wind lever that allows for multiple short strokes in a small arc. It has something to do with the springing and other construction of the shutter. They have to be wound with a full stroke, or with several short strokes without a ratchet that still add up to one long stroke in terms of the final location of the lever. See Cosina Bessas, R-D1, Nikon FM2, etc. etc. etc.). One of the main appeals to me of the film Leicas (way back when) was this winding pattern compared to the single long stroke of the FM2s - but it requires a horizontal curtain shutter and the associated slowish speeds (1/2000th, 1/90 sync). So I would not be excited much by a long-single-stroke wind lever. 2) But on the subject of "bringing back tradition", I am using my M9 with "soft release" permanently enabled becasue it feels more like an M6 release - which means I no longer have exposure lock - which means I am doing a lot more manual metering instead of depending on "A". And THAT is a lot of fun, and my exposures are better, and more consistent, especially in interesting light. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted October 31, 2009 Share #32 Posted October 31, 2009 Did not like much the single stroke of the CL either but the R-D1's stroke is shorter if memory serves. Never felt the need to do multiple strokes as i did with my M4, M4-2 or M6J. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted October 31, 2009 Share #33 Posted October 31, 2009 ...Only the FM3 had it recently... Thanks to refresh my memory, Lucien, but the FM10 is a current camera with film advance lever as well. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jager Posted October 31, 2009 Share #34 Posted October 31, 2009 I'd vote no. That silky feeling we enjoy when we wind up that next frame on our film M's is mostly related to advancing the film, not re-cocking the shutter. What I would like to see is a "slow-wind" option, one that extends the shutter re-cocking over a handful of seconds, attenuating the sound it makes. The Nikon F4 had that. In combination with discreet mode, it would go a long way towards giving us back the quiet-environment performance we enjoy with our film M's. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bybrett Posted October 31, 2009 Share #35 Posted October 31, 2009 My vote would be no. Firmly no. I don't see the point in a digital camera imitating another technology. That pretty much defines bad design, like making an automobile imitate a horse-drawn carriage. A film advance lever is not a tradition, it's a lever. And it's a lever that belongs to the film era -- where it had a necessity and a purpose. On a digital camera, it's just one more thing to get in the way of making a photograph. Film traditionalists should really use film and get 100% of their tradition, instead of seeking a digital camera with vestigial parts. Adding a "film" advance lever to a digital camera is like adding a "film" rewind knob to a digital camera, or a film-shaped memory card. There is something very absurd about it. M film cameras can be manual advance or motor wind. Why should digital M only be motor driven? Digital is the technology not the mechanics... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted October 31, 2009 Share #36 Posted October 31, 2009 My vote would be no. Firmly no. I don't see the point in a digital camera imitating another technology. That pretty much defines bad design, like making an automobile imitate a horse-drawn carriage. A film advance lever is not a tradition, it's a lever. And it's a lever that belongs to the film era -- where it had a necessity and a purpose. On a digital camera, it's just one more thing to get in the way of making a photograph. Film traditionalists should really use film and get 100% of their tradition, instead of seeking a digital camera with vestigial parts. Adding a "film" advance lever to a digital camera is like adding a "film" rewind knob to a digital camera, or a film-shaped memory card. There is something very absurd about it. That lever also re-cocks the shutter...even a digital camera needs to do that. I'm fine with another, more modern, method to silence that action, but that lever worked fine for that purpose. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted October 31, 2009 Share #37 Posted October 31, 2009 Is there room? Would a geared mechanism add to the cost of the camera? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted October 31, 2009 Share #38 Posted October 31, 2009 I've suggested this several times, and my suggestion is usually followed by people telling me how it would never sell. Should tell you enough no? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
toyfel Posted October 31, 2009 Share #39 Posted October 31, 2009 Advance lever on a digital? No, thanks. Would people crank-start their car engine to save battery life? Guess not. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.