comapedrosa Posted December 18, 2009 Share #21 Posted December 18, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) To the question "Who would like an M9 with optional autofocus", my answer is a resolute "I WOULD". As to "do i know how to achieve it" or "should/could Leica do it", or "would it be the right strategy for them": i don't know and frankly, i'll leave that up to them. That said, let's not make a circular argument here: if enough people like it and are willing to pay for it, Leica will find a positive answer to the feasibility and profitability questions i listed above... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted December 18, 2009 Posted December 18, 2009 Hi comapedrosa, Take a look here Who would like an M 9 autofocus?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
adan Posted December 18, 2009 Share #22 Posted December 18, 2009 Zlatkob - I love your "Faux News" approach - you are the one who introduced "sucks" into the conversation, so don't pretend it was a word we used.... But since your raised the question of the X1 and S2: The X1 is a P&S camera not even on my radarscope. But then, Leica's compact cameras have never been on my 'scope all the way back to the CL (nor have anyone else's). I don't "do" P&S. The S2 is also not on my personal buy list, for a host of reasons other than AF/not AF. Not a photojournalists' camera - nor aimed at that market. I'm not against "autofocus" per se - I am, however, totally unimpressed by every real-world implementation of it I've ever seen so far. Here is what I want in a camera: Durable hardware focusing - brass (or aluminum) threads moving against threads to move the glass around, driven by a focus ring or tab on the lens. No focus-by-wire. No flimsy-feeling geared focus rings. Aperture rings on the lenses a must. Split-image focus-aid (only) in finder area - I can accept a focus-confirm light outside the image area (a la Contax RX). Complete manual override - I can turn off the AF and never know it is there. No residual red flashing rectangles in the finder, no sloppy feel to the focus rings. No increase in size of camera or lenses. If an AF system can meet those criteria, fine. Otherwise (to be blunt) please don't screw up the last remaining pure manual-focus system left, just to compensate for your own inability to focus. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted December 18, 2009 Share #23 Posted December 18, 2009 So, are those against autofocus saying that the $2K X1 and the $23K S2 basically suck and that they're not Leicas? Are those just automatic/spandex cameras? Hmmmm. Doesn't it stand to reason that if Leica can make autofocus cameras in APS-C (X1) format and medium format (S2), that they can also make a very good autofocus camera in-between in the popular 35mm size? Would it be such a crime to make that camera M-sized, essentially M-shaped, and, most of all, of M-quality? They can continue to make manual focus Ms until the end of the time; the AF camera could be a new product line sold side-by-side with the M. zlatkob, I like to manually focus M lenses using the M range finder. I have zero interest in AF for the M (range finder) system. Zero. The advantages of the manual focus on the M range finder have been stated many times. I prefer these advantages to any of the advantages of any AF systems. And, to head off the argument that I could just turn it off or they could exist side by side on the same camera... no. I don't want anything that would make it bigger, harder to use, or more complicated. I don't get why you want to shove AF down everyone's throat on the M. Next, you want to know if it could exist on a camera the same size as the M and they could still offer the manual M? Fine, what ever you want. But, to be very clear, I want to continue to use my existing M-lenses on a M range finder digital camera and I have no interest in even having one little switch on the camera that turns on and off AF. And, no, I don't think that the X1 or the S1 "suck" because they have AF. Most of us that have M-cameras also have AF systems and I would be confidant that most of us don't think they suck. I'd love to have the X1 and the S1! Instead I have a lesser point and shoot and a lowly 5D2 and I don't think they suck at all. I like AF on both and never shoot manual focus on either. You miss the point here by a mile. But, to be clear, I have ZERO interest in AF for my M9. Not even if the AF button crapped money out the mini-USB door every time I used it. I guess, some will get this and some won't. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stealthman_1 Posted December 18, 2009 Share #24 Posted December 18, 2009 But, to be clear, I have ZERO interest in AF for my M9. Not even if the AF button crapped money out the mini-USB door every time I used it. That is just classic! Made my night. I would agree. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vip Posted December 18, 2009 Author Share #25 Posted December 18, 2009 OK . I see the point of making the lens heavier and bigger because the AF integration and waisting the compatibility. But why not having 3 led in viewfinder ( as the exposition one's) to confirm the focus precision for those who does not see well, or for lens > 75mm where the object dimension in the viewfinder dedicated area becomes small? What the opinion and in case why not? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stealthman_1 Posted December 18, 2009 Share #26 Posted December 18, 2009 Because the focus confirmation in the best Nikon AF system out there, the arguably best AF system in the world, is not accurate enough to correctly inform the user of precise focus for lenses with larger apertures than f2.8. AF as it is employed currently in the top AF cameras would be of limited to no benefit (depending on your level of sight degradation) on a Summicron, Summilux, or Noctilux lens. Heck many people struggle with the D3 and AF on f2.8 lenses that are wider in focal length (14-24 and 17-35). You would be far better off to buy a magnifier to assist you. It's as simple as that. The camera has very well defined strengths and significant weaknesses in many areas of photography (macro, tele). Playing its strengths to the maximum and not trying to cram fixes for the weakness into it, is in reality, one of its greatest strengths. Sad to say, but a rangefinder probably isn't the best camera for anyone with significant sight impairments. Believe me, if I were to begin to loose my sight to the point of having difficulty focusing a rangefinder, I'd begrudgingly go to the Zeiss Ikon and if that didn't work, then I'd just shoot the Blad. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted December 18, 2009 Share #27 Posted December 18, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) An autofocus thread:confused: Has the week passed so quickly? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted December 18, 2009 Share #28 Posted December 18, 2009 OK . I see the point of making the lens heavier and bigger because the AF integration and waisting the compatibility.But why not having 3 led in viewfinder ( as the exposition one's) to confirm the focus precision for those who does not see well, or for lens > 75mm where the object dimension in the viewfinder dedicated area becomes small? What the opinion and in case why not? I get what you are going after. You want an M that is small and uses the great Leica lenses and has that quality Leica feel and you want AF. Here is what I want: In a future, and I am totally serious, there will be a small camera (like the M) that has a 200MP sensor that has almost no noise and has an AF system that is beyond anything that we can imagine. It will have power and speed and picture quality that is quantum leaps ahead of what we have now. It will be able to make images without effort that are so good that we will laugh at what we are viewing today. But, my dream of the future is that I will be here, on this forum, typing this: I know that the new M20 is 1.5 years behind the current sensor technology and I know that the M20 doesn't have auto focus and I know that 186MP of the M20 is inferior to the new 200MP sensors available and I know that the DR of the new Leica is 1/2 stop lower than the dynamic range of the newer sensors that have 30 stops of dynamic range... But, to be clear, I have ZERO interest in AF for my M9. Not even if the AF button crapped money out the mini-USB door every time I used it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted December 18, 2009 Share #29 Posted December 18, 2009 An autofocus thread:confused: Has the week passed so quickly? Come on, It's the weekend. Can't we have a little fun? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted December 18, 2009 Share #30 Posted December 18, 2009 The optomechanical rangefinder is totally superior to any AF system, for all the focal lengths that Leica now are offering for the M. This is because you can see exactly what you are focusing on, and that you are focusing on it. You can do that with a reflex finder too -- but not with AF. What you get is, with some luck, a light that tells you that the camera imps 'think' they have found something to focus on. With even more luck, it may be the thing you intended it to focus on. But there is no assurance. I think most users of AF systems, if they are honest, could attest to the accuracy of the last claim. I am not saying this because of some kind of Luddite anti-tech stance. I have been thinking quite a bit about possible ways to implement an AF, or at least an electronic focus confirmation feature, into a camera with a direct, non-reflex finder. One of the problems is to be certain about what is being metered. Remember, such a system cannot work through the lens. That would necessitate an array of folding mirrors -- and who would want a SLR camera without a SLR finder? So the AF system would have to work 'upstairs, just like the present RF, and be co-ordinated with the lens focusing just as now. I did make the picture below with the Noctilux 0.95 wide open on my own M9. The subject is a salesperson at my own Leica provider, Schönherrs Foto in Stockholm. The cardboard-thin focus is exactly on his near eye (and on the exquisite half-Windsor of his Leica tie). With AF, I would have been lucky to get focus somewhere around his face. Maybe face recognition would have helped ... Now, if you don't have any intentions at all, but are happy to take what the imps are dishing out to you, why then AF may be just the right thing for you. The old man from the Age of Progressive Specs Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/107011-who-would-like-an-m-9-autofocus/?do=findComment&comment=1155327'>More sharing options...
nhabedi Posted December 18, 2009 Share #31 Posted December 18, 2009 Generally, I don't want autofocus in the M system for the reasons others have mentioned. I would also be very surprised if the fine people at Solms would ever consider this. Having said that, I find the recently introduced system from Hasselblad where the camera compensates if you focused on something off center and then recomposed very interesting. I don't know how this works in practice and I doubt it can be implemented in the M (the Hasselblad has one-point AF), but the idea ain't bad. Especially as I see this to be the only small weakness of manual rangefinder focusing - recomposing after focusing on nearby subjects within a short distance and with the lens wide open. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill Posted December 18, 2009 Share #32 Posted December 18, 2009 Hang on, let me just see... *rummages around* I left it here somewhere... I had it just a week ago... *sound of more rummaging* Ah yes, here it is, stock answer #1 "No I do not want autofocus for all the reasons already stated - I would quite like focus confirmation for those times that I am working quickly." ok? Regards, Bill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mokkacream Posted December 18, 2009 Share #33 Posted December 18, 2009 Who would like an M9 with optional autofocus or aided focus with viefinder help?In case of not or yes why? Why again that question for the x' time? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwelland Posted December 18, 2009 Share #34 Posted December 18, 2009 Why again that question for the x' time? Newbie ... (no offence) If you wait a few days there will be another firmware feature question, best lens for M9, what bag for M9, a photoshop mock up of a Frankenstein M10 with DSLR buttons, EVF, autofocus & live view ... ... etc etc. It's just a matter of time. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rgp Posted December 18, 2009 Share #35 Posted December 18, 2009 I would suggest it is not what will Leica do in the future, but what will their competitors do. Mr Nikon and Mr Canon CEO, will no doubt be viewing M9 sales and be thinking, why don't we produce a small autofocus range finder (obvious contax G2 thinking). We can do it for less, sell more. R Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted December 18, 2009 Share #36 Posted December 18, 2009 I highly doubt that a camera maker selling hundreds of thousands, even millions of cameras a year would be seriously interested in diverting R&D funds into a niche market with an average sales of about 12.000 a year.There is the Epson-RD1 failure to consider as well (before I get flamed - not the camera itself - I mean the marketing and aftersales flop resulting in a "never again" attitude at Epson) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nhabedi Posted December 18, 2009 Share #37 Posted December 18, 2009 I would suggest it is not what will Leica do in the future, but what will their competitors do. Mr Nikon and Mr Canon CEO, will no doubt be viewing M9 sales and be thinking, why don't we produce a small autofocus range finder (obvious contax G2 thinking). We can do it for less, sell more. Not sure about that. The sales of the M9, however impressive they might be for Leica, very likely aren't in a range that makes them interesting for Canon or Nikon given that essentially they'd have to design a whole new system from scratch. But I'd sure like to see a digital rangefinder from Nikon. Competition in this area would certainly be welcome. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted December 18, 2009 Share #38 Posted December 18, 2009 Given that Zeiss, with existing RF cameras, a lens system, vast digital experience and massive Japanese backing by Sony bowed out of the DRF market because they found that it would be uneconomic to compete with Leica, is an indication that there cannot be much to interest Canon or Nikon. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mhoersch Posted December 18, 2009 Share #39 Posted December 18, 2009 Having both auto focus and manual focus M lines would dliute R and D and enthusiasm. I think it would be too risky... The R enthusiasm, I'm afraid, has already been diluted somewhat by Leica abandoning the R altogether... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Ash Posted December 18, 2009 Share #40 Posted December 18, 2009 In my opinion an autofokus would seriously spoil the M-system. But I could live with an optional focus confirmation system if it would not increase the body size. That being said I would not mind if Leica would offer a M-size camera with autofokus in a separate product line. Regards Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.