jaapv Posted December 22, 2009 Share #101 Posted December 22, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) Rather than using AF to capture those fast-moving kids - how about using this hot-shoe accesory to slow them down? Wackiest hot-shoe attachement - Photo.net Casual Photo Conversations Forum If you have a wooden or stone floor this would seem to be the perfect accessory 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=1159913'>More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted December 22, 2009 Posted December 22, 2009 Hi jaapv, Take a look here Who would like an M 9 autofocus?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
luigi bertolotti Posted December 22, 2009 Share #102 Posted December 22, 2009 .... So I don't think the answer is an AF-M. However, Leica is talking about showing a new camera next fall. Given how long they allowed themselves to perfect a camera such as the S2 after showing it, I suspect the next camera will be very much like a full frame version of the Panasonic GH1. I strongly suggest everyone try a GH1 in their hands. The EVIL on this camera is very impressive. In 18 months, the EVIL will be as good as we might demand. So will the AF. I suspect this Leica will be an E series. It will optionally take M lenses, and R lenses. but it will be designed for E lenses. Don't laugh unless you have looked through the EVIL on a G1 or GH1, and then imagine an18 month evolution. Me too think that this could be a possible scenario, depending on Leica investiment capacity and Panasonic relationship' status : in my opinion Leica WILL NOT have a M with autofocus... it's too out from the RF concept... but this doesn't mean they will not make an AF (probably, FF) camera with some compatibility with legacy lenses. If and when the design of the GH1 can be "stretched" to FF...imagine it Leica-branded (built ? ) with some good ZAF-Elmar (Zoom-AF) and M (R too ?) glass capabilty... frankly I think many of us simply will buy it... me included. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nugat Posted December 22, 2009 Share #103 Posted December 22, 2009 However, Leica is talking about showing a new camera next fall. Given how long they allowed themselves to perfect a camera such as the S2 after showing it, I suspect the next camera will be very much like a full frame version of the Panasonic GH1. ...I suspect this Leica will be an E series. It will optionally take M lenses, and R lenses. but it will be designed for E lenses. Don't laugh unless you have looked through the EVIL on a G1 or GH1, and then imagine an18 month evolution. If this is true (do you have a link to this claim source?) this would be a camera for me to wait for. M7 form factor, built in EVF of exquisite quality,M glass compatibility... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted December 22, 2009 Share #104 Posted December 22, 2009 It would be interesting to see how Leica/Kodak resolve the difference in microlens configuration between SLR and RF sensors in that case. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMacD Posted December 22, 2009 Share #105 Posted December 22, 2009 Nugat, I have no link to a source. I am extrapolating statements and trends. Leica said they have no interest in the 4/3 system. That does not mean they have no interest in the micro concept of no mirror. Both the mirror of an SLR and a rangefinder for focus are expensive bulky mechanical systems. The U leica had no rangefinder, That was added merely to measure distance. Today measurement of distance can be done in multiple ways. An electronic viewfinder is not as good as optical viewing today, but the GH1 is getting closer. What Leica does best is lenses. They build cameras to hold those lenses. If they can anticipate perfection of electronic viewfinders, why not plan ahead for a camera that can utilize that. And auto-focus? Sure, but I like manual focus as an option always. An electronic viewfinder can allow for electronic enlargement of the critical area for augmented manual focus too. Better than what I recall of manual focus through a SLR in the manual focus days. Pretty sure Leica will head in this direction. Maybe as an X2 rather than a E1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mc_k Posted December 22, 2009 Share #106 Posted December 22, 2009 Do we really? I prefer the R for focal length. Focussing speed seems to me to be similar, better on the M than the R at short focal lengths even. no I was thinking of focusing accuracy, not speed, with moving subjects at typical M focal lengths. I have not really seen the M used commercially in that kind of setting, but I know the R is sometimes. When the rangefinder camera went digital it really highlighted that the focusing system is less than perfect. Hopefully Leica will keep improving the mechanical focusing system and not get lost in all the problems on the digital side. The new test rig is a nod in that direction. I like the idea of the rangefinder beating the AF camera, and it's still a horse vs. steam engine race where the horse can win; but AF will get better and better, and the rangefinder should, too. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tobey bilek Posted December 23, 2009 Share #107 Posted December 23, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) Enzo wonldn`t allow syncro`s in his racing gearboxes. Drivers missed a lot of shifts and photogs miss a lot of shots. But anybody can drive a synchro or auto or point an AF camera. But we are not anybody. Perfect as is. Leave well enough alone. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
250swb Posted December 24, 2009 Share #108 Posted December 24, 2009 Enzo wonldn`t allow syncro`s in his racing gearboxes. Drivers missed a lot of shifts and photogs miss a lot of shots. But anybody can drive a synchro or auto or point an AF camera. But we are not anybody. Perfect as is. Leave well enough alone. And when the driver did miss a gear the resulting retirement was put down as 'electrical failure', Ferrari code words for the alternator being destroyed by a rod coming through the side of the engine I think AF can often be faster than MF, and often MF can be faster than AF. But there are currently few cameras that are fully featured enough to do both well, just as there are no cameras that do everything well. Which leads me to think that there is no reason to change the 'M' concept, and all it would entail with needing a new range of lenses. An AF 'M' would still not be a universal camera, it would still be niche. Technology is subtly changing. Manufacturers in all spheres are pulling back from cramming everything plus the kitchen sink into new products because customer surveys are saying they mostly don't want or need it, they just want something that works simply and reliably. In this future world a MF 'M' would not be out of place or considered old fashioned. Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vip Posted December 24, 2009 Author Share #109 Posted December 24, 2009 OK!! But a device who can keep the rangefinder , the manual focus,the lens but add a focus ceck signal can help for longer focus and difficult conditions Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
redbaron Posted December 24, 2009 Share #110 Posted December 24, 2009 That little rectangle in the centre of the frame is actually a focus check signal. When it lines up the subject is in focus. It just doesn't go beep or flash pretty lights at you. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ModernMan Posted December 25, 2009 Share #111 Posted December 25, 2009 ...Manufacturers in all spheres are pulling back from cramming everything plus the kitchen sink into new products because customer surveys are saying they mostly don't want or need it, they just want something that works simply and reliably. ... Really? Some examples please? Resoundingly successful products last year include Apple's iPhone, which packs more features and functionality than its predecessors or competition, and in fact sets a new standard for feature content. Similarly new camera offerings from Canon, Nikon, and even Leica (S2) appear to evidence a reality diametrically opposed your assertion. So, perhaps you could let us know of any factual evidence you are aware of that supports the notion of a future world where manufacturers are dumbing down their products as a result of market research, and a manual focus only camera is not out of place. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ModernMan Posted December 25, 2009 Share #112 Posted December 25, 2009 That little rectangle in the centre of the frame is actually a focus check signal. When it lines up the subject is in focus. It just doesn't go beep or flash pretty lights at you. The little rectangle contains raw data that enables the user to assess focus, conditions permitting. The pretty lights would preumably be an actual focus confirmation indication. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ModernMan Posted December 25, 2009 Share #113 Posted December 25, 2009 Perfect as is. Leave well enough alone. Certainly, as my IIIf was. And the IIIa before it. Why on earth did Leica mess with that perfection? To make something bigger, more complex and more expensive? They should have left well enough alone. Any having introduced the M3, which is also perfect, then why all the "innovation": MP M4, M5, M6, M7? For what -- the M3 was perfect, right? And now digital. Where will it end? Perhaps here and now with the M9, because, as you say, its perfect and they should leave well enough alone. Do I have that right? Surely you're joking. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
redbaron Posted December 25, 2009 Share #114 Posted December 25, 2009 So how is a blinking light more accurate than the rangefinder square, Modern?What does 'actual' mean? Is it better than M's theoretical focus? Talk about dumbing down! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
250swb Posted December 25, 2009 Share #115 Posted December 25, 2009 Really? Some examples please? Resoundingly successful products last year include Apple's iPhone, which packs more features and functionality than its predecessors or competition, and in fact sets a new standard for feature content. Lol, and how many people bought the resoundingly successful iPhone, and how many instead bought a simple phone because that is all they wanted, a phone? I'll give you a clue, the iPhone didn't come out on top. It won't come out on top next year either, or the year after or...... Don't judge success by the gadget page in your favourite magazine, or who is spending most on advertising, or surveys of customer fantasy's, judge it on the background spending of ordinary people doing ordinary things and wanting an ordinary product to do it with. A Porsche 911 GTwhatever, a Canon 5D Mk whatever, a 48" plasma whatever TV or any other gadget will ever outsell the base model. So Toyota will always outsell Porsche, a P&S will always outsell a Canon DSLR,.... do you get the idea? Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted December 25, 2009 Share #116 Posted December 25, 2009 So how is a blinking light more accurate than the rangefinder square... You don't get it at all. Think of a camera like a gameboy sort of and you'll comprehend the blinking light philosophy. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ModernMan Posted December 25, 2009 Share #117 Posted December 25, 2009 So how is a blinking light more accurate than the rangefinder square, Modern?What does 'actual' mean? Is it better than M's theoretical focus?Talk about dumbing down! Didn't say it was more accurate. Just a point of fact: the rangefinder superimposition rectangle is not focus confirmation in and of itself. It provides raw data which the user can process to estimate whether focus is confirmed or not. Whereas, a focus confirmation system processes the raw data and tells you whether focus is confirmed or not (and perhaps which way its off). So, the little rectangle in the rangefinder is not a focus confirmation indication. If one were to build an autofocus M, there would have to be an actual focus confirmation system to control the autofocus. As for dumbing down, you make a good point: decontenting (removing functionality) is not the same as dumbing down. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted December 25, 2009 Share #118 Posted December 25, 2009 ...the rangefinder superimposition rectangle... provides raw data... What's this story Modern? Do you refer to the focus patch of an M rangefinder? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knomad Posted December 25, 2009 Share #119 Posted December 25, 2009 No. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ModernMan Posted December 26, 2009 Share #120 Posted December 26, 2009 Lol, and how many people bought the resoundingly successful iPhone, and how many instead bought a simple phone because that is all they wanted, a phone? I'll give you a clue, the iPhone didn't come out on top. It won't come out on top next year either, or the year after or...... Don't judge success by the gadget page in your favourite magazine, or who is spending most on advertising, or surveys of customer fantasy's, judge it on the background spending of ordinary people doing ordinary things and wanting an ordinary product to do it with. A Porsche 911 GTwhatever, a Canon 5D Mk whatever, a 48" plasma whatever TV or any other gadget will ever outsell the base model. So Toyota will always outsell Porsche, a P&S will always outsell a Canon DSLR,.... do you get the idea? Steve Here's some facts you may find interesting. Nielsen (the market research firm) recently reported that the iPhone had the largest share of "embedded base of all subscribers" in the US. The Morotola RAZR had the largest share of what you call "simple" phones, and it was a bit more than half the iPhone. See the report here: Top Mobile Phones, Sites and Brands for 2009 | Nielsen Wire In terms of absolute numbers, the analyst consensus seems to be that 10 million iPhones will be sold in this calendar quarter (according to an article in DigitTimes). I'm not making guesses on market data based on advertising or gadget pages in magazine. What data are your assertions based on? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.