jlancasterd Posted January 7, 2007 Share #21 Posted January 7, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) I'd love a M camera with a 1:1 finder like on Nikon rangefinders. Both eyes open with a really quiet shutter. Have you tried the Voigtlander R3A? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 7, 2007 Posted January 7, 2007 Hi jlancasterd, Take a look here New M Film Camera Due. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
harmsr Posted January 7, 2007 Share #22 Posted January 7, 2007 Tim, If we are dreaming about single electronic frames lines, lets go one step farther. I also would love to see the clean, uncluttered single frames lines. Since they are going to know what the lens is and where it is at in the focus range, how about frame lines that adjust in size based on the focus distance? We could also ask for a thinner line which defines the metering area, as they did in the M5. Then they could also actually show shutter speeds in manual mode also, ala the M5 or Zeiss Ikon. I would also want the larger finder as found in the Zeiss Ikon, as I wear glasses. If Leica made some of these improvements along with the shutter change and flash improvement, I know that I would be buying at least one. Just my $.02. Ray Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gberger Posted January 7, 2007 Share #23 Posted January 7, 2007 I'm 83+, with macular degeneration. Because focusing IS a problem, I've switched to the 24mm as a primary lens so that I can zone focus and still shoot. Having said that, IMO, to build a rangefinder camera with a focusing aid to satisfy a marginal market would be foolish Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimF Posted January 7, 2007 Share #24 Posted January 7, 2007 Since they are going to know what the lens is and where it is at in the focus range, how about frame lines that adjust in size based on the focus distance? Ray, That very thought occurred to me after posting my last. Whether it would be feasible depends I suppose on whether the movement of the rangefinder cam in the body is consistent regardless of focal length, and indeed lens variation within any given focal length (ie, Summicron, Summilux, Elmarit etc). Having to program all such data in for every lens available would be a PITA perhaps. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
reprobit Posted January 7, 2007 Share #25 Posted January 7, 2007 I guess a shutter with an 1/8000 speed. we could use f stop 1,4 with 50 ISO film in bright sunlight. perhaps the selective metering will be changed from wide rectangle to spot. what are the odds? Bernd Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicapfile Posted January 8, 2007 Share #26 Posted January 8, 2007 A new film M with the M8 shutter would seem to be a no brainer. Probably cheaper to produce, a more accurate higher speed shutter, higher synch flash, etc. Taller top plate due to the electronics board I imagine, but that's a small price for the benefits. The M7 would probably be reduced to ala-carte, if retained at all. Jerry Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
telyt Posted January 8, 2007 Share #27 Posted January 8, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) Whether it would be feasible depends I suppose on whether the movement of the rangefinder cam in the body is consistent regardless of focal length Yes it is. An M-camera (and LTM for that matter) has always "known" what the subject distance is, except for when 'goggles' of any kind are used, i.e., 135mm Elmarit, DR goggles, goggled 35mm lenses, 90mm Elmar's macro goggles. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marknorton Posted January 8, 2007 Share #28 Posted January 8, 2007 So, do we think this would be M7 sized, with the new shutter, or M8-sized, retro-fitted for film? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thrid Posted January 8, 2007 Share #29 Posted January 8, 2007 I don't think you could fit the M8 shutter in a body as thin as the M7 etc., but then again i could be wrong. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicapfile Posted January 8, 2007 Share #30 Posted January 8, 2007 I've never had a M8 body in hand, but understand the increase in thickness is due to the LCD screen. Height wise, are not the M7 and M8 the same? If so, I wouldn't think there would be a problem with fit. Wind lever would be necessary to retain though, as battery power to cock the shutter (as with the M8) wouldn't be enough to last very long at all. Jerry Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted January 8, 2007 Share #31 Posted January 8, 2007 Wind lever would be necessary to retain though, as battery power to cock the shutter (as with the M8) wouldn't be enough to last very long at all. If you do away with the wind lever you not only need power to cock the shutter but something to wind the film. Incorporating a motor to wind the film would inevitably change the long established M shape and size. If we see a film M9 (or M7.2) it would almost certainly include the traditional manual film wind (with the option of accessory motor wind). Personally, I can see the attraction of a film M camera with the shutter speeds and flash sync of the M8 but, already owning two M7 bodies, it is very unlikely that I would consider buying one. I suspect I am not untypical of the established Leica customer base. As such, I'm not convinced there is the market out there nowadays to justify the development of a new M film camera. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicapfile Posted January 9, 2007 Share #32 Posted January 9, 2007 Ian, I concur with your point about winding the film via the traditional wind lever. It was such a given to me that I neglected to address that aspect of its function. That said, the electronic shutter of the M8, if cocked manually to lessen power consumption as with the M7s focal plane shutter would be an 'evolutionary', rather than revolutionary move. Except to the purists, despite the obvious advantages. I suspect it will sell. Jerry Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted January 9, 2007 Share #33 Posted January 9, 2007 Jerry, I agree that incorporating the M8 shutter into a conventional hand-wound M body would be a sensible evolutionary step. I'd even go further and say that a number of Leica users have been clamouring for such a Leica. A modern Leica with both AE and 1/8000 (and 1/250 sync) is what the M7 should always have been. Leica purists and fetishists always have the MP to turn to if the metal shutter is not to their taste. However, Leica has never really been a company that provides it's customers with what they want - 'Leica has always been right' when it comes to the relationship between company and customer. My feeling is that Leica has changed substantially from this position in recent years but I can't help wonder whether it is too late in the day for Leica to consider spending development time on a new film M. Hopefully I'm wrong about this - it would certainly be true that a new film M would spark interest again in the M film body line (much like what happened with the introduction of the M7 and MP in recent years) but whether it would create sufficient sales for the project to be worthwhile is the big question. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimF Posted January 9, 2007 Share #34 Posted January 9, 2007 I can't help wonder whether it is too late in the day for Leica to consider spending development time on a new film M. I'd imagine that several test bodies were constructed during development of the M8, in order to test out various non-digital components (its suggested this is how the Nikon F6 came to pass). In that case, much of the R&D will already have been done. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ddp Posted January 9, 2007 Share #35 Posted January 9, 2007 I still think there are those out there that seek M film bodies - there have been more than a few times when I wished I had a higher shutter speed so I could shoot wide open. As it is, I opt for slower speed film and I haven't ruled out picking up a few ND filters for this. Sales of the MP surprised Leica - I know I wasn't looking to buy a new body when it came out, but I've bought two. I'm sure there would be those buying a buffed up M7. At this point - the MP3 is what I'm looking at now - only becuase I want the aesthetics of the M3 in a metering body. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted January 9, 2007 Share #36 Posted January 9, 2007 I'd imagine that several test bodies were constructed during development of the M8, in order to test out various non-digital components (its suggested this is how the Nikon F6 came to pass). In that case, much of the R&D will already have been done. Tim, you might be right about the R&D but there would still be substantial costs involved going from creating a few prototypes in the machine shop to serial production. Don't get me wrong, I'd be very pleased if Leica determined they had a market for a new film body but I just can't see it personally. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
reddawn Posted January 11, 2007 Share #37 Posted January 11, 2007 I've never had a M8 body in hand, but understand the increase in thickness is due to the LCD screen. Height wise, are not the M7 and M8 the same? If so, I wouldn't think there would be a problem with fit. Wind lever would be necessary to retain though, as battery power to cock the shutter (as with the M8) wouldn't be enough to last very long at all. Jerry Actually I think it would be a good idea to retain everything about the M8 sans the LCD and the digital parts. This means keeping the single, continous mode of shooting (no more motor winder needed) and doing away with the wind lever. Such a body (M7-2?) would be modern enough to satisfy users who are looking for innovations to the M line to sink more money into a new M body, as well as retain MOST of the traditional feel and aesthetics none of us M users are willing to give up. Then Leica would have 3 separate distinct lines - the MP, for the purists and traditionalists, featuring all mechanical body, battery independence, "mechanical perfection". Ocasionally modded for special edition sales by putting a flag or rooster or emblem etc on the top plate..... - M7-2 (?), the modern M, with high speed flash sync, AE, 1/8000 shutter speeds, single / continous shooting modes, but still retaining the compactness and form factor of all Ms and compatibility with all M mount lenses. Great for fast paced situations... - M8, for those that like magenta... ok..sorry couldn't resist This would be the digital equivalent, and the one that Leica will be focusing most of its resources on... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicapfile Posted January 11, 2007 Share #38 Posted January 11, 2007 David, Continous shooting would be a good thing to have, but as someone pointed out wouldn't that be available with a detachable winder/drive? Within the basic body, there just isn't enough juice available to do all those things, or space for larger batteries. Jerry Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
reddawn Posted January 11, 2007 Share #39 Posted January 11, 2007 David, Continous shooting would be a good thing to have, but as someone pointed out wouldn't that be available with a detachable winder/drive? Within the basic body, there just isn't enough juice available to do all those things, or space for larger batteries. Jerry Jerry u're right. I was thinking of the same bottom loading battery as the M8 but then I realised it would intrude into the film transport chamber of a film M..... One possible enhancement I can think of is a new M grip that would replace the bottom plate, but with a battery slot in the grip itself that will enable and power the continuous shooting mode. Without it, the M would still rely on the rewind lever but the continous mode will be disabled. An enhanced M grip would not add too much to the size of the M, and would provide extra stability in handholding the M when not using the rewind lever for leverage. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted January 11, 2007 Share #40 Posted January 11, 2007 One possible enhancement I can think of is a new M grip that would replace the bottom plate, but with a battery slot in the grip itself that will enable and power the continuous shooting mode. Without it, the M would still rely on the rewind lever but the continous mode will be disabled. This is exactly what you have with the current M camera plus M-motor (albeit with a 'bouncing' shutter release). Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.