Leica: Please consider building this camera!

[timd.]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Not me! Must be a misunderstanding. I was addressing those who claimed that they did not need autofocus, that the M was fine for shooting sports.

 

sorry pico, i realized that too late!

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[rpsawin]

The digital M's are wonderful, amazing devices specifically because they are still M's. This makes them unique in the digital camera marketplace. They are meant to exel in rangerfinder photography. From my personal, non-professional experience situations that require autofocus are typically not where an M shines.

 

I like the fact that the digital M now brings the Leica RF experience to the digital world without compromising the elements that made the M a legend. I hope Leica intends to continue on it's current path and provide us with top notch equipment and shooting experiences.

 

Best regards,

 

Bob

[menos I M6]

Apart from the discussion about introducing AF into a Leica M, I see a certain magic in pictures, taken with the Noctilux.

 

There is an exclusivity to pictures, you take with it, which satisfies your inner self again and again, when "you get that shot" you wanted, the way you wanted and climb that learning curve of using this lens the way you imagine.

 

You have to spice up your manual focussing skills and anticipation, learn different techniques, to aid/ improve focussing and build up strategies, to better work the Noctilux, no other lens asks of you.

 

It is a demanding and therefore very, very rewarding lens, to learn and use.

I would be damned, to get an engineering solution, to transfer this wonderful, satisfying jewel into a quickshot lens @ f1 and beyond.

Don't get me wrong or understand me as a Noctilux snob - far from it!

If lenses as the Noctilux, the 90 Cron or 75 Lux would not be so difficult to master, there would be little challenge and inner drive, to learn these techniques!

 

It is pretty much comparable, to the fact, kids have to learn to calculate in school without an electronic calculator or engineers have to learn, to create mechanical designs with nothing more than paper and pencil - to give them a chance, to learn a technique as a base for a lifetime!

 

Sure, I would consider buying an AF M-Mount camera (for the little, we know, the new Ricoh GXR M-module may well be one actually with Ricoh AF m-mount lenses to go … wild speculations on the internet).

 

The Leica M though with it's exceptional lenses is a camera system for me, to be used in the most simple and classic way: manual focus with it's limitations and superiorities, compared to AF cameras, simplest exposure controls, simple meter, quick and easy operation with an optical finder.

 

I do not have that design destroyed, as it is the essence for me personally, shooting these cameras and enjoying them the fullest over my Nikon D3 with it's humongous lenses.

 

A short opinion, that has already been mentioned before: use the Leica for what it is designed for.

If clients ask for kids shots with that special magic look - your failure rate might be higher, the pictures therefore more exclusive (read: expensive), simple as that.

 

If the look of a fast Nikon AF lens is sufficient (beware, to speak that, as the Nikon system inherits some most beautiful glass as well) to your clients demands, use the Nikon for speed and convenience and charge accordingly.

[pico]

Apart from the discussion about introducing AF into a Leica M, I see a certain magic in pictures, taken with the Noctilux.

 

Please show us what you are talking about. Words do not make photographs.

 

.

[mgreernz]

AF? Not for me anyway, please. No matter how cleverly it might be implemented.

 

The thing that most drew me back to a Leica after years of making the most of first, high end Nikon and later, Canon equipment, was that picking up a Leica RF made me stop and "think" again - something I had unwittingly left behind in the intervening decades.

 

I value the "pause, hold, engage" (with apologies to today's rugby scrum rules) principle that my M9 refreshingly demands of me. Even more so, the down-to-earth tools my IIIf entrusts me with, are simply liberating. Here is a 59 year old piece of engineering excellence that doesn't do HD video, doesn't require a battery, doesn't automatically wind on it's film, doesn't measure the light or offer a squadron of hot and cold running women, but is a welcome escape from all the electronic whizbang stuff that otherwise dominates my life.

 

So call me a Luddite if you wish, but please don't add my name to the plea for AF on an RF.

[farnz]

... I value the "pause, hold, engage" (with apologies to today's rugby scrum rules) principle that my M9 refreshingly demands of me. ...

A nice analogy, Michael. (Although I'd hope that there would be somewhat less of a bone-shattering thud following "Engage." as 16 beefy individuals attempt to bodily ram each other into the car park.)

 

Pete.

[adan]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Just for the record, a "luddite" is not someone who prefers older technology per se, but someone who sees new technology as an economic threat. So you're not a luddite for preferring manual focus (unless AF will leave your children hungry).

 

Personally, focusing manually is part of my "backswing" (to keep up the sporting analogies) and does help connect me to the subject.

[pgk]

The problem with discussions like this one is the original premise - that professionals must have AF - once it is realised that this is false then the whole idea becomes pointless. There are plenty of AF systems available for those who want them but few completely MF systems (in 35mm format). For a photographer (pro or otherwise) who wants/must have MF there are few options. Why alter a perfectly good MF system on the pretext that pro must have AF (assuming it to be possible which it may be technically but may not be economically)? To be honest I am baffled by the constant assumption that a tried and tested MF system must be altered when its niche is inherently linked to its MF ability -the M system is after all an MF rangefinder system.

[wattsy]

I am baffled by the constant assumption that a tried and tested MF system must be altered when its niche is inherently linked to its MF ability -the M system is after all an MF rangefinder system.

 

I also deem the traditional rangefinder absolutely key - the RF is the very essence of the M system and if you meddle with it (AF, electronic framelines, etc.) the system becomes something else. The fact that the lenses can be so good just happens to be a bit of a bonus.

 

That said, I don't find the regular demand to introduce AF, live view, etc. so baffling. On the one hand, I think a lot of M users are attracted to the system via the reputation of the lenses (some because of an obsession with technical perfection) and many of these users just don't get on with the MF RF approach. On the other hand, there are also a bunch of dilettantes who must have the 'best' of everything (especially if it also costs the 'most') who find the traditional M method a bit beyond them. The latter group seems to have increased significantly since it became possible to shoot M lenses on a digital body.

[adan]

On the original suggestion:

 

The good news - focusing by moving the image plane (ground-glass, film or sensor) is actually preferred if one has a choice (i.e. with rail-mounted view cameras, or bellows on 35mm for macro) and one is using a simple fixed-formula lens. Moving the lens changes the "point of view" subtly (or significantly in close-ups) while moving the image plane only affects focus.

 

The bad news - it is NOT a good method when the lenses' optical structure changes with focusing - i.e. internal focusing, front or rear element focusing, or floating elements. Those movements are calculated into the lens' performance, and if they don't take place (because focusing is not being done via the focusing ring) the performance may suffer significantly.

 

E.G.. - there is a reason why the 75 'cron' rear group moves a bit during focusing - to improve close-focus performance - so (auto)focusing close simply by leaving the lens set to infinity and moving the sensor will not deliver the same performance as using the focusing ring on the lens.

 

Leica lenses with internally changing lens structures linked to focus:

 

M - current 21, 24, 35, 50 Summiluxes ASPH, 75 Summicron ASPH, 50 Nocti f/0.95(?).

 

R - 19 f/2.8 v.2(?), 24 f/2.8, 35 f/1.4 (?), 28 f/2.8 v.2, 180 APO f/2.8 and f/2, 280 f/4 APO, 250 f/4 v.2, the "focus units" 280/400/560 system, and probably most of the zooms. Even the early Minolta-based zooms focus by moving the front elements separately.

[wildlightphoto]

 

Leica lenses with internally changing lens structures linked to focus:

 

M - current 21, 24, 35, 50 Summiluxes ASPH, 75 Summicron ASPH, 50 Nocti f/0.95(?).

 

R - 19 f/2.8 v.2(?), 24 f/2.8, 35 f/1.4 (?), 28 f/2.8 v.2, 180 APO f/2.8 and f/2, 280 f/4 APO, 250 f/4 v.2, the "focus units" 280/400/560 system, and probably most of the zooms. Even the early Minolta-based zooms focus by moving the front elements separately.

 

Also R 100 f/2.8 APO, 280 f/2.8 APO, 350 f/4.8 - and all zooms.

[Washington]

Awwww, phooey. Go design it yourself.

[hamey]

No.

 

 

 

The R system is dead. Let it rest in peace. The M system is not dependent upon offering autofocus for its continued success.

 

No.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

 

 

Thats funny, I just used my R8 today doesn't look like it's dead to me.

 

Love the R-eal cameras, as long as I can still purchase my slide film I couldn't give a hoot about anything else.

 

Ken.

[peterv]

Thanks Andy, good post.

Question: How severe would the loss of IQ due to floating elements be? 10% loss of contrast? 80%?*

Would a lens with a floating element become completely useless with AF, or just a little less capable?

[wattsy]

The bad news - it is NOT a good method when the lenses' optical structure changes with focusing

 

Yes, the point I made earlier in this thread.

[stunsworth]

Thats funny, I just used my R8 today doesn't look like it's dead to me

 

I expect Bill was talking from the viewpoint of manufacture and development. From that perspective it died quite a while ago. That doesn't mean it's dead to the photographer, neither is an M2 or M3, it's just that you can't buy a new one.

[Nicoleica]

That doesn't mean it's dead to the photographer, neither is an M2 or M3, it's just that you can't buy a new one.

 

You can still buy new R8 cameras in The Netherlands.

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!

[eleskin]

After reading all of the responses to the thread I started here ( thanks to everyone for responding. This is what's great about this forum) I have to clarify a few things and give some opinions. I am a professional and have used many types of cameras with many features, including autofocus. Yes, I love rangefinders in that I am in full control, and I have been using them for 25 years, first with an M4-2, then an M6 and now with 2 M8 bodies. I know them inside and out, and have mastered technique very well. I was one of the few who bought a Noctilux fully knowing it's limitations and with that, make it sing.

 

I do not feel the camera design I described when starting this thread is a replacement for a traditional M camera or that it threatens to ruin that tradition. That would be like saying because electric cars are bing made, my use and love for internal combustion is ruined or threatened ( I drive Diesel Mercedes and love them and do not feel threatened by the Toyota Prius). Autofocus, or for that matter, another way to use M lenses is another tool for the photographer to use in his arsenal. I welcome new innovation and ideas. Fuji is showing us all what Leica should have done with it's new X100 vs. the Leica X1. Remember the Leica S1. It offered a new way to use R and other lenses. The key was a new way to use them. That did not destroy the R camera ( it could have saved it if Leica took it's lead back then and developed DSLR's . They were ahead of everyone, that was the irony. All of this is about offering all of us more choices in our tools, and about the practical thinking behind getting more capability from our very substantial lens investments.

 

One thing to consider, and all of you will like this. The more cameras of different design that come out that can mount Leica M lenses, the more valuable they will become on the used market. As much as we are sentimentally attached to our cameras or what I call boxes, lenses are the most important tool second only to the photographers brain which is the most important of all. And lenses will always hold value, especially from Leica who has made many different types over the years. I own 3 50mm lenses, a f1.0 Noctilux, a 50mm Summicron, a 50mm Summitar. Why? They have the same field of view, but each does it differently and is selected by my depending on my pre visualization of the subject matter. Enough said. I just wanted everyone to know where I stand and why I posted this.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[pgk]

Thanks Andy, good post.

Question: How severe would the loss of IQ due to floating elements be? 10% loss of contrast? 80%?*

Would a lens with a floating element become completely useless with AF, or just a little less capable?

I know that you addressed this to Andy but I can supply some pertinent info which you might find useful so here goes. Canon build a 60mm EFS macro lens which uses IF (and consequently shifts focal length too). It works down to 1:1 on its own but after having experimented I have concluded that whilst it is capable of perfectly acceptable results with a 12mm extension tube, it shows significant image degradation with a 25mm tube, and remember this is a macro lens.

 

My suspicion that shifting the focal plane by a small amount of a lens designed with floating elements might at very best equal the results of a none floating element design at similar focused distances, however I doubt that this would be the case as this is not how the lens is designed to work and suspect that the results would actually not be as good. So trying to obtain AF by this method would probably produce inferior images and would negate all the floating element design and then some. It doesn't sound like the route which a firm like Leica would want to go down to me.

[Jeff S]

I was one of the few who bought a Noctilux fully knowing it's limitations and with that, make it sing.

 

No wonder then that you ignored Ian and Andy's insights into the limitations of focusing some Leica lenses with a moving sensor. You would be among the few to make it work anyway, I guess.

 

Jeff