Leica: Please consider building this camera!

[dickgrafixstop]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Does the name "Rube Goldberg" mean anything to you?

 

By the time you develop the mechanics, beef it up to maintain tolerances, tool up manufacturing, and then actually produce it in the limited numbers that would be

sold, you couldn't afford one and if you could, you wouldn't be able to carry it.

 

Why don't you sell your "R" lenses while there's still a (deflated) market for them

and replace the who kit with a V-Lux?

[NZDavid]

...Why don't you sell your "R" lenses while there's still a (deflated) market for them

and replace the who kit with a V-Lux?

 

Such a shame thought to get rid of lenses that will last forever with a digicam that, while undoubtedly a capable performer, has a lifespan considerably shorter.

[Advertisement]

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

[andybarton]

Put the lenses on a Canon, Nikon or Sony like thousands of others have.

[Mmark]

And then again, why?

 

Regards,

 

Bill

 

Imagine shooting from floor level with fully open Nocti. Without laying on the ground.

Putting camera on table and shoot without being noticed? Shoot above one head?

A lot of possible use cases.

 

Extremely necessary? Not. Can live without? Sure. Will break the idea of M? Surely, not.

 

Mark

[Lord Fluff]

I have never understood why anyone needs autofocus, even for sport.

 

Because it's faster and more accurate. Simples.

[redbaron]

No it isn't.

[!Nomad64]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I beg to differ. As fast as an autofocus can be, it'll never be faster than a prefocused lend i.e. in hyperfocal.

More accurate I also doubt. One of the reasons that led me to re-embrace the rangefinder was that more than often my SLR's autofocus autofocused where it wanted rather than were I wanted.

 

Bruno

Edited February 11, 2011 by !Nomad64

[businessasusual]

No, no, no! I have/want M9 because it is manual focus. For faster moving objects - complimented M9 with Canon gear - which I only use when I really need the speed, using only Prime L lenses - but they just do not match up to Leica Magic. I feel the same way about PC's - I just cannot buy another PC after converting to Mac - they look/perform and feel like toys. Leica has introduced a new mantra to me "It is what it is" - even in the perfect imperfection of some of my manual focus results.

[bill]

Imagine shooting from floor level with fully open Nocti. Without laying on the ground.

Putting camera on table and shoot without being noticed? Shoot above one head?

A lot of possible use cases.

 

...for which I would use the right tool for the job.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[!Nomad64]

Imagine shooting from floor level with fully open Nocti. Without laying on the ground.

Putting camera on table and shoot without being noticed? Shoot above one head?

A lot of possible use cases.

 

Maybe a Rolleiflex?

 

Bruno

[Xmas]

Even with the M9 Leica are on their last legs, all it takes is another M5 and they will be history, send you CV in to them see if they will pay you money for these interesting ideas.

 

Noel

[!Nomad64]

No offense nor trolling purposes meant, but afraid this might be excrement of the adult male of the species Bos taurus.

For once Leitz seems to be out of the dank. M9s are flying off the door. It's apparently the most sold camera in Leitz' history. For the first time Leitz switched from losses to reported record profits. And can still count on a die-hard basis of dinosaurs like me and others who'll always prefer things to stick with tradition and heritage continuity.

 

Bruno

[pico]

Those who believe that autofocus does not help with action sports are probably not professional sports photographers (ball games), and besides most sport photographers use lenses longer than those available for the M. I've a friend and former colleague who was a sports photographer for decades. We shot side-by-side in the days before autofocus. He was much better than I, but just as soon as good autofocus became available, it was all he shot - the same with very many other photographers. Exceptions were the use of 300mm F/2.8 lenses. Again - something not available to Leica M people. (Lest ye be critical - the man I refer to has three Pulitzers, one in sports.)

[timd.]

And what do you want? An autofocus-m for ballsport use?

Maybe Porsche should build buses. You could fit more people in than in their old 911.

[!Nomad64]

Those who believe that autofocus does not help with action sports are probably not professional sports photographers (ball games), and besides most sport photographers use lenses longer than those available for the M. I've a friend and former colleague who was a sports photographer for decades. We shot side-by-side in the days before autofocus. He was much better than I, but just as soon as good autofocus became available, it was all he shot - the same with very many other photographers. Exceptions were the use of 300mm F/2.8 lenses. Again - something not available to Leica M people. (Lest ye be critical - the man I refer to has three Pulitzers, one in sports.)

 

As Bill cleverly reminded before, one should use the right tool for the job. And in this case the M cameras are not. Longest lens they can use is 135mm and that with that length you aren't going anywhere. I do not take into consideration the Visoflex which, further to being discontinued, is a quirky way to do what SLRs already do better.

Let's face it. M cameras are close to perfection in a certain range of applications such as reportage, street, candid, portrait, stage, travelling and, with some limitations, landscape, fashion & beauty. But for the others, such as nature, macro, still-life, or whatever sport keeping you at distance, you'll need an SLR. Plain and simple.

 

And from the above I'd see no need for autofocus M, live-view M et similia. But that's just me.

 

Cheers,

Bruno

Edited February 11, 2011 by !Nomad64

[Xmas]

Hi

 

DSLR with bells and whistles are cheap, M9 with nothing expensive.

Add complexity will make M10 more expensive, who would buy it at 10k (GBP) with live view and autofocus?

It wold be nice if they could make an M10 that was low light and cheaper, (at the same time as lenses).

They are only just surviving.

 

Noel

[wildlightphoto]

They are only just surviving.

 

Are you certain about that? http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-blog/2011/02/leica-with-record-sales-in-third-quarter-of-fiscal-year-20102011/

[wildlightphoto]

Why don't you sell your "R" lenses while there's still a (deflated) market for them...

 

The 280mm f/4 APO I bought six years ago for US$1600 is now selling for close to US$6000. Did you really mean deflated? If anything the adapters and conversion kits that allow R lenses to be used on CaNikoPentaSony cameras has caused their value to increase. Imagine what would happen to their value if they could be used on a current-model digital camera with proper aperture function and full-aperture metering.

Edited February 11, 2011 by wildlightphoto

[pico]

And what do you want? An autofocus-m for ballsport use?

Maybe Porsche should build buses. You could fit more people in than in their old 911.

 

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.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[keithdunlop]

Professionals everywhere need autofocus as a tool for fast changing situations . . .

 

I'm a professional and I get along just fine with my manually focused M lenses. In fact, in certain situations I have better focus accuracy with my manually focused M cameras than with my Nikon DSLR's.