Compact interchangeable lens camera coming 09/12

[bill]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Because we will have to pay for it and get it fixed when it fails.

 

Simple.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[Advertisement]

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

[menos I M6]

Geez... The German maker "Rollei" had electronic lens contacts for communication and shutter/aperture control in cameras around 3 decades ago. Leica had ROM chipped lenses quite a while ago too. And previous to that had evolved the R mount in various ways without causing rioting. Get over it. If future M cameras have some electrical contacts to accommodate new features in new lenses, how will that hurt you?

 

Geez … I just don't want it … geezzzzz.

 

EDIT:

 

I forgot:

 

Get over it … or something like that ;-)

[AlanG]

Because we will have to pay for it and get it fixed when it fails.

 

Simple.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

 

Yeah, this has proven to be very expensive and unreliable technology. And Leica users are among the most price sensitive of all camera buyers it seems. And lets try to keep the Leica from becoming Japanese.

 

Is there some requirement that "true" Leica M users have to be against all possible changes? Is the Leica M always going to be one of the only cameras that does not have communication between bodies and lenses?

 

If future models like 100 years from now finally have electronic contacts for a new line of lenses but still accept the old lenses, then users won't have to worry about reliability if they stick with old lenses. Just as Nikon users who only use MF lenses don't have to worry about it. And those who did not buy coded lenses also had to pay for the six bit optical coding technology in the M8 and M9 models.

[phancj]

Maybe it seems that the "allure" and nostalgic value of the good ole days of leica still persists in users of M cameras from film days. The film Ms are relatively robust, lacking in gizmos, just dependable and keeps going. Contrast that to the digital incarnations to see the stark difference in dependability. Leica got a lot of things right with digital Ms but I think the Japanese makers are progressing in lightning speed.

 

I almost bought a film M (M7, coz I want some metering and electronics haha plus my film nikons were AF anyway) but decide against it, developing, scanning, etc,etc.

 

But I must say I was very tempted at that time, a camera that can keep going and going has a lot going for it!

 

CJ

[menos I M6]

If people want electronic contacts, they can buy a Japanese camera.

I don't have an allure against modern technology, far off - in my profession, everything depends on technological advancements.

 

When I found out about Leica just two years ago, the one thing, I was immediately taken (and sold almost my entire Nikon DSLR gear in the process) was, that the Leica is the very last no nonsense camera, available on the market Today.

I would be very happy, if this stays that way. Potential for meaningful advances with the digital M is plentyful (start with the sensor, rethink the mix of manual and menu bound controls and info and end with size improvements, …).

[mmradman]

What about 6 bit coding? Difficult to say M lenses are immune from communication features being added - for the better may I add.

[lct]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hard to see the problem as long as coded lenses can be used on earlier bodies, and non coded ones with new cameras.

[AlanG]

If people want electronic contacts, they can buy a Japanese camera.

 

There is nothing specifically Japanese about this technology and I hope you are not using the term pejoratively. Doesn't Leica currently make an interchangeable lens camera that has electronic contacts?

 

As I mentioned previously, I think it was the German company "Rollei" that first implemented electrical contacts between the body and the lens (and film magazine.) The SLX had electronically controlled aperture and leaf shutter by 1977. This is before Minolta, Canon, Nikon, and others did it.

 

I have nothing against Leica keeping the M mount the way it is if it sells cameras and they don't have either the capacity, demand, or financial or competitive need to change it. Of course they may simply incorporate this in their new APS size camera and keep the M mount mostly "as is" for some time. But going forward they someday will have no choice but to add electronic contacts should they wish to get the most out of it. (Consider how valuable this info. is in order to achieve ideal digital lens correction... something the the M9 relies on more than most other cameras.) And it will be a very big task to redesign all of the lenses to do this. But I could see them introducing a few lenses at a time should this feature be added to the body. They'll surely have experience on how to do this from the S2 and the future APS system.

[mjh]

The real question is whether it would be worth the effort and the expense (for both the vendor and the customer). Originally, electronic communation paths between lens and body were introduced so the body could control the lens. This kind of communication between body and lens is necessary for an SLR, especially an automatically focusing one. But in a rangefinder system there is no need for this. Yes, one could modify the existing lens designs so the aperture could be transferred to the body, but unlike mere coding this would require buying new lenses. How many owners of M gear would be prepared to do that, just so the EXIF data would contain the true f-number?

[lct]

New buyers would be prepared to buy new lenses with new contacts, why would not they? As long as those new lenses could be used with earlier bodies as well i still don't see the problem. This way M10(?) and X2(?) users will know the actual apertures of their pics whereas M9 and M8 owners will use the new lenses the same way as they did previously. Am i missing something?

[mjh]

New buyers would be prepared to buy new lenses with new contacts, why would not they?

The problem isn’t with new buyers but with existing customers. Even now people are agonizing about whether they should get their lenses coded, an inexpensive and more obviously useful option by comparison.

[lct]

Not sure to follow you Michael. New buyers would have new lenses as is whereas existing owners would have the choice to buy a new lens or not or possibly to upgrade their existing lens or not.

[menos I M6]

@Michael

This is exactly my reasoning of disliking the idea of adding another gimmick to the M, which does not improve imaging in any meaningful way.

 

Yesterday I shot a 79 year old Hektor 7.3cm ƒ1.9 the first time in the wild, which can be quite a sobering experience.

I would prescribe this drug to anybody, asking questions like "Should I upgrade my 35 Lux ASPH to a 35 Lux ASPH FLE?" or "Should I 6-bit code my 90 Elmarit-M?"

 

hazy Hektor @ ƒ1.9 on flickr

 

hazy Hektor, panning @ ƒ1.9 and ~2m on flickr

 

 

There is nothing specifically Japanese about this technology and I hope you are not using the term pejoratively. …

 

Alan, not the slightest. If you would know me personally, you would understand, that I am of the most kind character, but do have firm positions, when it comes to things, I like.

The M is the best camera it is, like it is.

I am not a traditionalist per se - i am using a Nikon D3 and the newest, fastest telephoto primes for jobs, where they are needed and do appreciate and love the fact, that these have VR, mind fast dynamic focus following, Auto ISO, the best matrix metering and endless ways of programming them.

 

The Leica is just a very unique and "different from the herd tool", that makes it so appealing to me.

 

One doesn't want to make a spoon to a knife, just because having the feature of being able to cut things with a spoon is a great idea.

Some people just want their spoon, to be a spoon

[phancj]

MenosM6 those are awesome shots!

 

Isnt leica upgrading the digital Ms all the time? It also appears that each new incantation improves on its predecessor so much so that many upgraded from the M8 to the M9 for example.

 

Much as I salute your photographic skills I honestly cannot for a moment agree with your statement that the M is perfect as it is and should forever stay that way. Nothing is perfect!

 

Leica can and will improve on the M and will continue to do so, and judging from the current management's relative success they will continue to make leica cameras different from the "herd" you described. The M will always be an M even though features may be added to improve on it. There will not be a time when the M is a projector also at least I hope not.

 

CJ

[AlanG]

The real question is whether it would be worth the effort and the expense (for both the vendor and the customer). Originally, electronic communation paths between lens and body were introduced so the body could control the lens. This kind of communication between body and lens is necessary for an SLR, especially an automatically focusing one. But in a rangefinder system there is no need for this.

 

I am not sure what you mean by "no need for this." There wasn't a need for this in SLRs either. But if you want the camera to be able to control the aperture and indicate the f stop in use, then there will be a need for a mechanical or electronic linkage. There are numerous reasons one might want the body to be able to control the aperture.

 

Lens correction software does a better job when it knows the lens model, f stop, and distance. I guess the M could get distance info from the rangefinder that is already linked. And Leica makes an educated guess at the aperture but I don't know if it uses this when doing lens correction. Also, some day the rangefinder mechanism might have the ability to compensate for focus shift if it had the lens and aperture info.

 

My general opinion is whether you love it just as it is or not... the system will have to evolve over time in various ways or eventually Leica's other models, which may be introduced before long, will outpace it in usefulness, compact size, and image quality at some point. It seems to me that if Leica makes a camera system a year from now that simply has the specs of the Nex 7, it will satisfy a lot of the needs that traditionally were roles for the M.

[menos I M6]

CJ, Alan, my little example here, bringing in a 79 year old lens, that is clearly inferior in every single way to anything, Leica has produced since 1932 was with one reason.

 

It was, to show, that for me (and I bet very sure, that I am NOT alone with that feeling) features and complications in photographic gear don't count anymore - at all.

 

If in 2011 one can easily shake such photographs out of the hand without effort with a 79 year old lens and an older, technically more limited digital M body, what can a skilled user do in 79 years with a 75 Summicron APO and any Leica M body with features of 1960 or 2011?

 

I mean all these marketing features sell cameras to people, who have already a fully working sample and ponder to upgrade or not.

They do not make you take better pictures certainly ;-)

 

Whatever Leica does with the S system and any future different line + the compact Panasonic produced cameras surely must fit into the rat race, to stay competitive and on top of charts, to generate profit.

 

The Leica M is a specialist camera, for a certain style of shooting even the best, there is.

One has to learn his way around limitations and acquire skills, to use one. Any alienation of the Leica M concept will surely limit this camera system.

 

I do have in fact a sour feeling, when having used M film bodies for a few days in a row and take back into my hand a digital M - these cameras are different already.

[phancj]

Thans for the clarification and the insight, you are indeed fortunate to have so many cams to expand your art with, and the option to use whichever cam for that particular look/situation you are in.

 

For me, as a hobbyist/amateur with only a Nikon system and an X1 (my other cameras are hidden forever in the closet haha) I relish any improvement leica can/will make in my next purchase. Though I am perfectly fine with the current cameras I use I am also certain improvements by any maker can help me especially stuff like high iso and sensor technology. These are very pertinent considerations and do affect image quality accordingly.

 

Whilst acquiring skills, leica and other makers will address limitations and constantly improve on their cameras to make our lives easier...why not? Whilst I concede the absolute need to acquire skill, I do not reject manufacturer's efforts to improve the cameras.

 

Another thing altogether is your vast experience and skill which also allows you to optimize the use of the camera. By the time (and it is big "if") I get to your skill level, the camera I use in pursuit of that skill most probably has fallen apart several times, I would be compelled to purchase new cameras even if I didnt want to and quite surely those new cameras will have improvements/more feature sets at same/lower price. Nothing not to like, thats what I am essentially saying.

 

CJ

[menos I M6]

CJ, I am not skilled.

You learn with the Leica M, that all limitations, you run into, you actually can find a solution for and work around the issue.

 

This is totally different from shooting a automated DSLR system, relying on technology as your helping hands.

 

I am all in for technical advancements, as stated above, as long, as these advances do not add complications or derive the M from what it is - the most simple high quality camera system on the market with zero extraneous features.

As I shoot a lot in low light, I would highly welcome Leica getting back to their film body performance and offer ISO6400 metering and shooting on their digital bodies, that actually has been available on Leica film bodies since the early 80's.

 

The nice thing about Leica though is that one has endless choices - don't like the weak low light performance of the current digital M? Shoot film with a Leica film body - Leica is the only manufacturer, who actually offers these options new in the shop!

 

Regarding many cameras or lenses or just one, I have to say, that using several cameras and different lenses is just for convenience and curiosity - it is in no way a need, to take good photographs.

A Japanese photographer, I met some time ago uses mainly just his M4 and a 35mm Summaron - that's it.

No need, to buy every single model on the market.

I see, that there is equally no need at all, to wait for the next best, newest improved model or hope for feature implementation, as everything, that will be implemented really was already there.

 

There are no meaningful improvements in your photographs, if you are shooting a M2 or a M9 - there is just the convenience factor and immediacy. Pros need that often, amateurs can enjoy that, but it is not mandatory.

 

In any way - I like the M to be what it is and look also for alternatives, so far, I was not impressed by the options offered so far.

I am looking forward to that new Sony Nex-7 and might probably buy one, to try it out.

I have a hunch though, that after a few times of trying it leaves me cold as have other options.

Once you have used any M, there is no substitute - the Leica is just simple, extremely fast, direct and solid. No other camera could better the way of seeing the world and reacting to your environment like the M does.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[phancj]

CJ, I am not skilled.

 

You gotta be kidding...

 

CJ

[mjh]

There are numerous reasons one might want the body to be able to control the aperture.

Yep, but the first reason, even before automatic shutter speed priority and program modes, was that one wanted automatic aperture control. Clearly you don’t need that with a rangefinder camera.

 

Lens correction software does a better job when it knows the lens model, f stop, and distance. I guess the M could get distance info from the rangefinder that is already linked. And Leica makes an educated guess at the aperture but I don't know if it uses this when doing lens correction.

The camera knows about the lens model when the lens is coded (and again, photographers aren’t exactly rushing to get their old lenses coded). The distance setting is already transmitted to the body, albeit mechanically; the camera could digitize this setting if there was a need; no modifications to mount or lenses necessary.

 

Also, some day the rangefinder mechanism might have the ability to compensate for focus shift if it had the lens and aperture info.

The chances are slim. A mechanical correction would be next to impossible and an electronically driven rangefinder mechanism – frankly I don’t see that coming any time soon.

 

Anyway, Leica’s strategy with regard to focus shift is pretty obvious: they are replacing old lens design exhibiting visible focus shift by new designs with focus shift reduced to a minimum. While this requires getting new lenses as well, only some lenses are affected and what’s even more important, the new designs offer tangible improvements in image quality rather than just electronic contacts and integrated circuitry.