Sizing Up the Future

[rosuna]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have said it expressly before and I say it again: That camera must have its own line of lenses simply because they have to be autofocusing. M compatibility – native or by an adapter – is an extra.

 

 

Yes but... if the new AF camera is a M-mount unit with 24x36 format, you don't need a complete system of AF lenses from the start. AF lenses would be a complement to the manual focus M system of lenses.

 

The roadmap for future developments of the AF system of lenses would be more relaxed as well.

[Advertisement]

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

[lars_bergquist]

Yes but... if the new AF camera is a M-mount unit with 24x36 format, you don't need a complete system of AF lenses from the start. AF lenses would be a complement to the manual focus M system of lenses.

 

The roadmap for future developments of the AF system of lenses would be more relaxed as well.

 

Yes – and even if the format is smaller than 24x36 the pressure would ease considerably. Especially as the M line is well supplied at the superwide end nowadays – which was not the case when I bought my M8 in 2007! Some people might even like too see their 90mm changed into a 135, and a 135 into a 200 ... all of this given a good electronic focus assist system, of course.

 

The old man from the Roll Film Age

[lars_bergquist]

Oh, like the famous fail of the Contax G2? Dead already for years.

 

Exactly. We all know that autofocus is a complete failure, don't we?

 

The old man from the Age of the Measuring Tape

[pgk]

Yes but... if the new AF camera is a M-mount unit with 24x36 format, you don't need a complete system of AF lenses from the start. AF lenses would be a complement to the manual focus M system of lenses.

It is an interesting assumption that AF is in fact now a mandatory requirement. I actually rather like the suggestion that AF lenses could be 'complimentary' which gives AF a secondary status, rather than being the prime requisite.

[Jamie Roberts]

{snipped}

Oh my God, again this wilful illiteracy. Where did I say that manufacture had to ne done by hand in Germany? And where did I say I took my pictures at cocktail parties? I did in fact write that I am NOT talking of the sound level at cocktail parties! Does it matter what I actually say?

 

The old man from the Age of Crusty Grand-Paternal Bigotry (formerly known as 'realism')

 

Lare--I know I shouldn't write this, because wilful illiteracy and ignorance is certainly cutting many ways here, but I will. So I'm truly sorry I misread your quote about cocktail parties.

 

Now please carry on with "reality" without me and my ignorant handwaving. We'll see what happens in the next 10 years (the "next quarter?" Now who's misreading!) and whether or not my view is more fanciful than yours.

 

Have fun.

[Jeff S]

Do you think that the camera will not rewind the shutter after releasing it on delayed action? But of course it does. So your response proves that you haven't bothered to do the test – if you had, you would have heard it all.

 

That's exactly right, and exactly my point. The sound is inevitable...as the camera is currently designed. I ignore the discreet setting as a waste of time...the sound happens...eventually.

 

And I don't need to test whether others hear the sound. My point is that I hate it....I don't give a crap what others think (or hear).

 

I like the sound of a film M. I don't like the sound of a digital M. Not a big deal, but we're discussing wish lists. You're not the only one old enough to have preferences.

 

Jeff

[rosuna]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Some people might even like too see their 90mm changed into a 135, and a 135 into a 200 ...

 

The only thing you need for that is cropping... not a smaller sensor...

[Jamie Roberts]

Y{snipped}Some people might even like too see their 90mm changed into a 135, and a 135 into a 200 ... {snipped}

 

...

 

Sure--and not only becuae it's a waste of money, but because in the real physical world, this is exactly what happens when you crop a lens...it "changes into" a different length.

[pico]

Originally Posted by pico

Oh, like the famous fail of the Contax G2? Dead already for years.

 

Exactly. We all know that autofocus is a complete failure, don't we?

 

The very point is that the Contax G2 was not a rangefinder regardless of what it was called. It offered a set of frame lines in a clear viewfinder, and was autofocus. A complete failure. Do you think it would have succeeded if there were the Red Dot on it?

.

[jonoslack]

The very point is that the Contax G2 was not a rangefinder regardless of what it was called. It offered a set of frame lines in a clear viewfinder, and was autofocus. A complete failure. Do you think it would have succeeded if there were the Red Dot on it?

.

 

It's an interesting topic. I always felt that it was a classic case of falling between two stools. The G2 was no good as a rangefinder. It was also no good as an autofocus camera. The only thing it really had going for itself was good lenses

 

There seems to be real encouragement here for Leica to produce a similarly useless camera!

[rramesh]

So you take a 35mm lens, mount it on a camera with APS-C sensor and a crop factor of 1.5. You then take a picture and further crop it to get the framing you need and what are you left with? 800 dollars worth of a Summicron?

[rosuna]

The very point is that the Contax G2 was not a rangefinder regardless of what it was called. It offered a set of frame lines in a clear viewfinder, and was autofocus. A complete failure. Do you think it would have succeeded if there were the Red Dot on it?

.

 

In my opinion it does not make sense a Contax G2 at this moment. Anyway, Fujifilm has done this with the X-Pro1 already.

 

Leica has to take a different way. The AF camera does not need to be a rangefinder, or have an optical viewfinder.

 

I imagine this camera as a 24x36 format with a X-like body, modified M mount and accessory viewfinders (this would allow a stylish body and more flexibility for the user).

[lars_bergquist]

Rosuna, I imagine that camera as a size smaller than 24x36 (how else an X-like or even a Leica III-like body?) and without any optical finder. I think it will have an integrated but tiltable electronic finder, better than the best we have today – and with both fast phase-detection AF on the sensor and focus-peaking or something even spiffier in the finder. This of course is the 'breakout camera' I have been writing about all along.

 

And no, Fuji haven't done that yet. Or anybody else, for that matter.

 

The old man from the Kodachrome Age

[pico]

Rosuna, I imagine that camera as a size smaller than 24x36 (how else an X-like or even a Leica III-like body?) and without any optical finder. I think it will have an integrated but tiltable electronic finder, better than the best we have today – and with both fast phase-detection AF on the sensor and focus-peaking or something even spiffier in the finder. This of course is the 'breakout camera' I have been writing about all along.

 

Unless it has something very special, and patented to Leica such as the X1, X2, the camera that you and many others describe will be just another yesterday camera, and a big fail. Leica is not a disruptive technology company. For that they have Panasonic who can burn on the leading edge as the camera falls from orbit.

 

The M10, or whatever it is to be, can be like the M9 Titanium, but with traditional black or chrome finish with updated, faster electronics and be as reliable with various SD cards as the Panasonic is. That would do the trick for now.

[jonoslack]

Rosuna, I imagine that camera as a size smaller than 24x36 (how else an X-like or even a Leica III-like body?) and without any optical finder. I think it will have an integrated but tiltable electronic finder, better than the best we have today – and with both fast phase-detection AF on the sensor and focus-peaking or something even spiffier in the finder. This of course is the 'breakout camera' I have been writing about all along.

 

And no, Fuji haven't done that yet. Or anybody else, for that matter.

 

The old man from the Kodachrome Age

 

Hi Lars

Sounds exactly like a NEX 5N to me - or, if you insist on phase detect AF, then a Nikon V1.

Nothing even remotely breakout about this.

I'm with Pico - boring also ran . . . . .

 

Now if you join M4/3 (not 4/5 by the way) then suddenly you get an INTERESTING also ran.

all the best

[haroldp]

The very point is that the Contax G2 was not a rangefinder regardless of what it was called. It offered a set of frame lines in a clear viewfinder, and was autofocus. A complete failure. Do you think it would have succeeded if there were the Red Dot on it?

.

 

I never had one, but have heard that it was clunky and did not work very well.

 

Might it have succeeded if it was a better autofocus camera ?.

 

... H

[lars_bergquist]

Jono, who the devil would buy a MFT camera just because it had a red dot on it? The Leica name does not mean a thing to these people.

 

Neither making another MFT camera, nor making a slightly jazzed-up M camera, will make Leica into a major player again. And the people who make the dcisions in Solms know that – nowadays.

 

The old man from the Age of 126 film

[rosuna]

Rosuna, I imagine that camera as a size smaller than 24x36 (how else an X-like or even a Leica III-like body?) a

 

The same shape and form, but larger in size. Imagine a M9 camera without the top cover, and a flat top cover as thick as the bottom plate instead.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[lars_bergquist]

The same shape and form, but larger in size. Imagine a M9 camera without the top cover, and a flat top cover as thick as the bottom plate instead.

 

No place for a built-in finder? That would effectively be a 24x36 X2. A monstrosity, if you ask me.

 

The old man from the Age of Photography

[haroldp]

No place for a built-in finder? That would effectively be a 24x36 X2. A monstrosity, if you ask me.

 

The old man from the Age of Photography

 

Thank you,

 

I would not use a camera without an eye level viewfinder (except for sheet film view cameras on tripods). The human body is not designed to hold a camera (or anything else) steady at arms length.

 

... H