The next M3

[gravastar]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

What's interesting is the information for continuously variable electronic framelines is almost there. If the lenses are 6 bit coded the camera knows the focal length (except for the WATE). An optical or strain gauge encoder on the internal rangefinder mechanisim would give the focus distance. With these two pieces of information the camera can accurately calculate the field of view.

 

Bob.

[george +]

Yes Bob, and once you have the rangefinder slope position on the lenses electronically identified you can use this information for two purposes; the frames that you, and we all want, and the laser rangefinder coupling that I mentioned.

 

It is all one good leap. Perhaps not even as big as the M3 was. Just look at Mark's vivisection of his M8. They went a long long way towards electronics. Taking these two steps would likely be simpler.

 

And we will have a 21st Century Leica. Ole!

 

In the meantime, let us enjoy the M8-s. I do.

[bradreiman]

if leica starts going down this road i for one pray for a digital "MP". hopefully nikon or even zeiss will do this stuff for you guys. too bad contax bit the dust. i pretty much hope the m remains an m......b

[hankg]

The M3 has a .91x VF not 1:1 actually but anyway changing magnification is not an electronic problem i guess, just an optical one, so the question is to know if magnifiers can be used inside the RF optics instead of outside as we do now.

I seem to recall that we discussed this matter last year, perhaps with Mark Norton and/or Andy Piper and that the latter said it was not possible, i don't remember why though...

 

Yes I was thinking that the changing magnification component would be optical. I would imagine we would be talking all new design but I have no idea if it would be possible. Cost and size are big limiting factors. It would not be advisable to increase the size of the already slightly chunky M8 and price is always an issue. Maybe 2 selectable mags instead of 3 would be more doable. In any case no one has more expertise then Leica in this area.

 

The frame/cropping part would be digital and sounds very feasable.

[Guest guy_mancuso]

Been shooting cloths all day for a client and this is a perfect example why electronic framelines would be so nice. Here is my modified leica 135mm apo with the 90 framelines that i had leica switch the mount for me . Now i am able to at least frame better but still i have to guess between the focus patch and the 90mm frameline a little but just imagine a electronic 135 frameline in the finder . No guessing . This is with a Leica 49mm filter in LR. Pinks hold up very nice. BTW i have yet to WB this and i shot AWB all day and not one out of whack. Weird

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!

[george +]

Bradley, I most certainly respect your position and hope Leica will proceed with care and dignity.

 

But . . . ahem . . .if you had a Leica C; would you have shunned the M3? I did not. I got one, and loved it. And . . I even got an M5. But that is a different story. Would it have had the shape of an M3-2-1-4; it would have shaken the earth. As eventually the nowhere near that sophisticated M6 did.

[hankg]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

if leica starts going down this road i for one pray for a digital "MP". hopefully nikon or even zeiss will do this stuff for you guys. too bad contax bit the dust. i pretty much hope the m remains an m......b

 

The Contax G finder was pretty horrendous. I don't get your objection. If you had a finder that looked like the one you use now but was a bit brighter had a bit easier to focus RF patch, perhaps let you switch from .68 to .88 mag and had more accurate crops you wouldn't want it? We shouldn't improve anything becuse its not like which years model? Should they have stopped at the M3 and not offered a lower mag finder for the wideangles or should they not have included electronics for exposure?

[mwilliamsphotography]

I don't share your enthusasim for modernizing the M Guy. More stuff to go wrong on a camera that was built on being bullet proof. There's enough blinking, flashing wonderkinder stuff out there without screwing up a simple, elegant solution. Heck, I am having a time of it remembering to not search for the film advance on the M8 : -)

 

People who have used these cameras for a long time intuitively know how to frame them, and use them in the manner they were intended, not as a small SLR ... if you don't believe me just look at the images done in the history of photography.

 

If people don't like multiple focal lengths in the finder, have them removed and simplified like the MP3.

 

If an all electronic rangefinder with adjusting frame lines, autofocus and film advance was what rangefinder users wanted ... then the Contax G1 and G2 would have put Leica out of business ... but it is they who are out of business, not Leica. Maybe not a definitive indicator, but perhaps a clue.

[Guest guy_mancuso]

It can still be black lines just more accurate to the user:D

[hankg]

I don't share your enthusasim for modernizing the M Guy. More stuff to go wrong on a camera that was built on being bullet proof. There's enough blinking, flashing wonderkinder stuff out there without screwing up a simple, elegant solution. Heck, I am having a time of it remembering to not search for the film advance on the M8 : -)

 

People who have used these cameras for a long time intuitively know how to frame them, and use them in the manner they were intended, not as a small SLR ... if you don't believe me just look at the images done in the history of photography.

 

If you want a mechanical camera Leica makes the MP. Have you taken a look inside the M8 in Mark's thread (was that you)? It's a computer not a camera. Sure, we want the interface to feel analogue and simple, but everything in this camera depends on electronics, it's a digital camera. Digital devices can be controled through what appear to be simple analogue controls even though the inner workings are no different then any digital device. No one suggetsed more info, auto anything, zooming or blinking lights just using the digital component of a digital device to make the finder more accurate while preserving the interface presented to the user.

 

As far as great Leica images, many of the greatest were not made using the finder you want to set in stone, they were made with the previous generation LTM finder. Should we dump the current finder then and go back to the IIIf finder, after all many of the greats learned how to adapt to its limitations, who needs technological advances. Actually as the finder introduced with the M3 was so good, the changes we are talking about are relatively small compared to the big change from the LTM finders to the M.

[hankg]

As all this is fantasy and I have no idea if it is even possible there isn't much point in arguing about it. I will just say this, if you can increase the performance of a system whether a lens, or a finder, or a sensor while preserving its price and ergonomics it would seem a no brainer that you would do it. Leica continue to raise the bar on the performance of its lens line, never content with the current level of performance. Users expect it will do the same with the firmware and sensor. No reason it should'nt do the same with the other critcal component in the system, the finder, whether it is by optical or electronic means or some combination of the two.

[bradreiman]

I understand your arguments Hank and respect them greatly. For me personally I want the m to remain an m. I love the m5 too. No, not talking about going back to a 3b (although I shot a few frames with mine the other day) just sticking with what they have in the rangefinder/viewfinder department. No offense to you, just my opinion. I am very accustomed to the m rangefinder and intuitively frame it properly. I don't even notice the framelines really-they're just part of my collective consciousness at this point and I like it that way. I'm not arguing with anyone just stating my preference. Clearly Leica have discussed these things before us and have decided to stick with their current design...B

[rvaubel]

The real ultimate "rangefinder" will have a direct view LCD finder with extremely high resolution. Basically a view thru the lens camera without the "reflex" mirror. It's the mirror in the Single Lens Reflex that makes the darn things so big. The mirror forces lens designers to make lenses with huge back focus requirements, hence we get these massive retrofocus wide angles. Auto focus also forces large lenses. I frankly would welcome a electronic viewfinder if it performed on par with an optical one. Of course, framing and parrellex issues would be non-existant.

 

Technically there are two huge obstacles

1) The sensors we use in DSLR's and the Leica are not of the "live view" type required for such a design. They need to be invented. The sensors available in point and shoots won't do.

2) No electronic viewfinder comes close to providing a image of the quality required to supplant an optical viewfinder. It will happen but we are talking a 3MP viewfinder. That is an order of magnitude better than what we have now.

 

It will be at least a decade before the technical problems can be surmounted. That's why I'm not waiting. I have my M8 and won't hesitate to move whatever the next irreteration of the rangefinder camera is but I am not wedded to an optical viewfinder.

 

Rex

[Guest guy_mancuso]

I am really thinking of just a simple projection like it is today only electronic and no other frames lines just the lens you have on but more accurate and moves with focusing for paralax. I think it could almost be done today with firmware and the existing M8 just disengage the mechnical finder and put the electronic in place of it with coded lenses it reads the EXIF and projects the lens on the camera , very simple really but the paralax could be a issue because how would it know your focusing unless it was tied into the cam.

[sean_reid]

Brad wrote:

 

"I am very accustomed to the m rangefinder and intuitively frame it properly. I don't even notice the framelines really-they're just part of my collective consciousness at this point and I like it that way."

 

I think what Brad is talking about here is very important. That's not to say that I'm against a future M with electronic frame lines but one can learn to frame fairly accurately with a current M once certain things are internalized. I discussed this further in the "framing" thread.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[Guest guy_mancuso]

Well I don't disagree with Brad and for the old dogs on the M system i can see why he says that BUT to attract some new puppies to the kennel it would be more attractive if you did not have to guess either. It's there just like it always was but now it is more accurate is all i would want plus no other framelines to distract you just the lens your using from 21mm to 135mm

[lars_bergquist]

Hank and Guy,

 

the technology for a zooming finder has existed for decades. But would you accept a great big outboard box hanging on the camera? The laws of optics are what they are. Technology does not abolish natural laws, it just uses them in clever ways.

 

Similarly, the electronical finder frames, in order to move and change size smoothly, would require another optical zoom system. There are not many cubic millimetres left unused inside the M8. Would you love a much larger camera? Like the M5? Let's face it, we are not talking about a bigger and better home TV.

 

There are things that can be profitably improved in the M8. Sure. But dreaming about feats of magic does not get us anywhere. Real improvements will be implemented in the electronic hardware – eventually. And then we will probably even be able to upgrade, like in the old days when a Leica I could be successively upgraded to a Leica I interchangeable – Leica II – Leica IIIa – even one with IIIf flash sync a quarter of a century later. That sort of thing did happen!

 

The old man from the Age of the IIIa

[mwilliamsphotography]

Sorry, I still disagree Hank. Yes it is a digital camera, but making it functionally even more dependant on electronics doesn't interest me ... especially from a company that's stumbling along in that area of engineering.

 

Just like my car is a big computer controlled device, but that doesn't mean I want the digital read outs projected on my windshield... nor apparently did anyone one else.

 

IMO, a far more useful device for the viewfinder would be a better solution for using a magnifier. A simple rotating optical solution for 75mm and up. This could be a simple mechanical device dependant on excellent optics, both of which Leica has the experise to accomplish.

 

IMO projected frame lines is fixing something that isn't broke.

 

Make the camera they have do what it's suppose to do before moving off into science fiction. Simple stuff, like including a sync port on the darned thing, more divisions of ISO choices instead of jumping from 320 to 640 then to 1250. ... and while I'm at it, where the heck is the firmware for the DMR? : -)

[Guest stnami]

and while I'm at it, where the heck is the firmware for the DMR?

......perhaps.........this ??........

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[thrid]

Leica should meddle with the RF at their peril. You don't chuck 50 years of proven technology down the drain to create this month's latest electronic wonder-toy.

 

Leica already designed and prototyped this type of finder, as a mechanical solution, a few decades ago. The prototype is up for auction at Westlicht, along with a copy of the blueprints.

 

It's not rocket science to design something like this.