gbpost Posted August 4, 2015 Share #81 Posted August 4, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) In the patent WO2014/198245 from Leica Camera AG a camera with opto-electronic rangefinder is described.Though the patent might be difficult to read for non patent experts, at least in the drawing we see a camera with an optical viewfinder and an additional electronic rangefinder. The output of the electronic rangefinder is superimposed to the image from the optical viewfinder. This looks like the next Leica M iteration to me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted August 4, 2015 Posted August 4, 2015 Hi gbpost, Take a look here NEW M.. This year.. This Fall.... I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
rpavich Posted August 4, 2015 Share #82 Posted August 4, 2015 In the patent WO2014/198245 from Leica Camera AG a camera with opto-electronic rangefinder is described.Though the patent might be difficult to read for non patent experts, at least in the drawing we see a camera with an optical viewfinder and an additional electronic rangefinder. The output of the electronic rangefinder is superimposed to the image from the optical viewfinder. This looks like the next Leica M iteration to me. Bummer. Goodbye Konost...it was a short dream for you. Goodbye any desire to go past the M240 on my part. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted August 4, 2015 Share #83 Posted August 4, 2015 In the patent WO2014/198245 from Leica Camera AG a camera with opto-electronic rangefinder is described.Though the patent might be difficult to read for non patent experts, at least in the drawing we see a camera with an optical viewfinder and an additional electronic rangefinder. [...] For those interested, the drawing can be downloaded here: http://tinyurl.com/qh35ko2. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Belle123 Posted August 4, 2015 Share #84 Posted August 4, 2015 Rangefinders are great no doubt. When I'm shooting architecture and have time to pick my point, lock an exposure and shoot. But don't dismiss AF. Shots that I could not get at 0.95 or 1.4 for a really shallow DOF on my M240 with moving subjects, come out spectacular on my Q. Then shots you need AF, use the Q. There is your solution. And I like that solution. And I am strongly considering a Q. The M redesigned for autofocus would kill it. Means all new lenses too. Correct me if I am wrong, but there is no camera taking M lenses that you can use autofocus with the M lenses?? Right? I think the answer is keep the M optimized for M lenses, keep it simple, get a whole new camera body and lens system for those that need all the buzzes and whistles. The M is not for everyone and for every situation, but it does a good job in capable hands. Well, the real answers are already in Leica's hands. I can't wait to see what they have come up with...... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rpavich Posted August 4, 2015 Share #85 Posted August 4, 2015 Then shots you need AF, use the Q. There is your solution. And I like that solution. And I am strongly considering a Q. The M redesigned for autofocus would kill it. Means all new lenses too. Correct me if I am wrong, but there is no camera taking M lenses that you can use autofocus with the M lenses?? Right? I think the answer is keep the M optimized for M lenses, keep it simple, get a whole new camera body and lens system for those that need all the buzzes and whistles. The M is not for everyone and for every situation, but it does a good job in capable hands. Well, the real answers are already in Leica's hands. I can't wait to see what they have come up with...... Agreed. Please don't try to make the M successor be everything to everyone; then it will be nothing to everyone. Jack of all trades, master of none. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
asiafish Posted August 4, 2015 Share #86 Posted August 4, 2015 Agreed. Please don't try to make the M successor be everything to everyone; then it will be nothing to everyone. Jack of all trades, master of none. It doesn't seem so complicated. Use something like the T mount, but with the RF cam follower added. When using new AF lenses that do not have an RF cam they will just work with full autofocus, or MF using EVF/Live View. M Adapter could RF couple and allow true RF focusing. More likely the AF will be a parallel system that handles M lenses exactly the same way that the T does, focusing in liveview and EVF. A Q with a T mount would be quite desirable and make a nice companion to a traditional M mount RF camera. So long as traditional rangefinder cameras continue to be developed (which they will so long as the market exists), we are fine. I'm already halfway there, using the M system for serious photography, but often grabbing just my X or X Vario when I want to simplify or be in some of the pictures, Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rpavich Posted August 4, 2015 Share #87 Posted August 4, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) It doesn't seem so complicated. Use something like the T mount, but with the RF cam follower added. When using new AF lenses that do not have an RF cam they will just work with full autofocus, or MF using EVF/Live View. M Adapter could RF couple and allow true RF focusing. More likely the AF will be a parallel system that handles M lenses exactly the same way that the T does, focusing in liveview and EVF. A Q with a T mount would be quite desirable and make a nice companion to a traditional M mount RF camera. But I don't want a parallel system inside my camera. I don't even want video! I want an M. If they want to make an X...that has all of the bells and whistles...more power to them. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted August 4, 2015 Share #88 Posted August 4, 2015 M = rangefinder. An electronic rangefinder is still a rangefinder. See the drawing above. And the optical rangefinder would be still used in the M-E... Just speculations again ... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rpavich Posted August 4, 2015 Share #89 Posted August 4, 2015 M = rangefinder. An electronic rangefinder is still a rangefinder. See the drawing above. And the optical rangefinder would be still used in the M-E... Just speculations again ... Lol...yeah..now that Leica is attempting to do it. When Konost brought it up Leica users said "It's not a REAL RANGEFINDER!...a REAL rangefinder is a mechanically linked system of cams and levers" or something like that (not an accurate quote) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted August 4, 2015 Share #90 Posted August 4, 2015 For those interested, the drawing can be downloaded here: http://tinyurl.com/qh35ko2. Thanks. Finally something tangible. And something that might actually be very effective. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted August 4, 2015 Share #91 Posted August 4, 2015 Lol...yeah..now that Leica is attempting to do it. When Konost brought it up Leica users said "It's not a REAL RANGEFINDER!...a REAL rangefinder is a mechanically linked system of cams and levers" or something like that (not an accurate quote) « Split-image rangefinder: a range-finding focusing mechanism allowing the photographer to measure the subject distance and take photographs that are in sharp focus » (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rangefinder_camera) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pop Posted August 4, 2015 Share #92 Posted August 4, 2015 I think the drawing shows an electronic range finder consisting of two small cameras. The display may show a combination of the images delivered by the two small cameras. The distance of the object from the camera would be determined by triangulation of the object, much like in the optomechanical range finder. The finder is a mere viewfinder where you can mix in the image of the display. Edit: The drawing closely resembles an idea I mentioned here a while ago: http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/240543-would-an-electronic-rangefinder-lens-coupling-be-relevant/?do=findComment&comment=2756866 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cirke Posted August 4, 2015 Share #93 Posted August 4, 2015 That's what I suspect it will be Erick ........... me toooooooo ! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pop Posted August 4, 2015 Share #94 Posted August 4, 2015 I knew it. I have described a quite similar system before, and I did so before December 2014. http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/233715-die-zukunft-des-messsuchers/page-7?do=findComment&comment=2675271 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted August 4, 2015 Share #95 Posted August 4, 2015 Hmmm... See a patent lawyer in that case Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mmradman Posted August 4, 2015 Share #96 Posted August 4, 2015 For those interested, the drawing can be downloaded here: http://tinyurl.com/qh35ko2. Here is bit more http://www.google.com/patents/DE102012009975A1?cl=en Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramosa Posted August 4, 2015 Share #97 Posted August 4, 2015 Yuk...I'd hate it if Leica gave up the current rangefinder system and completely revamped the M's. If that's the case, then nothing would separate them from any other manufacturer, and they'd be playing catch up. The ONE thing they have in their pocket is that they are the ONLY game in town for a real rangefinder. Give that up for an EVF or some other method and why stay with Leica? Yea. I like the idea of smaller/lighter with the Q (or improved) sensor ... but I do like the traditional RF. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramosa Posted August 4, 2015 Share #98 Posted August 4, 2015 If … But then the rumour refers to a new camera system, implying that it had nothing to do with the M (except that nearly all mirrorless systems allow M lenses to be used with an adapter). Yup. Not sure about the validity of the rumor, but, indeed, it suggest two lines--one with traditional RF and one with "updated." Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted August 4, 2015 Share #99 Posted August 4, 2015 Hmm, published in 2013 ... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted August 4, 2015 Share #100 Posted August 4, 2015 Hmm, published in 2013 ... reasonable timing for an industrial implementation of some of the possibilities evidenced in the patent file... my quick feeling is that it could be, at least, no worse than the various "focus assist/confirmation in EVF" we have seen in those years... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.