NEW M.. This year.. This Fall...

[edwardkaraa]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Any company in Japan or China already can built optomechanical rangefinders. The'yre to economically sane to do that, though. They also can make lenses.

But if they become cheaper to make and easier to produce, I can see a couple of Chinese companies trying their hand at it. Not bad news, mind you.

[Advertisement]

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

[jaapv]

I did mean an aperture that closes automatically to a preset  value. Mostly yes, there is not much wrong with focusing an EVF at working aperture in my eyes.  Focusing accuracy is usually defined by "within a  given fraction of DOF", so stopping down increases the tolerance.

Whatever else, it eliminates focus shift.

Including a stopping down mechanism in a lens does increase the size, something we don't want on rangefinder lenses.

[edwardkaraa]

German engineering is a silly argument. I don't care which human being builds my camera, as long as it is done to my liking. It sounds a bit naive that handicraft would be restricted to one nation.

 

Current products are assembled from components that may come from anywhere. Mercedes C class cars are assembled in the USA, Toyota cars in the UK, Philips televisions in Taiwan, BMW has a huge factory in South Africa, why should cameras remain provincial?

I'm glad of your reply, Jaap. It shows that after all you're not a blind servant of Leica as sometimes you give the impression of. These silly arguments are not mine, and I don't adhere to them. They are the arguments of Leica to keep on milking us of our money. The handicraft made in Germany superior engineering of this high precision instrument being the RF. Leica will certainly loose this argument and won't be able charge what it does. Look at the Q price. One can argue it is cheaper than the Sony RX1, all things considered.

[jaapv]

But if they become cheaper to make and easier to produce, I can see a couple of Chinese companies trying their hand at it. Not bad news, mind you.

Canon and Nikon aready did. So did the Chinese Red Flag - the cameras were seriously expensive.

[jaapv]

I'm glad of your reply, Jaap. It shows that after all you're not a blind servant of Leica as sometimes you give the impression of. These silly arguments are not mine, and I don't adhere to them. They are the arguments of Leica to keep on milking us of our money. The handicraft made in Germany superior engineering of this high precision instrument being the RF. Leica will certainly loose this argument and won't be able charge what it does. Look at the Q price. One can argue it is cheaper than the Sony RX1, all things considered.

I'm not sure Leica is milking anybody any more than any other company. They have costs, a margin, and that makes the price. It is not as if they are making crazy profits, in fact without the financial base that the financiers provide they would be floundering if not dead.

If you are saying the buyer is financing the inefficiencies of their production model you are right, but then it is just that production model that sells their cameras.

 

BTW, you should read my posts better. An explanation is not an excuse. Although it may well be something naysayers do not like to hear.

[AndreasAM]

 That said, I am not a camera engineer, so since you seem quite positive of your statements, let me ask how exactly making it electronic will "elmininate the need for further adjustment"?  If it relies on focus-by-proxy (lens camming set to an assumed standard) and a particular lens' calibration is "off", then how would this "POERF" know and compensate? 

 

The POERF is a fixed  independent unit  ( two measuring lenses on a bar, wit the accompanied electronics). No mechanical parts at all.

The manufacturing and montage are no doubted been done under strict limits. But after production the unit is monitored, when a misalignment is measured, the measuring fault can be compensated through software algorithms and stored, together with a calibration table (for the relationship between the measured phase difference and known objectdistances) is stored in its own databank and used for evaluation by a microprocessor unit in the body of the camera.

No misalignment can occur in daily use anymore.

 

But it is highly technical and I am just an architect who understands geometry and distance measuring in the field and just finished reading some related papers on this subject!

[Neko]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

But if they become cheaper to make and easier to produce, I can see a couple of Chinese companies trying their hand at it. Not bad news, mind you.

 

 Maybe we should spend some time working in a assembly production line in a low-wage country to change our mind....

[edwardkaraa]

Maybe we should spend some time working in a assembly production line in a low-wage country to change our mind....

If Apple can do it, anyone can I see no moral objection. Chinese labor is very well paid FYI.

[edwardkaraa]

I'm not sure Leica is milking anybody any more than any other company. They have costs, a margin, and that makes the price. It is not as if they are making crazy profits, in fact without the financial base that the financiers provide they would be floundering if not dead.

If you are saying the buyer is financing the inefficiencies of their production model you are right, but then it is just that production model that sells their cameras.

 

BTW, you should read my posts better. An explanation is not an excuse. Although it may well be something naysayers do not like to hear.

I'm saying that the made in Germany stamp comes with a price, even though the cameras are actually made in Portugal. Leica may not be making a lot of profit, I don't really know, but it's certainly the only camera maker actually making some profit

[kkonkkrete]

It's funny to see so much speculation, and so little attention paid to the source.  I strongly recommend going back and reading the interviews with people who actually work at Leica ... it makes things much clearer.

[jaapv]

I'm saying that the made in Germany stamp comes with a price, even though the cameras are actually made in Portugal. Leica may not be making a lot of profit, I don't really know, but it's certainly the only camera maker actually making some profit

I can assure you that the factory in Wetzlar is not standing idle. Most of the Q comes from Japan, though. Not that Japan is significantly cheaper than Germany...(Nor Portugal)

[AndreasAM]

It's funny to see so much speculation, and so little attention paid to the source.  I strongly recommend going back and reading the interviews with people who actually work at Leica ... it makes things much clearer.

To which source are you referring? 

After 19 pages of posts, it is difficult to know what you mean. There are to many trees and no forest!

 

Could it be Gbpost on page 5, #81? New member with only 2 post sofar, but introducing the patent about the POERF (very intriguing!)

[AndreasAM]

That said, I am not a camera engineer, so since you seem quite positive of your statements, let me ask how exactly making it electronic will "elmininate the need for further adjustment"?  If it relies on focus-by-proxy (lens camming set to an assumed standard) and a particular lens' calibration is "off", then how would this "POERF" know and compensate?  If focus is achieved off the sensor, then the shutter would need to be open for focusing, then close and re-open and re-close for the capture, then re-open to allow refocusing. Similar to the "advanced" metering in the M240, and likewise creating a time-lag and increased wear-and-tear on the shutter mechanism.  I'm just curious how such a POERF would be more than a gimmick, like advanced metering, which has more downside than up.  A properly-calibrated opto-mechanical RF is capable of spot-on focusing, and at least in my 40+ years of using them, not easily prone to becoming misaligned barring a severe impact.  

 

For those who hasn't noticed that my quoting of "bocaburger" and my reaction on his post went wrong, here is my reply again:

 

The POERF is a fixed  independent unit  ( two measuring lenses on a bar, wit the accompanied electronics). No mechanical parts at all.

The manufacturing and montage are no doubted been done under strict limits. But after production the unit is monitored, when a misalignment is measured, the measuring fault can be compensated through software algorithms and stored, together with a calibration table (for the relationship between the measured phase difference and known objectdistances) is stored in its own databank and used for evaluation by a microprocessor unit in the body of the camera.

No misalignment can occur in daily use anymore.

 

But it is highly technical and I am just an architect who understands trigonometry and distance measuring in the field and just finished reading some related papers on this subject!

[pop]

The POERF is a fixed  independent unit  ( two measuring lenses on a bar, wit the accompanied electronics). No mechanical parts at all.

That happens not to be the case. The unit must take into account the exact distance of the lens from the image plane. Both the architecture of the Leica M type camera and the patent description make that a strictly mechanical part that certainly can go out of whack at two distinct places: within the lens and within the camera body.

[Linford]

Is there a chance that what we are looking at bridging the enormous price gap between the M and the S with a hybrid camera? Perhaps, a simple full-frame camera system with auto capabilities and of course M-lens adapter and built in EVF like the Q. I would love to see this happen. I agree with Erfahrener Benutzer and cannot imagine they would replace the viewfinder system. Anyone know when the announcement is to be made? Cheers--lt

[AndreasAM]

That happens not to be the case. The unit must take into account the exact distance of the lens from the image plane. Both the architecture of the Leica M type camera and the patent description make that a strictly mechanical part that certainly can go out of whack at two distinct places: within the lens and within the camera body.

Well the patent states (in German to avoid the terrible Google translation and sorry to the non German speaking folks out here, but I want to be precise!):

 

"Die Anordnung von zwei zueinander beabstandeten elektronischen Bildaufnahme-Modulen ermöglicht durch die Wahl des Abstandes die Schaffung einer geeigneten Meßbasis für die Triangulation. ......... Die Ausrichtung der optischen Achsen der Bildaufnahme-Module auf einen gemeinsamen Zielpunkt vermeidet bewegliche Elemente."

 

and for measuring the distance:

 

"Die Ermittlung der Phasendifferenz der von den Bildaufnahme-Modulen aufgenommenen Bilder ermöglicht eine Angabe der gemessenen Entfernung relativ zum Abstand des Zielpunktes. Durch Testmessungen mit bekannten Objektentfernungen kann eine Eichtabelle für die Beziehung zwischen gemessenem Phasenabstand und Objekt-Entfernung erstellt und zur Auswertung durch eine Mikroprozessor-Einheit im Gehäuse der Kamera abgelegt werden."

 

Well, I guess your understanding of German is way better than mine, I am no native speaker, but I think it speaks for it self.

 

The unit can be attached to the backbone (body) of the camera in a secure way, as is the sensor. The exact distance for each RF-unit and camera can vary, but can be measured and stored in the "Eichtabelle" (Calibrationtable) by software. So unless the camera is run over, this exact distance between image plane and the plane of the measuring lenses on the opto-electronic RF unit is pretty fixed and secure. Certainly if Leica keeps on building the M like a tank!

[pop]

There are two things to a range finder. For one, it has to determine the distance from the image plane to the object plane, i.e. the distance from the camera to the model. This is the part to which your statement applies. The part of the electronic rangefinder which determines that distance is indeed a solid state device.

 

The second part of the objective is to position the lens such that the desired object will cast a sharp image onto the image plane. This requires that the lens be placed at a certain distance from the image plane. The range finder must be able to tell you when that distance has been reached, it must therefore know where the lens is positioned with respect to the image plane.

 

Please have a look at paragraph 19 of the description:

The to the housing 1 scheduled recording lens 2 can be a manually focusable lens or a motorized adjustable lens. The manual focusable lens is provided in a conventional manner with a cam on which a roller lever 13 along running. The roller lever 13 is provided with a not shown electronic sensor for detecting its displacement. The focus distance of the receiving lens 2 corresponding displacement signals are also the microprocessor unit 12fed (arrow). Motorised focusable contain an electronic scale to indicate the respective focal distance. These signals are the microprocessor unit 12 fed (arrow).

[AndreasAM]

There are two things to a range finder. For one, it has to determine the distance from the image plane to the object plane, i.e. the distance from the camera to the model. This is the part to which your statement applies. The part of the electronic rangefinder which determines that distance is indeed a solid state device.

 

The second part of the objective is to position the lens such that the desired object will cast a sharp image onto the image plane. This requires that the lens be placed at a certain distance from the image plane. The range finder must be able to tell you when that distance has been reached, it must therefore know where the lens is positioned with respect to the image plane.

 

Please have a look at paragraph 19 of the description:

 

In the second case, if I understand you correctly, you are questioning the fixation of the roll lever of the lens, the correct movement of the roll lever  and the sensor (a static object, fixed to the backbone of the camera) which reads the movement of the roll lever. The sensor translates this movement (of the known lens, six bit coding stored in its database) in the distance between lens and object. 

I have never heard that the functioning of the roll lever of the manual lens had to be adjusted, or that this is the often mentioned problem with a misaligned RF.

But still if so, it doesn't matter for the functioning of the OERF, because the patent states that both distance readings (that of the lens and of the OERF) are presented to the user as a difference (or presented as a digital focus patch), to be manually adjusted by the user to zero, which equals as in focus. This difference is relative to each and every lens which is used (roll lever out of whack or not).

 

With an AF lens and the OERF it is of no importance because there is no reading of the mechanical roll lever but the sensor is integrated in the lens to read and feed the focus mechanism of the lens, to zero in the measured difference (by iteration, but lightning fast!).

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[adli]

An interesting feature this patent could make possible, is the ability to store a different calibration for each lens in the camera, redusing the need for sending lenses to Leica for calibration. The camera could adapt to each lens, provides the user do not have more than one lens of each type.

[kkonkkrete]

Is there a chance that what we are looking at bridging the enormous price gap between the M and the S with a hybrid camera? Perhaps, a simple full-frame camera system with auto capabilities and of course M-lens adapter and built in EVF like the Q. I would love to see this happen. I agree with Erfahrener Benutzer and cannot imagine they would replace the viewfinder system. Anyone know when the announcement is to be made? Cheers--lt

 

I think the camera that's between M and S is ANOTHER new camera Leica are working on, but IMO won't be announced until Photokina 2016 (if it comes out at all).  I speculate that it will be a mirrorless 'medium format' digital like the Mamiya 7, but with an S-sized sensor, possibly also with an EVF or hybrid viewfinder.  My source for this idea (the existence of some kind of camera between M and S) is the Film and Digital Times interview with Andreas Kaufmann.

 

The camera discussed in this thread is rumoured to be announced in Oct this year.  Whether it is a new M or a different camera that can accept M lenses as well as a new line of AF lenses (probably T-mount) is still not 100% clear.  What does appear to be clear is that the optical viewfinder is not disappearing from the M camera (source for this is Stefan Daniel).