M8 body

[leicapfile]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Mark,

 

I purchased a D2 about a year and a half ago. With it came bundled for free, a Leica (made by Metz) S24D. A good flash for closer work, but not a lot of power nor swivel/bounce capability. On the flash there are three modes. M (manual), A (Automatic), and TTL/GNC (Through The Lens and Guide Number Control).

 

Being the typical American retired engineer I mounted the flash and happily fired away, setting it at TTL/GNC without reading the manual. Worked great exposure wise. Thought I was exposing with this new and fancy TTL thing. Wrong!

 

This came to light later in the year when I purchased an M7 (Last Leica I'm going to buy Dear!) along with a used Metz 54 MZ-3, with the M4 base. The Metz 54 manual indicated that when I was using the D2, I should utilize the GNC setting, as opposed to the TTL. They are separate settings on the Metz 54. That prompted a couple of e-mails to Metz and Leica USA.

 

Without a lot of techno-babble, I learned that no current or proposed digital camera was capable of utilizing TTL flash in the manner of Off The Film. Only possible with film bodies. Seems to have something to do with reliable reflections off of the sensor cell that records the image in digital. So GNC appears to be a work around that emulates TTL.

 

How it does this I don't know. Is there a sensor internal to my D2 that reads the light incoming from the flash, but not in the off the film manner by which TTL works? Can't take the lens off to peek inside.

 

As this 'fix' or compenstion or whatever one calls it appears to work very well, I suspect the M8 will utilize it. In the meantime I probably won't find out, due to the promise mentioned above. However, if anyone wants a NIB M6 0.85, and a pristine D2 with all boxes and paperwork..........

 

Best,

 

Jerry

[marknorton]

Nikon DSLRs work by issuing a series of pre-flashes and measuring what comes back before the main exposure. Maybe any Leica TTL flash would work the same way, with the camera sensing the light off the white blob on the shutter....

[wattsy]

I was surprised to read that (about the flare off the white dot) too and was musing whether the M8 will use the same option. The R-D1 solution - grey shutter blades and a white centre one - does seem a bit crude though. That got me thinking about the M5 and the CL with their cells on swing arms...

 

Doesn't the RD-1 employ two sets of shutters? If I recall correctly, the standard OEM SLR metal shutters used in the Bessa cameras (and carried over to the RD-1) are not entirely light-tight. This isn't a problem when these shutters are used in SLRs because the mirror and associated assembly acts to block out most light. In an RF body there is no mirror in the way. To get around this problem Cosina stuck an outer (light-tight) shutter in the body as well. It is this outer shutter curtain which has the metering pattern on it. As far as I recall (I sold my RD-1 over a year ago) the RD-1 also has this two shutter arrangement. The M8 may have a similar two shutter set-up. Incidentally, as far as the metering area goes, I would prefer Leica to stick with the same 'large spot' meter that they have used since the M6. It's a simple system that works very well.

[marknorton]

Ian, the R-D1 does indeed have a double shutter, but after the exposure, only the rear one is in front of the sensor. Both curtains move down when the shutter is wound.

 

I think the use of the two shutters is also to create the travelling slit at high shutter speeds.

[ho_co]

Jerry.I'm sure you're right about the M6 shutter; if you ever needed to have the shutter curtains replaced, they would have to re-calibrate the meter, because the density/reflectivity of the white blob must sure vary from sample to sample....

Jerry & Mark--

 

Correct.

 

I'm sure you've noticed that in all the M cameras before the M6, one hinge of the flop-open back plate had an easy-to-grab lever that allowed easy removal of the back, but that lever is missing on the M6.

 

Part of the reason is that each M6 meter is calibrated to the paint on the shutter surface. Up till the M6, backplates were interchangeable; but with the M6, the meter's ISO calibration on the flip-open back plate (I don't suppose that's the official term ) is matched to the specific camera's shutter reflectivity. Therefore, with the metered camera, the quick-and-easy removal lever is just a bit harder to get at. Just a safety feature to make it less likely that the repairman will unknowingly exchange two backplates with differing calibratiions. It didn't make any difference on the M4 or M2, say, but it does starting with the M6.

 

--HC

[ho_co]

Re: A swing arm arrangement for the meter. I guess that would be a possibility. However, given the high(er) shutter speeds envisioned, would that not slow down the total exposure response times? Long a forte of the M series.

Jerry--

The M5 was my favorite Leica, though the market didn't agree with me.

 

With it, the shutter release traveled 0.5mm further than with previous Leicas. The pressure on the release button slowly swung the meter arm out of the way. It was so beautifully done that one didn't notice any extra pressure, and most people didn't notice the extra travel. But since the meter arm was already out of the way before the shutter was released, there was no extra delay.

 

That was different on the CL, where the "shutter release" actually released the meter arm, and the meter arm tripped the shutter. Both designs guaranteed that the meter arm would be out of the way before the shutter opened, but the CL design did add a fraction of a second of delay.

 

The only thing is, no one cared because no one worried about such things as today's "digicam delay," and at any rate as I recall, the CL had less delay than the typical SLR of the day.

 

But despite the fact that Leica managed with two different designs to put a meter behind the lens of an interchangeable-lens rangefinder camera, so many people ran around screaming "Rube Goldberg!" that I'm sure no one will ever attempt it again. It was a simple solution beautifully executed, and people hated it. So much for being ahead of one's time.

 

Today some accuse Leica of lagging the market--but I think the truth will prove to be that Leica this time is seeing that the solution fits.

 

--HC

[ho_co]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Jorge's source seems to be authentic and he has posted pictures of the new Tri-Elmar and viewfinder over at RFF.

 

Is anyone else bothered by that photo? (http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=27530)

 

Lens looks sort of okay, except that it shows focal lengths engraved within the depth of field lines; that seems a bit inelegant for Leica.

 

But the finder bothers me because:

1) Leica tends not to show glass elements colored yellow. We see through the finders, see that they transmit light, do not see an opaque surface indicating reflection. This looks more like a Japanese company's advertising brochure than the Leica approach.

2) The parallax and fov settings look a bit 'fiddly' for Leica. The current Minolta-made multi-angle finder is large and has a single setting for lens involved, not a small knob.

3) Why are there parallax settings there anyway? These are all wide-angles, where in general parallax corrections are less necessary than with longer lenses.

4) The design shown seems to have readouts only in meters. That would be unusable for a lot of us UnitedStatesian troglodytes. It would also be unlikely, I think, to offer a US version and a different 'rest of the known universe' version.

 

--HC

[marknorton]

Perhaps Leica are spear-heading an effort to stop you guys sizing screws in 32nds of an inch. The philosophy is that if they convert Leica Users first to metric, the rest of the country will follow...

 

As with all these shots, it's tough to know whether what you're loking at is real, a design study or an elaborate hoax. The lens looks plausible, but the DoF lines are crazy.I quite like the finder but it may jusy be a design study, not the real thing.

[stunsworth]

The lens looks plausible, but the DoF lines are crazy.

 

The existing Tri-Elmar uses a similar scheme.

[marknorton]

My Tri-Elmar is one of the first generation and they omitted them completely, muast have had a change of heart since.

[adan]

Here's the Tri-Elmar 28-35-50: Leica Camera AG - Photography - LEICA TRI-ELMAR-M 28–35–50 mm f/4 ASPH.

 

Same DOF line treatment. On the 16-18-21 the DOF is naturally much wider, thus the lines spread out more, thus the yellow focal length markings must either appear within the DOF lines, or be moved practically to the bottom of the lens.

 

Leica has always (since they were introduced about 1980) put the yellow focal length identifier at the "2 o'clock" position - I guess they decided it was more practical to stick with that "easy to see" location than a more elegant location that would require turning the camera upside down.

 

Otherwise:

 

1) Ehh! - These are likely computer illustrations - not "fakes' but not studio pictures either.

 

2) The current finder only has to cover 3 focal lengths over a 1.4x range with no bright lines and no parallax correction - this finder covers 5 focal lengths over nearly a 2x range with bright lines and with parallax correction, which incidentally...

 

3) ...is important shooting close with ANY focal length - the current finder simply avoids the problem by leaving a lot of elbow-room - i.e it is very inaccurate in overall framing to safely allow for not cutting off things in the top of the frame. If the new finder has Px correction, it simply does what should have been done all along (cf. Canon's "tilt-pin-in-the-accesory-shoe" system, which automatically linked their RF accesory finders o the camera's built-in system).

 

4) Not that hard to change the silk-screening of the marking for U.S. consumption - plus the production models may have dual scales anyway by the time Leica is selling them.

 

But - yes, this finder is a bit fiddly (although not more so than, say, the Leica MR meter). And big. Looks like a Leica Geosystems laser-theodolite engineer had a hand in the design (function over form).

 

One thought I've had - given how long and tubular this lens is, even though it involves shorter focal lengths and a shorter range (1.33x vs. 1.8x) than the original Tri-Elmar - I suspect the optical design is VERY digital-friendly (as well it should be). The light is being funneled down a long tunnel so that it is very perpendicular to the sensor by the time it comes out the back. It will be interesting to compare vignetting and corner sharpness with this lens compared to a 'straight' 21mm on the M8.

 

Except that Sean Reid probably already has.....

[rosuna]

There are news about the M8 body: http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=27516

 

Camera EUR 4.300

The camera, although it is really an "M", does look a little different, as for noo advance-lever and rewind.

The top plate is shaped "closed", so the first view remembers more to a C1, C2, C3 compact, than to an M.

 

So, it will have a look very similar to the M5 (I don't like that) and a higher price than expected.

 

The top plate has a step for a good reason: the shutter button and the shutter speed wheel must to equalize the height of the camera. A flat plate means sunk buttons, like the R8 and R9 cameras... We will have a thicker AND taller camera with hidden top buttons in a flat roof... this is a monster brick very different to a real M camera.

[Guest agnoo]

This is nonsense!

 

There are news about the M8 body: http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=27516

 

 

 

So, it will have a look very similar to the M5 (I don't like that) and a higher price than expected.

 

The top plate has a step for a good reason: the shutter button and the shutter speed wheel must to equalize the height of the camera. A flat plate means sunk buttons, like the R8 and R9 cameras... We will have a thicker AND taller camera with hidden top buttons in a flat roof... this is a monster brick very different to a real M camera.

[adan]

Rubén: Don't panic yet - I think there's just a translation problem there. Not sure what a "closed" body is supposed to mean in English - but everything else he lists matches everything we already know, and also Jorge's M8 pictures.

 

An M8 with no "film" levers does look somewhat like a C1,2,3, even with the 'step' over the RF still in place. If there's anything I'm certain of regarding the M8, it's that the shutter dial will NOT be "recessed"!

 

And again, with prices in Euros, one must know if that includes the VAT - which Luigi neglects to make clear. 4,300 EU including VAT would still come out as $4,995 or less (without tax) - which has always been the operating figure I've seen

[rosuna]

Rubén: Don't panic yet - I think there's just a translation problem there. Not sure what a "closed" body is supposed to mean in English - but everything else he lists matches everything we already know, and also Jorge's M8 pictures.

 

An M8 with no "film" levers does look somewhat like a C1,2,3, even with the 'step' over the RF still in place. If there's anything I'm certain of regarding the M8, it's that the shutter dial will NOT be "recessed"!

 

And again, with prices in Euros, one must know if that includes the VAT - which Luigi neglects to make clear. 4,300 EU including VAT would still come out as $4,995 or less (without tax) - which has always been the operating figure I've seen

 

OK, I hope you are right. Maybe Luigi refers to the top right part of the top plate, this is, the film lever would not be replaced by a bent "corner", but by a right one (like that of the Jorge's M8 pictures).

[geoff]

I've come to conclude that images from RangeFinderForum are a fair representation of what the M8 will look like given Luigi's comments.

 

I also feel that the M8 images posted might not be actual Leica sourced material but an artist's interpretation base on first hand accounts.

 

I believe that what Luigi is saying, is that the upper left corner of the M8 is formed “closed” off similar to that of the Leica C series bodies of compact 35mm cameras.

 

Below is my rendering of the M8 described by Luigi, similar to the RangeFinderForum image, showcasing the closed body design as opposed to my preferred M8 body style and that of the M7 and MP.

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!

[Goldie]

IMHO I think the leaked photo is probably genuine, for the following reasons;

1. The photo matches exactly with official Leica lense photo protocols.

2. The calibration of the scales(all of them) makes sense.

3. The back lense tube extension is about the correct expected length.

4. There are subtle dimensional differences to the existing Tri-Elmar.

5. The lense hood looks sensible.

6. The detailing on rings,edges etc matches in-house styling standards.

If it is a hoax then somebody has a lot of time to waste!

The only oddity is that Leica don't usually have lense hoods on, in their main product photos.

 

As for the VF, this too looks like a genuine finished product; detailing looks neat and well thought out, and it would do the job.

[ho_co]

Perhaps Leica are spear-heading an effort to stop you guys sizing screws in 32nds of an inch. The philosophy is that if they convert Leica Users first to metric, the rest of the country will follow...

Good point, Mark. While we Leica users attempt to take control of the country, the US can attempt to control the world thru other means.

 

I didn't say that, did I?

 

--HC

[ho_co]

I've come to conclude that images from RangeFinderForum are a fair representation of what the M8 will look like given Luigi's comments.

Geoff--

I agree. I think things are starting to firm up.

 

I think what bothers me is that the M8 is starting to look so "ordinary."

 

Nice drawings, by the way!

 

--HC

 

Fantasy is better than knowledge, because knowledge is limited.

--Albert Einstein

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[ho_co]

Good points from everyone here, especially about Leica not usually illustrating lenses with the hood attached. The current Tri-Elmar doesn't even come with hood.

 

And the fact is, everything looks quite usable. I much preferred the clean lines of the older metal accessory viewfinders, but practically they were too susceptible to damage. The one here has all the features needed.

 

Any idea what the squarish opening might be beside the front glass of the VF? Connection for a measuring chain, perhaps, for non-coupled lenses like the Zeiss 15/2.8? Opening for the accessory laser rangefinder for use with the same lenses? Distraction issue to give us another point to ponder while awaiting 9/15?

 

--HC