wildlightphoto Posted July 20, 2008 Share #81 Â Posted July 20, 2008 Advertisement (gone after registration) Isn't it interesting that after AF SLR cameras have been available for about 23 years Leica has no experience with AF? Â Leica invented AF in the early 1970s with the Correfot system which was never produced commercially, in part because computers did not have the necessary processing power and were not nearly small enough for a practical camera. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted July 20, 2008 Posted July 20, 2008 Hi wildlightphoto, Take a look here Is Autofocus as relevant as it is often presumed. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
AlanG Posted July 21, 2008 Share #82 Â Posted July 21, 2008 Leica invented AF in the early 1970s with the Correfot system which was never produced commercially, in part because computers did not have the necessary processing power and were not nearly small enough for a practical camera. Â I have seen other statements about this too but can't seem to locate any information about this "camera." The best that I know is that Honeywell had the early AF patents and the technology. Honeywell sued Minolta and other comapanies and won substantial awards. Polaroid had its simple sonar focusing that used different technology. Â In any case, assuming Leica saw the potential value of AF early on, they didn't seem to make any cameras with AF. Why not? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildlightphoto Posted July 21, 2008 Share #83  Posted July 21, 2008 I have seen other statements about this too but can't seem to locate any information about this "camera."  Google is your friend: The Online Photographer: Leica M8 Pro and Con: Pro Camera Technology: The Dark Side of ... - Google Book Search Photo Gallery - fotografiets historie - part X  In any case, assuming Leica saw the potential value of AF early on, they didn't seem to make any cameras with AF. Why not?  For a definitive answer you'll have to query the E.Leitz engineers of that time, however my recollection matches this snippet from the first link above:  "It’s clear why Leica never produced AF lenses for its cameras: To do so, they would have had to lighten the mounts and lose some of the precision that sets them apart. AF is an achievement, and Leica is the first company to illustrate with a working prototype (the Correfot) that electronics could be used to read and maximize contrast." Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chiefey Posted July 21, 2008 Share #84 Â Posted July 21, 2008 I've had intraocular transplants in both eyes 3 years ago. Since then I've used a d70 and a d200. The autofocus has really helped my photography. Recently I resurrected my R3, bought an R8, and a couple more R lenses. Getting used to manual focus is a bit more difficult than I imagined. But it gives me more satisfaction when I take a good picture. If Leica decides to release an AF camera + new AF lenses, they'll definetly go on my "wish list". Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdai Posted July 21, 2008 Share #85 Â Posted July 21, 2008 Erwin Puts has mentioned about the Correfot "camera" in his last essay he says it's "a nice design but impossible to get into production with the required reliability". Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdai Posted July 21, 2008 Share #86 Â Posted July 21, 2008 Getting used to manual focus is a bit more difficult than I imagined. But it gives me more satisfaction when I take a good picture.If Leica decides to release an AF camera + new AF lenses, they'll definetly go on my "wish list". Â There's absolutely no need to adopt auto focus in your case because now there are many ways to provide efficient focusing assistance. Â If you have tried to adapt your R lens on a Canon 1D series using the focusing confirmation adapter, you'll completely change your mind. When focus is locked down, the focus confirmation LED in the viewfinder will turn on and a beep will tell you it's done. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chiefey Posted July 21, 2008 Share #87 Â Posted July 21, 2008 Advertisement (gone after registration) There's absolutely no need to adopt auto focus in your case because now there are many ways to provide efficient focusing assistance. Â If you have tried to adapt your R lens on a Canon 1D series using the focusing confirmation adapter, you'll completely change your mind. When focus is locked down, the focus confirmation LED in the viewfinder will turn on and a beep will tell you it's done. Â To do that, I would have to aquire a canon body. I'd rather use the money to save up for Leica equipment, which I feel is mechanically superior to Canon. Â I feel that when Leica finally does introduce autofocus in their cameras and lenses, It will be, if not better, then at least as good as what other manufacturers have on the market now. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdai Posted July 21, 2008 Share #88  Posted July 21, 2008 I'd rather use the money to save up for Leica equipment, which I feel is mechanically superior to Canon. I feel that when Leica finally does introduce autofocus in their cameras and lenses, It will be, if not better, then at least as good as what other manufacturers have on the market now.  Everybody agrees that Leica is mechanically superior to Canon but as many folks believe that Leica is electronically inferior to Canon as well.  If Leica ditches MF and fails to deliver class leading AF, then who would bother with them?  They could try, which is fine, good luck ... but for the ticket price they ask for, they'd better beat Canon's 1D series and Nikon's D3 otherwise what's the point?  There're decent auto focus DSLRs at very affordable prices for almost a decade, why haven't you bought one if you "need" one? you've made it sound like you haven't taken any pictures for 6 or 7 years because Leica hasn't built an AF camera yet. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted July 21, 2008 Share #89 Â Posted July 21, 2008 So far Leica bodies have never been electronically superior or even equal to Nikon or Canon ones if memory serves. But this relative inferiority was more or less balanced by more basic features like a large/bright viewfinder, quiet shutter noise, great manual focussing and the like, mainly by the quality of lenses of course. Now the question is not to know if the R10 will be 'electronically superior' to the D3 of its Canon counterpart, we can guess that it won't be the case, but if the balancing (is that English?) i referred to above will work again tomorrow like it did with more or less success in the past. Will the quality of Leica lenses remain a winning card if the current ones are tied up by an adapter? Will possible qualities like a large/bright VF be able to balance a price closer to MF stuff than that of the M8? Leica took too much risk when they launched the M8 with its IR sensibility, but there was no serious competition in the market then. Now the game is not the same any more. Betting that R users are ready to pay the price of an MF body to use their Leica lenses would be extremely hazardous IMHO. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chiefey Posted July 21, 2008 Share #90 Â Posted July 21, 2008 sdai, Please reread my original post. I own a d70 and a d200. I didn't use my R3 for 6-7 years. I also own a Canon Pellix and an EF, a Mamiya C330, a Rolleicord, but those are in the back of the closet. Oh, and 3 Hasselblads too. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest jimmy pro Posted July 22, 2008 Share #91 Â Posted July 22, 2008 Betting that R users are ready to pay the price of an MF body to use their Leica lenses would be extremely hazardous IMHO. Â Are you kidding it's a sure bet...so long as they don't give it AF and/or change the lensmount. The died in the wool R users will pay anything as long as Leica keeps it old school. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdai Posted July 22, 2008 Share #92 Â Posted July 22, 2008 It depends on what kind of MF body LCT was talking about ... brand new Holgas can be had for only 25 to 42 bucks. LOL Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted July 22, 2008 Share #93 Â Posted July 22, 2008 Are you kidding it's a sure bet...so long as they don't give it AF and/or change the lensmount. The died in the wool R users will pay anything as long as Leica keeps it old school. I prefer cotton, i'm still alive (i think) but so would i i guess. Now Leica will probably change the mount so the deal will change as well. Would be interesting to post a pool here. How many of us would be prepared to pay $8,000 to use our R lenses with an adapter? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdai Posted July 22, 2008 Share #94 Â Posted July 22, 2008 How many of us would be prepared to pay $8,000 to use our R lenses with an adapter? Â 8000 bucks sounds about right for a high end camera body, LCT ... I'm actually worrying about the adapter's price, will they charge 1000 or 2000 bucks for that? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted July 22, 2008 Share #95 Â Posted July 22, 2008 8000 bucks sounds about right for a high end camera body, LCT... So would you be ready to pay $8,000 to use your R lenses with a reasonably priced adapter, Simon? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdai Posted July 22, 2008 Share #96 Â Posted July 22, 2008 So would you be ready to pay $8,000 to use your R lenses with a reasonably priced adapter, Simon? Â It's not about money, LCT ... worst case, I could sell one of my cars which I never drive. Â If Leica really goes after medium format, no adapter will make the legacy R lenses work! Â It's not only about the huge mirror slapping the butt of the lens, it's not about using the old lenses in sensor cropped mode. Â If you move the R lenses away from the focal plane due to the longer register distance a medium format camera commands, the R lenses won't focus properly and can only be used as extension tubes for macro shots. Â If they build an adapter the adapter has to have some glass elements. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted July 22, 2008 Share #97 Â Posted July 22, 2008 Simon, Leica never said it would be a 'real' MF (whatever this may mean), just possibly larger than FF. May mean a bit larger to allow in-camera IS for instance, or to gain a couple millimeters for whatever use, or to do i don't know what. As most techies here suggest that such a move would imply a new mount (which i don't quite catch given the size of the R mount but i rely on them), my question was just to know if you and other R users would be prepared to pay $8,000 to use your R lenses with an adapter. Because i think it is mainly a matter of money indeed. DMR apart, Leica users have never paid more for an R than for an M camera if i remember well, so i wonder if they would be prepared to make such an effort for the R10 when they can have a D3 or a A900 for much less. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdai Posted July 22, 2008 Share #98 Â Posted July 22, 2008 Simon, Leica never said it would be a 'real' MF (whatever this may mean), just possibly larger than FF. May mean a bit larger to allow in-camera IS for instance, or to gain a couple millimeters for whatever use, or to do i don't know what.As most techies here suggest that such a move would imply a new mount (which i don't quite catch given the size of the R mount but i rely on them), my question was just to know if you and other R users would be prepared to pay $8,000 to use your R lenses with an adapter. Because i think it is mainly a matter of money indeed. DMR apart, Leica users have never paid more for an R than for an M camera if i remember well, so i wonder if they would be prepared to make such an effort for the R10 when they can have a D3 or a A900 for much less. Â There's no need to make such a big fuss if all about "bigger than FF" is to allow in camera IS ... you don't hear this from Sony, Olympus or Pentax, advertising it as a selling point would be laughable. Â To answer your question, I am already using the R lenses via adapters on a $8000 camera but that's not why I bought the 1Ds2 in the first place ... I simply took its advantage. If I don't already own Canon, why would I blow $8000 on a camera for the sole purpose of adapting the R lenses? Â R lenses should be used in the way they were designed to be used and I really like the way how R cameras/lenses are manually operated together. I don't want ANY change to it ... ok, except making it as a SL3. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted July 22, 2008 Share #99 Â Posted July 22, 2008 8000$? It would have to give me a real advantage over the DMR, and by that I do not mean full frame, I do not need it.. Either size/weight or spectacularly better IQ , both not easy to realize, imo. R lenses on an adapter? I can go to Canon for that. Â The R10 must be aimed at new users to be a succes, and it can only be in the crossover 135/mf niche imo. Which means a new mount and lenses... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdai Posted July 22, 2008 Share #100 Â Posted July 22, 2008 The market segment between a Hasselblad and a 1Ds Mark X is non-existent. Â Anybody who is ready to blow $8000 + on a camera (body only) or $15k-$20k on a entry level camera system will go straight ahead for a "real" medium format. Â Good luck to Leica (if they really plan to do so) and the new users. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.