AlanG Posted July 22, 2009 Author Share #21 Posted July 22, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) Alan seriously - and I don't want this to sound combative in any way - it's obvious the Leica M-system is not for you. Leave it to those who love the rangefinder as it is. I personally don't find it 'outdated' or 'old-fashioned' in any way (and I'm surrounded and work with the latest gadgetry every day). I'd have few problems using most cameras. If people didn't try to think of various possibilities then we'd still be living in caves. I'm only talking hypothetically (regarding an M) here showing how a simple laser device has been thought through and developed with the addition of a lens and viewing screen. It probably won't be long before it saves the images so you'll have a visual record of exactly what you measured. In this day and age there are probably easier more accurate ways of computing distance or focusing a camera than with an optical rangefinder. (Even while maintaining an optical viewfinder and legacy lens linkage.) If Leica isn't interested or up to the task then this aspect of their cameras have hit a dead end when it comes to development. Don't you think some designers at Leica have thought of ways to improve the rangefinder over the past 50 years or so? Meanwhile, AF systems have had a few decades of development while Leica did nothing to make the optical rangefinder more accurate, more versatile or simpler to manufacture. Many people may now accept the system but at some point more and more people will feel it is antiquated. (Although perhaps not you and many others here.) So Leica needs to look ahead if they have any hope of maintaining or increasing sales. Even a very simple system consisting of a small lens, a phase detect chip, and a focus confirmation light all linked to the focusing cam, would be an easy adaptation. (And would require way fewer changes than live view.) Leica will have no choice but to change the M. The only questions are how and when. Live view and contrast detect for focus confirmation may be inevitable - perhaps with the same optical viewfinder and rangefinder at least for a while. But a zoom viewfinder and electronic frame lines would not be too much to expect within a century or two. A lot of people thought I was out in left field when months ago I suggested live view and a clip on EVF for use with M and R lenses. But now it looks as if that is the solution Leica has in mind for a future new camera. (Integrated EVF most likely. But there could be an optical finder version too.) Some former naysayers now see the benefits of that possibility. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted July 22, 2009 Posted July 22, 2009 Hi AlanG, Take a look here Maybe this is how a future M rangefinder could work?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
SJP Posted July 22, 2009 Share #22 Posted July 22, 2009 How much further development is necessary on a hammer or a screwdriver? Are there any revolutionary changes in store for making coffee, or cooking your spuds & carrots? The fact that something is close to being fully developed does not imply that there is no market for it anymore. People still buy tools & pots and pans. Perfection is never antiquated and Leica have made the perfect rangefinder - give or take a bit. If they modify it with some other focussing system then it ceases to be a rangefinder. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfokevin Posted July 22, 2009 Share #23 Posted July 22, 2009 How much further development is necessary on a hammer or a screwdriver? Are there any revolutionary changes in store for making coffee, or cooking your spuds & carrots? The fact that something is close to being fully developed does not imply that there is no market for it anymore. People still buy tools & pots and pans. Perfection is never antiquated and Leica have made the perfect rangefinder - give or take a bit. If they modify it with some other focussing system then it ceases to be a rangefinder. ++1... Is microwave popcorn an advance in the science of popcorn making?... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
redbaron Posted July 22, 2009 Share #24 Posted July 22, 2009 Mmmmm... popcorn.. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bo_Lorentzen Posted July 22, 2009 Share #25 Posted July 22, 2009 Wait,, of all the treads _not_ to be moved by the sysop.. this belong in the M9+ forum . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
xrogers Posted July 23, 2009 Share #26 Posted July 23, 2009 I really like the interface the rangefinder provides. The big, open, clear finder, with the floating frames and intuitive rangefinder patch is simple and elegant. But more distance-accurate framelines would not ruin the M. Electronic control of the RF patch might allow a system to compensate for lens variations, increasing focus accuracy and reducing manufacturing (and service) cost for both cameras and lenses without changing the look of the finder at all. A simple LED that went on when the rf was coincident would help aging eyes (and if you didn't need it, you'd just shut it off). It would be a mistake for the M to change just to get "new and improved" stamped on the box. But I also believe Leica can make a truly better rangefinder camera, even for folks (like me) who love the camera just as it is. Later, Clyde Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rdubois Posted July 23, 2009 Share #27 Posted July 23, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) I'd have few problems using most cameras. If people didn't try to think of various possibilities then we'd still be living in caves. I'm only talking hypothetically (regarding an M) here showing how a simple laser device has been thought through and developed with the addition of a lens and viewing screen. It probably won't be long before it saves the images so you'll have a visual record of exactly what you measured. In this day and age there are probably easier more accurate ways of computing distance or focusing a camera than with an optical rangefinder. (Even while maintaining an optical viewfinder and legacy lens linkage.) If Leica isn't interested or up to the task then this aspect of their cameras have hit a dead end when it comes to development. Don't you think some designers at Leica have thought of ways to improve the rangefinder over the past 50 years or so? Meanwhile, AF systems have had a few decades of development while Leica did nothing to make the optical rangefinder more accurate, more versatile or simpler to manufacture. Many people may now accept the system but at some point more and more people will feel it is antiquated. (Although perhaps not you and many others here.) So Leica needs to look ahead if they have any hope of maintaining or increasing sales. Even a very simple system consisting of a small lens, a phase detect chip, and a focus confirmation light all linked to the focusing cam, would be an easy adaptation. (And would require way fewer changes than live view.) Leica will have no choice but to change the M. The only questions are how and when. Live view and contrast detect for focus confirmation may be inevitable - perhaps with the same optical viewfinder and rangefinder at least for a while. But a zoom viewfinder and electronic frame lines would not be too much to expect within a century or two. A lot of people thought I was out in left field when months ago I suggested live view and a clip on EVF for use with M and R lenses. But now it looks as if that is the solution Leica has in mind for a future new camera. (Integrated EVF most likely. But there could be an optical finder version too.) Some former naysayers now see the benefits of that possibility. I agree with you entirely. Having spent the last fortnight trying to photograph a 6-month old baby at f 1.4 who would not be still for even a millisecond made me wish for a more sure way of focusing. I put up with the rangefinder because otherwise I like the M8 a lot but this doesn't mean that we should not encourage Leica to explore new solutions. Dubois Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
redbaron Posted July 23, 2009 Share #28 Posted July 23, 2009 Where would the warning sticker go? 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! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/91375-maybe-this-is-how-a-future-m-rangefinder-could-work/?do=findComment&comment=970691'>More sharing options...
sfokevin Posted July 23, 2009 Share #29 Posted July 23, 2009 I agree with you entirely. Having spent the last fortnight trying to photograph a 6-month old baby at f 1.4 who would not be still for even a millisecond made me wish for a more sure way of focusing. I put up with the rangefinder because otherwise I like the M8 a lot but this doesn't mean that we should not encourage Leica to explore new solutions. Dubois You only have a lens that goes down to f1.4 and you go off and have a baby... God man... Where are your priorities!... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
redbaron Posted July 23, 2009 Share #30 Posted July 23, 2009 Maybe my memory is a bit hazy, but when my little one was six months old she was easy to photograph. You wait till they're eighteen months old! I found ice hockey easier to photograph! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted July 23, 2009 Share #31 Posted July 23, 2009 Well, the Contax G cameras had a dual AF system that included an infrared laser LED, although it used triangulation rather than speed-of-light timing to measure distance and was only accurate to one cm or so under 3 meters (10 cm over 3 meters). The laser system was used to 'rough in' the focus, or for things without a texture/pattern for the main phase-detect system to lock in on. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrc Posted July 23, 2009 Share #32 Posted July 23, 2009 Leica makes an M7 and MP as well as the M8, and I think perhaps part of the solution might be to work with Panasonic to make a futuristic G1-type EVIL that uses manual focus natively with M lenses and the sensor from whatever the Mx camera is. You could have focus-confirm LEDs as well as a magnified-focusing system as on the G1 and E-P1. The camera would simply be an addition to the Leica line, like the D-Lux 3, except that it would have a large sensor and use Leica M glass. The advantage to everyone, traditionalists and non-trads alike, would be an additional system that would support the development and sale of M glass. I'm currently shooting an E-P1 with an adapter and my nocti, 70 Lux, 90 Cron and 135, and it's fun. It is, nevertheless, also somewhat awkward, because the cameras are not optimized as they could be for M glass -- but it does not take a huge leap of the imagination to visualize how this could be done, with a lot of other benefits the trads aren't interested in (like IS, multiple-point focusing, a OVF with floating electronic frames for when you didn't want to use the EVIL, etc.) JC Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
plasticman Posted July 23, 2009 Share #33 Posted July 23, 2009 You see - these guys are not old-fogey "trads" who get around by using their out-dated "legs". Seriously, how stupid do you have to be to actually "walk" these days? I mean, even if some people prefer "walking" with their "legs" consumers simply won't support that sort of behavior for long. So the "trads" will just have to submit to market-forces and stop "walking" the old-fashioned way. Just like these up-to-date guys... 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! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/91375-maybe-this-is-how-a-future-m-rangefinder-could-work/?do=findComment&comment=970761'>More sharing options...
jaapv Posted July 23, 2009 Share #34 Posted July 23, 2009 I agree with you entirely. Having spent the last fortnight trying to photograph a 6-month old baby at f 1.4 who would not be still for even a millisecond made me wish for a more sure way of focusing. I put up with the rangefinder because otherwise I like the M8 a lot but this doesn't mean that we should not encourage Leica to explore new solutions. Dubois That problem is not the camera, but the baby. Superglue focussing? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thrid Posted July 23, 2009 Share #35 Posted July 23, 2009 Are we really back on this subject? I'm starting to think that the real problem here is lack of practice and the desire for instant gratification. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevelap Posted July 23, 2009 Share #36 Posted July 23, 2009 Indeed Zapp. Laser rangefinders have been around for years in the military, surveying and huntin' / shootin' / fishin' worlds.....even golf now:eek:. No company however, to the best of my knowledge, has successfully used the technology in the photographic world.......yet. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfokevin Posted July 23, 2009 Share #37 Posted July 23, 2009 This is not a "Trads" issue... There are some of us that would prefer that Leica focus its R & D energies on the lens & sensor development and not on a mechanism that creates the "perfect" targeting solution... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted July 23, 2009 Author Share #38 Posted July 23, 2009 As sensor resolution increases, and lenses get faster and sharper, the need for more accurate focusing increases. Additionally, we now commonly view our images at 100% and 35mm format photos are often printed in large sizes. So we are more critical of focusing errors. This is the case with all systems. It is especially acute with MF technical cameras that need high res magnifiers for ground glass focusing. Some of these MF shooters would really like live view to solve a number of focusing and back alignment issues. In the case of the M a system that would supplement the rangefinder and give accurate focus confirmation within 6 feet or so might be relatively simple and a big help. Leica's solution may have been adequate in the past and could be acceptable to many in the present. But if Leica doesn't allocate resources to keep improving all aspects of the M camera, I'm afraid that some day they will wish they had. (Isn't this what happened to the R system?) If photographers find they get a higher percentage of accurately focused images using other systems, that won't bode well for the M. I'm one of those. I've used Ms and other rangefinders many times but never found that I could focus quickly enough with one. Many professional SLR shooters used to supplement their kits with a Leica. Now, most that I know use a G9 or G10 for that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotografr Posted July 23, 2009 Share #39 Posted July 23, 2009 Interesting to note that reviews of the new Olympus Pen E-P1 point out that the weakest and by far most annoying apsect of this camera is the autofocus system. One reviewer refers to it as AFA (Auto Focus Attempt). And this camera is from a company with fairly extensive autofocus experience. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrc Posted July 23, 2009 Share #40 Posted July 23, 2009 Interesting to note that reviews of the new Olympus Pen E-P1 point out that the weakest and by far most annoying apsect of this camera is the autofocus system. One reviewer refers to it as AFA (Auto Focus Attempt). And this camera is from a company with fairly extensive autofocus experience. But that is really meaningless. They screwed up. There are other Oly cameras where the AF is just fine, and the AF is just fine with the Panasonic G1, which does not have a great reputation as a photo company, and no great history as a developer of AF systems. The E-P1 is full of compromises, including a low-res LCD. Most of the compromises, IMHO, involved (rather marginal) profit decisions rather than engineering decisions. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.