Maybe this is how a future M rangefinder could work?

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

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.

Now isn't that user-specific? I for instance found that I never could get the focus I wanted with AF systems.....

[AlanG]

Now isn't that user-specific? I for instance found that I never could get the focus I wanted with AF systems.....

 

Yes it is user specific. But I also wasn't referring only to AF systems. I used to use manual SLRs and found that when I used rangefinders, I'd take a lot of out of focus images unless I worked slowly. (Leicas, Nikon S3, Canon RF.)

 

Now with AF, which I generally use selectively via the rear focus button, I get a very high percentage of correctly focused images and I can focus faster than I ever could before. I doubt I'm the only one who feels this way.

[Advertisement]

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

[rdubois]

That problem is not the camera, but the baby. Superglue focussing?

 

Tried superglue on this one but her mother didn't entirely approve

 

 

Dubois

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!

[fotografr]

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.

 

Meaningless? Perhaps taken by itself. But what isn't meaningless is that you can go on user forums for virtually any camera manufacturer and find numerous threads about AF problems--and this includes even the latest camera models like the Canon 5DII and Nikon D3. Autofocus has always been the weakest and most annoying component of any camera that employs it.

[AlanG]

Autofocus has always been the weakest and most annoying component of any camera that employs it.

 

And I suppose everyone agrees with you on this?

[SJP]

I do.

[jrc]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

But the focus on M cameras is also the weakest point. Glass is wonderful, the cameras (until the M8) were exquisitely made (and the M8 is fine except for some of the electronics), but the focusing system was pretty much the best they could do in 1953 or whenever, and it's not that good. Try focusing a common, ordinary lens length -- say 180mm -- with an M. You can't, because there isn't one, because the focusing system won't permit it. There is a 135, which I now use a bit with my E-P1, but never really with my Ms. Even 90mm is tough -- and the older your eyes get (and the Leica clientele, I would venture to say, is probably the oldest in average age of any customer base) the harder it becomes.

 

By the way, wehn a guy asks a question, "Do you think everybody agrees with that position?", one guy piping up (or ten guys) to say, "I do," doesn't answer the question. The simple fact is, Leica dominated sixty years ago. It has now lost probably 95% of its customer base, and has been several times on the brink of bankruptcy. I would venture to say that most of the loss was because of a poor focusing mechanism. Does that seem like what you'd call a "sustainable business model?"

[SJP]

Leica's business model was never to dominate the market. That they did in the past was because photography was an "elite" thing & price was not a major concern. The decision was based on quality.

 

Now it is a "price versus quality" decision and most consumers choose for price, this is fine and it makes a lot of people very happy. Does that make aiming for quality superfluous? Not if you are able to sell about 10.000 handmade camera's per year for 10 - 50x the price of the (roughly) equivalent mass produced item. (OK,OK don't kill me on what we want to call equivalent).

 

The elite market still exists and has not really shrunk - the mass market has expanded but that was not their aim anyway.

 

Finally an AF system cannot do this without major tweaking (the reddish tomato was my target), with an M8 it is dead simple:

[plasticman]

But the focus on M cameras is also the weakest point.

 

Indeed it is! It's the human holding the camera!

[AlanG]

 

Finally an AF system cannot do this without major tweaking (the reddish tomato was my target), with an M8 it is dead simple:

 

I don't see any reason why an AF system couldn't focus on the red tomato in a fraction of a second. And those tomatoes weren't moving so almost any camera could have worked for this. Magnified live view creams every other system for precision focusing of static objects. But that is simply steering the discussion in another direction. And quality of the camera and lenses isn't the discussion point either. What is an "elite" market? Professional photojournalists? Sports shooters? Leica enthusiasts? Is Leica more concerned about selling an "elite" object or making a camera that has the best chance of giving you a sharp image under the widest possible number of situations?

 

The best I can tell, Leica didn't develop the M3 viewfinder/rangefinder significantly since 1954 and a lot has changed since then. Many photographers have moved on or never considered a manual focusing rangefinder camera in the first place... whether you agree with their reasoning or not. I don't see too many pros abandoning their AF systems.

 

What is helping to keep the M system viable is the lack of any real competition and a world of Leica enthusiasts who own a lot of legacy gear. So this is very fortunate for Leica but will not go on forever. Only recently has Leica started applying AF technology to a camera. So maybe they'll be able to apply this to future M type models should that become necessary. (If it isn't too little too late by then.) I saw that Canon is introducing a new kind of hybrid image stabilization. Is Leica even considering any kind of image stabilization?

 

But separate from AF, I have a hard time understanding why if Leica felt viewfinder/rangefinders were so great, they didn't apply resources to improving them.

Edited July 24, 2009 by AlanG

[plasticman]

What is helping to keep the M system viable is the lack of any real competition.

 

It seems to me that you just don't get the appeal of rangefinder cameras, Alan. What's keeping them viable is that people love using their hands, eyes and brain to take photographs!

When I need to, I let a computer do all the work for me - just as you want to do with the M. But I have the sense and good grace to pick up one of the myriad of other cameras that do this for me.

[redbaron]

I would suggest, in the most polite terms, that absolutely nothing has changed since the invention of the first Leica. People still walk around, sit still, play sport and do all sorts of things. Some activities may be new, but the essentials of photographing either a stationary or moving object or person have not changed.

 

Technology has advanced and some systems are now more suited to specialist situations. Just as I wouldn't take a Ferrari on safari I wouldn't take a rangefinder to shoot basketball. I'd take a Land Rover to Africa and an autofocus SLR for sports.

 

For documentary photography the Leica M is perfection. No other system even comes close.

 

If you think you can make a better system, or improve the M, go ahead and try.

[AlanG]

It seems to me that you just don't get the appeal of rangefinder cameras, Alan. What's keeping them viable is that people love using their hands, eyes and brain to take photographs!

 

What does this mean? I get pleasure from the results not the process. I want the process to be close to invisible. At some point, you'll select the focus point, and the camera will stay locked onto that. If I don't have to think about focusing, I can use my brain for more important things. Once upon a time one was limited to ground glass focusing and what one could achieve with wet plates. (Very slow.)

 

I do get the idea of a rangefinder. It is to help you focus the camera and frame the picture. It is merely a technical process and isn't a philosophical life decision. There have been various ways to achieve the same thing. Leicas are generally smaller than SLRs so that helps them. But EVF systems will be still smaller and simpler. If other framing/focusing methods are more accurate, more versatile, and faster, then the rangefinder loses its appeal. This has happened over the past 50 years and Leica has done nothing to make its rangefinder/viewfinder more appealing. Over the past 20 years AF has proven to be a disruptive technology.

 

So now there is only a small group of people who prefer rangefinders. I'm sure Leica is aware of this and the question will be if that small group will sustain the M platform indefinitely. My opinion is that it won't sustain it for much longer if the entire camera (including framing and focusing) is not upgraded. Leica isn't somehow immune from progress.

[thrid]

So now there is only a small group of people who prefer rangefinders. I'm sure Leica is aware of this and the question will be if that small group will sustain the M platform indefinitely. My opinion is that it won't sustain it for much longer if the entire camera (including framing and focusing) is not upgraded. Leica isn't somehow immune from progress.

 

 

So what? There are dozens of cameras already on the market that function in the manner that you have described in this thread and a dozen others. So, why do insist that the M series has to becomes just another 'me too!' camera? There are a dozen cameras on the market with EVF, AF and some will even take Leica glass, but there is only ONE digital rangefinder on the market. Are we supposed to lose that also and have no choice?

 

The reason why the M8.2 isn't flying off the shelf is not because it doesn't have AF or an EVF or focus confirmation or because it doesn't make toast for you.

 

The reason why the M8.2 isn't selling in larger numbers is simple. MONEY.

 

The body alone costs $6,000 and the vast majority of people are unwilling or unable to plunk down that much cash for it. We are talking about a slightly quirky, 10MP camera that costs just a tad over $10,000 with a 2/28mm lens. That's an easy $3,000 more than the most sophisticated DSLR (Nikon D3x) on the market, which in terms of sheer performance will swallow it like a gum drop.

 

Leica has fallen in to the same trap that Apple did, before the return of Steve Jobs.

 

It's really is that simple and you don't have to be an economist to figure that one out.

It's not really a technology problem that is holding sales back, it's the pricing. You can ask any dealer about that and they will give you the same answer.

Edited July 26, 2009 by thrid

[EJohnE]

I'm thick-skinned as well as thick-headed, so sneers all round are quite acceptable!

 

re Leica M8 replacement.

 

I think there is little chance of a 24 x 36 sensor fitting in the present M body. If say, the sensor assembly is 4mm in depth, either the back would have to be made much deeper, or more intelligently, alter the front so that the lens mount is extended by the necessary distance as on the R3 to R7 series. The body could otherwise look much the same, and the lenses would be as usable as before.

 

Surely Leica Geosystems could devise a solid state, safe to use, distance measuring device which could still use the lever-roller to lens focus ring. After all, every lens at infinity must have that roller at the exact same position, and at every shorter distance every lens focus cam must also be at the same position for that distance. Different focal length lenses already must(?) have different thread pitches so that longer lenses cover that distance measurement with longer angular displacement to aid in accuracy. No need for TTL focussing. A focus confirmation signal/light should be easy to display near the meter light.

 

The DMR is designed to be added/removed depending whether film or digital is to be used. If no-one has experienced consequent problems in accurate positioning of the removeable sensor, I see no reason why the hinged back should be any less precise. With such a back, not only would cleaning be easier, but interchangeable sensors could be practical. Imagine a sensor for black and white, one for low ISO settings, one for poor light etc. The contacts would have to be incorporated within the body at manufacture, and thus be wasted on most buyers, but hell, we all love to moan about how much our Leicas cost

 

My early hammerhead flashlights required a battery pack carried on a belt or over the shoulder. It was no great hardship. Why not do the same? Have a small monitor for shutter speed, aperture, ISO, frames left etc on the camera top; and the battery/batteries, LCD monitor, away from the camera. It could be either wired (or wireless if practical), and have a duplicate card which could be set to copy the in-camera card for security. Live view on a large LCD would be visible from any angle, be less obvious to the subject or hostile busybody, show focus confirmation etc.

 

Such a device might even appeal to the otherwise generally Leica-lost photojournalist.

 

John.

[markgay]

Let's clear this up...

 

Distance measurement is a totally different issue from autofocus.

 

Handheld laser measures are absolutely consistent with manual focus cameras.

 

Learning how to judge distance is a key skill in image making. Relying on autofocus is not an answer.

 

Autofocus is even more of a curse/blessing with movie cameras. You quickly learn when to use autofocus and when to turn it off.

 

Leica Disto or other brands are widely used with digital movie cameras. I never understand people fussing like old maids about using one with a non coupled lens on a Leica.

 

Mark

[stevelap]

Perhaps this is the solution:), strap an M8 to it and........., should keep the modernisers happy at least.

 

Leica Pinmaster aims to make golf easier

 

7x magnification and only £479. Now if only they could shrink it a little, to oh, I don't know, M rangefinder size.......

Edited July 29, 2009 by stevelap