rya
Established
Why not make the battery and bottom plate one piece, and get the battery out of the main body of the camera? Different capacities could be different sizes. The battery doesn't need to be attached to change SD cards anyways.
JuJu
Well-known
@Damien
The HDR sensor will be nice to have on MP-D, one less reason to have a screen.
@monochromeimages
I like to keep the shutter cocking lever on the MP-D as well. But the design doesn't help my R-D1's crappy battery life... so I am still undecided about it.
One thing I know for sure is M8/9 looks "crippled" without the film advance lever.
Maybe there are something else the film advance lever can control?
@rya
Yeah. the hi-cap battery bottom plate will probably look like Leicavit. Great idea.
Thank you all for the inputs.
The HDR sensor will be nice to have on MP-D, one less reason to have a screen.
@monochromeimages
I like to keep the shutter cocking lever on the MP-D as well. But the design doesn't help my R-D1's crappy battery life... so I am still undecided about it.
One thing I know for sure is M8/9 looks "crippled" without the film advance lever.
Maybe there are something else the film advance lever can control?
@rya
Yeah. the hi-cap battery bottom plate will probably look like Leicavit. Great idea.
Thank you all for the inputs.
Tom Niblick
Well-known
Given that Leica is selling every M9 they make, this camera will never happen. But a thumbs up on a M9 with a Luigi case (flap buttoned up) will get you part of the way there.
Still, if they made your MP-D, I'd sure want one.
Still, if they made your MP-D, I'd sure want one.
squirrel$$$bandit
Veteran
Been using the K-5 a lot lately and it occured to me that Pentax could be the company to actually do something like this...do a limited edition K-r that looks and functions just like, say, an SV. They could totally fit it in there if they eliminated the screen. Sell it in a kit with the 43mm FA Limited.
x-ray
Veteran
I think were approaching thke time that a modular back could be built. I just purchased a hasselblad cfv39 back for my 501cm. There's no electrical connection with the body and the back is only a little thicker than the film back. The sensor has a 1.1 crop factor and it shoots only in raw. Hasselblad merged with Imacon a few years back and this is when the innovation started. No electrical connection is the key here although a small sync cable to the flash connector to wake the back up would be no problem. The electronics could be in a base about the size of a Leicavit and the film cassette and the sensor would slide into the film gate or a new back flap could be used with the sensor where the pressure plate is. Also an electrical contact could be added internally connected to the flash sync to wake up the back. Another important thing is the ff sensor Hasselblad uses doesn't suffer from issues with wide lenses not even the swc 38mm lens which is much closer to the sensor than the back focal distance of a Leica body. The Phocus software is also key to the success of this back. The software corrects chromatic aberrations automatically and a pull down menu is there with almost every lens the have made and corrects for distortion and other errors. No menu to select lens type or coding of lenses. It's all done in the raw converter.
It's great that Hasselblad was interested enough in their customers to develop a back for cameras as much as fifty plus years old. They now have the super high tech H4D60 for those that want af and ae and the cfv39 and 50 for those of us that have existing systems and like to wind the body, use our zeiss lenses and focus manually.
The cfv backs have been very succesful and I believe a back would be a success for Leica too. The difference is Hasselblad saw the need to innovate and Leica saw a need to follow the market not lead it.
It's great that Hasselblad was interested enough in their customers to develop a back for cameras as much as fifty plus years old. They now have the super high tech H4D60 for those that want af and ae and the cfv39 and 50 for those of us that have existing systems and like to wind the body, use our zeiss lenses and focus manually.
The cfv backs have been very succesful and I believe a back would be a success for Leica too. The difference is Hasselblad saw the need to innovate and Leica saw a need to follow the market not lead it.
palec
Well-known
Don, Leica did a digital back for R system in past - DRM (it was also cooperation with Imacon before Hasselblad bought it), but I guess it was too early for market to adapt at that time (and the price was high too). Btw. Hasselblad web page states that CFV39 might not work well with SWC:
Last edited:
sanmich
Veteran
That is the real dream for me...
a back I could install on any of my M2/ M4 /M6 at will, or put back the door and use film...
x-ray
Veteran
I've had no problems with the 38 mm swc/m. I'm aware they state that but the Hasselblad rep told me most people have no problems. I've found it to a great combination.
I remember the DMR. I don't think Leica was really dedicated to working the bugs out and the slr market really has never been the big seller in their line. I think it was foolish for them to sink that much money on R&D to enhance a line that wasn't a big seller. I think the technology is here now for am M modular back but Leica is a tiny company with limited resources. Their best bet would be to do a joint effort with Phase 1, Leaf or hasselblad who have the technical resources and experience.
I remember the DMR. I don't think Leica was really dedicated to working the bugs out and the slr market really has never been the big seller in their line. I think it was foolish for them to sink that much money on R&D to enhance a line that wasn't a big seller. I think the technology is here now for am M modular back but Leica is a tiny company with limited resources. Their best bet would be to do a joint effort with Phase 1, Leaf or hasselblad who have the technical resources and experience.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
I have one - still a superior camera.
Last edited:
igi
Well-known
How about having a screen at the back and keeping the same size as the original MP.
Why stall technology when you can think forward???
Why stall technology when you can think forward???
menos
Veteran
How about having a screen at the back and keeping the same size as the original MP.
Why stall technology when you can think forward???
… because, that is technical not possible with todays technology.
Look at how little depth is from the ISO selector to the pressure plate.
You cannot fit a sensor AND a LCD in this little space (which is why the digital M is substantially thicker).
A LCD for chimping is not necessary. One can shoot the digital M without ever using the LCD, if it is designed around this.
Unfortunately, this would be a very, very specialized camera, leaving virtually no meaningful market for it.
x-ray
Veteran
Why would this differ from shooting film. We never had visual confirmation with film other than testing before the shoot with Polaroid. The LCD on the back has become a crutch. If you're a competent photographer you don't really need it. Try puttin tape on the LCD where you can't see it then learn to use the meter in your camera. Gain confidence in your skill. I have to admit that I became addicted to the histogram when I got into digital eleven years ago. I had to force myself to quit relying on it and use my meter and skill.
menos
Veteran
… errh, which was exactly my point, wasn't it
?I don't use the LCD of my M8.2 much.
i gladly have it taken away, if the digital M then becomes the size of the M6 or MP.
I would love, to have the ISO selector with integrated exposure comp. dial of my M7 instead.
And did I mention, that I would love, to have the advance lever back again?
And did I mention, that it would be a great idea, to have a "Digital Leicavit", which adds automatic shutter cocking and even a little battery life extension (although I can perfectly live with the usual battery life of my M8.2 with plenty of spares in the bag - it is much less changing than with film)?
sepiareverb
genius and moron
I somehow missed a bunch of this thread- looks like it was when I was away in Feb.
Well said. The screen is the display to adjust ISO for me 95% of the time.
Well said. The screen is the display to adjust ISO for me 95% of the time.
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
After reading various comments about the missing advance lever, I though I, too, would miss it. But I don't. I don't even feel a need for a thumbs-up on my M8.2. And that's after being an M user since 1960.
If they were to make a smaller digital M (hey, my M8.2 isn't much bigger than my film Ms to begin with) and there was a need to eliminate the LCD, I suggest a small LCD placed wherever it fits, to display the histogram. Alternatively, two LEDs could serve to show when the exposure exceeds the camera's dynamic range. If the display is against the wall at one end or the other, the corresponding LED would light. In fact they could probably use the ones already in the finder, providing a test button to activate the same LEDs to check the exposure right after the exposure is made.
If they were to make a smaller digital M (hey, my M8.2 isn't much bigger than my film Ms to begin with) and there was a need to eliminate the LCD, I suggest a small LCD placed wherever it fits, to display the histogram. Alternatively, two LEDs could serve to show when the exposure exceeds the camera's dynamic range. If the display is against the wall at one end or the other, the corresponding LED would light. In fact they could probably use the ones already in the finder, providing a test button to activate the same LEDs to check the exposure right after the exposure is made.
I hope that we do see some lower tech digital cameras... I'm all for it.