Why would AF be such a sin?

[cosmonaut]

Say the M10 had auto focus. Why in today's world would that be such a sin? I think that it would keep older shooters in the game longer. It took Leica long enough to get AE but some prefer it. Maybe a M10 and M10AF both.
I know that would mean new lenses and the cost might be way out of most shooters league but would you embrace it? Yes or No?
If you don't like AF you could alsways just turn it off.

 

[dave lackey]

Say the M10 had auto focus. Why in today's world would that be such a sin? I think that it would keep older shooters in the game longer. It took Leica long enough to get AE but some prefer it. Maybe a M10 and M10AF both.
I know that would mean new lenses and the cost might be way out of most shooters league but would you embrace it? Yes or No?
If you don't like AF you could alsways just turn it off.

Sin, no... marketing mistake? Yes. Face it, older shooters is NOT the market they are going after. Demographics back this up.

The M body cameras embrace the notion of Leica's roots. AF is not in the same line of thought IMO. Besides, with all the AF on the market why would Leica want to add just one more? Being different has it's advantages for Leica.😛

 

[gb hill]

Then the M-10 wouldn't need really to be a rangefinder. & yes you would have to buy a whole set of new lenses. That's why Canon dropped the FD lenses. I think that alone would discourage most shooters.

 

[cosmonaut]

Being different. To be honest I was surprised Leica came out with the M8 and thought it would be a flop. I always thought Leica was all about film. Not being digital, ever. Once you start down the road is there a turning back?
The M7 must have batterries, has AE ect. It kind of stepped out of tradition if you ask me. Why not have both?
I never could afford a new digital M AF or not.

 

[dave lackey]

Being different. To be honest I was surprised Leica came out with the M8 and thought it would be a flop. I always thought Leica was all about film. Not being digital, ever. Once you start down the road is there a turning back?
The M7 must have batterries, has AE ect. It kind of stepped out of tradition if you ask me. Why not have both?
I never could afford a new digital M AF or not.

There is a huge difference in evolution of a product due to market pressures. It is another matter entirely to stray too far from their roots. Leica had to produce a digital camera to stay alive. Keeping the concept of the M body was one of the smartest moves I have ever seen by a camera manufacturer.

IMO, Nikon, as much as I love 'em, still has the same old lump of melted blackness that is too big, too heavy and hasn't changed in over 30 years. A terrible industrial design IMO, and Canon is even worse. But that is just me and as Roger quoted a famous person, (paraphrasing) don't buy anything that isn't functional and/or beautiful. M bodies fit that description for me.🙂 The M bodies intoxicate me.

This "old" photographer is not interested in anything AF. I have plenty of those cameras. Nor am I financially able to buy a digital M body. But I will because that is how I am making a living and my next project in the Spring will require an M body. So, for not much more than an M6, an M8 will become another useful tool in my bag along with my M3.

Where there is a will, there is a way, even if it is not the way I would have originally chosen.:angel:

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

AF for interchangeable lenses cameras makes those cameras bigger and noisier, and many times it's easier to confirm focus -in case of AF- seeing through the lens, so as soon as a small RF begins to get closer to SLRs, it can be useful for some situations, but at the price of losing part of its RF soul and inherent benefits.

Cheers,

Juan

 

[sevo]

Say the M10 had auto focus. Why in today's world would that be such a sin?

Few if any (given that the more fundamental traditionalists had already rejected the M8) would object if Leica succeeded at creating a AF M10 that does not break compatility with the existing lenses and user interface. But it is extremely unlikely that they could do that with their limited budget and for a competitive price.

 

[boffen]

I could barely afford a really well-used M8, so I don't really care what Leica chooses to do with their new cameras, but I'm not interested in any Leica without a mechanical rangefinder.

 

[Jamie123]

It was definitely a good move of them to make the S2 line AF but the M line, not so much.

 

[Brian Legge]

I suppose an infinity locked lens with an AF body which moved the sensor would work. 😉

 

[NickTrop]

A $200 consumer-level fixed Nikon lens gets you a built-in silent motor to autofocus and can also be easily manually focused with very good IQ. A little dot acts as a rangefinder in the VF when using "rangefinder setting" of the cheapest Nikons to assist with manual focus - it remains solid when it's focused and it's accurate 99% of the time. I agree with Cosonaut, I too thought Leica was always about film. Even the Contax G-series cameras, considered (for some reason) a "rangefinder", abandoned rangefinder focusing. The only reasons the M8 and M9 exist is 1. a lot of folks have a lot of dough tied up in expensive Leica glass and want to use them on digital camera bodies made by Leica, and 2. for Leica to remain relevant/alive in the digital age. And this is not a slur, and both are valid reasons. However, if you aren't a Leica shareholder or employee or don't have $1000's sunk into Leica glass there is little to no reason to own either the M8 or M9. I wonder how much that $200 Nikon would charge with AF capabilities it was a Leica. Add a thousand or two to its $200 price tag? That sounds about right.

 

[Nikon Bob]

Leica knows it's customers and they are traditionalists by and large. That translates into we don't need/want no stinking AF, IS or EVF, just give me a RF or it is not an M. Me I would settle for a really good EVF in place of a RF with the added benefit that all existing lenses would work.

Bob

 

[rxmd]

I suppose an infinity locked lens with an AF body which moved the sensor would work. 😉

Nice idea, but unless you're ready to add an extra 300 grams and a half inch of body thickness it will be rather difficult. The Contax AX tried that and it was nifty, but didn't catch on, the body was heavy, three inches thick, and it worked only with lenses that didn't have floating elements.

 

[Brian Legge]

The Mamiya Six was the camera that led me to think about it. I am curious if this concept would make more sense in a digital world though - I imagine there would be a lot less to move than with a film camera. Its was the first way that came to mind for leveraging existing lenses easily. 😉

 

[celluloidprop]

However, if you aren't a Leica shareholder or employee or don't have $1000's sunk into Leica glass there is little to no reason to own either the M8 or M9.

How about "I want a full-frame sensor in a package smaller than a D700 + 35/1.4G"?

 

[luuca]

are we sure we (leica owners) want af?

af on M system means no more M system.
size, compatibility, shooting method... maybe they can realize a new kind of camera... but please leave the M without af.

and what about lenses reliability? even my '68 lux50 is near to perfection, I don't think af lenses could bear this life span...

lol, I already can read comments about differences : super fast canikon af vs new leica turtle af 😀

if I want AF and automatism, I go pick up a dslr.

even the excuse to widen leica market it's difficult to understand... make leica resemble to dslr won't convice dslr users to spend 5x...

every leica man I know ( me included) moved from dslr world to M system because of extreme differences between the 2 worlds...

pardon me for the poor written english... I hope you get the idea...

 

[boffen]

How about "they are the only digital rangefinders (bar the pretty bad Epson one)"?

 

[Pfreddee]

What if the AF were in the sensor? There's a camera on the market now that allows you to change focus after the fact, so to speak. If they can do that, perhaps they can make a sensor that auto-focuses as a built-in feature. If Leica did that, they could use all of their old glass, all the way back to the Barnack cameras...😱.

And be careful about saying that it couldn't be done. All sorts of things have been done that couldn't be done, a while back.😀

With best regards,

Pfreddee(Stephen)

 

[Roger Hicks]

No sin, but pointless.

It might be a perfectly salable camera, but it wouldn't much resemble an M. So why call it one?

Cheers,

R.

 

[cosmonaut]

It does seem every one wants a cheaper way to use Leica glass. RD-1, m4/3rd, Nex ect. Short of the glass all those are AF.
I have tried it but have never really liked doing it. It just isn't the same for me. Personally I would have been OK if the M10 was a film camera. I MF even with a DSLR unless I am shooting sports or are I am in real good light. I find I get things sharper with my eye than with AF.
For me if Leica is going into the digital age they may as well have AF. You still could have an M mount just M mount lenses that will AF. As far as size if Sony can make a camera as small as the Nex and still AF so could Leica.
A sensor is a serious piece of technology. If they have gone that far I don't see the issue. Traditionalist, just turn the switch to MF.