sevo
Fokutorendaburando
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....
No, the old lenses would not work, at least not as expected. The stereo base is tied to aperture, the resultant images are much smaller than the sensor, and the microlens grid must be in the proper relation to each lens. It would be possible to build cameras that can be used with one particular fast lens, wide open - but a M10 that only works with the Asph Noctilux and delivers a 1MP 4D image at a 200mm focal length equivalent almost certainly would be no hit, regardless of whether you can focus after the fact or not...
Roger Hicks
Veteran
1 Have you ever found an AF lens that felt OK when manually focused?
2 Sure, build a body with AF lenses/focus confirmation and a backwards-compatible M-mount, if you can, but don't pretend they'll be the size of manual lenses and don't call it an M-anything, except perhaps an MA.
3 Go on making proper cameras as well.
Cheers,
R.
Steve M.
Veteran
cosmonaut, you have a very good point. If I had to guess, it's that they realize that the cost would simply be too much. I mean, I saw an M7 listed in a catalog somewhere, and the camera was listed at $4700 with no lens!!! That's just crazy. Leica is going to price themselves out of all but the dentist/stockbroker market doing that. It's sure a nice camera, but is any manual focus rangefinder worth that? Jeez, the answer is a resounding no. Grab a Bessa R2a/R3a or a Hexar RF. Takes the same lenses, which actually make the photos. Same or better features are offered by both. Imagine what an AF Leica would cost?
For us w/ old eyes, the solution is to shoot the Leica R lenses. A SLR w/ a fast lens is much easier to focus than all but an M3, and the lenses are stellar. Slap an R lens on a good Nikon AF body and the exposure lock works, the AE works w/ stop down metering, and the viewfinder is very big and bright w/ a focus confirmation light. My eyes are to that point, plus I just like seeing the view in an SLR more than a rangefinder, so all of my cameras are being sold so I can shoot the R glass again.
For us w/ old eyes, the solution is to shoot the Leica R lenses. A SLR w/ a fast lens is much easier to focus than all but an M3, and the lenses are stellar. Slap an R lens on a good Nikon AF body and the exposure lock works, the AE works w/ stop down metering, and the viewfinder is very big and bright w/ a focus confirmation light. My eyes are to that point, plus I just like seeing the view in an SLR more than a rangefinder, so all of my cameras are being sold so I can shoot the R glass again.
cosmonaut
Well-known
NO, I haven't. But as I said you could have it both ways. What's in the shape of a mount? You could always just use the MF glass.
I have read here some older people selling off their gear because of their failing site. I think AF would keep them in the game. I am talking 25 year olds now who might be buying M10s now. Some day they will be old too.
cosmonaut
Well-known
I respect Leica for their high quality standards in a disposable world. I wouldn't sell my M6 for anything and the 50+year old glass I use now out classes most modern lenses.
_mark__
Well-known
More likely to see an af rangefinder from fuji.
rogerzilla
Well-known
Leica invented the current form of AF used in DSLRs, but never used it in the M or R line. They sold the patent (Correfot) to Minolta, knowing Leica users would never accept such a superfluous feature.
My eyes are not brilliant these days but, if they got so bad that I couldn't focus manually, I'd wonder why I was taking pictures in the first place.
My eyes are not brilliant these days but, if they got so bad that I couldn't focus manually, I'd wonder why I was taking pictures in the first place.
Michiel Fokkema
Michiel Fokkema
Remember when AE was a sin? Until the M7 arrived?
Cheers,
Michiel
Cheers,
Michiel
peterm1
Veteran
I dont think that AF would be keeping faith with its history and main body of users - at least as far as the M series goes. Although my eyes are pretty ordinary these days and I rely on AF cameras more and more, I would still prefer the M to be MF. Besides a shift to full AF would be such a design change it would require a full rework of the innards of the camera and of their lenses - a major, major undertaking.
I suppose one thing they might be able to achieve though (with less change and also less affront to traditionalists) is what many AF cameras have when used in MF mode - a focus confirmation "dot" to confirm that you really are in focus. Now that would help. (My D200 can do this with old legacy Nikon lenses and it works well.) However even this might be a challenge with RF based focussing....................??
One other thing they could do with less radical redesign or change of philosophy is to refine the viewfinder to bring it up to date.
I have an M8 and had to buy a screw-in diopter adjustment lens to help me be able to focus correctly - after all isnt shooting wide open with hair thin depth of field what Leica is all about? (But that screw in diopter method is very archaic and not terribly functional). Even now its often a struggle as a single diopter is seldom just the one you need. And buying the right one is a nightmare - potentially involving buying online and sending back ones that do not work to exchange for others that might, till you find the right one.
If they could find a way of improving the finder - at least by providing an inbuilt diopter with infinite adjustment, to cater for aging eyes, that would be a plus. This is something many other cameras have and have had for 20 years or more.
And it would be an even bigger plus if they could just redesign the finder to make it brighter and bigger - the Zeiss Ikon film rangefinder camera already has a much brighter and better finder than the much vaunted Leica one! This suggests that these things are within their capability if they felt so inclined. If you do not believe me, find a Zeiss Ikon in a camera store and try it out you will be impressed.
The Leica VF design is now 60 years old and has not changed much in that time, if at all. In its day it was ground breaking. Not so any more - it is only marginally functional by comparison with others in the game - especially for those like me whose eyes are aging. (I have owned M3s, an M4p, an M6 and an M8 so its not as if I am biased against Leica - just realistic.)
I suppose one thing they might be able to achieve though (with less change and also less affront to traditionalists) is what many AF cameras have when used in MF mode - a focus confirmation "dot" to confirm that you really are in focus. Now that would help. (My D200 can do this with old legacy Nikon lenses and it works well.) However even this might be a challenge with RF based focussing....................??
One other thing they could do with less radical redesign or change of philosophy is to refine the viewfinder to bring it up to date.
I have an M8 and had to buy a screw-in diopter adjustment lens to help me be able to focus correctly - after all isnt shooting wide open with hair thin depth of field what Leica is all about? (But that screw in diopter method is very archaic and not terribly functional). Even now its often a struggle as a single diopter is seldom just the one you need. And buying the right one is a nightmare - potentially involving buying online and sending back ones that do not work to exchange for others that might, till you find the right one.
If they could find a way of improving the finder - at least by providing an inbuilt diopter with infinite adjustment, to cater for aging eyes, that would be a plus. This is something many other cameras have and have had for 20 years or more.
And it would be an even bigger plus if they could just redesign the finder to make it brighter and bigger - the Zeiss Ikon film rangefinder camera already has a much brighter and better finder than the much vaunted Leica one! This suggests that these things are within their capability if they felt so inclined. If you do not believe me, find a Zeiss Ikon in a camera store and try it out you will be impressed.
The Leica VF design is now 60 years old and has not changed much in that time, if at all. In its day it was ground breaking. Not so any more - it is only marginally functional by comparison with others in the game - especially for those like me whose eyes are aging. (I have owned M3s, an M4p, an M6 and an M8 so its not as if I am biased against Leica - just realistic.)
Last edited:
Corto
Well-known
I can see why leica would not do it, To keep their customer base happy.
Personally I could not care less, I have AF camera's that I use when I feel a need for that function, My N70 is a great sports/action camera with the right lens.
Majority of my shooting is done with cameras that have no AF or RF and no lightmetering either. And im not Brand loyal, I buy what works and makes financial sense atm.
Leica seems to have been able to survive by understanding the demand of their products, i'm sure we would see a AF M if they thought it would sell well.
Personally I could not care less, I have AF camera's that I use when I feel a need for that function, My N70 is a great sports/action camera with the right lens.
Majority of my shooting is done with cameras that have no AF or RF and no lightmetering either. And im not Brand loyal, I buy what works and makes financial sense atm.
Leica seems to have been able to survive by understanding the demand of their products, i'm sure we would see a AF M if they thought it would sell well.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
Just give the digital M live view and a better LCD and you're halfway there IMO.
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
1. Actually yes (the Zeiss lenses for Contax N). I am surprised at how well they had managed it. From what I hear, this seems to be one of the major selling points why people still buy these lenses and convert them for Canon.
2. Basically the same was said about AE and the M7, except the lens size argument, and that is pretty spurious - compare, say, Contax G lenses to Leica M lenses.
Personally I'd say if they manage to give people the same focusing experience with their old lenses, while also giving other people something new, then by all means go ahead. But at that point Leica's future depends on the happiness of fundamentally irrational people. In a way, at Leica, quality is not a function of what you make anymore, but a function of whether the fundamentalists are happy with what you make. Even if they do manage to build a system that would give them all that, some pointy-haired hedge fund manager is likely to give the thumbs down because alienating fundamentalists is by now the biggest thing to be afraid of if your bottom line depends on selling high-price items to a few buyers.
I think Leica will experiment with AF in its APS-C interchangable lens camera due in 2012. The M will continue to be manual focus I would think... since it cannot even keep its M lenses in stock.
N
Nikon Bob
Guest
That would make sense. Leave the M series unsullied for the traditionalists and use another series of cameras to be adventurous with and expand, hopefully, it's consumer base some. Not another re-badged Panny I hope.
Bob
sig
Well-known
Why? Because all features that is not in any M's are not needed
So in short it will be a sin until a M camera have AF.When that is said, I do not think the M10 will have AF, but who knows, with new owners things might change......
DominikDUK
Well-known
It wouldn't be a sin but pure stupidity. The Leica lenses would get a little bigger and heavier, their focusing would feel a lot looser and if we believe Zeiss AF lenses can't be build to the same high specs as manual focus lenses.
Furthermore Leica already has a pro AF camera the S2 which is less expensive than the Leica M9 Titan or 3x as expensive as the normal M9.
Dominik
Furthermore Leica already has a pro AF camera the S2 which is less expensive than the Leica M9 Titan or 3x as expensive as the normal M9.
Dominik
NickTrop
Veteran
What Leica should do is keep their rangefinders for film (which is what a rangefinder is imo - a film camera), design a full frame DSLR, have Panasonic manufacture it - and sell it for well above the going rate of non "red dot" cameras, rev up "R" glass production with AF somewhere where the labor is cheap, and make a mint selling "R" glass. People were clamoring for a digital "M", when they should have made a digital "R". Had they done this they mighta been a "playa" instead of simply getting licensing fees from Panasonic to slap the "Leica" name on digicams, sadly going partially the way of Schneider-Kreuznach.
Nick, I think the only reason Leica is in business is because they didn't try to be a player in the mass produced DSLR game. They are selling all of the M9 cameras and M lenses they can make and are profitable... why would they change that?
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Leica thinks that too, or at least they did a couple of years ago, when a senior Leica person said to me, "If we move production to China -- we're dead."
Cheers,
R.
AndySig
Established
If Leica produced an AF M10 they would lose one of their strongest points which is compatibility with all their lenses made right back to the Norman conquest. However, if they follow what Contax did with one of their SLRs a few years ago and put the AF mechanism into the body, they they might have a going proposition. All they would then have to do is to continue to offer non-AF digital Ms as well.