Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2012/07/23
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Technically feasible, but I guess that Leica would make it very expensive. Is it desireable: at the right price point "yes". There are people out there doing RF-like systems at the present so there is probably a market. Who could do it? Given that it would have to be compatible with M-mount lenses and would need expertise, the only candidates must be Mr. K or a new player with a lot of money. Interestingly when talking to someone "in the trade" and who knows a lot about Leica, some 18 months ago about RF and digital, I was told that something was coming along "real soon" that would blow the socks off the other players. (Implication: non-Leica) As far as I can see it hasn't arrived. Peter On 21/07/12 08:05, Richard Man wrote: > Speculating on an ideal optical rangefinder system (i.e. something that > retains the Leica M DNA and yet improves on the 1950 state of the art M3), > what if a rangefinder has the following features: > > - LED projected framelines. This removes the clutter, solves the visibility > issue, and > > - changeable rangefinder magnification - what if the rangefinder has 0.58x > to 1.2x mag builtin (may be in 4 steps: 0.58x, 0.72x, 0.9x and 1.2x or > something similar)? This would allow more precise focusing from the wide to > tele. This will leverage the existing frame line trigger and 6 bit coding > system of course so this would be automatic > > - parallax adjustment based on focusing distance > > We know LED framelines can be done. The M9 Titanium has it. > > The XPan has 2 magnifications: one for the 45mm lens and one for the 90mm > lens. I have no idea how difficult it is to insert multiple mag piece as > needed. Anyone knows? > > The cam position should also give good indication of the focusing distance > too, along with the lens info, so #3 is technically feasible too. > > Chances are Leica nor anyone else would really spend the resource to > develop something like these, since a CMOS/Liveview is so much "simpler," > but would it be nice to have such a system? > -- ======================================================================= Dr. Peter Dzwig