Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2005/06/23
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]The market size this is certainly a problem, but then, with Leica's pricing and stagnant design, who is even trying all that hard (Hexar RF was the only attempt I can think of). Yes, I agree on the the polycarb body. On autowind, I would be satisfied with just a manual rewind option in case of emergency. I love RF's in general and M's specifically because they are nice and small. I can fit two bodies with lenses and a third lens and a small SF24 flash in a tiny Domke satchel and feel fully equiped for shooting. Small is beautiful :-) I just wish Leica would make a slightly smaller and lighter (and more "modern" feature wise) one, at a price most "serious amateur" shooters could (would be willing to) afford. I'd love for the CEO of Leica to stand at a press conference beside such a camera (and a digital one too!), and proclaim that Leica has produced an affordable small, light precision camera with modern features and world class optics that now every shooter would want and can now have in their arsenal. In general, I think most P&S cameras are crappy carry around substitutes for an SLR. Horrid VFs, poor manual control, etc. A small Leica RF would be a much more capable carry everywhere shooter instead. Not for grandma, but for the "serious amateur" types. Who knows, maybe the CV R7a will finally produce such a camera. Scott Don Dory wrote: >Scott, >I think that the problem is that the market for rangefinder cameras is >pretty thin. Stephen Gandy over at CameraQuest still has some of the >original Bessa L's for sale as well at R's, R2's, and etc. for most of >the Bessa line. If Leica essentially kills off the traditional M, I >think that the market goes away for new. > >The new Zeiss offering may prove to be a winner, but many companies >have tried to sell a better M and ended up leaving the market. > >As to ideas that would make a better M for me, that would include a >greater viewfinder magnification, built in motor with manual wind >capability, lighter by using polycarbanate in the outer shell(you >would have greater dimensional stability and could still retain a >metal lens mount to film rails box. > >Don >don.dory@gmail.com > >On 6/23/05, Scott McLoughlin <scott@adrenaline.com> wrote: > > >>Tons of different possible designs and features are possible, still keeping >>manual focus. How about a variable mag switch built into the VF? How >>about a really small, light M mount camera? Evaluative/matrix metering >>to go with the TTL flash? Multiple metering modes for that matter, >>including >>a nice spot. Double exposure support. Film window. Rear loader. Integrated >>motor wind (my little Oly Stylus has one - should fit). Nice fast metal >>shutter >>and a fast flash sync (like my FM3a). A few new flash units, including a >>small/medium sized tilt/swivel unit. Self timer. Centered tripod socket. A >>small CM sized fixed lens camera with real RF focusing. >> >>It's not too challenging to go on and on and on. And that's not starting to >>talk about digital camera features and designs. >> >>Yeah, this wouldn't be an M (I'd hope for something a little smaller and >>lighter than an M anyway). So what? Again, keep the traditional M just >>like it is. >>Make it ala carte only. >> >>But then crank out a few new mass produced designs to bring RF manual >>focusing, the M mount and Leica optics into the realm of technology and >>features commonly found on Nikon/Canon SLR's and even cheapo P&S >>cameras over the last decade. >> >>Personally, I find that the whole "historical" aspect of Leica user culture >>completely sucks. (I find the whole "German" thing completely distateful >>as well, but that's OT) The M3 was not the greatest film camera ever made, >>not by a mile. >> >>And to get new customers who aren't (1) fully stocked with Leica >>gear already and (2) dying off at a healthy clip, Leica has got to look >>forward >>with camera designs, not backwards (except for expensive special editions >>for the collectors and fondlers). >> >>Scott >> >>feli wrote: >> >> >> >>>On Jun 22, 2005, at 5:08 AM, Scott McLoughlin wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>>I mean, they've made variations on their basic M body with silk >>>>shutter - >>>>with its strenths and limitations - for decades. Keep making them. But >>>>why not try a different design? With different strengths and >>>>limitations? >>>> >>>> >>> >>>What would everyone change? What is so desperately lacking, besides a >>>digital version? >>> >>>If they make the M AF, the whole point of it being a rangefinder >>>would go out the window. >>>Redesign the RF so the framelines compensate for focal length shift? >>>Upgrade the metering system? I don't know, what's in there works >>>pretty darn well. The AE >>>in the M7 is pretty bulletproof. >>> >>>A lot of people complain that the camera has only evolved minimally >>>sicne the M3, but what would they >>>change or add? >>> >>>Personally I would like to see a digital M, and a more elegant >>>exposure compensation dial on the M7 >>>and a return of the old size 50mm framelines. But that's about it. >>>Other than that I think the camera is >>>pretty much perfect. >>> >>> >>>feli >>> >>> >>> >>>________________________________________________________ >>>feli2@earthlink.net 2 + 2 = 4 >>>www.elanphotos.com >>> >>> >>>no archive >>> >>> >>>_______________________________________________ >>>Leica Users Group. >>>See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >>> >>> >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>Leica Users Group. >>See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >> >> >> > > >_______________________________________________ >Leica Users Group. >See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > >