Boid
All-Pro
- Location
- Bangalore, India
- Real Name
- Rajiv
-
Cameraderie, a friendly photography forum, join now for free!
BBW
Legend
- Location
- betwixt and between
- Real Name
- BB
It would certainly be a camera many with the funds would be interested in - at least I feel it would be. I am hopeless with manual focussing due to eyesight issues. That said, I will never have the bank account for the purchase...alas.
Julien
Top Veteran
- Location
- Paris, France
- Real Name
- Julien
BBW
Legend
- Location
- betwixt and between
- Real Name
- BB
Maybe someday.
ajramirez
Hall of Famer
- Location
- Caguas, Puerto Rico
- Real Name
- Antonio
I just don't see how an autofocus M would be possible with present lenses. Focus assist, maybe, but not autofocus. How would you get the focusing helicals to move?
A system such as that on the Contax AX that would move the sensor may be possible, but image quality would suffer when using lenses with floating elements, and the body would be very, very thick. The M9 is already significantly thicker than film Leicas; any thicker would make it unwieldy IMO.
Having owned my M9 for a few months now, all I would want to see in an M10 would be quicker writing to the card and a higher resolution LCD screen. Maybe less noisy high ISOs, but only if the superb quality at lower ISOs is not compromised. Any other changes would probably compromise the character of the camera. This is, of course, only my opinion.
Cheers,
Antonio
A system such as that on the Contax AX that would move the sensor may be possible, but image quality would suffer when using lenses with floating elements, and the body would be very, very thick. The M9 is already significantly thicker than film Leicas; any thicker would make it unwieldy IMO.
Having owned my M9 for a few months now, all I would want to see in an M10 would be quicker writing to the card and a higher resolution LCD screen. Maybe less noisy high ISOs, but only if the superb quality at lower ISOs is not compromised. Any other changes would probably compromise the character of the camera. This is, of course, only my opinion.
Cheers,
Antonio
Julien
Top Veteran
- Location
- Paris, France
- Real Name
- Julien
Boid
All-Pro
- Location
- Bangalore, India
- Real Name
- Rajiv
I completely agree. For the M series to be AF capable makes very little sense.
BillN
Hall of Famer
- Location
- S W France
- Real Name
- Bill
It cannot have auto focus - it may have manual focus thru the LCD in a "live view" type mode ....... but knowing Leica the LCD image will be that bad that it won't be much use anyway
They certainly could have built an AF module into is like the Contax G series of film cameras. Plenty of room in the M-Mount for electrical contacts, and a new series of lenses in M-Mount to use them. Nikon made an AF version of the F3 in 1983, and continued to use the F-Mount with AF cameras.
Such a camera would broaden the appeal.
CMOS, Liveview, Video, Autofocus- in an M series camera "go with the flow": maybe Leica is betting it would pull in new users. The M9 Monochrome "Buck the Trend"- will make many of the core Leica users very happy, and maybe pull in some new ones as well. My money is on the M9 Monochrome. Literally.
Such a camera would broaden the appeal.
CMOS, Liveview, Video, Autofocus- in an M series camera "go with the flow": maybe Leica is betting it would pull in new users. The M9 Monochrome "Buck the Trend"- will make many of the core Leica users very happy, and maybe pull in some new ones as well. My money is on the M9 Monochrome. Literally.
ajramirez
Hall of Famer
- Location
- Caguas, Puerto Rico
- Real Name
- Antonio
I had a Contax G system and really enjoyed it. However, the user experience vs. a Leica M is night and day. Not worse or better, but certainly different.
I just don´t see how they can incorporate autofocus and a true optical rangefinder system in the same body. And if they leave the rangefinder out, the essence of the M system (IMO) would be lost. I would also hate to see M lenses fattened up to accommodate autofocusing motors or mechanisms.
The Contax G was a wonderful camera, with lenses that arguably equalled, if not exceeded, the image quality of Leica lenses, yet it did not exactly set the world on fire. I think if Leica went that route, they would have another M5 marketing disaster on their hands.
Cheers,
Antonio
I should have realized- if it is a CMOS sensor with Liveview, it would not need a second AF module. It could use contrast detection AF. No need to leave the Rangefinder mechanism out. Just put in a second set of contacts, which was done with the R series with the ROM lenses.
The original 1983 Nikon AF lenses had the motor for focus in the lens. The F3AF body supplied the power and control signals. The finder was ugly, but it used 30 year old electronics. from an engineering point of view, it is certainly not hard. I don't use the DX-1 on the F3AF, put a standard finer on it.
The original 1983 Nikon AF lenses had the motor for focus in the lens. The F3AF body supplied the power and control signals. The finder was ugly, but it used 30 year old electronics. from an engineering point of view, it is certainly not hard. I don't use the DX-1 on the F3AF, put a standard finer on it.
The real problem with AF is lenses. If we completely ignore the fact that the Leica battery doesn't have the juice to run an AF system, we still need to accept that the design of the lenses will need to be seriously compromised. Something I don't think Leica is prepared to do. AF lenses need to be either really light or really large compared to any MF lens. The motors in AF lenses need to drive lightweight optical systems, So you either get a lens like the Canon 50mm 1.8 where the build is incredibly light and flimsy or the 50mm 1.4 which is huge because it needs to be designed in a way that the focus group is small and in the middle of the build. And even the Canon 50mm 1.2 is poorly built compared to any Lieca lens (or even a CV lens for that matter.
I don't think Leica users would be prepared to spend 8K on a camera and 3K for a lens when those lenses are built like the Fuji lenses. (mechanically, not optically). And no AF system can drive lenses made like the current M lenses. Not to mention the near impossible task of integrating AF and rangefinder coupling into the lenses.
Leica need a mid range system. Somewhere between the X2 and the M9/10. Somewhere in the XPro1 range. A 8K body is never going to be a major player, but a 3-4K body just might. Leica were due to release a new system this year. Unfortunately it looks like Fuji released almost exactly what Leica were planning 6 months before leica and now they're scrambling to work out what to do now.
The M10 needs to be wholy an M. nd if Leica built an AF camera with a 1.3x sensor and AF lenses they'd make a killing, especially if it had proper 6 bit adaptors fo M lenses.
If Leica do make an AF M10 then at least the price of my M9s will go through the roof rather than through the floor.
Gordon
I don't think Leica users would be prepared to spend 8K on a camera and 3K for a lens when those lenses are built like the Fuji lenses. (mechanically, not optically). And no AF system can drive lenses made like the current M lenses. Not to mention the near impossible task of integrating AF and rangefinder coupling into the lenses.
Leica need a mid range system. Somewhere between the X2 and the M9/10. Somewhere in the XPro1 range. A 8K body is never going to be a major player, but a 3-4K body just might. Leica were due to release a new system this year. Unfortunately it looks like Fuji released almost exactly what Leica were planning 6 months before leica and now they're scrambling to work out what to do now.
The M10 needs to be wholy an M. nd if Leica built an AF camera with a 1.3x sensor and AF lenses they'd make a killing, especially if it had proper 6 bit adaptors fo M lenses.
If Leica do make an AF M10 then at least the price of my M9s will go through the roof rather than through the floor.
Gordon
Similar threads
Latest threads
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
For Sale For Sale: Olympus OM-D E-PL7 w/VF-4 + Extras | Location: USA | Ships: USA- Started by AndyH44
- Replies: 0