Open Letter to Leica-what should the Leica M10 be like (Michael Reichmann)
- Thread starter wongsan
- Start date
- Status
Overall good suggestions, but I think if there were to make something more modern, they should use another letter for naming and leave the M for the collectors and such. Because I'm sure there will be those die hards like me to continue using the rangefinder mechanism.
What I want in the M9.2 is super reliability, faster processor and weather proofing.
What I want in the M9.2 is super reliability, faster processor and weather proofing.
An autofocus M10 body is a nicer idea than AF M-lenses,imho. The body drives the autofocusing and we can still have the same m-lenses in their size(but need to add some electronic chips I think)
There was a time when everyone was hoping contax will launch a digital version of G2, until their hopes were dashed:bheart
I was one of them). They have done so well with the G2 autofocus rangefinder, the technology was already developed but unfortunately came to a halt.
Konica had the famous Hexar autofocus, brilliant camera...only if Sony can revive it and launch a digital version and bring back all the excellence of the hexanons-M.
Another company that has autofocus rangefinder experience is fujifilm, though they did in more for medium format. Again, they have the technical know-how, the equally brilliant set of lenses and glass.
Is it possible for Panasonic to come up with a new m4/3 body with an adaptor that allow autofocusing of manual lenses on their m4/3 platform? Technically I am not sure.
There was a time when everyone was hoping contax will launch a digital version of G2, until their hopes were dashed:bheart
I was one of them). They have done so well with the G2 autofocus rangefinder, the technology was already developed but unfortunately came to a halt.Konica had the famous Hexar autofocus, brilliant camera...only if Sony can revive it and launch a digital version and bring back all the excellence of the hexanons-M.
Another company that has autofocus rangefinder experience is fujifilm, though they did in more for medium format. Again, they have the technical know-how, the equally brilliant set of lenses and glass.
Is it possible for Panasonic to come up with a new m4/3 body with an adaptor that allow autofocusing of manual lenses on their m4/3 platform? Technically I am not sure.
Steve has posted a response the MR's open letter. Personally, I tend to agree with Steve more than MR. I think most of the Leica users want the RF. This is the one of the reason they are buying Leica. I am a DSLR guy. I believe RF can give me an unique experience.
Those who look for the AF, will not be the RF users. (I may be wrong.)
Link: http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2010/01/21/my-open-letter-to-leica-response/
Thanks for the link Gfong, I like his idea of CM and if I read him correctly, Steve thinks its better to keep it M-system a manual system as it is.
I don't think anyone would disagree that the manual M is already so well developed, may it be the film bodies like M6 or digital like M9. It's getting better all the time ( but of course always with a huge premium
).
The idea I thought MR was mooting was: besides the manual approach, should Leica perhaps think along a different line as well? What brought to my mind was: AF rangefinder bodies(I didn't like the idea of AF M-lenses, I think they will be huge). The rangefinder finder window will still be there, just with autofocus added in, something like the G2 but with a much brighter finder (that's my wish!)
To me it is always good to have more choices: those who like manual can always choose options like M6,MP,M8,M9 because the demand will always be there. Trying a different route may just create a new demand and further expand the base of m-system users. I personally don't think a slightly different approach would in anyway affect the already well-established M-system, but on the contrary will expand the whole M-range even more.
Just my thoughts.
I don't think anyone would disagree that the manual M is already so well developed, may it be the film bodies like M6 or digital like M9. It's getting better all the time ( but of course always with a huge premium
).The idea I thought MR was mooting was: besides the manual approach, should Leica perhaps think along a different line as well? What brought to my mind was: AF rangefinder bodies(I didn't like the idea of AF M-lenses, I think they will be huge). The rangefinder finder window will still be there, just with autofocus added in, something like the G2 but with a much brighter finder (that's my wish!)
To me it is always good to have more choices: those who like manual can always choose options like M6,MP,M8,M9 because the demand will always be there. Trying a different route may just create a new demand and further expand the base of m-system users. I personally don't think a slightly different approach would in anyway affect the already well-established M-system, but on the contrary will expand the whole M-range even more.
Just my thoughts.
wongsan
Senior Member
The MR's article alluded to some good features that technology allows today. However, putting them into the Leica M will not be right IMHO.
For me, who is very new to Leica and RF, Leica M is all about simplicity: in features and form factor, and the evergreen M-mount lens system.
For me, who is very new to Leica and RF, Leica M is all about simplicity: in features and form factor, and the evergreen M-mount lens system.
clubgrit
Senior Member
I would want M to remain as it is, a rangefinder.
However, I would like an X2 along the lines of Michael Reichmann's ideas. Basically an X1 updated to X2, with interchangeable M lenses of course an EVF, and where EVF gives info on hyperfocal distances.
This should sell a lot.
.
However, I would like an X2 along the lines of Michael Reichmann's ideas. Basically an X1 updated to X2, with interchangeable M lenses of course an EVF, and where EVF gives info on hyperfocal distances.
This should sell a lot.
.
- Status
Similar threads
