How feasible/likely is an aperture priority M6? Lately I've been thinking how nice it would be to have the shutter speed automatically change for me when I move to a different aperature...

I'd be the first to cough up the dough for a new M6 with this functionality!

-- Tristan Tom (tristan@tristantom.com), October 09, 2001

Answers

Continuous rumors on this front would generally lead one to purchase a Konica Hexar RF.

-- Godfrey (ramarren@bayarea.net), October 09, 2001.

I just don't think I can give up the better feel and quietness of the M6 though.

-- Tristan (tristan@tristantom.com), October 09, 2001.

Funny thing I considered this just last night, don't know why but here's the problem: You'll need something on the lens either mechanical or electrical to convey the info from the lens to the body. A mechanical cam or such seems most likely, but electrical contacts might fit into the existing scheme easier. Then of course the body and shutter (electronic/electrical?) must be redesigned to include all of this.

OK so now you've got to convince any M users to buy the new series of lens only, because in using the new body with an previous generation lens they've negated the one feature they were looking for and it seems foolish to pay extra for this added feature then use a mixture of lens designs. Oh yeah I almost forgot compound the situation by Leica's famously slow design approach.

It had occured to me that a aperture/shutter readout in the v/f would be a neat and useful feature, but at what cost? Wouldn't it just be cheaper to understand the tool better and utilize the current and existing controls/ergonomics and change me to suit it rather than to change the whole system to suit me? The previous poster has it right in a way about the Hexar, those at Leica will not bend easily to the wind, either we must bend or find another forest.

-- Dave Doyle (soilsouth@home.com), October 09, 2001.

Now I know that everyone's needs are different. Still, after decades of camera use, I know my solution.

It would be a hybrid of the M3 and the Nikon FE2. Imagine being able to use the auxilary finders without looking into the finder. :)

Art

-- Art (AKarr90975@aol.com), October 09, 2001.

Leica should build an M camera with the same hybrid shutter as in the new Nikon FM3a: stepless electronic speeds in aperture priority mode, and fully mechanical when in manual exposure mode. The best of both worlds. If they could design a mechanical linkage between lens and camera that would communicate the aperture in use, then perhaps old lenses could be retrofitted, too.

-- Douglas Kinnear (douglas.kinnear@colostate.edu), October 09, 2001.

If indeed Leica would produce such a body I would buy one as well. SLR lenses need contact to the body as their aperture remains open for viewing and closes for exposure. RF lenses are always stopped down.

-- Haim Toeg (haim_toeg@bmc.com), October 09, 2001.

Given that existing Leica M lenses work just fine on the aperture priority Minolta CLE, I don't quite see the reasoning that a new line of lenses is needed. Linkages in SLRs communicate the selected aperture for wide-open metering, then stop down when the shutter is tripped. Because RFs don't view through the lens, the aperture is always at its working opening and the meter cells read the amount of light being transmitted. There is no need for a change in the lens to allow aperture priority.

-- Josef Brugger (jbrugger@pcez.com), October 09, 2001.

Ah, of course Haim and Josef are right! What was I thinking? This is why Leica lenses work just fine on the Hexar RF.

-- Douglas Kinnear (douglas.kinnear@colostate.edu), October 09, 2001.

It WILL happen. It WON'T happen. Leica will never make an auto camera; there's one in the works right now. It's going to be digital, it won't be; it won't work with current lenses, it will work with them, the whole company is a kettle of stinking fish and is already on the edge of death, quality control stinks, and the current lenses are not as good as previous ones, or twice as good. I think this has all pretty much been covered in previous threads.

-- Michael Darnton (mdarnton@hotmail.com), October 09, 2001.

Part of the appeal of the M6 for me is its basicness and lack of automation. The lack of automation helps make a conscious and deliberate photographer. I know that when I take a good picture -- a rare enough occurence -- it is all me, and not due to all the automatic gizmos you find so common on other cameras. And because decision makeing is left to you with this camera, when I take a bad picturre -- a very common occurence -- I, sometimes, learn why, and thereby, become a better photographer. This was not the case (for me) when I shot Nikons with all the automatic features.

-- Stephen York (S.G.York@worldnet.att.net), October 09, 2001.

Tristan:

I was thinking the same thing about three months back, so I bought a Hexar because I really wanted an M6AE - And I felt the likelyhood of Leica producing one anytime soon was (is) very low... However, the more I used my M6, the less convinced I was that I wanted or needed AE in my camera. I've become quite adept at using the narrow angle meter in the M6 rapidly, and I like the fact that I am the one in control of all elements in the exposure, and am not just blindly accepting what the camera determines for a correct exposure. Furthermore, a simple AE system like that found in the Hexar is likely what would find its way into the M6AE, and they are sadly lacking in performance when compared to a more sophisticated matrix system like those found in any current NiCanPenSigMin SLR. Hence, my M6AE (AKA Hexar RF) is for sale... and I'd be happy to make you a very good deal on it :-)))

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), October 09, 2001.

Just ran across this great article;

Tur n off the options, and turn up the intimacy

-- Tristan Tom (tristan@tristantom.com), October 09, 2001.

Well, not having owned either the CLE or Hexar this (new lens designs) hadn't occured to me, but as has been mentioned (new designs not needed) it is certainly so. But the body and guts would still need attention. Oh well, what are the wizards of Solms waiting for....

-- Dave Doyle (soilsouth@home.com), October 10, 2001.

Tristan:

"Lately I've been thinking how nice it would be to have the shutter speed automatically change for me when I move to a different aperature... "

I've been up that same street myself. I'd still own my Hexar RF if only the RF had worked consistently for anything over 50mm. I sympathize very strongly with the desire for the 'auto-setting' aspect of an AE system.

The feasibility issue is this: There have been very few HORIZONTALLY travelling electronic shutters, at least since the 1970s. The last one still around, I believe, was in the Nikon F3. Universally the electronic designs now are Copal/Seiko-style vertical shutters, which are not configured to fit in an M body.

So for Leica to add aperture-priority AE, they would either have to have a whole new body (and assembly line and parts warehouse to go with it) or they would have to develop their own in-house shutter designed to fit within the M body cavity (and get none of the economies of scale that other manufacturers get from buying off-the-shelf electronic shutters.)

Someone (maybe Steve Gandy??) mentioned somewhere that Leica still has their 'electronic M' prototype dating from the early '80s, and that it was a taller camera to acommodate the vertical shutter. It (obviously) wasn't built - the M6 was developed instead.

In addition, having used the RF in hopes of automated 'M' pictures, I can say that narrow-field auto-metering is very tricky - I often could get 6 stops variation in the auto read-out by shifting the frame a very small amount as it metered various highlights and shadows - NOT very useful for quick grab shots. In fact, ultimately my 'f/16 rule' and hand-metered exposures with M4-2/P bodies were at least as accurate as anything the Hexar's AE produced.

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), October 10, 2001.

It's far better to learn to become an auto-exposure photographer than it is to have an auto-exposure camera.

-- Dave Jenkins (djphoto@vol.com), October 10, 2001.

Spot-metering, AE lock, and exposure compensation are a powerful tool if ergonomically engineered (as on some modern SLRs with thumbwheels and lock under one finger/thumb). But AE spot, without a lock is useless. The point of Leica Ms is ergonomics and simplicity of function. Any AE-M would have to take this into account carefully to preserve the 'philosophy' of Leica.

Hexar RF and CLE users may care to comment.

-- Mani Sitaraman (bindumani@pacific.net.sg), October 10, 2001.

"It's far better to learn to become an auto-exposure photographer than it is to have an auto-exposure camera."

Well, both would be handy, I think. A rangefinder with the F5's meter and modes would be pretty neat. Not likely to happen though.

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), October 11, 2001.

Too many people seem to miss the point. Just because there is aperture priority provided , you do not have to use it. Leica will produce an AE aperture priority M camera - they have said as much. There might be a digital version also, but it will be in addition.

If Contax can produce this type of camera with a whole host of other features (which you can use or not as you see fit), then Leica can also build it in the same size body as the M6. Yes, the back might hinge instead of bottom/flap loading. Is this a bad thing?

Any electronic shutter will be vertical, multi blade - that is the only way to get a reasonable flash sync. speed. Look at the Hexar and the Contax G2. Are they larger than an M6? Answer no.

Because of the popularity (obsession with?) the M6, Leica will not stop producing that camera until people stop buying it. That will be some time away.

Is there somehow, something wrong with Leica producing a version of their rangefinder camera with electronic functions? If you don't want it, don't buy it.

Can we at least get real and accept that there are people out here who would welcome this.

Not instead of a fully manual/mechanical camera, but as well as. I will be first in line, as I was to buy the M6 in 1984, despite the cries of traditionalists that a buil-in meter was the beginning of the end.

-- Wmurphy (wmurphy@powerup.com.au), October 11, 2001.

Mani Sitaraman wrote:

". . .But AE spot, without a lock is useless. The point of Leica Ms is ergonomics and simplicity of function. Any AE-M would have to take this into account carefully to preserve the 'philosophy' of Leica."

The Leica M6TTL (as opposed to the "Classic") already has AE lock, it just doesn't have AE! Take a meter reading, press the shutter release about halfway down, then point the camera into different light. The meter reading is locked and does not change. An accident or a foreshadowing of features to come?

-- Robert Schneider (rolopix@yahoo.com), October 12, 2001.

You got me Rob! :-)

What I should have said is that AE, with spot metering only, is pointless. And AE lock is more useful with spot metering and exposure compensation, if both lock and exposure fall easily to hand as in modern professional Canons and Nikons.

-- Mani Sitaraman (bindumani@pacific.net.sg), October 14, 2001.

A warning! Please no one hold their breath for Leica to change or do anything, you will all suffocate and then I wont have anyone left to answer my questions on this forum!

-- Joel Matherson (joel_2000@hotmail.com), October 16, 2001.