Hi everyone Leicaphilic,

What direction should the next Leica M6a/M7 ought to take? I know that the Leica dudes are supposedly to put in aperture priority into the body and that would be rather cool indeed. Of course, that would mean that we could be getting something is similar to the Minolta CLE from about 20 years ago which is rather nice :) So vanity questions for the rest of the group:

1) Do you think that Leica ought to pursue research in creating an autofocus rangefinder like the Contax G1/G2 series?

2) Do you think that the Minolta CLE is worthy of being resurrected in the literal sense?

3) Do you think that the current TTL metering of the Leica M6 can be improved for tricky lighting situations?

Cool beans, Alfie :)

-- Albert Wang (albert.wang@ibx.com), November 13, 2001

Answers

In my opinion, in the new leica they should put in a same shutter as in the nikon FM3a. A hybrid shutter, operating either on batteries stepless in AE mode, or pure mechanical at all speeds (up to 1/4000). This shutter is really the best thing I have heard of in years! Maybe add a matrix metering, but this is not really important, all users of leica cameras should be able to deal with difficult light situations.

Joop

-- Joop Mes (Joopmes@hotmail.com), November 13, 2001.

1) NO, the minilux zoom covers that market well enough. If you want a G2, buy one. The Contax lenses are great, why have Leica invest in competing in a already filled niche market?

2) NO. The CLE has no metering on manual exposure and no exposure lock on automatic. It has not proven to be particularly robust compared to a M camera and parts are unavailable except by scrounging from other Minolta cameras.

3)NO. The center spot meter pattern is perfect for tricky light situations. Evaluative meters leave you guessing as to what the camera is doing.

4) The shutters in the FM/FM2 are not strong as the F series ones and, under heavy use, require periodic replacement. The shutter for the FM is no longer availalbe while M4-P cameras are considered new in the Leica world. How long will parts for the other cameras be available? The vertical shutter would also mean a different taller M body. After all the crap that Leica has taken for adding 2mm to the TTL, I hardly think it would be a good idea.

Cheers,

-- John Collier (jbcollier@powersurfr.com), November 13, 2001.

What they should probably do is some market research and stimulation vis-a-vis traditional photographic techniques. Like manual camera operation, photographic craftsmanship, B&W darkroom technique, classical photogs and street shooting, and so forth, so as to stimulate sales of their existing product line. Maybe a traveling seminar series or a hands-on workshop. Bring a couple of NG photogs and charge enough to cover costs. Sell gear at Leica Days prices, etc. Could be done at the collegiate level, or perhaps within their dealer network.

I'd go.

-- Dan Brown (brpatent@swbell.net), November 13, 2001.

I'm starting to wish that all these people who continually carp about what Leica should be, would all get together, round up their dollars, make a camera that has all the features they all want (it would probalby only weigh about 15 kilos), and then we could all sit back and decide whether it truly was better than the M6.......

-- Bob Todrick (bobtodrick@yahoo.com), November 13, 2001.

IŽd like the spotmeter to be a bit more narrow, instead of 2/3 of the short side of a negative I would like it to cover 1/5.

-- Jonas Vilslev (jonasvilslev@groenjord.dk), November 13, 2001.

The Konica Hexar RF has already proved that a vertical metal shutter (and a built-in winder!) need not add significantly to the size of the basic M. Leica's only question must be, would there be enough people willing to pay roughly twice as much for a Hexar-spec'd Leica?

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), November 13, 2001.

This is not intended to be a dirty joke... but... everybody here (above) seems to be saying what the next M should come to look like some day in the future, although I keep on hearing that the next thing many others still want to see would resemble pretty much an age-old M4*, M2 or M3...

-- Michael Kastner (kastner@zedat.fu-berlin.de), November 13, 2001.

M4.

No meter, no TTL, or computer chips. No inexpensive parts. No FLARE. No mirrored front of viewfinder. .58, .72 & .85 Black anodized, Chrome. Titanium, black paint or Anthracite. Larger viewfinder for eyeglasses.

Dual lugs on 1 side like M5. Self Timer for when you want it, also good when do not have tripod or cable release.

Built to order like Dell. But ordered thru dealers. 1-2 month wait. Same street price as now MINUS taking out the meter & TTL, save ~$200-500 USD ???? Unsure of actual savings. Someone on the list knows better than I.

Accessory - VIDOM (I think inverts image?). Accessory - 1 to 1 viewfinder for 35 & 50mm Accessory - right angle/waist level viewfinder, good for changing perspective & discreet... Or let Bessa make them.

-- Vince Jones (nospamv431@ma.ultranet.com), November 13, 2001.

I would like to see an entry level body with no TTL or perhaps no meter at all for the less affluent user who does not want to buy a 40 year old camera to save money. I used to look for used bargains in Shutterbug but now e*** has pushed prices up to an insane level and it is very difficult to find an M2 for $500 without major defects. How about something for the user!! Oh yes, and best way to tackle tricky lighting situations is to use your head.

-- ray tai (razerx@netvigator.com), November 13, 2001.

The only worthwhile improvement imho would be a good zoom viewfinder. Not the tiny one of the Contax G2, but a _big_ one that not only would make framing with longer lenses easier but would also improve focusing precision and accuracy. And _NO_ RF flare.

Leica's the only builder of a "traditional" small camera that's potentially a "lifetime" camera; let's hope they don't muck it up.

-- John Hicks (jbh@magicnet.net), November 13, 2001.

Ray's idea of an entry level body would be good for the new Leica purchaser, and good for Leica, because the affordable body would enable one to start a set of lenses which could later be used on an M6. The entry-level body then doubles as a backup camera.

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), November 13, 2001.

What John says. Plus a little hinge cum strap eyelet where the stud that holds the baseplate is. That way, you'd keep bottom loading but the baseplate would just swing/flip open and the eyelet/stud would let you hang the camera like an M5.

The metering in the current M6 is unusually competent. I get roll after roll of perfectly exposed chromes and under/over exposure is no longer a major worry for me.

Cosmetically, black paint with white scripting engraved lettering. Black or grey logo. The LHSA models just look nice. But hardly important. Chrome is not bad either. Especially with an M6J top and face plate.

And I hate to nit-pick, but the viewfinder patch could be a wee bit more contrasty. I swear the Bronica 645 RF has a more contrasty patch than a Leica M camera. Once you've seen something better, you want the same in your favorite.

-- Mani Sitaraman (bindumani@pacific.net.sg), November 13, 2001.

This may be heresy buy, honestly, I wouldn't do a thing to the M6 TTL to "improve" it. The reason I own the camera is precisely because it doesn't have Aperture Priority, multiple metering modes, a motor winder (to take the pleasure away from winding the camera myself!), auto bracketing, etc. If I want that, I have my EOS 7. Funny, but the Elan rarely comes out of the bag these days.

As for those who say that we should be offered an M6 with the build quality of an M3 I say, are you willing (and able) to pay $4000 for a camera body? I'm sure as hell not!Peter Hughes Photography

-- Peter Hughes (ravenart@pacbell.net), November 13, 2001.

Actually I would like to have the 3 strap lug system like on the Leica M5... it would be the main thing that I would add to be honest :)

Alfie

-- Albert Wang (albert.wang@ibx.com), November 14, 2001.

the ideal leica: a hexar RF with TTL, matrix metering, 4+fps motor, made to last. that way it would really be the very best combat camera again. i can't tell you how many times i've had to put down the leica and switch to the nikon when stuff begins to happen fast, and then switch again when you have a moment to breathe. far better to carry two leicas, one traditional, and one like i've described, than bother with nikons or canon eos. i keep looking at the hexar RF but it doesn't seem to make the cut. i may just buy the fixed lens hexar for $400 as a stopgap!

xx

-- alan chin (rat101@aol.com), November 14, 2001.

I think it would be very useful to be able to select the magnification of the M6 viewfinder, i.e. be able to switch between 0.58, 0.72 or 0.85 as required. Variable dioptre eyepiece correction, as in the R8, would also be useful.

Oh, and mirror lock-up, aperture prefire and a DoF lever might be nice additions to the M6, too ;-)

-- Ray Moth (ray_moth@yahoo.com), November 14, 2001.

I think that the only part which really needs to be totally re-designed is the eyepiece. It doesn`t matter if you use 0,58x, 0,72x or 0,85x model - your eye is still too far away from the actual viewfinder (for those of us wearing spectacles - that is). 3) IŽd like to have a true spot-metering (1 degree with 135 mm lens). Measuring angle would still be narrow enough with 50 mm or 75 mm lenses...

-- Esa Kivivuori (esa.a.kivivuori@welho.com), December 05, 2001.