Following on from the M6AE thread, why don't Leica just revive the CL business plan - ie their collaboration with Minolta. It certainly worked for Fuji and Hassleblad with the X-Pan.

Having tried out an X-Pan the solidity and feel was very satisfying, imagine a Leica X-Pan but instead of switchable panoramic make it go the other way ie half-frame!

Now there's an idea! Let the attacks begin :)

-- Giles Poilu (giles@monpoilu.icom43.net), December 22, 2001

Answers

I think Minolta or Fuji don't want anything to do with Leica (except maybe Leica Microsystems).

Hasselblad's high margin products are all user products whereas Leica's high margin photo products are all aimed at the collectors market.

Therein lies the problem,

-- John Chan (ouroboros_2001@yahoo.com), December 22, 2001.

There were actually half frame Leica 72, made in Canada, now a scarce collector item.

-- martin tai (martin.tai@capcanada.com), December 22, 2001.

As stated before, Fuji approached Leica first with the Xpan (they were already collaborating on digital cameras) but Leica turned them down.

The CL was a tremendous success for MInolta. Leica made very little money and the CL took sales away from their money making camera, the M5. Leica was hoping CL sales would lead to people moving up to Leica's other offerings. This did not happen. You could say that the CL was almost singlehandedly responsible for the end of M production in early 1970s.

There was also a special version of the MD-2 called the MD-22 listed in Leica's catalogue which was a half frame camera. I have also seen pictures of M4-2 half frame cameras as well. Whether these were converted MD-22s or a very limited production from Leica I do not know.

-- John Collier (jbcollier@powersurfr.com), December 22, 2001.

Other than a handfull of collectors, who would buy it?

-- Steve Wiley (wiley@accesshub.net), December 22, 2001.

What would be the advantages of half-frame other than going cheap on film?

-- ray tai (razerx@netvigator.com), December 22, 2001.

I was hoping a load of half-frame nuts might tell me that!

-- Giles Poilu (giles@monpoilu.icom43.net), December 23, 2001.

What's the advantage of half frame over APS?

Sorry, sorry, stupid question, I'm but a fool etc., sorry, sorry...

:-)

-- Mani Sitaraman (bindumani@pacific.net.sg), December 23, 2001.

Konica made a full frame 35mm and half frame switchable SLR

-- martin tai (martin.tai@capcanada.com), December 23, 2001.

Perhaps with Leica (and others) modern optics allowing 35mm enlargements to 16x20 a half-frame should allow the more common 8x10 with ease? 72+ shots without changing film!

Or perhaps forget the switchable bit and just have a 'mini' M?

-- Giles Poilu (giles@monpoilu.icom43.net), December 23, 2001.

There is already a submini Leica M on the market

Made by Minox-- a division of Leica Camera Solms

-- martin tai (martin.tai@capcanada.com), December 23, 2001.

I don't think there *are* any half-frame nuts anymore--that flame burned itself out REAL fast. :-)

-- Michael Darnton (mdarnton@hotmail.com), December 23, 2001.

When I saw the MD-22 in the catalogue (I think about 1975/ 76 or perhaps a bit earlier) I ordered one. The camera was never delivered to me, no reason told.

I asked a member of LH (who had worked for LEITZ/ Wetzlar in these years) recently why this camera finally didnīt appear on the market. If I understood things right the reason was, that the film transport mechanism having to move the film only 18 mm instead of 36 mm could not easily be adopted to this half step. It was either not enough room for additional gears or something else which I forgot.

They finally gave up, because they could not make the film transport as reliable as they wanted it to be.

Best wishes

-- K. G. Wolf (k.g.wolf@web.de), December 23, 2001.