We all know that most of the ideas of things we would like to see in the next generation of m6 are pipe dreams. Leica's charm lies in it's inability to change. This works well of course with their rather limited engineering budget. But if we are going to dream we might as well dream big. Would you buy a medium format leica m6 even if it was at a premium over say the bronica 645? what format would you prefer, a better bronica 645, or a better mamiya 7? If they were to do a 645 with some fast lens i would line up to buy one.

greg

-- greg mason (gmason1661@aol.com), January 10, 2002

Answers

To me the Bronica 645 is useless, as is any 645 where the viewfinder runs vertically and I have to turn the camera sideways to shoot landscape format. The Mamiya 7 already costs enough to choke a horse, I shudder to think how much Leica would want for their version. And the much shallower DOF of medium-format lenses at equivalent angles of coverage makes using the always-sharp viewfinder even more challenging. I owned a Fuji 6x7 rangefinder for a very short time, it wasn't my cup of tea.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), January 10, 2002.

I owned the Mamiya 7 for awhile a few years back, and because of it decided I definately did not like RF cameras. In fact it delayed my M purchase by over a year. The fastest lens was f4, it was horrible to try to focus and the framelines were not even a close approximation to what you are going to get in your image. By contrast, when compared to the M7, the Leica M is a joy to use! As Jay pointed out, I shudder to think what a Leica MF RF camera and lenses would cost -- Hasselblad would be laughing hysterically if Leica ever tried to bring some such creature to market!

I think the Bronica might be okay if you primarily like to compose in the vertical format. But IMO, you are already paying a huge premium for slow lenses and a marginal increase in performance over 35mm (Sorry Godfrey!) I've owned both Mamiya and Pentax 645 systems, and they just weren't enough better than 35 to justify their existence to me. I have found 6x6 and 6x7 to be enough better than 35 in terms of tonal range to justify its use. So again, if Leica decided to go the 645 route, I think it would flop too.

Lastly, fast lenses with 645, 6x6 or 6x7 mean a focal-plane shutter in the body, not an in-lens leaf shutter. A big FP shutter has a lot of inertia, and imparts a lot of vibration to the body during exposure. Just ask anybody that uses a Pentax 6x7 how the shutter vibration is... Then ask why they think the body is so darn heavy -- it has to be to soak up the shutter vibration! (Okay, and SLR mirror- slap too, which would not be a problem with an RF...)

IMO, Leica's best bet for survival will be to produce a killer digital system based on the R8, and a dedicated film scanner using their state-of-the-art optics.

:) Cheers,

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), January 10, 2002.

Much as I like fast lenses and fast handling M Leicas, I recently acquired a Bronica RF 645 and found it to operate much like a 35mm rangefinder. I like the ergonomics (I love the vertical orientation and shoot most of my portraits that way). It is faster to shoot with on the street than my M as the rangefinder is just as good and it has the added benefits of automatic aperture and full program. The multi-segment meter is very accurate and large prints have noticeably less grain and more detail. I do agree that the Fujis are very cumbersome. I love being able to sync automatic flash at all shutter speeds, as well. It is a well thought out camera. I'm anxiously awaiting the 100 mm lens rumored to be released this month. Not a replacement to the M but certainly a nice adjunct. Would I buy a 645 Leica? If made by Leica, yes. If rebadged from another maker? probably not.

Kirk

-- kirk tuck (kirktuck@kirktuck.com), January 10, 2002.

Voigtlander needs to make it for it to be affordable. A Bessa 66 or Bessa 645. How about a simple cloth shutter and 3 lenses (50, 75, 120) with finder frames you select like on the Bessa R. Plus a superwide 30mm that could be a similar design as the 15 they use for their 35mm camera. I bet Voigtlander could sell a camera like this for 2/3 of what the Bronica costs. I'd even like to see a retro folder Voigtlander 6X6 camera with a modern lens and meter built in.

-- Andrew Schank (aschank@flash.net), January 10, 2002.

I would line up to buy one but to make a lens small and cover the image circle these lenses will have to be slow. I don't know how they can get around the physics.

-- ray tai (razerx@netvigator.com), January 10, 2002.

I only use 35 mm format. I would not be interested in a Leica MF rangefinder. If I wanted a MF camera, I would have bought one already: there are plenty available to choose from, including several rangefinders. I guess the small size, covenience, portability, along with very fine fast lenses, are the reason I use Leica M. These advantages would mostly be lost with a Leica MF camera.

Furthermore, I'm not really interested in a camera made by someone else with the Leica name on it. What's the point? Why should a camera made by Fuji be called a Hasselblad (X-pan). I prefer truth in labeling.

-- Eliot (erosen@lij.edu), January 10, 2002.

I had imagined the M7 to be a nice MF travel camera because of its compactness and sharp lenses. Sorry to hear it's such a bear to focus, and that the framelines are so inaccurate. Oh, well, I'll have to lump it with the Hassie . . .

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), January 11, 2002.

To avoid the need for vertical viewfinder, I have suggested a type of horizontal 645 film, which would be perforated on both sides, as 35mm is now, and in a metal cassette. It would come in 15 & 30 shot rolls. Frame size would be 44x55mm to correspond with 8x10 inch enlargements. It could be put into 2 1/4 x 2 1/4 slides. I doubt Leica would pioneer such a camera. Most probably it would be a Japanese manufacturer. This film size would allow for downsizing the Fuji 670 or 690 cameras into something a bit larger than a Leica M5. I owned a Fuji 690 III with 90mm f/3.5. I consider it a fine value. It was just your basic, mechanical 120/220 with a very good lens and sync at all speeds to 1/500. It used a 67mm filter and had the extensible lens shade, like the Leica. I found that someone using the 6x9cm format needs to do all his own developing & printing. My local film processor (Then in Chicago) would crop the heck ot of my negs. Contact sheets were more costly than 3 x 5 prints.>>>>I was told by someone at a camera expo that med format accounts for only 1% of what 35mm has in the mkt.>>>> I think some camera maker ought to adapt an existing camera for the horizontal, perforated, cassette film I mentioned. Mamiya lets you run 35mm through the Mamiya 6 (the 7, too?). My new film would use the same cassette top & bottom and the same sprockets. They would need to talk Fuji into making this film up. If enough people tried it, maybe it would justify designing a camera from the ground up.>>>> Perhaps if THAT camera caught on, someone could make a camera body that used existing Zeiss lenses. If that went over, Zeiss might design between- the-lens shutter types that were the right size for this minimal medium format.

-- Frank Horn (owlhoot45@hotmail.com), January 11, 2002.

re original question:

uhhh....why?

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), January 11, 2002.

Vertically oriented format "useless"? Sheesh, what a narrow and rigid minded thing to say.

The Bronica 645RF would make a wonderful MF Leica, if only they made some fast lenses for it too. But I'll likely buy one ... maybe. i'm having too much fun with the Fuji GA645 right now, and I want a digital camera next...

I played with a Mamiya 7 thinking to buy it, but backed out because it was incredibly clumsy in my hands.

No, Leica should just keep on doing what they're doing...

Godfrey

-- Godfrey (ramarren@bayarea.net), January 11, 2002.

I had MF on the brain a few years ago.

I think a Leica MF camera would be ridiculously expensive. In addition to the DOF and slow lens issues, you have 10-15 shots/roll, which I might find limiting in reportage/travel style photog. You'd be changing film about 2.5 to 3x as often as in 35mm.

That said, for an upcoming trip to China hopefully (the adoption agency is glacial), I think I'll just have my M6 (35/90) kit and my old Rollei Automat, a beater with a Xenar lens, to quell any MF tuggings I might feel. I've really enjoyed a Fuji 645S, with its T-1/500 flash sync. Sharp but noisy, and I'm looking to part with it. As many of you may know, the TLR is a dream to use- quiet, compact, unobtrusive, elegant; simpler than the RF. Made some wonderful shots of St Peter's in the Vatican, and the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. (Just set it on its back next to me on a crowded bench, self timer, and voila; all while the tourist with the N90X+flash+28-70/f2.8 gets manhandled outta there.)

-- Tse-Sung (tsesung@yahoo.com), January 11, 2002.

Hi

I popped into Jessops the other day and noticed that the Bronica 645 had dropped to £870 including 65mm lens - it made me slightly sick at having shelled out for my M6 outfit.

Having said that, no MF rangefinder will be a small as the M6 which is its virture but the Bronica 645 and M& are truly quiet (silent M6 shutter - what a joke)

Having used the M6 for a year now - its only 35mm and after using a Hassy for years I cannot conceive of 35mm as anything other than a snapshot - not to be taken seriously format (my state of mind, not a problem with the camera). The B645 with one lens would a high quality addition to a medium format outfit for parties, quick snaps etc.

I am not sure the Bronnie could do what the M6 could though - available darkness and all that.

Tapas

-- Tapas Maiti (tapasmaiti@aol.com), January 11, 2002.

No, simply because I'd have to invest in an MF scanner as well. And because i'm waiting for digital to become a realistic proposition for my work.

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), January 11, 2002.

'Leitz' is linked so closely to 35mm that an MF Leica simply doesn't fit into the corporate philosophy. Aside from that, it's small size and low weight, not just optical quality, that make the M series such excellent imaging tools. Any questions left?

-- Oliver Schrinner (piraya@hispavista.com), January 11, 2002.

Ever hear of Plaubel-Makina press cameras.Sweet little number out of germany even had a 35mm back.Collectors in Japan drop huge quanitys of yen on the block for these old boys. Nikon glass, had one and let it get away. Still cry about that. Oh well live and learn then you die and forget everything.

-- Al Henry (J Henry@provide .net), January 11, 2002.

I've been using the Mamiya 7 for about five or six years. I don't find it difficult to focus, nor do I find its framelines any more inaccurate than any 35mm rangefinder I have used, and I often print full-frame with it. I don't particularly care for 35mm images printed beyond 8x10, but I print 6x7 up to 20x24. Also, I don't particularly care for color with 35mm, even at 8x10.

I don't use it as much at night, I do prefer faster lenses then. But during the day, I can't see nearly as much reason to need the speed. The depth of field is something you learn to work with.

Merida, Mamiya 7, 43mm lens, Copyright 1999 Jeff Spirer

-- Jeff Spirer (jeff@spirer.com), January 11, 2002.

A friend of mine gave up medium format for just the point mentioned by Jay. He was fed up always having to use a tripod to get any depth of field. He was also irked by the need to have the camera on its side and temporarily looked at a Rollei. He's now hooked on 35mm but I can't remember what he uses. I don't think it's a Leica or he would have told me.

-- Tony Brookes (gdz00@lineone.net), January 11, 2002.

Godfrey: Re-read my post, I never said the vertical format was useless, I said *to ME it's useless*. I shoot mostly scenics, mostly in landscape format. I don't mind turning the camera on its side for the occasional portrait-mode shot, but I couldn't stand doing it for 9/10 shots. Actually, the one MF rangefinder camera that appealed to me is the Mamiya 6. As a Hassy user I like the square format. When I shoot the Blad I compose to the format and have not yet ever cropped a shot to a rectangle.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), January 11, 2002.

I bought an M6 Classic instead of an M6 ttl because the 'Classic' is smaller. When you can get a 6x6 down to the size of an M6 Classic, then let me know, I might consider it. You know, over the years, Leica has promoted, for good or bad, those photographers who use the Leica. You can say what you want about the advantages of medium format, but I for one, have never seen the type of images on medium format that have been taken with a Leica camera. Consequently, that's the type of photography I aspire too.

-- Glenn Travis (leicaddict@hotmail.com), January 11, 2002.

Andy- You ask, "Why"?-- It is for people who 1) Don't like MFs greater weight, and 2) Don't like the 1/50 sec maximum sync speed, and 3) Don't like tilting the camera vertically for a horizontal shot. Remember a few year ago when the Hassy was all focal plane? But they came out with a whole different setup-- between-the-lens shutters, right? These new lenses also work on the old focal plane Hassys (I think-- I haven't owned a Hassy). Like most folks, I don't want to change anything about the Leica if it might jeopardize its existence. It is great as it is. I don't need AE or AF and can live with a 1/50 flash sync. But when Hassy came out with BTL shutters, they surely were listening to the market.

-- Frank Horn (owlhoot45@hotmail.com), January 11, 2002.

Hi Greg! 645 just barely makes sense from the handheld/DOF standpoint, and 6X7 is over-the-edge somewhat unless a tripod or high-speed film is used. Of course that assumes that the user is trying to emulate 35mm-style DOF, and there are certainly other qualities of MF which put it in its own class. Many have commented on the lack of significant gains in fidelity over 35 to justify 645, which I agree is often true, although with Leica lenses, a difference might indeed be consistently visible. As focal-plane sharpness increases, effective DOF decreases, but I would pay this price to use Leica optics. Besides, the bokeh would be fantastic! But even if Leica came out with a 645, I would never consider it a replacement for the M-6. Think of those situations where settings like 1/8th sec at f/2 handheld are called for, where a 35mm M-Leica not only outshines all else, bar none, but actually is often the only choice of camera for reliable, even inspiring results. I like the idea of a new 645 horizontal film. I think if someone decided to make this available, camera manufacturers would take notice. While the vertical 645 is possible, its a compromise, in my opinion, as our eyes are naturally attuned to the "landscape" format, and decisively "going vertical" makes more intuitive/visual sense in a "physio-dynamics" sense. Stating this doesn't imply in the least that I'm biased against verticals, as fully 1/3 of my work is done vertically. Finally, yes, a Leica MF would cost more, although assuming the design was similar to the M-6, the amount of materials and time to make this camera, in a relative cost sense, shouldn't actually be that much more. If the camera were significantly different, then, yes, R+D alone could push it into the stratosphere. Would people buy it? Of course!

-- John Layton (john.layton@valley.net), January 11, 2002.

No. When I saw the Leica lenses (photos taken from them) I knew I was married (to Medium format) too early. Life will be a lot easier just with one camera system and a few good lenses.

-- kenny chiu (amchiu@worldnet.att.net), January 11, 2002.

Remember a few year ago when the Hassy was all focal plane? But they came out with a whole different setup-- between-the-lens shutters, right?

Hasselblad introduced leaf shutter cameras and lenses in the 1950s, which was more than a few years ago.

-- Jeff Spirer (jeff@spirer.com), January 11, 2002.

Frank: Sorry! My "Why" was intended for Greg's original question. I don't get the interest in a "Leica-brand" 6x(whatever) - unless maybe it's to get the Leica lens "look" on larger film.

What else could Leica bring to a table already full of Mamiyas, Bronicas, Fujis, 'blads, Rolleis, etc.

Medium format RFs have tended to come and go, usually go - the Zeiss folders, the revived 1980s Plaubels, the Mamiya 6. Maybe the Mam7 will last longer.

Personally I like square MF, myself. If I were reviving something it would be like the Zeiss folders - fixed lens, RF viewing, ultra- compact, SQUARE PICTURES! But I'll probably just get a Rollei TLR, if and when.

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), January 12, 2002.

Andy- Have you gotten to examine a Rolleiflex GX 2.8 TLR? Is the shutter like the old Rolleis, or did the make it electronic? There must not be much demand for TLR cameras these days. Jeff- I went to a Hasselblad site and learned that they currently make both focal plane and between-the-lens models. I thought they abandoned focal plane about 15 years ago. The 'blad is a very complicated and extensive system. You have to really know what you are buying with certain models. They have titanium shutters that can easily be damaged and repairs can run $500US! (Focal plane shutters>)

-- Frank Horn (owlhoot45@hotmail.com), January 12, 2002.

Frank: The Rolleiflex GX has a mechanical battery-free shutter. The metering is now TTL (viewing lens).

Hasselblad abandoned focal plane shutters in the 1950's - and REINTRODUCED them sometime within the past 20 years in order to add faster lenses. The leaf shutters were too small for f/2 lenses.

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), January 13, 2002.

I must agree with Jeff Spirer. I bought a Mamiya 7 six years ago, just prior to an extended trip around Europe and I have never had disappointing results. A very accurate meter and bitingly sharp images - with the 65mm lens. It is a very easy camera to use (much easier than my M6TTL) but the lenses are to slow for low light work.

I like the M6 for it special applications - it is beautifully made - but that rewind lever is a wee prick of a thing. It always jumps out of my fingers and runs backwards - while I mutter curses.

By the way, has anyone got any information on the 43mm and the 50mm lenses for the Mamiya 7? I would like to get the widest angle possible, but have heard murmers about the 43mm having unacceptable light fall off and distortion? Jeff's picture in this thread looked ok to me.

I was just wondering if the 50mm would be a better bet?

Andrew Phillips

-- Andrew Phillips (f16at60@yahoo.com.hk), January 15, 2002.

I owned a RF645 and a Rollie. The RF645 w 65mm is a great street shooter. The Rollie is not but can be used with zone focus. The RF image quality does not fall off when used wide open. F/4 is very usable. The camera is easy to rotate to a horizontal orientation. Big negatives trump small ones even if they are from a Leica.

-- Richard Jepsen (rjepsen@mmcable.com), January 16, 2002.