I just found this on Stephen Gandy's website concerning the Leica M7. Not bad and I provide some running commentary here.

"January 2002: M7 Even though Leica CEO Cohn reportedly said there would never be a M7 as long as he was CEO, it appears marketing has talked him into it. Look for the Leica M7 to be introduced at the Florida PMA show in February, if not before. If the M7 is not real, it is certainly an amazingly popular rumor --- some Leica dealers are even taking advance orders for it! Estimated retail price for the body is between $2500 to $2700. According to numerous internet reports, it seems to be a camera strongly modeled after the current M6TTL:

Same basic size and shape as the M6TTL

--For me, that sounds rather good indeed. It would be rather nice if Leica had two sizes for the M7, one which is similar to the M6TTL and the other the size of the Minolta CLE. Like the Leica M7 Mini-me :D

Aperture priority AE (you select the f/stop, it selects the shutter speed) or manual exposure

--Coool Beans! :> Exactly what I have been expecting all of this time.

Backward metering compatibility with all M lenses and screw mount lenses with M bayonet adapters, since it takes meter readings at the shooting aperture

--It better do that seriously. Who wants to invest in a system where you can't install your DR Summicron or Mountain Elmar?

Centerweighted ambient light or flash metering

--UH, where is the spot metering option???? :( Time to steal another R8 here.

Quiet Electronic horizontal cloth shutter, 1/60 and 1/125th w/o batteries (yay)

--What, you can't do anything separate from just only 1/60 or 1/125. :( Oh well, at least it's better than the Minolta CLE hmmm... Still batteries are a must here.

Shutter speeds 1/1000th to 4 seconds

--This is the worst aspect of it. Where are the 1/2000 and 1/4000 speeds? At least have something which hits the Nikon F3HP speed...

Lever film advance, taking the existing M motor

--Niceeee!!!

Same RF/VF system as M6 TTL, eventually .58, .72, and .85 finders seem likely

--Niceee!!!

A Metz made pulsating flash offering flash sync at ALL speeds is believed to be under preparation

--This is the highlight of the Leica beauty here.

This is the first AE Leica M camera ever, and the 3rd AE M mount, following the 1980 Minolta CLE and the 1999 Konica Hexar RF

--Right on, I will be saving for this camera, no doubt. There goes my Leica M6 dream at the moment. Although I want a M4-2 someday too..."

Apart from the shutter speed range aspect, I think that if M7 can deliver then I wouldn't have any complaints. I just hope that Leica can keep up on the Leica M6 TTL as well and not forsake it.

Alfie

-- Alfie Wang (leica_phile@hotmail.com), February 09, 2002

Answers

This is a note from Steven's site at the top of the page in his classic camera profile section:

"IMPORTANT: ALL MATERIAL AT THIS SITE, both images and text ARE COPYRIGHTED. In practical terms this means while you are welcome to use my work for personal use, you can NOT for ANY reason copy and republish this material in any way whatsoever, including any re-use and posting of my materials on the internet for ANY purpose. If you feel a need to refer my material, give a URL saying in effect "More information can be found at CameraQuest."

-- Andrew Schank (aschank@flash.net), February 09, 2002.

I wonder what the laws are? Someone can spout off this and that about what others cannot do, but this doesn't make it binding. Kind of like those dumptrucks telling you to drive 150 feet away, and that they're not responsible for damage. Well, that's simply fiction. If something flies out of the back of their truck, guess who's paying for your new windshield?

-- James (snodoggydogg@hotmail.com), February 09, 2002.

I looked for the post Alfie referred to on Stephen Gandy's Cameraquest site and couldn't find the reference. What heading is this topic listed under? Thanks in advance!

-- Ken Prager (pragerproperties@worldnet.att.net), February 10, 2002.

I'm no expert, but I am under the impression that copyright laws forbid "uncredited" pilferage of text. In other words, if Alfie copied Stephen's text and did not credit Stephen with such, that would constitute copyright infringement. However, Alfie did credit Stephen with the text, so I don't think there has been any violation, regardless of what Stephen has posted. I think also there are differences between copying large portions of works, versus brief extracts, which I think this is.

It would be good to hear from a legal-type on this though, if one is out there.

-- Ken Shipman (kennyshipman@aol.com), February 10, 2002.

I think if we're seriously worried about copyright infringement in the Leica rumour mill, then things have taken a turn to the surreal.

I mean, Steven can copyright his _rumours_?!

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), February 10, 2002.

Ken, if you were right I could put photographs by lots of famous photographers (or even not famous, but just not me) at my web site and as long as I credited them it would be fine.

In other words, you can't put a newspaper with New York Times articles and credit them in order not to get sued by the New York Times.

Copyright law aside, it's meaningless to me as I will never buy another 35mm camera. Digital is there quality-wise, and I will be shooting 120 film and digital in the not-too-distant future.

-- Jeff Spirer (jeff@spirer.com), February 10, 2002.

More rumors about this so-called "M7". You'd think it was the second coming of Christ or something...

-- Richard (rvle@yahoo.com), February 10, 2002.

I really think you would have a hard time making a copyright infringment case out of this post. You would have to prove that Mr. Gandy had been somehow damaged or that Mr Wang had somehow profited from the work in question. Just as in term papers, if you credit your sources, you should be fine (in this particular case).

-- Josh Root (rootj@att.net), February 10, 2002.

I'm with Ken Prager. I just checked out cameraquest.com and I can't find the stuff Alfie's referencing. Which section are you refering to, Alfie?

-- Richard (rvle@yahoo.com), February 10, 2002.

Jeff - I think the difference is that a photograph is a complete work in of itself - the extraction of small portions - as Alfie has done with text - can't be compared. Also, we're talking about extracting small portions, not the entire New York Times. I think the copyright laws make these distinctions. But I'm not a copyright lawyer - or any kind of lawyer for that matter.

-- Ken Shipman (kennyshipman@aol.com), February 10, 2002.

Folks, Alfie may be pulling our legs again (are you, Alfie?). I can't find any of the quoted text on Gandy's site, either.

-- Mani Sitaraman (bindumani@pacific.net.sg), February 10, 2002.

No, Alfie is not pulling our legs again. Yes, he is referencing Stephen Gandy's site properly. Here is the link:

http://www.cameraquest.com/mguide.htm#M7

-- Badris (badris@mac.com), February 10, 2002.

It's amazing. Alfie quotes material from Gandy's site with the intention of asking for speculation and opinions, and people here worry about copywrite laws!!! Maybe, Alfie, that means that there isn't much to talk about, re: Gandy's speculations. Just sit tight a couple more weeks and all this will be out in the open.

-- Tse-Sung (tsesung@yahoo.com), February 10, 2002.

Alfie - nice to have your thoughts again.

Having said that, I think we have all guessed and pondered all we can on the M(7?) and will just have to wait and see!

-- Giles Poilu (giles@monpoilu.icom43.net), February 10, 2002.

Alfie, my sincerest apologies :-( I've done you wrong.

Thanks for taking the trouble to let us know what Steve Gandy thinks. But we'll all know for sure soon, as others point out.

-- Mani Sitaraman (bindumani@pacific.net.sg), February 10, 2002.

Copyright law contains an exception called "fair use." This allows work to be quoted, as by a book reviewer quoting text from a book he is reviewing. If reviewing a photo book, the reviewer might provide a sample image. Where fair use shades into infringment is one of those blurry lines in the law.

-- Phil Stiles (Stiles@metrocast.net), February 10, 2002.

Alfie, my dealer also says the M7 will be aperture priority. He doesn't say that it will necessarily be called an M7, though. He doesn't know what they'll call it. He couldn't say what other features it might have. I wonder if it will be able to meter with the 21mm Super-Angulon. Probably not.

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), February 10, 2002.

First, as I understand copyright law, you as a reviewer are allowed to quote brief passages from a published work. What constitutes a brief passage is also defined. I'm not going to search it out; I think, however, Alfie is within the law.

Anyway, Stephan Gandy's site and read the good news (or extremely vivid rumor). From what I gather, the M-7 or whatever it will be called, will be a CLE-like M-6. A very conservative design, which pleases me to no end. The shutter will be quiet and you will have a choice of whether to motorize or not.

I'm glad that the Hexar RF is save from extinction.

Well, friends, in a very short time we will have the Leica that many of us, perhaps most of us, wanted. An automatic M-6.

Maybe Leica will give us a new version of the 50/2 DR for M6 TTL.

-- Alex Shishin (shishin@pp.iij4-u.or.jp), February 10, 2002.

Sorry everyone, I wasn't trying to started a heated leagal discussion or assume the original poster broke some important law. I just noticed that information at Gandy's site where he requested people link his information instead of copying it to other web sites. By the way, I was told as far as copyrights go, you never can tell whether your copyrighted stuff is fully protected until there is a "challenge" to it, and you then prove before a judge you "own" whatever you claim is copyrighted. As with most legal issues, it's about as complicated a process as one can imagine.

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

The M7 description reads like a Porsche with a Tiptronic gearbox. Smooth as ever ride, but with all the fun taken out of the experience. However, a great tool for those who otherwise would not have bought a Leica (or Porsche) because they are unable/unwilling to deal with the manual mode.

From a business standpoint, it is a great move for Leica, since it opens an untapped market. A future result of the expected cash flow could be some newer products to satisfy the long-term Leica users. To those who decry this move, I would suggest that you stop and think, for Leica has not shut down all its current production lines, but openend up a new market.

I can't afford the Porsche, and I'm new to Leica, so it is just an observation!

I also won't consider buying the M7 because I want a manual-only camera.

Cheers,

-- Vikram (VSingh493@aol.com), February 10, 2002.

I love that so often when discussing Leica cameras, someone has to bring up Porshes or high-end Swiss watches or fancy pens. No wonder there's the persistant stereotype of the rich Leica collector.

As for the matter with Alfie's use of Gandy's rumors, it would have been courteous if you had just linked to the info itself since Gandy did ask that readers not quote large chunks of his site elsewhere on the net.

-- Richard (rvle@yahoo.com), February 10, 2002.

I'm neither rich, nor a collector, but I appreciate the quality in German Engineered products, so if they are mentioned in the same breath it is with admiration and not derision. It just so happens that most of them are beyond the reach of the general populace, I being one of them. I've enjoyed photography for a number of years and a Leica is worth every cent to me. I've had to sacrifice in other areas to get one for myself, but that is a conscious choice I've made. Collectors usually don't have to sacrifice anything except their egos.

I have a number of friends with Porsches, and none of them are rich. They didn't buy them new but tapped into the large second hand market, mostly fueled by nouveau riche people who want to experience Porsche ownership but who realize they're better off in a Lexus. So they end up selling for a huge discount. Many thanks to them.

If one has a love for something, there are legitimate ways of obtaining the products. Witness the healthy second hand market for Leicas.

Collectors are a necessary aspect of any produc market, since they help a company's revenue stream. Leica would be in a bad shape without those who like the black paint editions, or the limited edition leather ensconced models. If they can afford it, more power to them.

Those who think Leicas are only for collectors, don't have a clue.

-- Vikram (VSingh493@aol.com), February 10, 2002.

Has someone asked Stephen Gandy direct for his response? It might be a courtesy. Alfie? As a journalist, I would say there is nothing wrong with quoting small passages from other material (for review purposes or to support a detailed discussion), but copyright problems emerge when whole articles are reprinted without permisssion. For example, if someone were to set up an alternative website and simply duplicate another site word for word, that could be actionable. But the whole question of copyright on the Internet (witness Napster, as well as the whole isssue of pictures) is a legal minefield, and very difficult if not impossible to enforce. Quote sparingly, and always include the source and web address, might be sensible. As far as the M7 goes, I think it looks great! In purely operating terms it sounds very like my old Olympus 35 RC (but aperture not shutter priority). Can't wait to see it - I think it will be a hit.

-- David Killick (dalex@inet.net.nz), February 12, 2002.

We have all gained something from Stephen Gandy's site, if he asks his stuff not to be reproduced I think its fair that we should do what he asks. It was good of you to bring up Andrew just so if Stephen sees this thread he wont think we all undertake "cut and paste plagorism" of his stuff.

-- Joel Matherson (joel_2000@hotmail.com), February 12, 2002.