As good as Leica's new M7 may be, it has still has many limitations compared with other cameras on the market, including Leica's own R8. These limitations include:

* top shutter speed of only 1/1000 sec

* maximum TTL flash synchronization speed of only 1/50 sec

* AE lock that works for only one frame

* lack of metering options, such as full-frame centre-weighted average and matrix metering in AE mode

* no self-timer

* lack of built-in variable viewfinder magnification

* inability to take multiple exposures (the M5 could do that)

* no built-in adjustable dioptre correction

* no provision for an electronically-coupled motor, which could possibly support auto-bracketing.

One of the factors that constrained what could be achieved in the M7 was undoubtedly the company's understandable preference to preserve, as far as possible, the size, shape and handling of the M6. The bitter lesson learned from the launch of the M5 is probably still clear in Leica's memory. However, things have changed in the marketplace. Many of the M5's critics at the time it was launched are no longer with us. The M5 has become a respected and sought-after model.

Maybe the market is now more flexible and Leica is wrong in its perception that any rangefinder camera it launches must have the look and feel of the M6 to have any chance of success? If so, then the way could be clear to launch, in the not-too-distant future, a new style of RF body that would still maintain compatibility with the current range of M lenses but enable significant enhancements in the camera's specification, e.g. a vertically traveling shutter for higher speeds, a longer rangefinder base, space to mount a self-timer, a range of metering methods, etc.

Whether such a new RF camera should be called an M or some other name is open to question. Any suggestions?

-- Ray Moth (ray_moth@yahoo.com), April 03, 2002

Answers

As much as I would like an M7 I have to offer my idea......."Leica..........M6.5

As I believe they only made it half way to what should've been the M7. Do we really think it is true that it was impossible (whether financially of technologically) for leica to fix the above limitations before release?

Ah I still want one. Aperture priority is what attracts me.

-- Kristian (leicashot@hotmail.com), April 03, 2002.

What Leica needs to do to become the perfect camera/lens maker IMNSHO - is to hire me. But, if they had that much sense, they's be much richer. Rollei's making the same mistake (of not hiring me).

Enjoy ;-)

-- Vijay A. Nebhrajani (vijay_nebhrajani@yahoo.com), April 03, 2002.

This has already been said elsewhere, earlier (I don't remember when or where or who, and I don't really care either) but the new M7 is apparently not really a 7, like the M4 was really a 4 as a real successor to the M3, and the M6 was to the M5 etc. I see two possibilities here: (a) The M7 has probably now appeared for the simple reason that Leica assumes that the time (in years) has finally come, when a new model number has to exist (like Nikon etc does every year), and/or (b) a real M7 will possibly come out some day, but indeed maybe even only in another 5 or 10 years after Leica finally decides on or discovers what we all need and want. Whew!

-- Michael Kastner (kastner@zedat.fu-berlin.de), April 03, 2002.

Whether such a new RF camera should be called an M or some other name is open to question. Any suggestions?

Based on the description, I suggest calling it the "F100 RF".

Art

-- Art (AKarr90975@aol.com), April 03, 2002.

Ok Lets say Leica came out with this Nikon like whatever that had all the wonderful features you mentioned. What would it look like? An M5? Doubt it, the scars are too deep. Another depature from the classic M look? Just too drastic for a company like Leica. Much too much critcism, especially from this forum. Maybe I would guess the digital M10 will be out, when I'm too old to see anyway.

-- John Abela (jamriman@yahoo.com), April 03, 2002.

Hello Ray.The M7 is now set in stone.To quite a few Leica users subtle changes are preferred to radical change evident in many new cameras.Any advantages or disadvantages of the M7 will become apparent over time,not necessarily immediately on release.

-- Sheridan Zantis (albada60@hotmail.com), April 03, 2002.

I don't see anything on the list that seems evenly remotely "out of the box", you're merely describing the Japanese electronic automatic cameras. Why do we need another one of those?

On the other hand, maybe now that the M7 exists, Leica can go back and reintroduce the classic M6 (M6.2?), dropping the M6TTL. Those who want TTL flash, which I consider silly on a rangefinder, can buy an M7.

Joe

-- Joe Buechler (jbuechler@toad.net), April 03, 2002.

Right on Joe with the M6.2. But, maybe keep the electronically timed shutter over the mechanical. It is quieter and the speeds are more reliable. But scrape all the other automation and the on-off switch. Hopefully, the size of the classic body could be used.

-- Bob Haight (rhaigh5748@aol.com), April 03, 2002.

i think that Leica terrified to make real changes.The M5 disaster very strong in ther thinking and experience.One thought no one has mentioned,that cameras with aperture type auto are the worst for re-sale on maket!The Nikon EM and Pentax Mv are 2 cases in point.I have the former and NOBODY would ever buy it!True it only has one shutter speed that can be selected but its a easy camera to control.. Top speed not a worry for me!The M5 was a real and BETTER departure! The case lugs for strap for one,a real advance!The larger shutter dial.Test reports really killed it plus the added factor of the CL/CLE Also at the hight of SLR sales...I disliked the cameras bulky feel. Today,using the M6 i realize the many advantages of that camera...

-- jason gold (leeu72@hotmail.com), April 03, 2002.

Dear Friends,

It's out there. It is called the Hexar RF. It is truly a great design that needs to be refined a little. Viewfinder especially.

-- Alex Shishin (shishin@pp.iij4-u.or.jp), April 03, 2002.

I just don't see how this differs from complaining about how little cargo space a Porsche has or that there is no remote start capability on a lawn mower. These are all things that are appropriate for other "styles" of cameras - other "styles" of photography. I'm not even convinced that aperture priority for an M camera isn't a total stretch.

-- Tony Rowlett (rowlett@mail.com), April 03, 2002.

These are all things that are appropriate for other "styles" of cameras - other "styles" of photography. I'm not even convinced that aperture priority for an M camera isn't a total stretch.

Glad someone else said it.There are hundreds of cameras out there,with all the tech anyone needs.Self-timer would be useful,and the dioptre correction.

-- Allen Herbert (allen1@btinternet.com), April 03, 2002.

Auto exposure of any kind is a limited blessing. It only works well if the scene is "average." If the scene consists primarily of very dark tones (black horse in front of a black wall, a la Fred Picker), the camera will overexpose. The opposite is true when the scene consists primarily of very light tones (bright sky, water, white wall). The photographer always has to evaluate the scene and decide whether to accept the meter reading whether the camera is used in automatic or manual mode.

In the case of the M7, even if you only use the aperture priority function in those instances when you cannot set the shutter and aperture manually (not enough time or inability to get a meter reading of a known tone--such as the palm of your hand--in the light that is falling on the subject), you still have to set (i.e. "guess") at the aperture setting, since workable aperture/shutter speed combinations with respect on any given film ISO are limited.

-- Jim Lennon (jim@jmlennon.com), April 03, 2002.

The last line of my previous response should read "...with respect to any given film ISO are limited."

-- Jim Lennon (jim@jmlennon.com), April 03, 2002.

"I don't see anything on the list that seems evenly remotely "out of the box", you're merely describing the Japanese electronic automatic cameras. Why do we need another one of those?"

It seems to me that the 'box' in Leica's case is the shape and dimensions of the M6. If Leica could persuade itself that this restriction need no longer apply, then it could start to think about things like vertical traveling shutters, self timers and other goodies that might become feasible with a body shape giving a bit more space.

I'm not describing a Japanese electronic automatic camera, BTW, I'm describing a German electronic automatic camera. As to who needs one, that's not for me to say but I'm prepared to bet Leica could build it and it'd be darn good!

-- Ray Moth (ray_moth@yahoo.com), April 04, 2002.

I am quite happy with whatever M mount body that is metered and lets me take pictures. I don't really care about what features the M7 has or doesn't have but somehow know I will eventually get one out of the same logic why I have several versions of the same focal length. However I would not want Leica Camera AG to get into some product development that is over its head like a electronic driven Made in Germany Hexar. It would be a total piece of crap and the brand will crash and burn. Buy the Hexar and be happy.

-- ray tai (razerx@netvigator.com), April 04, 2002.