Seriously, when can we have an AF body that mounts all current M/R lenses?

What is so wrong with that? Is Leica ever going to make one?

-- Greg (Gregkowhim@hotmail.com), June 05, 2002

Answers

I mean, besides converting all the current M/R manual lenses to AF lenses with the same optical excellence, what is stopping them?

-- Greg (Gregkowhim@hotmail.com), June 05, 2002.

What's stopping them? How about the fact that the R at this point isn't making enough cash to sink a lot of R&D money into it. And the fact that few M shooters desire A/F. Pretty good reasons for me!

-- Bob Todrick (bobtodrick@yahoo.com), June 05, 2002.

because they don't have the know-how and budget to compete effectively with the big pro brands. leica's forte is is their hand made lenses, and tank made high quality bodies. everything else is way off modern standards in terms of supply chain management, distribution, marketing - what have you.

If you AF, buy a Canon! And hey, you might even save some money...

-- pat (modlabs@yahoo.com), June 05, 2002.

AF will mean going into the future. It looks like Leica will be much smarter to go into its own past: the Null Series, rumours about resurrected M3. And they have not even tapped the huge potential of remaking screw mount bodies. Leica's old designs are a gold mine,and the tooling probably only needs to be cleaned of rust, greased, shipped to Portugal and there you go. If Leica's marketing department is clever it can make the company survive by only reproducing what has already been produced in the 20th century. I can also bet that a 100 anniversary M6 Classic Mickey Mouse Titanium Limited Eddition will be a hit. I hope Leica has already started working on it: there are only 26 years left. As you may very well see Leica has more important things to do than designing the stupid autofocus. Cheers, Igor

-- Igor Osatuke (visionstudios@yahoo.com), June 05, 2002.

I suggested they build an internal motordrive and was also roundly put down. It seems R users, for the most part, enjoy and like the system as it is. If they want other features they can use Canon or Nikon (at a much lower price).

-- Bob Haight (rhaigh5748@aol.com), June 05, 2002.

Leica's true essence is in manual photography (or classical?), I dont see what they would gain by even attempting to compete with giants such as Canon and Nikon and even if they did, who would buy them anyway? I surely wouldnt given their past ventures into anything electronic. Also the construction and heft of Leica lenses would make an AF system much too slow power hungry and would prob burn out the motors. Contax have already invested huge amounts of money into converting the excellent Zeiss manual lenses into AF and came up with the novel idea of the AX, but its only recently that they have cracked it with the N system which involved a complete redesign of the lens.

Leica has a niche market, they should stay there.

-- Karl Yik (karl.yik@dk.com), June 05, 2002.

And another reason: according to the latest Leica Photographie autofocus systems force the photographer to place the main subject in the center of the frame thus resulting in very boring photos. While Leica modern philosophy of manual focusing allows the photographer to fully explore the rule of thirds. Very convincing indeed. Cheers, Igor

-- Igor Osatuke (visionstudios@yahoo.com), June 05, 2002.

according to the latest Leica Photographie autofocus systems force the photographer to place the main subject in the center of the frame thus resulting in very boring photos.

I love the Leica spin doctors! What a bunch of B.S.!

-- hadji (hadji_singh@hotmail.com), June 05, 2002.

Also, autofocus lenses have a little decentering wiggle play in them, which I understand does not meet Leica standards optically.

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), June 05, 2002.

Are you kidding me? If you are focussing with a M there is no difference with an AF systems 'central spot', both systems require you to focus your subject in the middle of the frame, then its up to you to recompose.... If this is really in Leica Photographie, they have messed up big time.

-- Karl Yik (karl.yik@dk.com), June 05, 2002.

Karl... repeat after Leica... AF means boring photos... you don't need AF.... you don't need AF....

-- Hadji (hadji_singh@hotmail.com), June 05, 2002.

Hadji,
Thanks for your immediate soothing leica wisdom! Though I read your comment somehow as Leica AG instead of Leica AF..... strange!

-- Karl Yik (karl.yik@dk.com), June 05, 2002.

Doesn't Leica have some kind of arangement with Minolta? Couldn't they get AF technology from them and adapt Leica optics in Minolta lens bodies with Leica mounts?

-- Chad Hahn (thehahns@cornhusker.net), June 05, 2002.

I dont like the sound of that minolta word.... I started off 35mm photography with Minoltas and every minolta body I had developed a fault. It was then that I decided to chuck it all away (for next to nothing) and got into real photographic equipment, Contax and then Leica! Ooooohh yeahhhhh

-- Karl Yik (karl.yik@dk.com), June 05, 2002.

I would not mind shooting the 50 summicron using a Leica-Minolta matrix metered body. How hard is that?!

-- Greg (Gregkowhim@hotmail.com), June 05, 2002.

Leica did show an AF prototype SLR way back in 1976 called Correfot.

-- Bert Keuken (treb@operamail.com), June 05, 2002.

I expect that Leica will introduce an AF R body the same week the last remaining 35mm film emulsion is discontinued.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), June 05, 2002.

Correfot? Doesn't carry much of an association with autofocus, does it? I can see why there wasn't much interest! How about focusalot?

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), June 05, 2002.

Leica AF: Why?

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), June 05, 2002.

I don't need AF but a little focus confirmation would help these old eyes! That couldn't be that hard to do......could it?

-- Terry Dent (dentkimterry@cs.com), June 05, 2002.

There are drawbacks to auto-focus, but subject composition is not one of them. Canon AF cameras allow you to position the AF sensor (and the internal spot meter) at various positions in the frame. You do not have to position the subject in the center of the frame like you have to with M cameras. Nikon AF does not offer as wide a range of AF sensor positions as Canon, but they still are not limited to the center of the image.

-- Jim Lennon (jim@jmlennon.com), June 05, 2002.

Canon AF cameras allow you to position the AF sensor (and the internal spot meter) at various positions in the frame.

I don't want to use various positions, I want to use the entire viewscreen to focus. It's the only way I can follow- focus on fast-moving subjects. I agree with Mike Dixon: Why?

-- Douglas Herr (telyt@earthlink.net), June 05, 2002.

Worlds fastest autofocus system:

Tri-X @ f16/500th and be there.

feli

-- feli (feli2@earthlink.net), June 05, 2002.

Please also read the thread ---"R-Future..."Wolfgang-- from the past day or so below.

-- Reto (redcavereto@hotmail.com), June 05, 2002.

i don't want Leica AF (for the M, that is), i don't even want AE...i want a new M3 ease of M6 loading! with flare-free .91 (?) vf magnification!!! but i want the built-in meter and TTL flash...

-- Dexter Legaspi (dalegaspi@hotmail.com), June 05, 2002.

An AF R camera I hope not in my life time.

Let's understand a few concepts about why AF is probably a poor choice for Leica:

1. Since when has Leica been or would it be able to keep up with the Japanese makers in camera and AF lens electromechanical features? Does any serious Lieca user believe that Leica has the wherewithall to keep upfeaturing cameras and the electro-mechanics of a suite of AF lenses???? Come on. Their cameras are always years behind in features. The AF community changes too fast for Leica to keep up.

2. AF systems have much greater reliability requirements than MF systems. In addition to the bodies, each and every AF lens is its own reliability problem. How many AF N or C users have not had problems with the electro-mechanics of their lenses, let alone how lightly built so many of them are? Is this what we want from Leica, who had such rotten introductions of the R4 and R8?

3. Leica's best attribute is its ability to design lenses that give the careful user mind blowing performance. When lenses from the late Mandler era, the 100/2.8 and 280/4, and any Kolsch era lens are used to elicit this spectacular performance at the wide apertures, there is almost no other maker's lens that comes close. The nearest competition for any Leica lens is the Z 50/1.4 and a very few Japanese long teles. And for those the L lenses are more elegantly designed, often with many fewer elements giving nearly equal or superior performance.

4. So lets let Leica continue to be a niche player. I support the argument that if AF is indispensable for someone, they really ought to use the C or N systems and use Leicas when they can be more deliberate about their photographing.

5. If Leica commits to an AF future, they commit to a whole new constellation of requirements that I argue they are and will be ill prepared to face and keep up with rapid changes in the technology.

-- Tom Campbell (leicar7@aol.com), June 05, 2002.

Never?

Autofocus does not require you to compose in any particular way, except to hold down the shutter release while you recompose. And the Leica Fotografie people must not have ever seen a Nikon F100, which lets you switch the AF sensitivity area to the left, right, top, bottom or corners of the frame.

One real drawback to CCD-based AF is that (at least according to one study I saw), it can reduce the maximum resolution of your lens when used in autofocus mode (something to do with the spacing of the CCD elements). I think it was Modern Photography (right before it folded) that showed something like a 50% drop in resolution with a 50/1.8 lens wide open. This is a pretty significant drop, and Leica cannot afford to have its reputation harmed by this limitation, making Leica pictures look like anything else. Leica would also be a late player in the AF SLR market and can't really start an AF rangefinder market.

One thing Leica could do but really lacks the capital to do is to build purpose-built autofocus bodies around some of its rangefinder lenses, especially wideangles. This is precisely what Konica did with the autofocus Hexar, which is basically the combination of a 35/2 pre-ASPH Summicron (negatives are indistinguishable) with an electronic shutter, autofocus and a motor drive. The result is a camera that focuses basically in the dark, has 1/ 250 synch capability (as well as something a little better than Nikon "D" flash operation), and an ultrasilent motor drive. Leica could have a field day with a 35/1.4 ASPH mounted to a body like this. Imagine a low-light machine that can focus more accurately than you can when the light is scarce. Imagine a Summilux 50 on one of these...

-- Dante Stella (dante@dantestella.com), June 05, 2002.

Dante writes :

>> Never?

Autofocus does not require you to compose in any particular way, except to hold down the shutter release while you recompose. And the Leica Fotografie people must not have ever seen a Nikon F100, which lets you switch the AF sensitivity area to the left, right, top, bottom or corners of the frame… <<

Dante, generally I think we agree on many things, but here I have to disagree. If AF might well have been a bonus on long to very long lenses on the R8 SLR, I don’t want any AF on a rangefinder camera. I think AF influence is neutral (no advantage, no liability) for any lens between 50mm and 200mm and pesky on shorter lenses: No valuable scale focusing is possible due to the free rotating focusing ring and its short angular displacement between minimum distance and infinity, most lenses are devoid of any precise DOF scale.

>> One thing Leica could do but really lacks the capital to do is to build purpose-built autofocus bodies around some of its rangefinder lenses, especially wide angles. This is precisely what Konica did with the autofocus Hexar, which is basically the combination of a 35/2 pre-ASPH Summicron (negatives are indistinguishable) with an electronic shutter, autofocus and a motor drive. The result is a camera that focuses basically in the dark, has 1/ 250 synch capability (as well as something a little better than Nikon "D" flash operation), and an ultrasilent motor drive. Leica could have a field day with a 35/1.4 ASPH mounted to a body like this. Imagine a low-light machine that can focus more accurately than you can when the light is scarce. Imagine a Summilux 50 on one of these...<<

I don’t think AF is of any significant value on wide angles… It is so easy to focus them wide open on a rangefinder camera and it will render impossible scale focusing with them when required… The Hexar AF may be a spectacular achievement in terms of technology, but I think it is something which has really a niche market not by a marketing decision but per se… On the contrary to a modern affordable 35 mm interchangeable lenses rangefinder cameras so well illustrated by the other Konica: the Hexar RF.

Whether it is to be introduced on a future Leica M or a future version of the Hexar RF, I don’t want any AF device if the manufacturers are still unable to make this feature totally optional (neutralizable).

Friendly.

François P. WEILL

-- François P. WEILL (frpawe@wanadoo.fr), June 06, 2002.

Study some autofocus lenses. You will see that they tend to be very light weight - at least the parts that move during focusing.

Why? Because the AF motors have fairly low power/torque in order to be compact and battery-efficient, and can't move heavy objects quickly enough. (engineers: please don't flame if 'power' and torque' aren't quite the right technical terms - I just mean they aren't generally capable of moving - say - the mass of a Leica 280 f/4, e.g. at sports- photography speeds).

AF lenses tend to use a lot of rear-element focus and internal focus so that the smallest possible amount of glass has to actually move.

Compare Contax's (the new kid on the AF block) AF and MF lenses - the AFs have much lighter construction. Now compare those to Leica's R teles - about as heavy as you can find short of the 1950's.

When I had a Contax G2 I could HEAR that the motor was already straining a bit to move the mass of the 90 - a lens that's even lighter than Leica's 'thin' Tele-Elmarit 90. The motor would burn out trying to heave around a 90 f/2 APO.

Even at the wide end Nikon had to 'lighten' some of their lenses for AF use - the 28 f/2.8 and 35 f/2 both dropped to 6 elements from 8.

Meanwhile Leica has been making their M lenses generally HEAVIER (75mm excepted) rather than lighter (the 21, the 35s, the 90s, and the 135 are ALL heavier than their predecessors!). To move to AF - camera and focusing technology aside - they would have to scrap most of the existing lens lines (R and M) and start over with new designs. And they'd still be 18 years behind the curve - forever.

I can't say that it would be impossible to design AF lenses with "Leica-quality" resolution and tonal scale. But nobody else has done it consistently. I think Leica has chosen to pursue image quality above all else, and if that's inconsistent with AF - then they'll skip AF.

Now the rest of us have to make the same choice....

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), June 07, 2002.

No argument with Mr. Piper.

Leica is the last maker to have an almost full set of MF lenses for the reflex camera. Zeiss doesn't seem able to decide upon a 35mm identity; it's a mess of incomplete, incompatible systems with no camera robust enough for field use.

The Kolsch lenses and several of Mandler's will probably be the end of the line for pushing the limits of possible performance. Better performance will not be discernable except with the most carefully controlled technique - read "not hand held-" and better films than the market currently provides. With the advent of digital cameras, film is not likely to be improved much in the future and will, therefore, not provide a medium to display results better than Leica lenses already give. The demise of Kodachrome 64 will remove the last color film capable of showing the greatest percentage of performance that Leica lenses can give.

There is compelling pressure felt within Leica to produce an AF reflex camera system. Who drives this perception inside Leica, I wish I knew. Once committed to AF, it will be almost impossible to turn back if things go badly. The result will be the demise of the Leica reflex system. Leica has a poor record of introducing brand new electronic cameras: the R4 and R8 introductions were fiascos. If they stumble on an AF camera and the first several AF lenses, they will be on their knees and need more $ from Hermes.

Leica's niche is outstanding lenses. They should stick with that and provide adequate cameras. It has always been that way. They should concentrate on being the niche player who gives better lens performance than anyone else. They should spend their strategic planning on getting their entry into the digital arena right the first time.

Leica will be better served by skipping the AF bandwagon and preparing for the digital future. There is no requirement that digital cameras be AF.

-- Tom Campbell (leicar7@aol.com), June 07, 2002.

Some very convincing arguments here against Leica venturing into AF with M or R cameras. I just hope Leica is listening! I agree that it's not needed in RF cameras but SLR is a different story.

I understand the problem of having to make very light-weight optics if they are to be focused using tiny electric motors. However, I wonder how difficult it would be for Leica to introduce focus confirmation in a future R camera? That approach still uses the photog's hand to focus the lens, avoiding lens redesign but still giving electronic focus support.

-- Ray Moth (ray_moth@yahoo.com), June 09, 2002.