Why did Leica never implement autofocus in their rangefinders?

I thought I remembered an early AF system which was pretty much an electronic rangefinder, any maybe (also) Honeywell.

 

As I remember it, it would image from the two viewpoints (to make a rangefinder) onto five element photosensor arrays. When the signals on each of the five were close to equal, it was in focus. (Or you were unlucky, and happened to match anyway.)

 

When rangefinders work, they work pretty well. I was out with a rangefinder Canon VI a few days ago, after not using it for some time.

Otherwise, not so many years after I bought my Nikon FM, I was looking at the Nikkor 55/2.8, available AI and AF. Not having any intention of buying an AF camera, and liking the feel of the AI much more, I bought the AI. Maybe 25 years later, I got a D70s, which should be able to use the AF version.

 

In the 1970's, many point-and-shoot cameras with AF came out, using a variety of methods that sometimes worked.

 

That was about the time of the Polaroid SX-70 using an ultrasonic distance finder.

(Doesn't work through windows.)

 

With the FM, I thing I mostly used the center split-image prism part of the finder, and less often the microprism part.

 

The nice thing about a rangefinder is that you do know what you are focusing on, unlike AF which might focus

on the wrong part of the scene.

 

For those action photographs (sports, nature) where you don't have time, AF is probably best.

 

Most of us, I suspect, use AF when we are lazy. Rangefinders take a little longer.

Nikon brought out a prototype 85mm AF lens ~1970, showed it on a Nikon F. It uses Contrast Detection, much like more modern mirrorless cameras- before PDAF became available on-sensor. The Nikon lens used 6 C-Cell batteries, from memory. I have a write-up on it somewhere.

 

I have an F3AF, still works but it;s been a long-time since I put the DX-1 on it.

Short answer, because they make rangefinders. Nowadays Leica make collector's cameras, for people whose income doesn't depend on nailing focus every time.

As for cellphone cameras, they are just fine for cellphone size photos.

The first version of the Sony/Minolta A to E-mount adapter had a pelicle mirror and motor for AF with SLR lenses. The AF sensors are in the adapter, located below the lens. That would be fairly easy to implement with a Leica M, for SLR lenses from other manufacturers. Power and activation would have be be part of the adapter itself.

In Re: Minolta and Leica AF

 

Right, or wrong, my source was Wikipedia

 

Minolta - Wikipedia

 

"Minolta purchased the patent rights to autofocus lens technology from Leica Camera in the 1970s"

 

the source cited was "Late to Digital, Leica Slow to Refocus", Wall Street Journal, September 16, 2008, p. B1

In Re: Minolta and Leica AF

 

Right, or wrong, my source was Wikipedia

 

Minolta - Wikipedia

 

Theres no "right or wrong" really, at this late date. The archives are too scrambled and confused, Minolta is long gone, and the lawsuit was highly contentious. Leica has about as much interest in its antique Correfot today as my mother, so they haven't published much on it since the '70s. The original version of Correfot was so alien to what became the standard two Honeywell derivations used in 99.9% of film cameras that nobody even realizes anymore that all early attempts at AF weren't the same. The paper trail is too thin.

 

The Leica-Minolta partnership proved more fruitful for Minolta than Leica in the long run. All Leica really got was much-needed competitive electronic exposure engineering, which propped up the Leica R system to drag on 20 more years than it would have otherwise, but it still never caught on in a big way and never regained the cachet of the original "Leicaflex" models. OTOH, Minolta gained enormous cred from the connection, made a tidy profit building the CL (a great cooperative idea on paper whose faulty business plan nearly killed Leica), picked up some optical ideas, and key seeds of the AF revolution that would take them to the pinnacle, then subsequently destroy the company.

 

Minolta miscalculated the extent of the Leica Correfot patents, and Honeywell was slow to notice at first. The first Correfot, which AF detected like the Nikon F3AF, was discarded in favor of the second. The later Correfot knida-sorta looked like the Honeywell and modern systems superficially, but the AF detection was too complex for mass market SLR camera production. It was a short leap to retrofit the bones of the second Correfot with a more cost-efficient Honeywell-esque detector, so Minolta did just that, to huge success (which unwittingly cut their own throat once Honeywell added 2+2 and got 4). I doubt Minolta was so foolish on purpose: more likely, they sincerely thought their Leica patents encompassed any compatible detection element. They were wrong: its probable this came up in their defense of the lawsuit, but Honeywell was able to shoot it down (without prejudice to Leica).

Edited September 19, 2019 by orsetto

Nikon brought out a prototype 85mm AF lens ~1970, showed it on a Nikon F. It uses Contrast Detection, much like more modern mirrorless cameras- before PDAF became available on-sensor. The Nikon lens used 6 C-Cell batteries, from memory. I have a write-up on it somewhere.

 

All I've ever seen is this schematic. Amazing they showed this as early as 1971, tho one can see why it wasn't pursued: it was enormous for an 80mm lens (as long as a zoom, and heavier at 7.3 lbs with batteries), yet very slow at f/4.5. There was a brief description of how it works in the August 1971 Popular Science, available at this link. And a photo someone took of it at the Nikon Museum opening can be found here.

 

Edited September 19, 2019 by orsetto

 

(snip)

Minolta miscalculated the extent of the Leica Correfot patents, and Honeywell was slow to notice at first. The first Correfot, which AF detected like the Nikon F3AF, was discarded in favor of the second. The later Correfot knida-sorta looked like the Honeywell and modern systems superficially, but the AF detection was too complex for mass market SLR camera production. It was a short leap to retrofit the bones of the second Correfot with a more cost-efficient Honeywell-esque detector, so Minolta did just that, to huge success (which unwittingly cut their own throat once Honeywell added 2+2 and got 4). I doubt Minolta was so foolish on purpose: more likely, they sincerely thought their Leica patents encompassed any compatible detection element. They were wrong: its probable this came up in their defense of the lawsuit, but Honeywell was able to shoot it down (without prejudice to Leica).

 

I suppose so, but I always thought at the Kodak Instant Camera vs. Polaroid patents were a more obvious mistake. Then again, the Kodak version never got all that popular.

You mentioned your cell phone, so I'm assuming you're not tied to film, correct? Without over thinking and analyzing this I'd recommend one of the following, based on MY experience. I wanted to see if I wanted to invest in a Leica rangefinder camera but was into digital so bought a Fuji X100T and it's been a fantastic travel autofocus rangefinder with outstanding image quality. That camera led me to purchase an M2 with 50mm Summicron lens and I much prefer that over the Fuji. Sure, I miss some shots but it's the experience of carrying and using that camera that is magic, like a bamboo fly rod, a fine side by side double gun for bird hunting, or a fine crystal glass to have your single malt in. It's the experience. So the first suggestion is a camera like the X100T. Just got back from a fishing trip and carrying my D850 tucked into my waders will not work, so I got an Olympus OMD5MkII, a mirrorless with 50-300 lens effectively. Small, unobtrusive, and outside some very poorly designed menu layouts (I shoot RAW and aperture priority only) I find this camera to be versatile and just my most used camera now. I got great landscapes out west, great candid and family shots, then shot about 750 frames at my sons soccer game on high speed shutter with the 300. Incredible at about 1/6 the price of a newer Leica. I own more cameras than I can use, but of my smaller cameras outside my 4x5 and Hassy, the M2 and the Olympus get the most use for ease of use and carrying. YOU WILL USE WHAT YOU CARRY MOST. If I was held at gunpoint to choose one, while the Leica is my favorite by a long shot, the Olympus is much more the practical camera doing much more and I can get more shots with it, so I'd choose that.

As long as the ambient lighting allows, setting a RF (or any other manually focused) lens to the appropriate hyperfocal distance for the aperture used, negates the need for autofocus; there’s zero focusing delay, no missed “decisive moments.”

Remember . . . DOF allows for "acceptable focus" . . . there is still only one distance at which focus is correct. I'm not saying that hyperfocal focusing is of no use but is it still a compromise.

Remember . . . DOF allows for "acceptable focus" . . . there is still only one distance at which focus is correct. I'm not saying that hyperfocal focusing is of no use but is it still a compromise.

 

If you include diffraction, there is no distance at which focus is correct, only where it is closer than other distances.

 

Around that point, there is very little change, so a DOF seems reasonable.

 

Next there is film or sensor resolution, which adds to the focus uncertainty.

 

But yes, usual DOF calculations assume a reasonable circle of confusion for

ordinary image viewing at ordinary distances.

...whose income doesn't depend on nailing focus every time.

Funny, I always had trouble nailing focus with my Canon 7D AF system. I hardly ever miss the focus point I intend with my Leica.

I'm currently looking for a new, small, high-quality camera for travel...and also kind of questioning what I actually want/need from a camera. I've never used a rangefinder but I called by the Leica store in Mayfair in London today and tried out two cameras.

The Leica Q was nice, but it isn't a rangefinder. When manual focusing, you are using an electronic viewfinder and "focus peaking/magnification" to indicate what's in focus. I wondered to myself why I would choose this over a cheaper Fujifilm or Sony body.

The Leica M-E (Typ 240) was nice, but it has no autofocus. I wondered to myself how many "decisive moments" I would miss by never having autofocus available.

 

My question now is just why Leica never implemented autofocus in any of their rangefinders? I was trying to remember if there ever even were any autofocus rangefinders, and I remembered of course the Contax G2 had it.

 

As I understand it, the reason Leica never incorporated autofocus into their M cameras is due to the M camera ethos. Part of that ethos is that the M camera will retain the physical dimensions of the original M camera footprint. At present, there is precious little room to cram more stuff into the M camera dimensions, and an autofocus mechanism takes up a lot more space than is available in the M camera.

 

The M240 was .20 of an inch thicker than the traditional M camera and M camera users raised 99 kinds of hell. Leica took the hint and returned to the original M camera size specs in the M10. That involved using a smaller battery in the M10 which had a significantly shorter power life before needing to be recharged than the M240 battery, but it was a sacrifice that the gents in Wetzlar were willing to make and M10 buyers were willing to live with.

 

As far as missing shots due to the absence of autofocus in M cameras, anticipating the decisive moment goes a long way in circumventing that. Autofocus is a two edged sword. It helps in some situations, but is next to useless in low light shooting. AF also struggles with low contrast and subjects with little to no texture. At the end of the day, it's a tradeoff.

 

Personally speaking, I am actually glad my M-P 240 is manual focus. The number of images I miss in low light shooting is drastically reduced thanks to manual focusing.

As I understand it, the reason Leica never incorporated autofocus into their M cameras is due to the M camera ethos. Part of that ethos is that the M camera will retain the physical dimensions of the original M camera footprint. At present, there is precious little room to cram more stuff into the M camera dimensions, and an autofocus mechanism takes up a lot more space than is available in the M camera.

 

The M240 was .20 of an inch thicker than the traditional M camera and M camera users raised 99 kinds of hell. Leica took the hint and returned to the original M camera size specs in the M10. That involved using a smaller battery in the M10 which had a significantly shorter power life before needing to be recharged than the M240 battery, but it was a sacrifice that the gents in Wetzlar were willing to make and M10 buyers were willing to live with.

 

As far as missing shots due to the absence of autofocus in M cameras, anticipating the decisive moment goes a long way in circumventing that. Autofocus is a two edged sword. It helps in some situations, but is next to useless in low light shooting. AF also struggles with low contrast and subjects with little to no texture. At the end of the day, it's a tradeoff.

 

Personally speaking, I am actually glad my M-P 240 is manual focus. The number of images I miss in low light shooting is drastically reduced thanks to manual focusing.

The paradox of AF for me was always the poor low light performance. Just when a photographer could use some help with focusing many AF systems don't work all that well. Outside in bright light where you are likely to be stopped down and don't need AF very much it works very effectively. Most of my work is in a studio with strobes and I never use AF for that. I am grateful for the live view with 10x magnification that my cameras have for accurate focusing in those situations.

Leica has autofocus products but it's not their real specialty. There' s just no real advantage in trying to cram autofocus into the Ms, and its fans wouldn't thank Leica for doing that. But people who want autofocus can buy something like the VLux 5. The Ms are all about slowing down and maintaining control. Not for everyone though.

The Ms are all about slowing down and maintaining control. Not for everyone though.

I find it somewhat amusing that, once upon a time, one of the advantages of a rangefinder over a SLR was seen as being it's speed of operation.

 

How times have changed!

 

I love a good rf, particularly for street/reportage.

Remember . . . DOF allows for "acceptable focus" . . . there is still only one distance at which focus is correct. I'm not saying that hyperfocal focusing is of no use but is it still a compromise.

If MTF is plotted against focusing position at some intermediate distance (e.g., 15 feet), it is a maximum at the exact focal point and falls off on either side. Some lenses have a sharper peak at the focal point than others, often accompanied by asymmetry, nodes and inflection points. According to Erwin Puts, Leica lenses are designed to have a relatively broad, symmetrical peak, which gives images a pleasing character.

There are a jillion great cameras on the market. Just go look at a bunch, play with one that catches your fantasy and see if it does what you want. If it's easy for you to use then rent or buy it. For rangefinder like cameras, the Fuji,s are nice but generally not full frame, but some of them do come with the option to use the EVF or the optical finder which is part of a rangefinder system, and it works fairly similarly. It doesn't really matter why Leica didn't create an autofocus rangefinder, knowing why probably won't help you find a camera that works for you now.

I never bought into the slowing down mantra. If I shoot in the street, often speeding up. If you want to slow down and contemplate, try a large format camera :)

There are a jillion great cameras on the market. Just go look at a bunch, play with one that catches your fantasy and see if it does what you want. If it's easy for you to use then rent or buy it. For rangefinder like cameras, the Fuji,s are nice but generally not full frame, but some of them do come with the option to use the EVF or the optical finder which is part of a rangefinder system, and it works fairly similarly. It doesn't really matter why Leica didn't create an autofocus rangefinder, knowing why probably won't help you find a camera that works for you now.

 

In relation to my original question, this is not a very helpful answer at all. I was wondering why Leica never implemented autofocus in their M rangefinders, and got some very good answers here. Saying "it doesn't really matter" is a bit condescending. I framed my question in the context of my personal photographic "quandary" - yes, I am questioning what I want from a camera - but the answer is not to just "go look at a bunch and play with one that catches my fancy". I am not necessarily seeking camera suggestions here - I can figure that out myself once I decide what I am looking to get out of photography going forward.

Condescending? Ok. Let me ask you this. Why don't you just ask Leica? Or do you like to see what people's speculations are? So why don't you instead talk about what you might want to do in photography and then ask how a rangefinder would help with that? You will then look for a camera that catches your fancy, unless that has already happened and you are being sucked in to the Leica universe. You know you want one maybe your just looking for a reason to spend the cash.

No, I am not being sucked into the Leica universe. Actually, I am thinking of just using my phone for digital, and getting a Mamiya 6MF. I'm still considering. But that's a personal decision.

 

Mainly I just want to enjoy photography. I want a camera that inspires me to use it. I want a camera that doesn't hinder me. And I want pleasing results. I can't find just one camera to do it all. So I'm considering combinations.

M's are fun to use, that's been my experience. So until you get to trust the focusing, they will slow you down if you're coming from auto focus. The quality of the images are great and they have excellent lenses.

 

iPhone? I'm using mine more than anything else at the moment.

 

If you are shooting film, the Mamiya is a really good camera. I use its cousin the Mamiya 7.

 

Leica does have a mystique both due to the history of how they've been used and whom have used them. and assiduously maintained by Leica's marketing.

If you are used to manual focus they won't be slower than other types of cameras in manual focus. The fit and finish on these cameras is excellent, especially older models M2, 3, 4. They are from the height of the machine age and they do feel nice in the hand. I always got along with the RF system and I think they're good general cameras that can take great pictures in just about any circumstance.