For Leica M USERs only... what improvements would you like to see?

I would eliminate the ISO dial on the back and replace it with a

frame to hold the film box tab. Obviously, replacing the self-timer

with the meter was the best trade-off. I probably used my M4 self-

timer twice a year. But an accessory self-timer could be designed.

It would slip over the side of the camera and would work like a car

door remote. You'd hold it in your hand and a small solenoid would

press down on the shutter release. When through, you'd slip it off

and put it back in the camera bag.>>>>I've wished that the tripod

socket was more in the center, but there no doubt is a reason for its

off-center location.>>>>The M grip adapter would incorporate a

tripod quick release base>>>>The 1/50 sec flash sync is really too

slow, but as other people have observed, if it requires a complete

remake to fix, just leave it alone!>>>>Never owned the M6, but things

that have batteries need an auto shut-off feature or you go through

batteries too fast. That always bothered me about flash units I've

owned.>>>>There might be some quicker way to change filters, rather

than screwing them on and off. Magnetic? Velcro? Bayonet Mount?

>>>>Do Leica marketing people monitor forums like this? They'd be

foolish not to! (Think of all the good laughs they'd miss!)

Improvements to the M6:

<p>

1. An OFF SWITCH for the damn meter: most of the wear that I put on

the shutter-speed dial is from twiddling the wretched thing back to

"B" so the battery doesn't drain in the camera bag, and then having to

twiddle it back to a usable speed to actually take a picture. This is

surely the stupidest omission Leica ever made.

<p>

2. Go back to the M4 viewfinder which, unlike the M6 one, is

absolutely immune to flare.

<p>

3. While I'm at it, go back to the M4 viewfinder with its 50mm ONLY

frame and slightly greater magnification: the best 50mm viewfinder

ever. If I can afford three grand for a 75 Summilux I can afford to

buy another camera for it...

<p>

4. Oh, hell: just put a meter in the M4 and forget all the other

"improvements" in the M6. I never use my M4 because the M6 is so much

more convenient for real picture-taking, but the M4 is the silkiest

piece of machinery I have ever e

For those of you who wished for a uncluttered viewfinder, DAG

can remove the frameline sets you do not want. They may be

able to modify the frameline shapes but you would have to ask

them.

<p>

The ISO dial is on the back because there is simply no where

else to put it. If you have ever had the top plate off an M camera,

you would realise that ever spare nook and cranny is used for

something.

<p>

Tom A. is working on a battery compartment lid which will have a

on/off switch in it. Coming soon hopefully.

<i>design from scratch a leaf shutter body so that you can flash synch at all speeds but I think their R&D budget prohibits this.</i>

<p>

Uh guys, the original post referred to a leaf shutter in the body not leaf shutter lenses. A great idea because all M lenses would theoretically be compatible. I would love to have a camera like that but I wonder about vulnerability to shock. One can always dream...

>it would design from scratch a leaf shutter body so that you can

flash synch at all speeds<

<p>

Anybody here ever seen a Copal #3 shutter on a LF lens? One that

allowed clearance for 35 negative area would be even bigger! And BTW,

the max shutter speed on a Copal #3 is 1/125th... Improbable idea, me

thinks.

Given an M6TTL the only real improvements I would like are:

<p>

- less flare in the rangefinder focusing patch

- a meter on/off switch separate from the shutter speed selector

All I want is for someone--preferably but not necessarily Leica--to

design either a digital body or digital back with upgradable sensor

and software, with M-mount, so that my substantial investment in

Leica lenses feels more secure over the long-term. I just ordered

some Novoflex adaptors for my Leica R lenses to fit EOS bodies for

just such a reason.

My dream of a new M camera would be similar in all aspects to the

current M6 like size, shape and weight, but with these differences:

<p>

-a higher sync speed like 1/250.

-a simple AE mode with exposure memory lock on the shutter release à la

"R"

<p>

As for all this jazz regarding the cosmetics, like the finish and sound

of the older M3/M4, it seems to be the desire of people who look more

at their camera than taking pictures with it. In the last 21 years, I

had one M3, three M4s, one M5, two M4-2s and 2 M6. They were great and

yes, they had "panache". But my current M6 TTL is, by far so far, the

best "M" I have used.

Pierre Charbonneau

Letsee now,

<p>

1) A larger viewfinder, with more eye relief for the glasses wearers.

0.91 or greater, a la the M3. (If you've never used the M3 with both

eyes open, you're missing a real treat)

<p>

2) An indication in the viewfinder indicating if the camera is wound.

<p>

3) Loose the meter, and give me back the self timer.

<p>

4) A larger lens opening, so the next generation Noctilux doesn't

vignette.

<p>

5) A digital back, to clip in as a replacement to the film pressure

plate back, whenever digital photography is necessary. (This would

also give you back the meter. It's resolution should be at least

3600x2400 (About 26 Mega pixels, if it's a color back.)

<p>

6) A rewind knob like that found on an Alpa.

<p>

On the off chance that someone from Leica is actually reading this,

I will not buy an AE Leica. Or an AF Leica.

_ A modern 90 or 100 mm macro lens for the visoflex

_ And perhaps 200 mm for the same

Higher flash speed

An easier meter to use . I am not a spot fan

That should do it for now . Oh yes get rid of the rangefiner glare . tx

I would like to take all the people who want to change, and ruin, the

King, and send them to Afganistan, never to return.

Relocate the hotshoe more to the left for better ergonomics when

using external finders. I would say directly above the built-in

finder so there will be room on the other side to engrave "Leitz".

:^} Notice how the new zoom finder leans to the left? Even Leica got

the point.

........I use a CosiVoit double hotshoe for this purpose but if my

suggestion above makes the M6 ugly then add the M3 window dressing to

compensate. :)

"I would like to take all the people who want to change, and ruin,

the King, and send them to Afganistan, never to return."

<p>

Glen, please please please send me to Afghanistan. I'm stuck here and

dreaming of it. You can send me a cheque, my email addres is below.

Another second here for Giles' recommendations. I don't particularly

crave a self-timer on it, though. And I agree with John: the old-

fashioned screw head would be welcome in place of the dot, red or

otherwise.

<p>

Another idea: modify the frame selector lever to select only one of

the two brightline frames at a time. Like clicking it in for the

wider frame, and out for the longer one. So you get 28, 50, and 90

in one position, and 35, 75, and 135 in the other.

Oops, that won't work, I guess. 35 and 135 are on the same cam.

OK. How about 28, 35, and 50 in position "W" and 75, 90, and 135 in

position "T" (?)

Giles is right on. Were there such a camera available, I'd put my

order in straightaway.

Every thing has been said.

I should want to have a cental tripod screw, may be an incorporated

right hand gripp (which will give some place for batteries...), a

real independant switch on/off of the lightmeter, not great changes

AND a removable digital back!

Best regards,

Alain

we all hava a camera body we love, and we love it very much, so that

we spend so much of our lives shooting rolls through it, but we all

want to change it, improve it, but we can be so unconscious of it´s

design, that we ask for simple and at the same time amazing things

this design can´t do. don´t pay much atention, it´s 3:15 am and I´m

drunk.

All I want is the M2 back in production, perhaps with M6 loading (i.e.

rapid loading) system. That's <i>all</i>, really!</p> No.2 in the wish

list is a digital M or digital back--the latter to be used with the

M2, of course. 12 Mp would be just fine. And there's space 'below' the

M body proper for the electronics and the CompactFlash slot.</p>If we

get a digital M body, it should have a shutter with 30 - 1/16,000 sec.

(all X-sync with rear 'curtain' sync as standard), a true spot meter &

evaluative metering, and shiftable program & manual exposure mode. As

we've gone all-electronic by now, we can integrate a viewfinder that

shows only one frame at a time, whose size changes according to

distance; it should be 0.58 magnification for 28 & 35mm, 0.72 for 50 &

75mm, and 1.5 for 90 & 135mm.

> How about increasing the # of frameline templates in the rangefinder mechanism so that each template has only 1 frameline? Simple is better right? <

<p>

Yep, eggxactly John

I'd immediately swap my trusted and beloved M6 classic for a M7 that

would:

<p>

integrate motor, modern shutter, DX and AE capabilities à la Konica

RF;

offer spot/average/matrix metering options à la R8;

offer an intelligent AE lock system à la Contax;

offer TTL flash management;

offer variable magnification viewfinder (0.58, 0.85, 1.0);

maintain current telemeter base (with better flare control)

offer lcd in viewfinder w/shutter speed, exposure scale, nr of frames.

<p>

It would obviously maintain Leica's high build standard (like the

R8), and be supported by a roadmap for future digital M developments.

<p>

There are no good reasons for substantial size increase (except maybe

some thickness at viewfinder level for the variable magnification

management) or radical aspect change.

<p>

Only tricky requirement from a development point of view is the

variable magnification viewfinder.