would you buy a MF leica rangefinder?

We all know that most of the ideas of things we would like to see in the next generation of m6 are pipe dreams. Leica's charm lies in it's inability to change. This works well of course with their rather limited engineering budget. But if we are going to dream we might as well dream big. Would you buy a medium format leica m6 even if it was at a premium over say the bronica 645? what format would you prefer, a better bronica 645, or a better mamiya 7? If they were to do a 645 with some fast lens i would line up to buy one.

<p>

greg

To me the Bronica 645 is useless, as is any 645 where the viewfinder

runs vertically and I have to turn the camera sideways to shoot

landscape format. The Mamiya 7 already costs enough to choke a

horse, I shudder to think how much Leica would want for their

version. And the much shallower DOF of medium-format lenses at

equivalent angles of coverage makes using the always-sharp viewfinder

even more challenging. I owned a Fuji 6x7 rangefinder for a very

short time, it wasn't my cup of tea.

I owned the Mamiya 7 for awhile a few years back, and because of it

decided I definately did not like RF cameras. In fact it delayed my M

purchase by over a year. The fastest lens was f4, it was horrible to

try to focus and the framelines were not even a close approximation

to what you are going to get in your image. By contrast, when

compared to the M7, the Leica M is a joy to use! As Jay pointed out,

I shudder to think what a Leica MF RF camera and lenses would cost --

Hasselblad would be laughing hysterically if Leica ever tried to

bring some such creature to market!

<p>

I think the Bronica might be okay if you primarily like to compose in

the vertical format. But IMO, you are already paying a huge premium

for slow lenses and a marginal increase in performance over 35mm

(Sorry Godfrey!) I've owned both Mamiya and Pentax 645 systems, and

they just weren't enough better than 35 to justify their existence to

me. I have found 6x6 and 6x7 to be enough better than 35 in terms of

tonal range to justify its use. So again, if Leica decided to go the

645 route, I think it would flop too.

<p>

Lastly, fast lenses with 645, 6x6 or 6x7 mean a focal-plane shutter

in the body, not an in-lens leaf shutter. A big FP shutter has a lot

of inertia, and imparts a lot of vibration to the body during

exposure. Just ask anybody that uses a Pentax 6x7 how the shutter

vibration is... Then ask why they think the body is so darn heavy --

it has to be to soak up the shutter vibration! (Okay, and SLR mirror-

slap too, which would not be a problem with an RF...)

<p>

IMO, Leica's best bet for survival will be to produce a killer

digital system based on the R8, and a dedicated film scanner using

their state-of-the-art optics.

<p>

:) Cheers,

Much as I like fast lenses and fast handling M Leicas, I recently acquired a Bronica RF 645 and found it to operate much like a 35mm rangefinder. I like the

ergonomics (I love the vertical orientation and shoot most of my portraits that way). It is faster to shoot with on the street than my M as the rangefinder is

just as good and it has the added benefits of automatic aperture and full program. The multi-segment meter is very accurate and large prints have

noticeably less grain and more detail. I do agree that the Fujis are very cumbersome. I love being able to sync automatic flash at all shutter speeds, as

well. It is a well thought out camera. I'm anxiously awaiting the 100 mm lens rumored to be released this month. Not a replacement to the M but

certainly a nice adjunct. Would I buy a 645 Leica? If made by Leica, yes. If rebadged from another maker? probably not.

<p>

Kirk

Voigtlander needs to make it for it to be affordable. A Bessa 66 or

Bessa 645. How about a simple cloth shutter and 3 lenses (50, 75,

120) with finder frames you select like on the Bessa R. Plus a

superwide 30mm that could be a similar design as the 15 they use for

their 35mm camera. I bet Voigtlander could sell a camera like this

for 2/3 of what the Bronica costs. I'd even like to see a retro

folder Voigtlander 6X6 camera with a modern lens and meter built in.

I would line up to buy one but to make a lens small and cover the

image circle these lenses will have to be slow. I don't know how

they can get around the physics.

I only use 35 mm format. I would not be interested in a Leica MF

rangefinder. If I wanted a MF camera, I would have bought one

already: there are plenty available to choose from, including several

rangefinders. I guess the small size, covenience, portability, along

with very fine fast lenses, are the reason I use Leica M. These

advantages would mostly be lost with a Leica MF camera.

<p>

Furthermore, I'm not really interested in a camera made by someone

else with the Leica name on it. What's the point? Why should a

camera made by Fuji be called a Hasselblad (X-pan). I prefer truth

in labeling.

I had imagined the M7 to be a nice MF travel camera because of its

compactness and sharp lenses. Sorry to hear it's such a bear to

focus, and that the framelines are so inaccurate. Oh, well, I'll

have to lump it with the Hassie . . .

To avoid the need for vertical viewfinder, I have suggested a type

of horizontal 645 film, which would be perforated on both sides, as

35mm is now, and in a metal cassette. It would come in 15 & 30 shot

rolls. Frame size would be 44x55mm to correspond with 8x10 inch

enlargements. It could be put into 2 1/4 x 2 1/4 slides. I doubt

Leica would pioneer such a camera. Most probably it would be a

Japanese manufacturer. This film size would allow for downsizing the

Fuji 670 or 690 cameras into something a bit larger than a Leica M5.

I owned a Fuji 690 III with 90mm f/3.5. I consider it a fine

value. It was just your basic, mechanical 120/220 with a very good

lens and sync at all speeds to 1/500. It used a 67mm filter and had

the extensible lens shade, like the Leica. I found that someone

using the 6x9cm format needs to do all his own developing &

printing. My local film processor (Then in Chicago) would crop the

heck ot of my negs. Contact sheets were more costly than 3 x 5

prints.>>>>I was told by someone at a camera expo that med format

accounts for only 1% of what 35mm has in the mkt.>>>> I think some

camera maker ought to adapt an existing camera for the horizontal,

perforated, cassette film I mentioned. Mamiya lets you run 35mm

through the Mamiya 6 (the 7, too?). My new film would use the same

cassette top & bottom and the same sprockets. They would need to

talk Fuji into making this film up. If enough people tried it, maybe

it would justify designing a camera from the ground up.>>>> Perhaps

if THAT camera caught on, someone could make a camera body that used

existing Zeiss lenses. If that went over, Zeiss might design between-

the-lens shutter types that were the right size for this minimal

medium format.

re original question:

<p>

uhhh....why?

Vertically oriented format "useless"? Sheesh, what a narrow and

rigid minded thing to say.

<p>

The Bronica 645RF would make a wonderful MF Leica, if only

they made some fast lenses for it too. But I'll likely buy one ...

maybe. i'm having too much fun with the Fuji GA645 right now,

and I want a digital camera next...

<p>

I played with a Mamiya 7 thinking to buy it, but backed out

because it was incredibly clumsy in my hands.

<p>

No, Leica should just keep on doing what they're doing...

<p>

Godfrey

I had MF on the brain a few years ago.

<p>

I think a Leica MF camera would be ridiculously expensive. In addition to the

DOF and slow lens issues, you have 10-15 shots/roll, which I might find

limiting in reportage/travel style photog. You'd be changing film about 2.5 to

3x as often as in 35mm.

<p>

That said, for an upcoming trip to China hopefully (the adoption agency is

glacial), I think I'll just have my M6 (35/90) kit and my old Rollei Automat, a

beater with a Xenar lens, to quell any MF tuggings I might feel. I've really

enjoyed a Fuji 645S, with its T-1/500 flash sync. Sharp but noisy, and I'm

looking to part with it. As many of you may know, the TLR is a dream to use-

quiet, compact, unobtrusive, elegant; simpler than the RF. Made some

wonderful shots of St Peter's in the Vatican, and the ceiling of the Sistine

Chapel. (Just set it on its back next to me on a crowded bench, self timer,

and voila; all while the tourist with the N90X+flash+28-70/f2.8 gets

manhandled outta there.)

Hi

<p>

I popped into Jessops the other day and noticed that the Bronica 645

had dropped to £870 including 65mm lens - it made me slightly sick at

having shelled out for my M6 outfit.

<p>

Having said that, no MF rangefinder will be a small as the M6 which

is its virture but the Bronica 645 and M& are truly quiet (silent M6

shutter - what a joke)

<p>

Having used the M6 for a year now - its only 35mm and after using a

Hassy for years I cannot conceive of 35mm as anything other than a

snapshot - not to be taken seriously format (my state of mind, not a

problem with the camera). The B645 with one lens would a high quality

addition to a medium format outfit for parties, quick snaps etc.

<p>

I am not sure the Bronnie could do what the M6 could though -

available darkness and all that.

<p>

Tapas

No, simply because I'd have to invest in an MF scanner as well. And

because i'm waiting for digital to become a realistic proposition for

my work.

'Leitz' is linked so closely to 35mm that an MF Leica simply doesn't

fit into the corporate philosophy. Aside from that, it's small size

and low weight, not just optical quality, that make the M series such

excellent imaging tools. Any questions left?

Ever hear of Plaubel-Makina press cameras.Sweet little number out of

germany even had a 35mm back.Collectors in Japan drop huge quanitys

of yen on the block for these old boys. Nikon glass, had one and let

it get away. Still cry about that. Oh well live and learn then you

die and forget everything.

I've been using the Mamiya 7 for about five or six years. I don't

find it difficult to focus, nor do I find its framelines any more

inaccurate than any 35mm rangefinder I have used, and I often print

full-frame with it. I don't particularly care for 35mm images

printed beyond 8x10, but I print 6x7 up to 20x24. Also, I don't

particularly care for color with 35mm, even at 8x10.<p>

I don't use it as much at night, I do prefer faster lenses then.

But during the day, I can't see nearly as much reason to need the

speed. The depth of field is something you learn to work with.<p>

<center>

<img src="http://www.spirer.com/images/chairbed.jpg"><br>

<i>Merida, Mamiya 7, 43mm lens, Copyright 1999 Jeff Spirer</i>

</center>

A friend of mine gave up medium format for just the point mentioned

by Jay. He was fed up always having to use a tripod to get any depth

of field. He was also irked by the need to have the camera on its

side and temporarily looked at a Rollei. He's now hooked on 35mm but

I can't remember what he uses. I don't think it's a Leica or he would

have told me.

Godfrey: Re-read my post, I never said the vertical format was

useless, I said *to ME it's useless*. I shoot mostly scenics, mostly

in landscape format. I don't mind turning the camera on its side for

the occasional portrait-mode shot, but I couldn't stand doing it for

9/10 shots. Actually, the one MF rangefinder camera that appealed to

me is the Mamiya 6. As a Hassy user I like the square format. When

I shoot the Blad I compose to the format and have not yet ever

cropped a shot to a rectangle.

I bought an M6 Classic instead of an M6 ttl because the 'Classic' is

smaller. When you can get a 6x6 down to the size of an M6 Classic,

then let me know, I might consider it. You know, over the years,

Leica has promoted, for good or bad, those photographers who use the

Leica. You can say what you want about the advantages of medium

format, but I for one, have never seen the type of images on medium

format that have been taken with a Leica camera. Consequently, that's

the type of photography I aspire too.

Andy- You ask, "Why"?-- It is for people who 1) Don't like MFs

greater weight, and 2) Don't like the 1/50 sec maximum sync speed,

and 3) Don't like tilting the camera vertically for a horizontal

shot. Remember a few year ago when the Hassy was all focal plane?

But they came out with a whole different setup-- between-the-lens

shutters, right? These new lenses also work on the old focal plane

Hassys (I think-- I haven't owned a Hassy). Like most folks, I don't

want to change anything about the Leica if it might jeopardize its

existence. It is great as it is. I don't need AE or AF and can live

with a 1/50 flash sync. But when Hassy came out with BTL shutters,

they surely were listening to the market.

Hi Greg! 645 just barely makes sense from the handheld/DOF

standpoint, and 6X7 is over-the-edge somewhat unless a tripod

or high-speed film is used. Of course that assumes that the

user is trying to emulate 35mm-style DOF, and there are

certainly other qualities of MF which put it in its own class. Many

have commented on the lack of significant gains in fidelity over

35 to justify 645, which I agree is often true, although with Leica

lenses, a difference might indeed be consistently visible. As

focal-plane sharpness increases, effective DOF decreases, but I

would pay this price to use Leica optics. Besides, the bokeh

would be fantastic! But even if Leica came out with a 645, I

would never consider it a replacement for the M-6. Think of

those situations where settings like 1/8th sec at f/2 handheld are

called for, where a 35mm M-Leica not only outshines all else,

bar none, but actually is often the only choice of camera for

reliable, even inspiring results. I like the idea of a new 645

horizontal film. I think if someone decided to make this

available, camera manufacturers would take notice. While the

vertical 645 is possible, its a compromise, in my opinion, as our

eyes are naturally attuned to the "landscape" format, and

decisively "going vertical" makes more intuitive/visual sense in a

"physio-dynamics" sense. Stating this doesn't imply in the least

that I'm biased against verticals, as fully 1/3 of my work is done

vertically. Finally, yes, a Leica MF would cost more, although

assuming the design was similar to the M-6, the amount of

materials and time to make this camera, in a relative cost sense,

shouldn't actually be that much more. If the camera were

significantly different, then, yes, R+D alone could push it into the

stratosphere. Would people buy it? Of course!

No. When I saw the Leica lenses (photos taken from them) I knew I

was married (to Medium format) too early. Life will be a lot easier

just with one camera system and a few good lenses.

<i>Remember a few year ago when the Hassy was all focal plane? But

they came out with a whole different setup-- between-the-lens

shutters, right? </i><p>

Hasselblad introduced leaf shutter cameras and lenses in the 1950s,

which was more than a few years ago.

Frank: Sorry! My "Why" was intended for Greg's original question. I

don't get the interest in a "Leica-brand" 6x(whatever) - unless maybe

it's to get the Leica lens "look" on larger film.

<p>

What else could Leica bring to a table already full of Mamiyas,

Bronicas, Fujis, 'blads, Rolleis, etc.

<p>

Medium format RFs have tended to come and go, usually go - the Zeiss

folders, the revived 1980s Plaubels, the Mamiya 6. Maybe the Mam7 will

last longer.

<p>

Personally I like square MF, myself. If I were reviving something it

would be like the Zeiss folders - fixed lens, RF viewing, ultra-

compact, SQUARE PICTURES! But I'll probably just get a Rollei TLR, if

and when.