It is official! New product for Photokina 2000

Discussion in 'Leica and Rangefinders' started by john_collier, Sep 16, 2000.

  1. The .58 mag M6 would make a great body for all the wide shooters,
    especially if you wear glasses. I wonder if they even put 135 lines
    on that version--the box would be about the size of the double image.
    Nothing new I find I'm dying to go broke for. By the way, did you see
    that Bronica came out with the exact medium format camera we were
    hoping Leica would? Compact focal plne shutter camera with ttl
    metering, three intertchangeable lenses(45, 65, 135).It should sell
    like crazy-I'd rather buy one of those. (It cost way less money than
    an M6 outfit).
     
  2. I went the Leica way after owning a Bronica-C ! That #%&*
    camera could fold,cut,mutilate,rip,tear and eject film.The store exchanged it for the Leica.That was 33 years ago.
    I know the Brony is much improved BUT me no go near...
     
  3. If the .72 mag finder is less accurate than the .85 finder... I
    wonder what the limits will be for the wide angle finder? Forget the
    135mm lens, it might not be able to focus a 90mm summicron or 50mm
    Noct. It would be nice if you are 100% into wide angle lenses, but
    it would kind of suck to have to have two bodies that you couldn't
    share all the lenses in your bag.

    <p>

    Does anyone know the widest lens the new model can facilitate without
    resorting to an external finder? A "usable", (meaning you can see
    the whole frame in one glance), 24mm frame line would make it pretty
    attractive. Love the focal length, hate the finder.
     
  4. Never mind... I found the answer while surfing. No 24mm, only 28. I
    cut and pasted the info for you all to look at:

    <p>


    There are three versions to choose from: The LEICA M6 TTL with 0.72x,
    0.85x and the new 0.58x-viewfinder magnification.
    With the development of the LEICA M6 TTL 0.58, Leica is satisfying
    the wishes of all those photographers who want to have a better
    overview of the 28 mm and 35 mm bright line frames without foregoing
    the superb rangefinder system of the LEICA M6. The lower 0.58x
    viewfinder magnification is particularly well suited for photography
    with wide-angle lenses and, compared to the 0.72x viewfinder system,
    it also brings an enormous improvement to eyeglass wearers. The
    appropriate bright line frames are activated in pairs (28/90 mm and
    50/75 mm), and there is a separate, single frame for the 35 mm focal
    length.
     
  5. Theoretically, the 24mm lens lines would be all the way out to the
    corners like the 35 lines are in a .85 version, so it could have them.
    (35/.85 ratio is almost identical to 24/.58 one)
     
  6. By the way, my Minolta CLE is a .58 mag camera, and although it has
    28mm lines as the widest, I can use itaccurately with the 25mm
    Voigtlander lens without the finder by just framing out as far as I
    can see. The CLE struggles with my 90mm 2.8 in the under 6 feet range
    wide open--it is a better match for an f4.0 lens at that focal length.
     
  7. OOPS, we must have been posting at the same time. No 24mm, but
    probably useable in a pinch without the finder like on my CLE. It is
    nice that 35mm line is by itself--I didn't care for the clutter on the
    regular M6, and that is one of the most popular lenses to use on the
    Leicas.
     
  8. Bah humbug. I have no use for any of that stuff except maybe the new
    wide 'cron, which, in that case, the .58 would be cool, but... I'll
    just stick with my 50 and my Classic. And I'm using the only version
    of Netscape Navigator that I actually bought... V 3 Gold. Not very
    Javascript savy. Oh well. :-/
     
  9. Here is an idea from lugger Tom A. for an effective 24 finder. On
    the 0.58x cameras, both Leica and Hexar, just cover the
    frameline illumination window with black tape. Now you have a
    24 mm field of view with no distractions.
     
  10. Andrew,

    <p>

    Where did you hear about the new Bronica? I am very interested. Is
    there any web link you could let us know?

    <p>

    BTW did you see the "new" Leica M-Zero? I wonder how much that will
    cost???

    <p>

    Thanks!
     
  11. I had a link with photos of the Bronica and some basic info, but it
    hasn't been working the past few days. I just checked it again, and
    nothing. It showed a compact camera with some sort of a data back,
    and the lenses were fairly inexpensive, even at the suggested list
    price. ($500 to 600 range) The camera listed for about $1200 if I
    remember. I thought it would be a nicer field camera than the Fuji
    645 zoom AF with its tiny zoom range and slow AF. Also looks to have
    real TTL metering, something they couldn't do with the Mamiya cameras
    with the leaf shutters. It will be interesting to see how smooth the
    focal plane shutter will be, and how nice of a job they did on the
    finder. And of course if the lenses are up to modern 2/14 standards.
    Sorry for so much "off topic" stuff here. Like I said earlier, Leica
    could have built this camera and had a foot into the expanding medium
    format market.
     
  12. Off topic? You did mention Leica, right? :)
     
  13. Here is a working link to a bunch of photokina releases, including the
    Bronica rangefinder http://www.genyosha.com/JCTN/DaylyJ/DayJCTN.html
     
  14. The first thing that struck me was that, contrary to widespread
    speculation, Leica didn't bother to respond to the Hexar RF with their
    own electronic shutter M camera. My respect for Leica management has
    gone up, as it certainly would have been a fools game to play "me too"
    in response to either the Contax G or now, the Hexar RF.

    <p>

    Its too bad that the new wide-angle M didn't more closely resemble an
    updated M2. It would have been neat to see this body built around the
    non-TTL M6 chassis, at a reduced cost. A 24mm frameline would have
    been nice, too. Nonetheless, the wide angle viewfinder seems like a
    logical companion to either the new 28mm Summicron or the "new
    improved" 28-35-50mm Tri-Elmar (The wide angle M6 and Tri-Elmar will
    be a tempting alternative to the G3 with zoom lens).

    <p>

    The "O"-series is a good sign. I hope that additional Barnack-type
    cameras will be produced, because that eventually implies a set of new
    screw-mount lenses!
     
  15. I agree with Joe. It is a shame that the new 0.58 does not have a
    24mm frame. I think that maybe they could have dropped the 90mm frame
    and included the 24mm frame with maybe edge of frame out to 21mm.
    Perhaps they could have kept the 75mm frame. They might not have done
    this because, presumably this would have meant making a new cam on
    the 24mm w/a lenses to bring up the correct framelines - which would
    bring down the ire of M users ("obsolete" lenses). I suppose when I
    think about it they probably did a good thing with this w/a Leica.
    Especially as most people love the 35mm lens (not me!). They will not
    now drop the TTL function now that it has been introduced. Most of us
    think it is not very useful, but perhaps it is nice to have it rather
    than not. The Leica 0 is pretty useless and is really an item for
    collectors along the lines of their gold cameras.

    <p>

    I think the 0.58 with the Tri-Elmar is a nice combination - I just
    wish it was f2.8 - f4 really is too slow. Maybe the Tri-Elmar plus a
    35 or 50 Summilux would be a nice set.

    <p>

    The new 28 f2.0 looks like a winner to me. I wish they had an R-
    version.
     
  16. Thanks for the site on the Bronica.I saw mention of Pentax 43mm lens with L-mount!! and special finder!!This sounds like a Leica mount lens with finder..I read somewhere that Pentax had patents for a rangefinder.I know here in the States its all C and N cameras.However elsewhere Pentax is really big and popular.If they were to build a rangefinder with electronic focus aid,auto exposure,finders illuminated by the individual lens,I think all of Leica would be in deep doo-doo.I wonder what possessed the directors at Solms
    to mess up the M-series.I would look at a simplified finder like my 45 year old M2,not at the 0.58 !Solms has not been true to Barnak,Leitz and the guys that designed and built the M3.The lack of the name and serial number on the actual body is a disgrace.It looks cheap.Reverse snob appeal?Each new Leica M is a parody of its former self.Leica should have designed and built a modern RNGFDR.I do pro work and need all the help I can get;flash-fill at better than 50th,
    auto-exposure.I am fast at taking photos BUT some of the new cameras are way faster than me.When the Leica Societies
    suggest getting the older Leitz M3/2/4 rather than a M6 there is a problem.
     
  17. Jason,

    <p>

    You state of Pentax: "If they were to build a rangefinder with
    electronic focus aid,auto exposure,finders illuminated by the
    individual lens,I think all of Leica would be in deep doo-doo."

    <p>

    Contax did this... twice with the G1 and G2. Even though the lenses
    are reputed to be excellent... Leica users refuse to give up the
    control offered by the simplicity of the "M". There are many entries
    on web sites that had Leica users who bought into the Contax, only to
    miss what made Leica special, and came back.

    <p>

    I do agree though... If Leica came out with a modern M2... three
    framelines displayed alone, a 35,50 and 90... a rapid load spindle...
    and a crank for rewind... and brought it in for $1000.00 Dollars,
    they couldn't produce them fast enough to keep up with the demand.
     
  18. And the Leica Societies tend also to be extreme navel-gazers,
    obsessed with items that are of not a great deal of relevance to a
    modern camera manufacturer. In my opinion, although Leica has made
    its mistakes (the M5 is one - probably unfairly), the M6 is not one
    of them. It is their most successful camera ever. Al may well have a
    point about a "cheap" Leica, but from Leica's perspective they do not
    wish to dilute their sales with items that bring in less money, as
    this will reduce overall revenue. I am sceptical that many of these
    new RF cameras will really expand the market anyway - I guess we will
    wait and see. There is no rule that says that the 35-50-90 combo is
    the one M-users prefer. I find little use for the 35mm lens for
    example. To me a 28mm frame is much more useful, so I find the new
    0.58 appealing, especially with a new 28 Summicron (not that I can
    afford either at present).
     
  19. All the usual sources are still saying that a M6-AE is in the works.
    It is supposed to retain the same shutter but with electronic
    timing controls. As Leica is a small company with fixed
    resources it will take time for them to design it properly and work
    out all the bugs. We will not see a rebadged Hexar. It will have
    the same bottom loading system and rubberised shutter
    curtains as the current M. At least that is what "the usual
    sources" are saying.

    <p>

    Cheers
     
  20. The M6 the most successful camera?With all due respect,the M3 is the winner and the M2 a close second.
     
  21. Jason

    <p>

    Sorry, I should have added that the M6 is the most successful Leica
    in the last 30-35 years. Or perhaps I should say "in the modern era".
    The M3 and M2 were successful, of course, but the camera landscape
    was very different then (reflexes had not really come into their
    own).
     
  22. Robin writes:
    ...Al may well have a point about a "cheap" Leica, but from Leica's perspective they do not wish to dilute their sales with items that bring in less money, as this will reduce overall revenue.
    That they offer OEM'ed d-photo and P&S' (AFAIK) indicates their interest for market presence, at least, if not real market share.
    I am sceptical that many of these new RF cameras will really expand the market anyway - I guess we will wait and see.
    I would agree. I tend to think that the differences among viewfinders a bit arcane for the uninitiated RF user. It's not as if you can walk to any camera store and handle one of these, and, if you're thinking of investing in the system, say to yourself, "Gee, there's a Leica M6 for me finally!" Even the Leica dealer in downtown San Francisco seems to have new models rarely in stock. So it takes a bit of perseverence to find out about them. Of course, whoever is thinking of plopping down $600 for a Rebel kit with a 38-80 at Ritz while picking up their 4x6's is hardly likely about spend 5x that for a new M6 body and single lens. Then again, if you could lay your hands on an M6 as easily as an F5 even, things might be different.
    There is no rule that says that the 35-50-90 combo is the one M-users prefer. I find little use for the 35mm lens for example. To me a 28mm frame is much more useful, so I find the new 0.58 appealing, especially with a new 28 Summicron (not that I can afford either at present).
    I feel the same way, tho' I want to be able to use the longer focal lengths. I almost think that, among M6ers, the 35mm is the 'standard' lens, just as the 50mm is the standard for reflexers. Do M-users view the 50 as a very very short telephoto I wonder...? That the 50mm is the standard for SLRs may be due to economics- what camera maker doesn't make a fast, sharp, cheap 50mm? That said, seems like the 50mm Summicron comes out cheaper than its 35mm counterpart. As with all things Leica, so much for economics.
     
  23. I am new to Leica. With the new .58 viewfinder, is it impossible to
    use a 135mm lens
     
  24. Jack,

    <p>

    None of us have seen the new M6, but the Leica literature states that
    it only goes up to a 90mm lens. You state that you are new to Leica,
    so you might look through the posts that are in this section.
    Everyone has their favorite lenses, but not too many people think
    using a 135mm lens is too fun. The best camera was probably the M3,
    which had almost a lifesized viewfinder. As the finders began being
    reduced in scale, the tele lens frames got pretty small. I have
    the .72 M6, and can't really embrace the 90mm much less the 135. The
    f2.8 135, (now discontinued), had finder magnification "eyes", and
    may be usable on the new camera, but that lens cancils out the "small
    camera" philosophy of Leica. Save the longer lenses for the SLRs.
     
  25. Jack

    <p>

    Sure you can use them, but you will need a separate viewfinder - the
    old Leica 13.5cm viewfinder is a beauty. You will not get the same
    focussing accuracy as you will with the 90, but it is certainly
    usable for the odd "long shot". As Stephen Gandy put it - all lenses
    "can focus at infinity". Leica did not put the 135 frame on because
    it would be so small on a 0.58 camera, but I suspect you can use the
    135 and focus accurately at apertures smaller than 5.6 for most
    subjects. You can use full aperture for infinity shots at the very
    least. I use a 135mm on a Leica CL when pushed.

    <p>

    If you had the large 135mm Elmarit with the "eyes" then the 90 frame
    in the viewfinder would be magnified and would become the 135 frame
    when the lens was put on the camera. As Al said, most M-users do not
    like this lens as it is roughly the same size (and more awkwardly
    shaped) than a reflex equivalent. But the 135mm Elmarit is a good
    lens and it would certainly work well, although whether Leica would
    recommend using it f2.8 at close distances I don't know.

    <p>

    The more I think about the 0.58 M the more I like it!
     
  26. Just as a pure guess, it might be that they didn't include a 24mm
    frame on the .58 model because maybe the 24mm lens, with hood, cuts
    off too much of the right side of the viewfinder to be useful. I
    can't think of anything else to explain this omission.
     
  27. My take on the reason they didn't put a 24mm frame in the .58 is that
    there is no cam on the lens to activate it - the cam on the 24 brings
    up the 35mm frame IIRC. The only thing they could have done is to put
    in a permanent 24mm frame, like the 50 frame on the M3, but this would
    have required an extensive redesign of the VF. The approach they took
    retains compatibility while requiring only a change to the viewfinder
    magnification - no futzing with the frame-line assembly was required,
    so it was much easier to do.

    <p>

    I'd rather have them concentrate their limited resources on lenses
    like the new 28. How about a redesigned 50/1.4 ASPH for the next
    'kina? And maybe a 75/2.0 APO-Summicron? Those would be a lot
    tastier to me than a 24mm frame-line.
     

Share This Page