Would-Could-Should Wishes

<p>Would-could-should -wishes<br>

<br>

I wish they had . . . <br /><br>

<br>

Leica should have developed panoramic, medium format and large format rangefinder cameras. Imagine the M-4 platform re-engineered for panoramic 35mm. Imagine the M-4 platform redesigned for medium format and 220 film. These cameras have all been made, sold and used successfully. Leica could have made them—but did not.<br>

<br>

Now imagine a folding 4x5 sheet film camera with interchangeable lenses coupled to a range finder. The Polaroid conversions do most of this, but can't couple to other lenses. They were designed for rolls of film. While they may be the handiest hand-held large format camera ever conceived (this has been argued against by some), designed for rolls of film, they are a little bigger than necessary for 4x5 film. Leitz could have developed an effective 4x5 sheet film camera that deals with these issues. <br>

<br />No real point to this . . .just age-related rambling.<br /></p>

Didn't Graflex do some of what you are dreaming?

Super Graphics and others had interchangeable

lenses and rapid adaptation of rangefinder via

cams. Linhoff too. Who really cares that Leitz kept

in their own niche? :)

<p>Leica tried innovating before. The M5. Just about killed the company. Went back to the M4-2, and eventually the M6 with a better light-meter design.<br /> Fuji already addressed the 35mm panoramic market, and the TX1 and TX2 were rangefinder cameras. (Also sold as Hasselblad Xpan.)<br /> 120/220 film is nearly impossible to keep "flat" enough to meet the obsession with sharpness Leica and their customers have. Plus, Mamiya already addressed that market with their "Texas Leicas."<br /> Linhof already addressed "German over-engineering" corner of the folding 4x5 rangefinder market.<br /> Leica bet the company again with some innovation with the M8, and got away with it. (But there were big infrared bumps in the road.)</p>

<p>Yeah—I concede all that. As I said, just rambling along.<br>

Graflex-singer made a Contax-like RF canmera using imperforated 70mm film for the Army. Not that good a camera I have been told (shutter issues ). I was kinda thinking along those lines. Eventually the Mamya 7 became a wedding shooter's go-to.</p>

<p>Like I said: No real point to this, just thinking through the What-ifs.</p>

<p>Typo: <em><strong>Un-perforated</strong></em> 70mm film</p>

<p>Of course, the S2 and it's successors are Leica's 120 camera!</p>

<p>What-IF:<br>

There was a carbon fiber 4x5 SLR based on the Polaroid SX-70 layout?<br /><br /><br>

There was a 4x5 camera based on the "classic" folding RF cameras by Zies, Agfa, Voightlander et al from the 1930s-50s?</p>

<p>Surely, CAD/CAM and 3D printing along with modern materials could turn out a really nice product.</p>

<p>Not sure, but I suspect that if there was any real money to be made with cameras designed along these lines, the Polaroid conversion movement of the early 2000s would have really taken off. It did not. As it is, a few hundred of these conversions were done, maybe as many as 1500 total from all builders, and that idea petered out. Today these Polaroid conversions (even the best ones from Littman) can be had on line for a fraction of their cost when "new". The demand is just not there for a new camera.</p>

<p>Yes, IMO Leica could have. The company isn't interested in ground breaking innovation but instead seems to try to stay ahead or afloat by keeping to the small, handheld and expensive cameras but also by adapting the newer innovations - such as digital.<br /> I use a miniature Crown Graphic with a variety of lenses and backs from 645 to 6x9 (Horseman). Still, due slower lenses, it tends to live its life on a tripod more than being handheld. A Leica type camera would have the same problem.<br>

Consider the Mamiya Universal - interchangeable lenses including a 100/2.8. It can do it all (except for meter) but is heavy!</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>"Imagine the M-4 platform redesigned for medium format and 220 film."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Now imagine the cost. Probably too many zeroes after the initial figures for the human mind to comprehend.</p>

<p>Two wishes...both for medium format:</p>

<p>One - that more manufacturers would have embraced 6x8 cm - which would give nine exposures on a roll of 120 and so fit perfectly into a Print File page. Plus (IMHO) 6x8 is about perfect as a "normal" aspect ratio.</p>

<p>Two - that an MF film stock size which would give a 645 image as a horizontal, making the film a bit more compact than 120, could be an option...and then have Leica follow suit with an "M-645" RF camera...would be the cats pajamas!</p>

<p>...and for LF - to have a camera much like the Sinar Handy, Cambo-Wide, Travelwide, etc. - in both 4x5 and 5x7 formats, with a series of lens cones with front helical focus, variable viewfinder/RF - but with the addition of a short bellows section in the rear which would ordinarily be hidden within the back structure, but which could be employed to offer a bit of tilt for landscape work - with locking controls similar to those found on the rear standards of Linhof technical cameras. Hmmm...maybe I'll get to work on this!</p>

<p>Hi John,</p>

<p>Not sure if your last post was enthusiastic or sarcastic. I may be a bit of a social media Sheldon Cooper when reading these boards. If it is the last one, I appreciate the humor. Over-the-top can be fun. If its the first one, climb on board. </p>

<p>Perhaps a more narrowly focused idea might be a sort of tilt-shift lens mount—a "Lens-Baby" adapter for the helical.</p>

<p>For focus confirmation: A mini digi-cam, looking back at the film plane. A white section on the interior of an empty film holder will reflect the in-or-out of focus image from the yaking lens. A Bluetooth set up would send this directly to the photographer's smart phone mounted to the LF camera. </p>

<p>I like the idea of a tilting back too. Doesn't have to be as complex as described above, but might be workable for a TravelWide type of camera as a 3D printed add-on.</p>

<p>Cheers.</p>

<p> </p>