Leica AF system?

[marc_bergman1]

My respect for "Pro" sport and wildlife photographers who are stuck using AF cameras has risen quite a bit after reading this thread.

<p>

I never realized the problems they faced using AF systems.

<p>

I especially like photographs of bird photographer Arthur Morris. He does mention some AF tips. I will have to check them out.

<p>

<a href="http://www.birdsasart.com/">Birds as Art</a>

[stephen_w.]

Yes, I did read the entire thread. Read like the typical digital vs. film flaming.

[Robin Smith]

no sane manufacturer would dream of bringing out a new non-autofocus camera - ever.

 

What about Voigtlander/Cosina - who did that about 6 months ago? Mind you they are unusual. Then there is the Leica R9. Guess Leica is insane too. Hasselblad XPAN also.

[Spearhead]

<i>This argument really comes down to one group of people who have complete and total faith in the wonders of technology</i><p>

 

Kevin already pointed out that nobody is making that argument here. However, it is true every time I get in a jet. And I feel a lot safer with the collision avoidance system that's now in many commercial jets than I would be in a two seat propeller plane talking on the radio in a rainstorm. Technology has some huge benefits.

[beau 1664876222]

The only real point is that not everything gets "better" as technology advances. Our consumer-driven society sometimes forgets that.

 

The swords made by the master craftsmen of the Kamakura period in Japan (12th century!) are better than anything our modern metallurgy can devise. The ancient blades have 16,000 layers of metal of varying hardness and flexibility, and they cut like nothing we could come up with now, 900 years later.

[Spearhead]

<i>The swords made by the master craftsmen of the Kamakura period in Japan...</i><p>

 

I'll have to remember that the next time I'm invited to a sword fight.

[beau 1664876222]

Yeah, you're gonna thank me when Uma Thurman comes after you.

[Spearhead]

I'll definitely thank someone when Uma Thurman comes after me.

[nathaniel_pearson]

Al observed that: 'There are plenty of autofocus cameras and lenses on the market'.

Indisputable -- but I think this valid point misses another: there is no camera on the

market that offers four very desirable features: 1) freedom from the noise, bulk, and

optical constraints of the SLR design, 2) interchangeable prime lenses, 3) backwards

lens compatibility, and 4) autofocus ability. This is why I really think a fully M-

compatible chip-movement autofocus body would be wonderful.

[EricM]

she's not that hot actually. looks good in two d, but not 3.

[al_kaplan1]

Nat, to get backwards compatibility with Leica M lenses on an autofucus body you'd have to have a front lens panel on the camera body do the focussing movement. I can't picture any easy compact way to have a servo motor that could turn the focusing mounts on such a wide variety of lenses! Moving a panel in and out...maybe.

[kevin m.]

Al, didn't Contax do that with one of their SLR bodies? I think the lenses stayed still, but the film gate moved. Sounds good in theory, but I have no idea how well it worked in practice.

[nathaniel_pearson]

Al, I'm hoping for a digital body with chip-plane movement. A la the Contax AX, but

much simpler perhaps, as only a small and light chip needs to move, rather than a

whole film plane/spool apparatus. A chip movement solution would take much less

power than moving the lenses themselves, too.

 

The body would, of course, have to be a bit thicker. For wide lenses, in particular,

only a wee bit of extra thickness would be needed. For focusing longer lenses at

close range, we'd have to start compromising and having AF over just part of the

range. But combined with manual focus pre-extension of the lens, we could also get

closer focus overall than with the standard M body.

[al_kaplan1]

Yes, short range rear focus would work if you you used the focussing on the lens to get you close to the actual point of focus with long lenses. Still, I'm not convinced that I could live with letting the camera decide on where to focus. There's a cute pic of a kid earlier on the thread that at first glance appears to have the focus on the eyes, but looking closely the focus really seems sharpest just below the nose.

[grant_.]

<i>she's not that hot actually. looks good in two d, but not 3</I>

<br><br>

i like her dd's

[._._z]

Grant, ever the optimist.

[grant_.]

i try

[EricM]

she's super cool on set with all the mook's. very down to earth and chatty. unlike that ben guy. that also complains about "runaway productions" on your national tv when his first, and later, five biggest movies where all shot in Canada.

[al_kaplan1]

Ladeeeeze and Gentlemen! Welcome to that great new show, Hijacked Thread, featuring the delightful off topic banter of .[.Z & Grant...Let's have a BIG round of applause, folks!

[grant_.]

theres a topic...?

[al_kaplan1]

...and on this side, wearing the white trunks...

[EricM]

"They still manufacture and race sail boats, even wooden ones. You can still get a brand new bamboo fly rod."

 

like this?

[EricM]

"Why would anybody want autofocus?"

 

or like this?

[edmo]

<i>Let's have a BIG round of applause, folks!</i>

<i>

yeah, you tell 'em el capitan.

[EricM]

"Some people could make good use of a computer program that might be called something like "AutoCap" because their second grade teacher didn't rap their knuckles hard enough with the edge of her ruler when they were supposed to be studying the proper use of the written English language."

 

or like that?