aplumpton

<p>The suggestions here and that of the link are good, but why on earth would Leica (and most photographers) want to deny the advantage of digital photography and eliminate the rear LCD, except in their specialty camera (without LCD) for the few?</p> <p>Image viewing after capture is most useful (part of the evolution from film photography, which has other pluses). Also, a tiltable monitor would not add extra bulk I believe. It would offer added versatility in viewing that would really add to the utility of the camera in certain applications.</p>

<p>So, in practical terms, how to do a 20 or 30 minute exposure and optimise the result? Is there a "B" or "T" setting on most digital camera shutters and can they be invoked manually? Yes, I know, I should read my 100 page camera manual....</p> <p>The nice thing about film cameras is that you can go for long exposures and you need only worry about reciprocity failure unless the color rendition changes substantially with time.</p>

<p>A very sharp 1/20th of a second shot with a 50mm lens requires either a) a chair (or other object) acting as a mini pod, b) elbows against body and choosing the right moment of breathing cycle, or c) luck, when modern image stabilisation or a tripod is not available. Normally the minimum condition for fairly sharp images is 1 / focal length, in seconds, but even that may not be short enough. Luck and good technique can even give a 1/10 or 1/15 second capture a chance.</p>

<p>I think I will bec happy to simply live with the still appreciated quality and limitations of my M9, and use my Sony A7RII for improved resolution, higher ISO AF and zoom optics (at times, rather than primes), and the other features (and more...) you mention.</p> <p>I do not see any need to spend another $6000 or $7000 US for an improved M. For me, Leica has already "missed the boat" and will probably continue to simply "gild the lily" of existing models and sell to well-healed Leicaists. </p>

<p>Lots of good reflections!</p> <p>Jochen, if the choice of Leica woulds be a digital Leica A (or Leica 1 in Europe), then a focus-peaking facility (it would have to be on a (cap-able?) backside monitor, as an EVF would not likely be possible without changing the body shape and frontal appearance) would get around the limitations of the scale focus issue. I would suggest a high resolution monitor rather than the piddly ones on the M8 and M9 series. John Charles, if the classic size body accepts a FF sensor, that would be good, but its thickening, whether FF or smaller, would be a negative result I think. Karim is right that modern coatings of classic lenses might be on, provided that the machinery and dies to produce those lenses would be still available or easily adapted to. A modern lens (like the Tessar formula optics of the of the more recent collapsible Elmar-M (although without the collapsing feature) might be a good option, even restricting its aperture to f3.5 to mimic the original features. Given high ISO performance and the probable use of the camera, an f3.5 aperture would probably not be a great impediment. </p>

<p>Hopefully B&H will respond and satisfy your need for a replacement, and compensate you for mailing costs. It is also very frustrating to have to experience long waiting periods to get such things resolved. While their service to Canada is very good in recent years, I too have seen some of their skimpy packaging before and hesitate to buy fragile optical and camera bodies by mail or courier service unless I am confident about the way the seller packages shipped items.</p>

<p>Nikon seems to have kept the price down on their re-tooled S3 and SP reissues, which included a modern and multicoated version of the SC Nikkor f1.4 standard lens. The roughly $2000 for S3 body, lens and leather case was much cheaper in readjusted dollar terms than that of buying the new cameras in the late 50s from normal production lines. Nikon has a lot of resources and probably subsidised the costs in promoting its golden years of RF cameras. A case of pride, and not one of purely commercial objectives.</p> <p>Perhaps Leica, not known to give away very much, might even take a page from the Nikon experience. Of course, if they were to go the digital rather than the film route in providing a less than FF sensor in a 100 year old look alike body (the model A, and not the 1932 Standard as I previously mentioned in error), a monitor inclusion would allow different lenses to be used on it, in addition to the 50mm optical finder. That wouldn't be a perfect copy (unless a film version would result), but one which would likely have greater interest and acquirers. </p>

<p>The advantage of a classic re-issue would be that of a newly wrought camera that should work well and last long (10 to twenty years or more) without need for expensive service, and with some hope that the manufacturer would keep parts for some time forward. III series parts have not been produced or kept by Leica for a long time now.</p> <p>I agree with John F. and David that cheaper alternatives exist (I have an Autocord 6x6 and a IIIc/f - not anywhere as complete a kit as that of John C - as well as a near mint Vito B purchased for $25) that also allow simpler approach photography, but at a reasonable price (1000 to 2000$ for Leica?) a modern lens re-issue of the Standard might interest some.</p> <p>A digital hybrid with some similarity to the equivalent non-monitor M (I forget the series number) could have a high resolution but less than FF sensor to keep costs down, although the Standard "replica" could have LTM interchangeability to allow older Leitz or other more modern optics (V-C). Given the probable price, some options should be left to a consumer.</p> <p>I am not holding my breath and will be happy to modestly practice old style photography with the Autocord or Vito B, or even the more expensive IIIc/f.</p>

<p>So 2025 is not that far off. If a possible hundredth anniversary edition of a commercial Barnack type Leica copy is to offer something of use to admirers of that camera series, would not an offer similar to that of the previous "0" Leica be in the cards? An original or Standard series Leica would offer more easily accessible photography than the "0" to its purchasers, possibly constructed using copies of original components (Like the 2000 series Nikon rangefinders of the 50s), but with a modern multicoated reformulation of the Elmar or Elmax lens.</p> <p>As some prototypes were apparently available years before 1925, a release date could be even earlier than 2025. The cost would ideally be considerably less than the most recent film Leicas for it to attract significant attention from users.</p> <p>Personally, I would like a simple camera like that, as a motivation to re-adapt to a fresh photographic approach. Would others be as interested?</p> <p>If a non monitor incorporated digital version be considered and kept equally simple in function, that might be acceptable as well, should the film market not continue to hold up past 2020.</p>

<p>The pictures really help in a acquiring a general non hands-on analysis of the camera, which clearly seems to have seen much better days. There are other Standard Leicas at less than a thousand dollars and which have been better cared for. 85 years is a long time and many will therefore be in a condition similar to this one and will be devalued in comparison to the better examples. I am not a collector, but from the general appearances of the camera it is probably not destined as a picture maker. Collectors on the other hand will want much cleaner examples unless they have deep pockets to have a refurbishing done (should they even accept that alternative).</p> <p>I tend to agree with David B. that if you can get the lower price that was mentioned by Gus you will probably do well. Just one person's opinion. Good luck.</p> <p> </p>

<p>I commend Karim on his post. He focusses on the real anomalies in using an f1 normal lens.</p> <p>In the days of slow films the Noctilux was of dubious real utility and overkill as well, but it made at least a little more sense then. High ISO digital camera bodies have made f1 largely redundant.</p> <p>An arguent may possibly be made for the extreme shallowness of sharp focus of an f1 lens, as our eyes see clearly only a degree or two of angular visual field at any instant of perception. Our eyes would behave like an f1 lens only if we did not continuously scan an overall subject to render it clear to us. However, that we do, which an f1 image cannot.</p> <p>I believe that Leica should limit their offer to only practical optics. I believe that their highly expensive aspherical Summicron 50mm is also a case of overkill, albeit for different reasons.</p> <p>Walter Mandler of Leica argued that virtually any degree of high optical quality (or increase of normal lens speed, that I imagine he would consider as well) is possible, provided that the cost of design, construction and manufacturing care are no obstacle. He did that for some remarkable industrial and military optics, including the 90mm f1 Elcan objective.</p> <p>The additional high cost factor of making either the f1 (or f0.95) or aspherical f2 normal lens is reflected in their market prices. And neither is very practical for most applications.</p>

<p>Alan, good luck in determining which lens will give you what you want.</p> <p>In the interest of meaningful communication and exchanges that can help to inform each of us it might be useful in future discussions to define more concretely (as we are dealing with physical appearances and not abstract metaphysics) than the so-called "look that is something (that) many can relate to".</p> <p>That might allow those with personal experiences of these lenses to better understand the expressed need. This is not a criticism of your OP, simply a desire for clarification of what you may be looking for. Thanks.</p> <p>Incidentally, Stephen's first post is appropriate. His comment in the later post, "the latter two being terrific performers" is no doubt very true for him, but does his summary (undetailed) conclusion allow you enough information to satisfy your idea of "look"? <br> <br> If it does, fair enough. </p> <p> </p>

<p>The question of R versus M lenses was not clear in the OP.</p> <p>Modern M lenses are often made with one or more aspherical elements. I still have no idea though of what form of look is desired by Allan. All optics carry compromises, so knowing what sort of look is desired is important in answering the question.</p> <p>It is often not the highest resolution or highest contrast that is preferred and some say smooth bokeh (out of focus rendition) effects are not just a question of how many diaphragm blades are present, but other factors, including the presence of spherical or other aberrations that can provide smoother bokeh and more fluid or softer out of focus rendition that impacts on the overall "look." But when some start talking about an optic's "glow", I tend to quickly disconnect.</p> <p>For a technical comparison of the various R lenses, the differences between them and also how each version of a particular focal length compares, see Erwin Put's Leica lens monograph, a version of which is a free download. As many of R lenses came out of Walter Mandler's design group, except for earlier Wetzlar versions, with some Canadian designs later fabricated in Germany, they represent often the best of what is available, whereas later M lenses saw new designs (including aspherical lenses) from Solms after the late 1980s.</p>

<p>Will they outsource production? Will current artisanal assembly in small numbers continue when the parts run out? With ten staff members, some part time, will they probably simply provide repair services?</p>

<p>Alan, can you describe the "look" you want?</p> <p>Maybe upon blowing up the image to 16 x 24 inches or larger you might see some differences in the center or outside rendition or detail or microcontrast of the print, but my feeling is that the photographer has much more impact on the "look" (camera shake, focussing, choice of exposure, etc.) than any slight differences in either of these very fine aspherical Leica lenses. </p>

<p>Didier, you are right, delayed gratification is pleasant and a valuable part of the magic of the traditional photography process. Anticipation and the element of surprise are intriguing and perhaps make the exercise and product additionally appealing. When the negative is not as ideal as we might wish, or as we perceived our subject, dodging and burning in printing can be applied. This is similar in some ways to "post production" of digital files to improve or to alter them.</p> <p>Convenience is perhaps not the best word to use in qualifying digital photography. When I have an image in mind or a specific aim of a photographic approach, the ability to have quick feedback during the process can facilitate the approach and lead to a desired result. At other times, we may have little or no preconception of the result, which can sometimes be rewarding. Whether it is traditional or digital photography, quick feedback or not makes little difference to that result.</p> <p>Delayed gratification is associated with a lot of our human activity. Working hard at one's profession or trade or in raising a family are rewarding processes in life, but further gratification or recognition by others may come much later.</p>

<blockquote> <p>"Results from the survey will in part determine the funding and development of full-frame mirrorless cameras at global camera companies."<br> </p> </blockquote> <p>Jaya, I expect that those companies (Sony, Olympus, Canon,Nikon, Fujifilm, etc.) have alkready spent quite a bit of time and money on that question. Do you represent one of them or is your work for a competitor or is it a project of a student or photography amateur? <br> <br> Given that you are not a regular Photo.Net member and with some history, would it not be reasonable for you to say more about where you are coming from (Duke University marketing course or similar, or outside user)? <br> <br> Who is funding your research, or whether or not it is a student project? What incentive is there for a respondent, unless you will share the statistical analysis and results with the respondents? </p>

<p>It's been two years since I last worked in my darkroom and I also have several exposed B&W films in the freezer or basement refrigerator. It has been a lot easier to use digital with its convenient image feedback and to give my files to a local store that does very good color and B&W prints up to 24 x 36 inches (but mostly smaller, as for a recent show of 50 images), the smaller ones on Fuji Crystal Archive paper (wet processing by machine).</p> <p>The convenience of visualising and shooting digital has my film cameras and lenses collecting dust, but I am determined to return to the darkroom (this winter will be make or break in that regard) for some of my photography, and for the pleasures found there.</p> <p>I may sell 2 or 3 of my 35mm film bodies and some lenses, as I feel also that their sitting on the shelf makes little sense. Nonetheless, I intend to do some photography with one 35mm camera (a manual M4-P Leica) and a few MF cameras that I still have (An old Autocord, and a 1990s 6x9cm Fujifilm GSW 690 III that is great for landscape, architecture and some human events projects and for printmaking to good sizes). When not in use, full range shutter exercises done every few months keep these devices in good health. </p> <p>I have little interest in film scanning (a decent scanner is out of my price range) to replicate my digital output and see film as a first step in darkroom printing. I still see the latter as a long term and sustainable photography activity for B&W prints.</p> <p>Yes, I will also give, or sell cheaply, some smaller cameras to young or budding "image hunters", and sell off what is not being used.</p>