Leica's done an amazing job of updating the lens line over the past decade, as well as doing some functional stuff with the M-cameras (motor, .58 finder). Essentially they've replaced every lens in the lineup except the 50s and the 90 Elmarit (and the Elmarit may really count as the first of the upgrades).

So my question is, if YOU could sit next to Herr Cohn in Solms and choose ONE new or revised product in the lens line or cameras, which would you vote for (you may choose an item not on the list below). Where's the biggest hole? Where should Leica concentrate their R&D now?

a. 75 f/2.8 APO-Tele-Elmarit (250 grams or less) b. 90 f/2.8 APO-Tele-Elmarit (300 grams or less) c. 50 f/3.5 APO-Elmar collapsible (sharper than 2.8) d. 50 f/1.4 Summilux (new design ported from R-series lens) e. 24 f/2.0 ASPH-Summicron (hey, they're on a roll!) f. M6 1.00x body with life-size finder and 50-135 frames (with or without: TTL, black paint, script engraving...) g. M7 body (type 1. Hexar RF-style body; autowind, AE) h. M7 body (type 2. Electronic shutter shoehorned into classic M oval metal body cavity, manual wind/rewind, aperture-priority AE) i. M7 body (type 3. All-mechanical, but without bottom loading) o. "0" product with interchangeable screw-mount lenses and integral rangefinder (sorry!, just being cute!) n. other...

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), May 07, 2001

Answers

The number one thing I think they should concentrate on is reducing costs without sacrificing quality. Since they won't do this (because there are too many freaks - like me - still willing to pay for their stuff) it would be nice if they worked on an M7. The most important advances I would be looking for would be AE (thus necessitating an electronic shutter - which i would hope would be even quieter than the current one - if that is possible) and better film loading, i like manual wind/rewind so I wouldn't want a motor for that. Reduced size (if possible) would also be nice but definitely not very important since these things are already pretty small.

-- Matthew Geddert (geddert@yahoo.com), May 07, 2001.

The lenses are fine, but I too would like a small 75 or a small 90. Weight reduction would be nice too (I can hear Bill Mitchell suggesting that I get a Canon Rebel 2000) the newer lenses really are kind of heavy, especially the chrome ones.

The body? I love my M6, but a standard film door back, DX coding, AE, a quieter shutter (c'mon its not that quiet, especially if you have heard a Rolleiflex leaf shutter), and a life-size high eyepoint viewfinder would be nice. Isolated framelines and a larger baseline would be nice too. And a lighter body.

Hmm... maybe I should get that Rebel body Canon EOS. Or maybe just a Contax T3 to stave off the usual recurrent equipment madness.

-- Mani Sitaraman (bindumani@pacific.net.sg), May 07, 2001.

Either - The functionality of the nikon FM3 (hybrid electronic/mechanical shutter) aperture priority AE + manual, TTL flash, 1/250 sync, back loading. Canon has had a hybrid shutter since the F-1n so it is long overdue. This will probably not happen.

Or- Digital M! same rangefinder, full frame 6 megapixel sensor, back LCD, CF II, similar energy consumption as Canon D30, Av AE + metered manual, TTL Flash, sync at all speeds, same size as leica III. As there are no linkage constraints here, except the rangefinder, and no shutter required, you have the whole body to put the electronics. The battery could easily fit in the space left by the film canister (this could be bottom loading :)

-- Mark Wrathall (wrathall@laudaair.com), May 07, 2001.

Sorry to take so long to answer, but my keyboard is slippery from the drool just thinking about a 50mm f:3.5 collapsable Elmar ASPH. In LTM, of course. Ooooh, Ooooh, Oooh! Bill.

-- Bill Mitchell (bmitch@home.com), May 07, 2001.

Body: M7 similar to Hexar w. AE, motor and back-loading, but also with manual wind/rewind (like R8) and hybrid shutter like Nikon FM3A. (Actually I don't care about those last features but it would appease the purists.) It would also have a variable-magnification viewfinder that could be set so either the 28 or 90 framelines occupied the full view, which would also now have a lengthy-enough exit pupil so glasses-wearers could see the entire finder, plus a -2 to +2 diopter adjustment.

Lens: 75-90-135/4 Tri-Elmar

Accessory: Visoflex IV, with instant-return mirror, electrically- coupled to the M7 shutter, with R-bayonet mount and auto-diaphragm and the correct flange-to-film distance for R lenses to focus to infinity.

That should just about do it.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), May 07, 2001.

I would love to be able to use my 75mm frame lines without suffering the size, weight and cost of the only current true Leica lens in that range. I am not an optical expert, but I wouldn't think you'd need APO correction on such a short / slow lens. If a company like Cosina, (voightlander), can produce a pretty good one with such a short history of rangefinder lens production, then Leica should be able to produce a world beating example by dropping the speed to f/2.8. Dimensionally, it could no doubt be brought in at or less than the size of the current 50mm Summiliux. This would be an Ideal second lens to the 35mm, offering a true change from the 50mm, while not ruining the stealthy profile of the camera like a 90mm lens.

-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), May 07, 2001.

My vote would go to a recomputed 50/1.4 and a smaller 75 (I'd prefer a 75/2.0 rather than a 2.8, though). Beyond that, a motor drive with rewind capability would be nice but not essential.

Other than that, I'm happy with the lineup they've got. After using the Hexar RF for a while, I'm content that Leica brings its own set of strengths to the table - let Konica test out the AE waters for a while. I've decided I like the M bodies just as they are.

-- Paul Chefurka (paul_chefurka@pmc-sierra.com), May 07, 2001.

Ditto what Paul just wrote. Just make sure the new 75 has a real short length. If they do anything with a new body, I'd say ditch the TTL flash (add no other electric features) and make it about the size of a CL, but keep the M6 forever.

-- Dan Brown (brpatent@swbell.net), May 07, 2001.

Jay, your comment: "Visoflex IV, with instant-return mirror, electrically- coupled to the M7 shutter, with R-bayonet mount and auto-diaphragm and the correct flange-to-film distance for R lenses to focus to infinity."

made me think of a conversation I had recently on the rec.photo 35mm newsgroup with a fellow named Lewis Lang. He was wishing for a hybrid RF/SLR Leica. It seems like your idea would give him what he's dreaming of, especially if you could find some way to couple the R lenses on the Viso rig to the built-in rangefinder.

Of course, the name Rube Goldberg springs to mind too :-)

-- Paul Chefurka (paul_chefurka@pmc-sierra.com), May 07, 2001.

R lenses on the Viso wouldn't need coupling to the rangefinder, they focus on the Viso's ground glass. There wouldn't be much point in using R lenses under 135mm on the M body, and serious long telephoto work would still be better on a dedicated R body, but the 80-200/4 or one of the fast 180's would be nice, as would perhaps the 60 or 100 Macro.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), May 07, 2001.

Lewis was looking for a full hybrid SLR/RF, that would give him the ability to decide which viewing/focussing mechanism to use irrespective of what lens was on the camera. I said it sounded like he wanted to smoosh together a Spitfire Mk. IX and a Jaguar XKE to make a flying car - thus ruining two perfect designs to create a monstrous compromise.

One thing I value about Leica is their purity of vision. They produce solid, dependable, well-understood and well-executed bodies, with the world's best lenses. I would oppose anything that gets in the way of that vision, and I'd hope Herr Cohn would, too.

-- Paul Chefurka (paul_chefurka@pmc-sierra.com), May 07, 2001.

Bodywise, I like the current M6TTL. I'd do three things:

- fix the flare in the rangefinder
- separate the meter's on/off switch from the shutter speed selector
- change the eyepoint of the viewfinder to accomodate wearers of glasses more easily (I don't like the lower magnification viewfinder as much, and use a 35mm lens a lot).

Regards lenses, hmm. All the lenses I have are truly superb as they are. Perhaps a lower cost/weight alternative to the 75/1.4 would be nice, and I happen to like the 40mm focal length (miss my Summicron-C 40/2). But I doubt I'll be buying any more lenses anytime soon.

Godfrey

-- Godfrey DiGiorgi (ramarren@bayarea.net), May 07, 2001.

On all future M cameras: back loading, back loading, back loading . . . .

-- Hoyin Lee (leehoyin@hutchcity.com), May 07, 2001.

Why is "back loading" such a big deal to you? I much prefer the M4+ style of bottom loading. I find it faster and more reliable. Takes me about 10-15 seconds total to change loads. I fumbled swing open backs much more often too.

Godfrey

-- Godfrey DiGiorgi (ramarren@bayarea.net), May 07, 2001.

I am a new Leica user and love my M6. I do think an M7 with automatic exposure and an electronic shutter is the next logical move. If Nikon could do it so successfully with the F3, then Leica could certainly do it without sacrificing quality. Leica could also consider reducing prices. A great camera and lens system deserves lots of picture takers.

-- Bruce Neuman (bruceneuman@att.net), May 07, 2001.

I'd like to see a camera with the best aspects of the CL and Rollei 35. A collapsable lens of very high quality, rangefinder focus, optional exposure automation. I take a lot of shots with my Contax T2, simply because it's in my pocket. An f/2 lens and choosing the focus point would be nice.

-- Phil Stiles (Stiles@s-way.com), May 07, 2001.

Seems that an M6 with an EI-setting scale that doesn't require a loupe to read and an RF that doesn't flare would be a good start.

Once those problems are solved....

I'd like a winder about the same size as the current one, but that triggers the camera via an electric switch and releases the shutter through the bottom; this would eliminate the pumping shutter button and would make remote operation simple. Power rewind would be nice. Ideal would be an Olympus OM MD-2 that runs on a couple of lithium cells in the handle and fits a Leica.

A zoom viewfinder. Not the Contax variety; think of a Leica M viewfinder with the usual parallax-correcting framelines with a little space outside of them. Have only one large set of framelines and change the viewfinder magnification to suit the lens in use.

Please oh please oh please don't make a Nikanon technoplastik wunderblaster!

-- John Hicks (jbh@magicnet.net), May 07, 2001.

Godfrey,

I'll settle for bottom loading if they add a simple hinge (or an articulated/sliding one) to the bottom plate. Seems it would be easy to do. And John is right, that film speed dial sure could have clearer markings. BTW, anyone check out the Bronica rangefinder's ISO dial? Its an ergonomic dream...

-- Mani Sitaraman (bindumani@pacific.net.sg), May 07, 2001.

Godfrey, why is "back loading" such a big deal to me? Well, I would like to be able to change film in 5 seconds total without having to hold the base-plate with my teeth! That's about the only gripe I have with my M4-P (and the M6 0.58 I'm planning to get), otherwise, the M body is near perfect!

-- Hoyin Lee (leehoyin@hutchcity.com), May 07, 2001.

What we really need is to revive and recompute the 50/1.2 Noctilux. Maybe even make it a 50/1.1 The idea is to get the weight down and move away from the no mans land of 60mm filters. I would shoot a 50.1.2 Noct if I could afford one. The darn 50/1.0 breaks the bank as it is.

-- mark (mramra@qwest.net), May 07, 2001.

As long as M3 repairs are available, I won't complain.

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), May 08, 2001.

The reason I want to see a back loading M6 is that the bottom loading prevents you to use easily a flash bracket.

Try to load your M with a bracket attached to the bottom.

;-)

Then do the same with a R8.

-- Lucien (lucien@ubi.edu), May 08, 2001.

The Hexar RF will ot help with bracket. There is no Flash TTL.

Lucien

-- Lucien (lucien@ubi.edu), May 08, 2001.

I'm not interested in new gear, but I'd like to see fast, efficient and affordable aftersales service. 1 week turnaround max. I'd even pay for it (an annual premium or some such). The repair people here in Italy are absolutely slow, unreliable and expensive. Mainly because Leica is percieved by Leica themselves to be a camera for fondlers rather than users. So where's the hurry to fix broken gear?

To me this would make the biggest difference.

After that, an M6 with a 24 frameline at the position of the 35 lines on the 0.72 model so I can use the skopar 25 without external viewfinder.

-- rob appleby (rob@robertappleby.com), May 08, 2001.

I'd like to see a camera with the best aspects of the CL and Rollei 35. A collapsable lens of very high quality, rangefinder focus, optional exposure automation. I take a lot of shots with my Contax T2, simply because it's in my pocket. An f/2 lens and choosing the focus point would be nice.
-- Phil Stiles (Stiles@s-way.com), May 07, 2001.

That's what I use my Rollei 35S and Contax Tix for too... :-) ... an updated CL (I like the original mechanical CL, an M6TTL like metering setup and a better load spool) would be great.

I'll settle for bottom loading if they add a simple hinge (or an articulated/sliding one) to the bottom plate. Seems it would be easy to do. And John is right, that film speed dial sure could have clearer markings. BTW, anyone check out the Bronica rangefinder's ISO dial? Its an ergonomic dream...
-- Mani Sitaraman (bindumani@pacific.net.sg), May 07, 2001.

Godfrey, why is "back loading" such a big deal to me? Well, I would like to be able to change film in 5 seconds total without having to hold the base-plate with my teeth! That's about the only gripe I have with my M4-P (and the M6 0.58 I'm planning to get), otherwise, the M body is near perfect!
-- Hoyin Lee (leehoyin@hutchcity.com), May 07, 2001.

Interesting. I guess I'm not in that much of a hurry. And I tend to use the same film almost all the time, only change the film speed setting once in a blue moon...

The reason I want to see a back loading M6 is that the bottom loading prevents you to use easily a flash bracket.
Try to load your M with a bracket attached to the bottom.
Then do the same with a R8.
-- Lucien (lucien@ubi.edu), May 08, 2001.

Ah, that makes sense. But I hardly ever use a flash, the SF20 for those rare occasions does perfectly well.

Thanks for all the comments!

Godfrey

-- Godfrey DiGiorgi (ramarren@bayarea.net), May 08, 2001.

I'd like to see a camera with the best aspects of the CL and Rollei 35. A collapsable lens of very high quality, rangefinder focus, optional exposure automation. I take a lot of shots with my Contax T2, simply because it's in my pocket. An f/2 lens and choosing the focus point would be nice. -- Phil Stiles (Stiles@s-way.com), May 07, 2001.

I suspect that Leica would say they have done this with the Minilux - and I would essentially agree with them. An MF type Minilux would be pretty ineffective - I had a Contax T and the r/f spot was frustrating in the extreme.

The flash bracket business is made easier if you have a quick release system. Personally, I think that most resources should be devoted to new lenses. Since everyone goes on about it though, I suspect Leica should look at an auto shuttered M. I don't think I would want it and I think it would be a substantially different camera, but it may well be worthy of consideration. What they really should not do is to discontinue the M6! I would have thought a recomputed 50mm Summilux and a new f2.8 75mm would be perfect additions. The 50-90-135mm is a fine idea, but the 135mm length seems to be less attractive for M users so I wonder whether there would be many takers..

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), May 08, 2001.

There is hardly any thing I would need in another M body, I like the bottom film loading, at least I´m used to it, I like small lenses, like the 35/2 preasph, or the new 28/2, wish a 35/1.4 asph but smaller, I also would apreciate a soft plastic body glove, that would make the camera more safe for knocks, but what about a body stibilizer the size of a motor drive, for safety extreme low speed exposures, I have wrote about the idea in a previous posting to Lutz Konnerman, hope people at Leica find this idea useful.

-- R Watson (al1231234@hotmail.com), May 08, 2001.

Almost forgot: besides a hinged camera back for easier film loading, I would also like to see a higher flash-syn speed than the current 1/50s in the future M body. That's all! (The lenses are perfect, except for their prices!)

-- Hoyin Lee (leehoyin@hutchcity.com), May 08, 2001.

Thanks for all the comments/ideas. Anyone know how to e-mail the whole list to Solms? (I knew I'd get at least one "Ooooh! Ooooh!," with that list)

Originally, I myself was most interested in the small short teles (see post below - I still have withdrawal symptoms from my tiny G2/90 Sonnar) and was trying to gauge support for these, among the other items.

But the night after I posted this, I was looking through my .60x Hexar finder and thinking how great it was for wideangles (and how useless for anything over 75mm) and I realized how well it would pair with a 1.00x finder (50-75-90-135 frames - stick your new tri-elmar on THAT!) A 50mm frame in a 1.00 finder would be exactly the size of a 28 frame in a .58 finder or a 35 frame in the .72 finder.

I actually had a vision of this 1.00x M6 (TTL height, black paint with white/red engraving - sort of an über-M3.) But regular chrome/black chrome would, of course, be fine.

I don't know if you've ever looked through a true life-size RF finder (G2 with a 90, Canon P, various accesory finders) but it is so amazing to see in stereo with both eyes open - the camera "disappears" and all that remains is the real world with a frame floating in front of it.

Now MY keyboards damp!!

Andy

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), May 08, 2001.

So why not a variable finder from 1.00 to .58 or further to see the 21mm picture, of course without increase any bit of it´s original size.A black body without any white letter on it.An updated new Visoflex.Imagine people at Sloms thinking what a monsters we have created.

-- R Watson (AL1231234@HOTMAIL.COM), May 08, 2001.

Nikon got it right on the SP. 50, 85, and 135mm frames were life size so one could keep both eyes open. 28 and 35mm frames were in a separate (built in) finder with reduced size so the entire frame could be seen at once. Wonder why Leica has always been so adverse to stealing good ideas from their competitors? Pure ego?

-- Bill Mitchell (bmitch@home.com), May 08, 2001.

Ya know what I'd really like? It seems really trivial, but I'd like to be able to activate the meter in my M6 without cocking the shutter. Sometimes I walk around hunting for pictures for a long time without actually shooting anything, and having the shutter ready to fire, well, with a softie it's almost impossible to *not* accidentally take a shot. It just helps my speed to be able to pre-meter the light. ("Take the damn softie off then, you idiot!" No way!)

Other than that, I'm not sure I'd change too much, although the zooming rangefinder idea is compelling, and of course normal back-loading would be convenient. AE is cute but as far as I'm concerned, a metered-manual camera is the best AE there is!

-- Colin (colin@longitude.com), May 08, 2001.

Bill

Correct me if I am wrong, but were the 35 and 28mm frames on the SP, non-parallax corrected? If so then that is a black mark against the Nikon vs the M6. The rangefinder has a number of design limitations and it is impossible to please everyone all of the time - the M6 seems to me the best compromise - but like all r/f it is a compromise - doing some things really well, other things less well. From what many people say, perhaps the 0.85 should have been more M3-like as not all that many people seem to like it that much.

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), May 09, 2001.

I'd like to see a small red flag in the viewfinder which would indiciate an unwound shutter. I don't know how many times I have forgotten to wind, especially when winding right after a shot would make me too conspicuous, and then later missing the perfect moment.

-- Tony Rowlett (rowlett@mail.com), May 09, 2001.

As long as we're all dreaming, I'd like to see an M4, with a 1.00x finder, and about 50% more eye relief than the current M series, so I don't have to scratch my glasses viewing the widest frame.

A shutter that is as durable, quiet and perhaps with a faster sync speed and high end (a la the new Konica, but the Konica's shutter/wind is MUCH too loud).

A parallelogram rewind crank like that found on the old Alpas would be superb. (You have to use this to believe it. It is Soooo much better than any fold out crank, like that in the M4 and later Ms, and just about every other 35mm camera from about 1960 onwards.

A return to the self timer would be nice. (Actually I don't have anything later than an M4, as I am a fan of the self timer, and since I discovered the accuracy of incident metering, I could care less about any in-camera meters.

-- Tom Bryant (boffin@gis.net), May 09, 2001.

I love my M6TTL as it's presently designed. If Leica does introduce an M7 model (similiar to the Konica Hexar RF), then I hope they'll also keep the M6 in the model line at the same time. I really love the shutter as it's presently designed because of how incredibly smooth and quiet it is.

My greatest wish is that they add a lighter 75mm and/or 90mm lens to the M series. This is far more important to me than adding features to the existing M body. I'd also like to see Leica add the auto rewind feature to the new M winder.

-- KL Prager (www.pragerproperties@att.net), May 13, 2001.

Introduce a "cheaper" M body with no meter (Just imagine, no meter, or self timer, Classic M6 design and Knobs, black paint finish with script on top plate). Could be use as a second body for backup or BW/color need. Would also like to see a 6X9 Rangefinger camera.

-- Eric Laurence (edgar1976@hotmail.com), May 20, 2001.

The M lens line is perfect the way it. I would like to see brass tops on the bodies as a standard model.

Now please bring out a compact automatic R body something like the Olympus OM4Ti!

-- ray tai (razerx@netvigator.com), May 21, 2001.