Apparently not. There is a recent post in this forum where a member just had an F100 leader out mod done.
Leica are the only company with sufficient clout to be able to build a new film camera, and not go belly up in the process.
No arguments with the link, digital cameras are landfill once the love dies, even if they still work ok. The point I was making is nobody would pay new prices for an F5, and very few do for a new F6, but they might for an F with all the trimmings. Especially if it was called an F7 an had a few well hidden tricks to complement 60s engineering with C21st technology. They might even buy one without a chip in complete 1959 fettle. Add pre-AI scallop ring lenses with 2015 optical coatings and performance, and you would have fans bursting their braces and overdrafts for a set of F1.4 primes. 28mm, 35mm, 50mm and 80mm shall we say? Pure unobtainium on the used market without very deep pockets but new..? Who wouldn't want a pristine black pointy prism F in a brand new box?
You're right, I should have said develop a new camera. Dusting off the jigs for something already on the company books is not what I was talking about.Coff coff...Cosina.
Let's say that Leica is FORCED to sell film cameras (not build new ones from scratch, as they are all derived more or less by the M4-P, and the last really revolutionary design was the M5) because it's a small company while Nikon and Canon make a lot of money with digital.
If they knew they could make more with film cameras they would do that, be sure of it.
You're right, I should have said develop a new camera. Dusting off the jigs for something already on the company books is not what I was talking about.
Really? That's an average of 3k units a year for a professional camera. In previous iterations I'd be surprised if Nikon sold fewer than 3000 of their flagship model per annum in the UK alone.I keep telling you guys that F6 was a surprise success, 30,000+ new units sold over 10 years is not a flop.
Don't misunderstand me, I wish Leica would come out with something different, but on the other side I understand their customers are probably the most conservative on the market and they will probably reject any change in the consolidated design of the M series.
Leaving aside the kudos of the Leica badge, which comprises the biggest selling point of the brand, what purchasers are getting is a nicely engineered 35mm film platform, containing a finely built and labour intensive focusing system, giving access to some nice, extremely expensive lenses. From that mix of ingredients there's virtually nothing that C21st technology can add that Leica buyers might want.
Where would you go from the F6 other than an updated screen? What more do you want from the camera? Is there something it cannot do w/o a redesign?
Am I the only person who likes the power button safety on the F5?
As there aren't any readily available films that allow 1/1000 sec at f8 in normal light (the kind of thing digital users take for granted), half the speed sounds like a bit excessive. I assumed there was a good reason why Leica didn't use a convention rear loading door?Personally I would like to have a nice Leica with 1/2000 sec shutter speed, titanium curtains, a spotmeter like the M5, possibly aperture priority, true 1:1 viewfinder, improved rangefinder, backdoor like any film camera of the last 40 years, that would be great and I think I won't be the only one interested.
I don't have any interest for the M-P or the M-A as I already have a M3 and a M4-P and these cameras offer everything the new ones give plus they are much more affordable.
...
I assumed there was a good reason why Leica didn't use a convention rear loading door.
...
As there aren't any readily available films that allow 1/1000 sec at f8 in normal light (the kind of thing digital users take for granted), half the speed sounds like a bit excessive. I assumed there was a good reason why Leica didn't use a convention rear loading door?
A camera I can imagine Leica making money on, is a film version of the Fuji X100 series. A fixed lens rangefinder camera built to the same standards as an M3 might extract money from a few wallets.
Regarding a film version of the X100 it would be suicidal because it would cost almost like a M minus all the functions of a M-P or M-A, it's better that Fuji makes a film version of their own camera and leave Cosina to produce it.
I'd suggest an SLR is the more efficient focusing tool for lenses of very wide aperture.If you like to shoot with lense wide open to get bokeh for various application like portraits or other types of separation even with f1.5 or f1.4 is a problem in bright days, even with Ektar 100.
I'd suggest an SLR is the more efficient focusing tool for lenses of very wide aperture.
I am talking about SLRs. The one that I have to use in summer days for this kind of application is the T90 because the fastest speed is 1/4000sec.
One day I wanted to test the Canon FD55mm f1.2 wide open with Portra160, no way I could meter with my F-1, so in the end I overexposed...in these cases the only solutions are neutral gray filters but they are an hassle to use.
... Most street photographers who use Leica rangefinders favour one lens. Putting that lens into a body that does not require an elaborate viewfinder or any of the mechanical linkages for interchangeable lenses, but is still made to the same standard as an M, would be a seller IMO.
That's true - with an individual photographer. However, some may want that lens to be a 50mm, others a 35mm, others a 28mm, and so on. Which one to build?
I disagree. Most street photographers who use Leica rangefinders favour one lens. Putting that lens into a body that does not require an elaborate viewfinder or any of the mechanical linkages for interchangeable lenses, but is still made to the same standard as an M, would be a seller IMO.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?