F6

[pentaxuser]

Apparently not. There is a recent post in this forum where a member just had an F100 leader out mod done.

Yes and apparently for nothing as well but I fear that we may be making certain assumptions about when this modification was done. It seem incredible that a Nikon Service Centre should do such a modification recently on a camera that is no longer in production. The OP in the post to which you refer has yet to make any further response unfortunately to clarify matters

pentaxuser

 

[blockend]

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. Even people who are tempted by new film cameras are put off by the whiff of current technology. The F6's 2004 cutting edge tech is as advanced as 35mm cameras will get. Let's face it, the world is not short of film cameras and asking £1500+ for something that closely resembles a camera on the used market for £300 takes more cajones than most manufacturers can muster.

 

[cuthbert]

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.

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.

 

[ic-racer]

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?

The American electric guitar manufacturers did this with great success in the 1990 through present.

 

[blockend]

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.

 

[Christiaan Phleger]

What is so difficult about putting the guts from a D4s or D5 into the same body but not putting in a digital sensor? they did it with the F6/D2 and in 2004 that was really a shock that Nikon did that. Keep in mind folks that Nikon sells way more digital bodies in this age; go back to the past and see just how few film bodies were made over the years simply because the overall photography market was so much smaller. Now it is *huge*, and if even 1% of digital buyers from the past 4 years considered buying a film camera like the upcoming F7 then they'll make the numbers. I keep telling you guys that F6 was a surprise success, 30,000+ new units sold over 10 years is not a flop.

 

[cuthbert]

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.

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.

 

[blockend]

I keep telling you guys that F6 was a surprise success, 30,000+ new units sold over 10 years is not a flop.

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.

Putting a film back into a current digital camera makes no sense because all the technological advance goes into the sensor and interpreting the data from it. What's left is a hefty chassis and a lens mount, and there's no shortage of those among existing 35mm cameras.

 

[blockend]

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.

Every decision Leica make with regard to their 35mm cameras is likely to alienate more purchasers than doing nothing. The only conceivable motive for Leica doing anything to their current film bodies is the conclusion that everyone who wants one has already bought one. I suspect they're some way off that goal.

 

[cuthbert]

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.

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.

 

[MartinCrabtree]

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?

 

[mweintraub]

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?

Unless there is a need or another camera has the option, it's hard to for me to think what the F7 should have... other than an FM2n type body with modern features. ... Maybe.


I'm torn between the safety. Doesn't bug me, doesn't make me excited that he has it.

 

[blockend]

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.

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.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

...
I assumed there was a good reason why Leica didn't use a convention rear loading door.
...

In the distant past, my guess is that they wanted to maintain rigidity in the body. Today, they do it for the same reason Porsche has the ignition on the left: tradition.

 

[cuthbert]

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.

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.

For the rear door Theo already answered: tradition.

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.

 

[blockend]

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 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.

 

[blockend]

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.

 

[cuthbert]

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.

 

[blockend]

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.

The problem is less one of mechanical or electronic solutions by cameras, than chemical and physical solutions by films. The traffic on that is all one way. Kodachrome 25 and Fujicolor 1600 show no sign of returning, so film photographers have to work with what's available, not what would be ideal or interesting. Developing new cameras with abilities that do not take that shrinking range into account, would be folly.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

... 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?

 

[blockend]

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?

Good question. Leica buyers would probably purchase whatever Leica throw their way, and 28mm or 35mm fixed lenses would find buyers. It might even be viable to produce both. Fuji have sold at hat full of X100 series with a fixed 35mm optic in a market dominated by zooms and interchangeable prime lenses.

With an M series camera, much of the cash goes on a compromise viewfinder and lens mount, that could be simplified and improved without the necessity to swap lenses. The lens itself could be a retro focusing pancake or even folding variety, shrinking the camera further. All these are pie in the sky of course, Leica have a good business model selling digital cameras to well-heeled enthusiasts and film cameras based on sixty year old technology to nostalgists. Why change a winning formula?

 

[Christiaan Phleger]

Well getting back on track of the F7; an improved AF would be an upgrade. Nikon's AF really improved when it went to the D3 and the D4/s was even better, yes I know lots of you don't think AF on film is very important but I assure you it is perhaps More important when you only have 36 frames.

 

[f8&bthere]

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.

Leica just came out with that camera - if your lens of choice is a 28 - and you want digital.

Whether or not the Q will sell well [at $4500] remains to be seen.

As for a film version of the Q, I really don't see how that would be more appealing for new buyers than an M7 matched with their favorite lens, save perhaps for a somewhat lower package cost if you don't already own at least one Leica/Leica-compatible M lens.

 

[nsouto]

Not sure I need better AF than the one in the F6.
Regardless of its similarities to the D2, fact is the AF works very well: I would simply not have captured the image I put in the current Monthly Shooting Assignment had I been using anything other than the F6 in AF zone mode.
Been using film Nikons since the F, and still have (and use!) the original F, 2xF2, 2xF4, F100 and the F6.
And the latter is without a shadow of a doubt the best film camera I've ever used. The meter is fantastic, it doesn't miss one. I've added a split-image screen to it for precise manual focusing.
And the camera is just the right size without being the heavy monster the F5 was, nor the plasticky thingie the F100 is.
An F7? I can't see how the F6 can be so improved it'd need to become another model.
Yes, the D4&Co have maybe better AF for sports. But I'm far from a sports imagery fan so sports AF is in my last place for priorities.

I'd rather Nikon sold someone the rights to make a re-badged scanner similar to the 9000 and/or 5000, so that we can continue to scan in high quality for a long time. No, the Epson flatbeds don't hold a candle to what the Coolscans can do!
I had both flatbeds and Coolscans and got rid of the flatbed: simply no comparison.

 

[ajuk]

What non digital specific improvements have there been in the last 10 years?