Why no "Tele-Leica" M"

blockend · Jul 20, 2016

thuggins said:
While I think that we can all agree that the "mine is bigger than yours" mentality has driven many to gravitate toward two camera companies that shall remain nameless, the rest of this statement is just downright odd. First of all, the OM System is not a "compact SLR". It is one of the finest and extensive 35mm camera systems ever devised, with over thirty years of active production. Its small size and light weight were consequences of superior design and innovative engineering, not some desire to make a cheap, throwaway camera.

As for not offering more than "token compact lenses", you have obviously not seen the numerous stories of OMs' dependability and longevity, including 4T's surviving 20 foot drops. The OM-4 was carried into space by NASA with the only modification needed was replacing the Naugahyde covering! I won't even go into the laundry list of technical innovations embodied in the OMs (including some of the most advance metering ever found in any film camera).

While Pentax did make a "compact SLR" it was called the Auto 110, not the ME/MX. Any good engineer knows that there is no challenge to making something that is big, heavy and clunky which happens to work just OK.

I bought an OM1 new in the 1970s, and a very nice camera it was. My point was that the company were primarily committed to shrinking the body, not the stable of lenses which were only slightly smaller than, say, Canon's offerings. For an SLR to compete with rangefinder cameras in size, pancake lenses are a necessity. These are possible in normal and wide-normal focal lengths, at the penalty of smaller apertures and darker viewing systems. The advantage of Olympus OM cameras was in overall body-lens weight, not size. I made no comment about the quality of the cameras or lenses.

John Koehrer · Jul 20, 2016

oldtimermetoo said:
It is my understanding that a range finder works by "triangulation" for want of a better word. If Leica made a range finder camera that would work on lenses over 135mm (M3) they would be forced to make a camera, longer, maybe much longer, to work with the longer focal length lenses

This one seems to be compact(85X10CM) and inexpensive one. It's all relative isn't it?
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Spanish-Civil-War-Condor-Legion-Artillery-Range-Finder-/161273623701?

Hope it fits an accessory shoe.

Jim Jones · Jul 20, 2016

Rangefinders on warships are much larger. Here http://i0.wp.com/mathscinotes.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/800px-graf_spee_telc3a9metro_01.jpg?resize=640,250 is one of the rangefinders from the German battleship Graf Spee. I don't know the width, but the newer and larger battleship Bismark had many rangefinders with a base line up to 34 feet.

Sirius Glass · Jul 21, 2016

Chan Tran said:
I made the decision almost 40 years ago when I bought my first camera. I want an SLR and not an RF. The same thing still applied for me today. I wan an SLR and not a camera without mirror. Although the RF does have the mirrors.

The laws of physics and photography have not changed since you and I made that decision.

Why no "Tele-Leica" M"

blockend

John Koehrer

Jim Jones

Sirius Glass

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency