Why no "Tele-Leica" M"

[chip j]

Sure would fill a gap in their system. You would have the ability too see outside the frame, quietness, accurate focusing, no finder blackout, and Leitz glass (don't forget--Japanese glass gives "unsubstantial images" & "less detail" than Leitz do).

 

[John Koehrer]

d'ya mean like a visoflex? That accepts long lenses.

 

[chip j]

Visoflex is not RF.

 

[bdial]

It's difficult for a rangefinder (small enough to fit on an otherwise smallish camera) to focus long lenses accurately, which is one reason the Visoflex exists.

 

[John Koehrer]

Visoflex is not RF.

But grasshopper, it's used on the M camera with lenses up to 560mm, so there's no gap in their system.

Besides, how ys gonna focus on something you mat be BARELY able to see?
I Know! Hyperfocalize.

 

[chip j]

You still don't have the vaunted RF qualities. Is all a Leica RF good for is sticking a wide-angle into people's faces? Why not a hand-holdable RF for 75mm--200mm?

 

[frank]

RF cameras do well from wide angle to normal focal lengths.
SLR design is superior at long focal lengths and macro.
The visoflex helps somewhat but it's a bit of a kludge.
RF camera lenses typically go up to 135mm. Longer than that and the RF design isn't able to focus accurately.
That's just the way it is because of physical and optical properties and the design differences of these 2 focusing systems.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

75, 90 and 135mm TELE lenses made by Leitz and Leica are available for M cameras with matching framelines.

 

[LarryP]

Well this is so that when you tire of making unsubstantial photos with less detail you will invest in the leica r system as well as the m.

 

[gone]

Not a thing wrong w/ Japanese glass. I assume that was satirical. Nothing wrong w/ FSU glass either. Wonderful lenses (crap cameras). I never saw the need to see outside the frame, as everything I was interested in was inside it, and nothing is as accurate as focusing w/ a SLR.

 

[chip j]

That's a quote from a very good review of Nikon vs Leica image quality (I've seen it myself). Who would buy an unsupported R system when their bodies have so many problems (desilvering)? Seeing outside the frame was a real joy & help when I used my new M4 in Italy (1967)! Looking at 135mm framelines on a current Leica is a joke.

 

[Jim Jones]

The ability to precisely focus rangefinder cameras depends in part in the separation between the viewfinder and rangefinder windows on the front of the camera body. There isn't enough room to greatly expend this difference. Leica chooses to not provide lenses that cannot be precisely focused with the existing rangefinder, but provides the somewhat cumbersome and expensive Visoflex to retain utility with longer lenses. This may well be a holdover from the days when there were few 35mm SLR cameras.

 

[Chan Tran]

besides from focusing it's also difficult to make the viewfinder of an RF accurate enough for a long lens. If you are wondering as to why there is no very long lenses for RF then you don't understand the RF.
The thing is the RF treat all lenses equally that is framing and focusing equally accurate for short and long lenses. But that isn't good enough for long lenses.

 

[AgX]

One could have added or installed a tele-attachment to the rangefinder.

 

[chip j]

Had 2 new M4s, 2 M3s, a screwmount & 9 new lenses (21-135) from the well-built 1960's--Get rid of them all because they can't do much for me.

 

[AgX]

Don't ask what a camera can do for you, but ask what you can do for it. (old Leicanian saying)

 

[chip j]

Great saying! and true, too. But I did all I could for the Leica. Got some VERY great shots while in Europe, w/people all around all the time, but in my small town here in the USA I can DO more for my Nikons.

 

[Chan Tran]

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.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

Had 2 new M4s, 2 M3s, a screwmount & 9 new lenses (21-135) from the well-built 1960's--Get rid of them all because they can't do much for me.

At least you tried the system and discovered it wasn't for you; you needed something different.

You could say you had a Telyt Leica Iz.

Don't ask what a camera can do for you, but ask what you can do for it. (old Leicanian saying)

Nice.

 

[blockend]

If you need longer lenses rangefinders don't cut it, but they're great if you primarily use one or two standard to moderate wide angles, which many photographers favour. Their main advantage is they are more compact than SLRs, and they remove the viewing system from the lens, which is also potentially their biggest disadvantage.

Compact SLRs like the Olympus OM and Pentax ME/MX systems never really took off, partly because they didn't offer more than token compact lenses, partly because the fashion was to show how big your "gear" is, a tendency that still dominates DSLR photography today. Autofocus SLRs removed some of the disadvantages of the reflex viewing and focusing system, at a weight and size penalty. In 2016 small film cameras are prized, financially, big ones less so.

 

[chip j]

Let's face it: the Leica is a "people" camera.

 

[frank]

It's the photographer not the camera. I love the hardware but am under no allusions that a great camera will make me or anyone a great photographer.

 

[blockend]

It's the photographer not the camera. I love the hardware but am under no allusions that a great camera will make me or anyone a great photographer.

True, the first rule of good photography is stand in front of interesting stuff. Second rule is if it's hard to take you're probably onto a winner.

 

[thuggins]

Compact SLRs like the Olympus OM and Pentax ME/MX systems never really took off, partly because they didn't offer more than token compact lenses, partly because the fashion was to show how big your "gear" is, a tendency that still dominates DSLR photography today.

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.

 

[Arklatexian]

You still don't have the vaunted RF qualities. Is all a Leica RF good for is sticking a wide-angle into people's faces? Why not a hand-holdable RF for 75mm--200mm?

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 and remember, all this information must fit on a 24mm x 36mm piece of film. The Visoflex 1, which I use, keeps the whole kit relatively small and using it with, say a 135mm Hektor lens, unscrewed from the focusing mount and mounted on the bellows, works from infinity to a 1:1 close-up without changing anything. I leave my Viso 1 set-up that way so all I have to do is attach the M camera to take pictures....Regards!