[Leica] Leica's future

[Doug Herr <71247.3542@compuserve.com>]

I agree *in principal* with Jim and Ted on this issue.  Leica's products
must be the best tools for working photographers or the company will fail=

in the marketplace.  As much as I praise and rely on the old Leicaflex SL=

and 400 f/6.8 Telyt, I would eagerly embrace modern equipment if it met m=
y
needs.

IMHO, the principal failing of most modern equipment is battery dependanc=
e:

1) I often find myself dozens of miles, if not hundreds of miles, from
sources of replacement batteries.  The weight and bulk of all the spare A=
A
batteries cuts down the film and lenses I'm willing to carry into the
field.  I'd rather carry film than @#*& batteries.

2) I've had far more battery/electric/electronic failures than mechanical=

failures.  I especially hate it when the camera suddenly decides the
batteries have died.  This invariably happens at a crucial moment.  At
least with a mechanical camera I can guess exposure and bracket like craz=
y.

3) In my experience, auto-exposure is handy for "people" photos,
particularly with negative film, but for my chromes of wildlife subjects
where the important details in the image are often in very bright (egrets=
,
for example) or dark (bison, otters, crows, many other birds) critters,
auto-exposure has failed far more often than the SL's manual spot meter. =
 I
have little or no need for the features made possible by battery
dependance.


My understanding is that the R6/R6.2 cameras are delightful to use and th=
ey
have some features I wish the SL had but there are several features of th=
e
SL that I'm not willing to forego:

1) the continuously-variable shutter speeds.  With long lenses and active=

subjects, whether hand-held or stuck to a tripod, I need the fastest
possible shutter speeds.  I need to set the correct exposure by varying t=
he
shutter speed with the lens at maximum aperture.  An aperture priority
auto-exposure mode will give me continuously-variable shutter speeds at t=
he
cost of exposure accuracy (see #3 above).  The R6/R6.2 cameras have only
full-stop shutter speed increments; the R7's and R8's half-stop increment=
s
are almost good enough but not quite.

2) the SL's viewscreen is much easier to use with slower lenses like the
280 f/4.8 and 400 & 560 f/6.8 than any R camera I've used.  After using
R-cameras for 15 years I can still focus on moving critters much more
quickly and accurately with the SL than with an R body.  (I haven't used =
an
R8 yet.  I would like to see how it handles under my field conditions.)

3) the R4 through R7 bodies are too small for my hands, particularly sinc=
e
my left eye is stronger.  I feel like I'm holding them with my fingertips=

where I have a more secure grip on the SL using my whole hand.


A new mechanical camera with a continuously-variable shutter based on the=

R8 body shell would get my attention.  Until something like this is
marketed the SL will be my primary camera body.


There is also no suitable modern replacement for my primary lens, the 400=

f/6.8 Telyt.  I would dearly love APO optical imaging and the advantages =
of
internal focus but if it comes at the cost of quick, battery-less hand-he=
ld
performance then it will not meet my needs.  Aside from the Novoflex, the=
re
are no long lenses that can be used hand-held as quickly and easily as th=
e
400 and 560 f/6.8 Telyts.

I've read many posts from LUGgers saying (in effect) that Leica must copy=

feature-for-feature the oversized, over-featured flagships from N**** and=

C**** in order to compete in the marketplace.  The M-series cameras are
successful not because they are copies of something else, but because the=
y
are uniquely useful.  With the R-series cameras Leica can do better than =
to
copy the competition's features.

Doug Herr
Sacramento