Re: [Leica] M camera parts

[Adam Bridge <abridge@mac.com>]

on 10/17/01 7:57 AM, Walter S Delesandri at walt@jove.acs.unt.edu
thoughtfully wrote:

> Electronic cameras with the same features as an M6 would have FEWER parts...
> BUT no company (Leica?) would build such a thing... for example...no one asked
> for TTL flash on M cameras--which have added problems (flash compatibility and
> battery drain) that would have NEVER existed...WHEN there's an "electronic" M,
> you can bet that it WILL NOT just replace the speeds escapement in an M6... it
> would be an "M" shaped body LOADED with other useless shit.

It does not have to be an "M" shaped body loaded with useless stuff though.
Everything about the Leica design set that I've seen, and its' what I
respond to, is about doing one thing well: taking photographs and getting
out of the way of that process.

A digital "M" would surely come from that same mind-set. No "built-in" sepia
toning and stuff, no "on board" DSP. No zillion exposure modes. No changes
in the focusing mechanism. Just a shift in sensor and the ability to slot in
a memory card or (as important) a microdrive and a way to look at the image
you've recorded and a FireWire connector to get data out of the camera.

> I tell Leica friends "be careful what you ask for"....when the M6 came out,
> the M4P was to be continued for "traditionalists"...that small percentage who
> DO NOT want TTL metering (we "incident" metering lunatics)...a year or two
> later, the M4P was dropped from the catalogue...it COULDN'T have cost them a
> dime more to build a few dozen a year...it IS an M6 minus some junk.

I think the issue would be about how many different parts are required to
make an M4P and an M6. What's the overlap between the two. (I really don't
know the answer to this.) If having a very different parts inventory is
required then the costs can rise very quickly.

Thanks for your thoughts Walter. I appreciated them.

Adam

- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html