Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2012/07/22
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I am not arguing with you.... I am making a parallel statement.... that the changes that COULD be employed to the VF/RF might be best done with a EVF. Another way of looking at my point of view is that "modern technology" to me is electronic, and to you may be improved mechanics.... I think that if you study the features of the Canon RF cameras of the 60's and 70's, you would find most if not all of your improvements have already been done. But in terms of the "user experience", I would propose that a EVF would do a lot of what I think makes the Leica RF system even "better" than an M9. I got into the Leica because I wanted high quality glass but with a camera body and lens format that was smaller than existant SLRs, especially those of Nikon. Ie: Cut the bulk and weight. I really wanted a tiny SLR with great lenses. I tried and like the M3. So I went that way. Am I happy with what I am using? Sure. Could it be improved to meet MY way of thinking? Sure. Will I be able to afford it if Leica makes it? Not new, and maybe not used...... 2 out of 3 ain't bad..... I got a Pen Ft camera and Lenses in the past 5 years or so. Strangely, it meets all my previous expectations, except for the lack of Digital, which I have since added to my "specs". I have run film through it, and it performs just fine. ( I do need to figure out how to scan the half frames, but that is time and personal focus issue.) If I could get a Pen F sized camera ( which not incidentally, is about the same size as an M) with excellent glass and reasonable price and big sensor(!!!!!) I would be a quick sale. Frank Filippone Red735i at earthlink.net My point is simply that optical rangefinder has not reached its full potential yet, and the tweaks that can be done using the modern technology isn't outrageous or far fetched or will change anything except to make things better.