Leica RF w/BTL Shutter for New Med Format Film

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Leica Photography : One Thread

The new film size would be 44mm high and 55mm wide. It would have perforations on each side, like 35mm does now, and be in similar metal cassettes of 15 and 30 exposures. The camera would be little larger than the M5 is now. It would have between-the-lens shutter from 1/500 to 1 sec, Standard lens would be equal to about 40mm on a 35mm camera. Lenses might be interchangeable, or the cameras might be made similar to the Fuji 670 III: non-interchangeable, but with another camera for longer or shorter focal length. These would be manually focused, not AF.>>>>> Would anyone buy such a camera?

-- Frank Horn (owlhoot45@hotmail.com), September 12, 2001

Answers

It is not too clear to me what your mail is about. If I may take a guess you are proposing a new film size and a Leica MF RF camera ?

I am forever hoping Leica would make a MF RF camera. A big M6 so to say, imagine Leica quality with a large negative. The results would be stunning.

But would rather stick with the normal 120/220 film as it is a standard, too many sizes defeats the standard.

-- Yip (koklok@krdl.org.sg), September 12, 2001.


I agree Yip. As we've already learned (Agfa Ripide, 126, 110 and now APS - as well as 127, 620 and a host of others), when their is such a strong following for the accepted formats (35mm/120), new ones tend to die fairly quickly. Also it is accepted thinking (in photo marketing) that what really killed APS was digital (they were introduced about the same time). People happy with the existing films stuck with them, and those who wanted a radical change went digital.

-- Bob Todrick (bobtodrick@yahoo.com), September 12, 2001.

The advantage of perferated film edges would be more consistant neg spacing. This is a problem in almost all medium format cameras. Would I buy one? Probably not as I am very satisfied with my M cameras. Perhaps if things change (as in I became better!) I might consider it. The name Frank Horn rings a bell but for the life of me I cannot place it right now....

Cheers,

-- John Collier (jbcollier@powersurfr.com), September 12, 2001.


I can't imagine investing in a new film system when digital is so close to being a viable alternative. Even the idea of buying a third m body seems sort of untimely nowadays, although I'd like one.

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), September 12, 2001.

Isn't there still 46mm perf film? That would be perfect. Or has that gone the way of 116, 616, 620, 127, 126 . . . . .

--Michael Darnton

-- Michael Darnton (mdarnton@hotmail.com), September 12, 2001.



IMO, I am not in favor of a new film format. I don't like the idea of another non-interchangeable lens medium format RF camera. I like the little M because it is little. When I want a bigger M, there is the Mamiya M7, which has excellent optics and takes readily available film. I think a better idea would be to build a quality 6x7 RF camera with interchangeable backs, TTL metering and faster lenses than the M7 offers. I realize it would be very expensive and a bit heavier than the Mamiya, but it would at least fill a niche not already filled.

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), September 12, 2001.

Actually that's a niche filled by the old Mamiya Press cameras. they had all of those things.

-- Josh Root (rootj@att.net), September 12, 2001.

Josh:

Yes, and they had great glass for their time, but they were very big, heavy, awkward to use and had no meter.

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), September 12, 2001.


Some 40 years ago, 20th Century Fox came out with a movie process they called Cinemascope 55. It used the Anamorphic Bausch & Lomb Cinemascope lenses, but on a 55mm film guage rather than the standard 35mm. Only two films were ever made with this process: "Carousel" and "The King and I." But it shows that Kodak can and did make a 55mm film guage. Now, if you subtract the same 11mm that 35mm film needs to allow enough space for sprockets and edge margins, you get 44mm of picture height, the same figure Frank is proposing. If you figure the width on a 4x5 ratio, you get 55mm alright. The idea has occured to me, too. I think it would make for a nice camera, with reasonably sized lenses. It's just a question of someone taking the financial risk as to whether it would ever catch on.

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), September 13, 2001.

Note that all 6x45 cameras use 120/220 film, which means that the cameras must be rather large. The new film I want would have a 44mm x 55mm frame run horizontally on a strip with perforations, like 35mm now has, and in similar cassette of 15 & 30 exp. This would allow for a more ergonomic camera, a bit larger than a Leica M5. The between-the-lens shutter would help with flash sync. The lens mount might be designed to accept existing Hassy or Rollei Zeiss lenses, plus new ones just for the new camera, i.e., smaller.

-- Frank Horn (owlhoot45@hotmail.com), September 14, 2001.


">>>>> Would anyone buy such a camera?" You might find a few thoroughly equipment-obsessed people to buy one as a curiosity.

I can't imagine that people who take photos would be very interested in a new system which doesn't even have readily-available film. And it seems unlikely Kodak/Fuji/Ilford/etc. will have much interest in introducing another medium format film size into a shrinking market.

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), September 14, 2001.


I, personally, want Leica to continue to do what they've done for the last seventy some years! That is, to provide the serious photographer with a serious 35mm RF camera. You mean to tell me, that with all of the outstanding 6x6 cameras out there, many of which can be fitted with outstanding German lenses from Zeiss and Schiender, that you can't find one that appeals to you? Please, leave Leica alone to do what they do best! I, personally, think your idea is moronic!

-- Leicaddict (leicaddict@hotmail.com), September 14, 2001.

My own experience with different film formats suggests each has distinct optical consequences, resolution, lens size, etc., which lead to distinct procedures. For me, especially as I get more used to the M6, 35mm is for exploring. I'm probably more deliberate than most, but I enjoy the uncertainty of the process.

LF, man, taking out the tripod is like sitting down to a fine meal, or getting that special look from the wife, you know you are in for hours of fun. Take your time, dwell on the details. It requires an appetite though, and as we get older, well, nevermind.

I stopped shooting MF a long time ago and I think it's because the process of using MF cameras doesn't satisfy. It's fast food or fine dining for me, and not much in between.

So, to answer Frank's question, unless this puppy is as light & quick as an M6, or possesses the ritual grandeur of a view camera, no thanks.

And for Leicaaddict, I have a strong background in cognitive psychometrics, and IMHO, the creative intelligence required for Frank's idea is substantially above that of a moron. If so, the idea cannot be moronic because a moron could not have the idea.

Morons can be trained to type with fair success, however.

Cheers,

-- Jeff Stuart (jstuart1@tampabay.rr.com), September 15, 2001.


Doesn't Alpa do a strange format something like this for their MF camera?

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), September 15, 2001.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ