What is the most controversial Leica proposal?

[albertwang]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

For me, the most controversial thing that Leica ever did was to introduce a clunky M5. Very bulky, interesting design but not quite something I would be caught dragging around.

 

Also I overheard something about some provocative ads that Leica carried back in the 1970's. Can anyone verify this for me?

 

So, IYHO, what is Leica's controversial thing that they ever did?

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[wparsonsgisnet]

It may be the M5.

 

This camera has never attracted me, because of the larger size and because of the sideways strap.

 

However, those who use it think it reflects the height of M design by Leica. They claim that the meter for that camera works better then any other M meter.

 

So, quite controversial.

 

We'll ignore the introduction of a miniature camera at the beginning of Leica history. This flew in the face of the standard, medium-format of the time.

[doubice]

 

So, IYHO, what is Leica's controversial thing that they ever did?

 

What about the introduction of the original Leicaflex? It had an external though coupled, CdS lightmeter in an era when TTL lightmeters were the standard fare of all top of the line SLR designs.

 

Or the introduction of a top of the line Super 8 movie camera (Leicina Super) at a time when the Super 8 format was just about on its way out?

 

Both were superb instruments, but obsolete when introduced. The M5 was indeed a magnificent camera, I owned one for many years, but never got used to the size. When the M6 came out, I never looked back....

 

Jan

[adan]

Just to keep the facts straight:

 

When the Leicaflex was introduced (1964), Nikon's top SLRs (Fs) had NO built-in meter. You had to buy a big bulky add-on metering prism to get ttl metering. Canon had no pro camera at all. Pentax, Topcon, the Nikkormats and perhaps the earliest Minolta SR-Ts had metering by that time, but they were hardly top-of-the-line. The meterless Nikons owned Pro territory all to themselves.

 

The Leicaflex SL was introduced in 1968 with full ttl metering. Canon introduced a pro camera (the F-1) with ttl metering in 1970. Nikon did not put metering directly into a pro body until the F3 (1981).

 

As to the Leicina - it was introduced in 1960 - only three years after the first STUDIO color videotape was made (let alone home-use cameras). The first camcorders that did not require a large camera and seperate shoulder-mounted tape recorder were introduced by Sony and JVC in 1982. Home-use Betamax and VHS recorders (without cameras - just for taping off the air) date to about 1975.

 

So Super 8 was "on its way out " for at least 22 years after the Leicina arrived.

 

I'll have think a bit longer to decide what I consider to be Leica's most controversial or damaging product decision.

[doubice]

Andy,

 

I knew I might stir up a bee's nest with my post. Don't get me wrong - I have been using Leica since 1964 and am very loyal to the brand.

 

But - yes, in 1964 the Nikon F did not have a meter built into the body, because the camera was designed right from the start as a modular system with interchangeable finders, screens and backs.. The original Photomic external CdS meter head predated the Leicaflex by 2 - 3 years, the TTL Photomic T head was introduced a few years prior to the SL as well.

 

Even though Nikon owned the professional SLR market at that time, many pro's used Pentax Spotmatic, which along with Topcon pioneered the built-in TTL meter. Both were on the market In 1963, 5 years before the SL's introduction.

 

I was involved in the photo industry at that time and believe me, everybody was stunned when Leitz came out with an externally metered 'flex. Their excuse (?) was that they did not feel TTL meters were accurate enough...... The truth was that the only meter they had available at the time was the MR meter for the M bodies, which was built for them by Metrawatt. It was a modified version of the MR meter that was built into the original Leicaflex.

 

As to your comment about the Leicina, you are correct - the original Leicina was introduced in 1960. My mistake - I was referring to the Leicina Special. That was a highly advanced (read expensive) Super 8 camera with interchangeable lenses, introduced when even Nizo, Beaulieu and Paillard were realizing that Super 8 era was coming to an end. The Leicina Special was flop, after Leitz spent oodles of $$$ developing it. It was a superb camera, just a little too late.

 

Again - Leica was, is and hopefully will continue to be a superb product, but like with every other manufacturer, there were a few controversial decisions made and few duds produced.

 

All the best,

 

Jan

[fernando_b]

For me (R-user),

it was to stop production of not automatic cameras after reintroducing such excellent and terrifically reliable objects like R6/R6.2.

Fernando.

[elgenper]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I think the most momentous move must have been when they introduced the R3: for the first time, a non-Leitz design (auto-exposure too...) bought from a Japanese company (Minolta, not usually thought of as a top quality provider), was given "Leica status".

 

Looking back, it was not a bad move at all, and very likely it was a necessary one. But at the time, it was HERESY....

[lct]

...in 1964 the Nikon F did not have a meter built into the body, because the camera was designed right from the start as a modular system with interchangeable finders, screens and backs.. The original Photomic external CdS meter head predated the Leicaflex by 2 - 3 years...

Agree, Jan.

Also the Zeiss Ikon Contarex Super and Contaflex TTL were lanched in 1967 if i remember well.

The Leicaflex and its little window a la Leicameter was quite ridiculous to say the truth.

[rsh]

On the M5 - I really like the look and feel of the camera. It is really handsome where as the traditional M design is pretty.

[wattsy]

Choosing to stick with the R system and spending a huge amount of money (for such a small company) on developing the R8. The camera is excellent but I'm not sure Leica AG ever really recovered from it financially. Even though Leica have had modest success with the DMR (it's been universally well received but I doubt that it has made any profit) I suspect that the R system's days may be numbered. I know that there have been rumours of an R10 but the new management may be rather less sentimental than previous managements when they look at the inevitable cost involved in taking the R line forward.

[DTD]

I seem to remember reading a piece in AP that Leica had done a mock-up (possibly not even a prototype) 110 camera – or am I imagining it.

 

Talk about beauty being in the eye of the beholder – M5 – blimey –no, never.

 

As for Minolta? I always prefered their CLE to the Leica CL.

[andybarton]

I know that there have been rumours of an R10 but the new management may be rather less sentimental than previous managements when they look at the inevitable cost involved in taking the R line forward.

 

Can you think of anything more sentimental than developing a digital solution to a 50 year old, basically unchanged, product line?

 

 

At the end of the day, Leica are there to make money and, let's hope that they now have a product line that allows them to do this.

 

IMHO, they can't, however, continue to just develop a M-line and rebadge Panasonics.

[jaapv]

They continued to build the Lecaflex SL for too long. It is probably the best SLR ever built, buit each unit that left the factory cost more the the street price - The R3 was such a letdown that it was hammered by critics for years - until they discovered it was really a pretty good camera.

[wattsy]

Can you think of anything more sentimental than developing a digital solution to a 50 year old, basically unchanged, product line?

 

 

At the end of the day, Leica are there to make money and, let's hope that they now have a product line that allows them to do this.

 

IMHO, they can't, however, continue to just develop a M-line and rebadge Panasonics.

 

I've no doubt that Leica are sentimentally attached to the M line (why else stick that rather silly little round LCD on top of the M8 if it's not to echo the traditional film counter) but it consistently outsells the R line by quite some margin (my dealer claims by a ratio of 10 to 1 but he could be talking out his hat). My hunch is that the M system has long been subsidising the R system in Leica's product portfolio and I'm not sure that today's business environment will allow that to go on indefinitely.

[albertwang]

I don't quite agree... the R line can hold its own I think.

[frc]

What about the hazardous project of designing a ZOOM lens for the M system.

A fragile and slow lens far away from the M tradsition.

Who'd ever want that !?...

Now a few years later it's tradition and the second one is launched.

( also usable on the analog body ( !? ) ;-)

It wouldn't surprise me if Leica came up with purple dots or black and white stars on their lenses, against whatever!

Now it's time to make some controversial pictures.

[Guest hammertone]

Who'd ever want that !?...

Me. It's the perfect travel lens, IMO.

My candidate for this award would be the viewfinder for the new wide-angle Tri-Elmar.

Joachim

[larry]

What about the hazardous project of designing a ZOOM lens for the M system.

A fragile and slow lens far away from the M tradsition.

Who'd ever want that !?...

Now a few years later it's tradition and the second one is launched.

( also usable on the analog body ( !? ) ;-)

It wouldn't surprise me if Leica came up with purple dots or black and white stars on their lenses, against whatever!

Now it's time to make some controversial pictures.

 

To nitpick a bit, these aren't zoom lenses. They have three fixed focal lengths, whereas a zoom changes focal lengths continuously throughout its range.

 

Larry

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[albertwang]

I don't think that the Tri-Elmars qualify as being controversial. in fact, they are admired as feats of wondrous engineering.

[stunsworth]

Hi Larry, my understanding from Puts is that they are in fact zoom lenses, but with a mechanism to select the three focal lengths in the range.