TAO of Leica

[terrycioni]

burden of history

More interesting commentary from Mr. Puts, as it references the M8 and it's future I post here. If this has been posted before, my apologies and please ignore this one.

Best Regards. Terry

[delander]

I read it but it has all been pondered over before, even here in these forums.

The M design is part of what makes Leica RF distinctive, and it is such a beautiful clean design. Don't personally see them straying far from it.

Jeff

[IMast]

Another thought provoking article from Mr Puts about which I have reservations. I don't want full frame anyway and am happy to have changed my M6ttl to the M8. OK it has some failings but then so do most cameras in one way or another. As a travel camera with a couple of lenses it is superb. Sorry I forgot to say I also carry a CV15 it is so small you tend to forget it is there.

His analogy with SAAB is complete nonsense - it saw its probable only way for such a small auto company to ensure survival was a merger / takeover by General Motors who got it to use the Vauxhall Opel Cavalier underpinnings. It was a hopeless chassis which any Cavalier owner will probably confirm. I felt they just did not understand the brand which is of vital importance. At least the Leica MD and major shareholder does understand this vital part of the business.

Ian

[jimmy pro]

Originally Posted by Putz

Many Canon 1Ds Mrk III users complain that the huge files sizes of the FF sensor with 20 Mp bring no advantage and only dead weight.

ROTFL Well, maybe on some internet forum there are some guys who whine about that...but the majority are prolly out makeing money with theres.

[jaapv]

I can't figure his article out - he seems to be taking two mutually exclusive positions at the same time.

[delander]

I would like a bigger file from the M8 'follow up' that is for sure. Fast computers and vast amounts of storage are no longer any problem.

How they will manage FF with the rear lens element so close to the sensor is difficult to envisage.

Jeff

[terrycioni]

I think this is indeed the challenge - to achieve all the things we want they will have to put aside the vaunted history of the M camera as it relates to the M3, M4, M6, M7, MP and significantly change the form factor. Hell, I have heard people complain about the thickness of the M8 when compared with the M6 or M7 - we tend to put Leica because of it's history into a no win situation. That said I believe they are extremely over protective of that history.

What I want is an M film style full frame digital (not sure why I want FF) that will stand the test of time over at least 20+ years. Is completely upgradeable, built like a brick out house, weather sealed, etc, and costs $2500CDN.

I have at this point settled on the M8 as a compromise to all the things I did wanted in the first digital Leica and have totally totally enjoyed working around and through the challenges. There have been moments of sincere doubts about my sanity as it relates to cost versus benefits but in the end it is break even. (I edited this here - I knew when I walked into the camera store in 1968 that the M4 I wanted would be EXPENSIVE when compared to the NIKON F I had bought a few months earlier - I also knew the M8 would be EXPENSIVE when I bought it in 2006 when compared to the D200 I bought a few months earlier - a few things with Leica history will never change.)

So what does Erwin really want - big files with a lot a dead weight.....

Best Regards. Terry

[Shootist]

He states that "The M3 was a brilliant design, because it capitalized on the weaknesses of the slr designs of that period and optimized the rangefinder virtues and advantages."
To my knowledge there was NO SLR camera at the time the M3 was designed and introduced.
That's about where I stopped reading.

[offshore]

Erwin is generally a good read even if is just to find the wordsherunstogether or misspellrd words. Believing him is up to the reader.

[terrycioni]

Originally Posted by fotografr

Absolutely correct. The M3 was introduced in 1954. The first SLR, the Contarex, was introduced in 1958. Good catch!

Contaflex (SLR) - Camerapedia.org

Best Regards. Terry.

[jimmy pro]

Originally Posted by fotografr

The first SLR, the Contarex,

Absolutely incorrect.

CLICK

[sdai]

Actually Puts is right, there were SLRs since 19th century, these were the early Exakta and Alpa models using waist level finders, the first SLR using a top mounted pentaprism should be Contax S in 1949.

[terrycioni]

Originally Posted by fotografr

How to CLASSIC CAMERA

Cheers,

The Contaflex I was introduced in 1953 and discontinued in 1958. The Contaflex II was introduced in 1954 and also discontinued in 1958 - there were a string of other models. Contraex "Bullseye" was introduced in 1959 and discounted in 1966 (your reference).

I believe there were many other SLR before the Contaflex I. Zeiss was a leader in the SLR world in the 1950 and well into the 60.

My reference is McKeown's Cameras 11th Edition. It makes for some interesting reading.

Best Regards. Terry.

[AlanG]

I think this was one of the cameras to beat in 1954.

As for Putt's article, slow evolution of cameras during the "mechanical' age was all they could do. Things are a little different today as electronics improve rapidly and get smaller and faster, plus new ideas come up (e.g. live view, stabilized sensors.) And film cameras began getting updated much more frequently once electronics started getting incorporated into them. (Early on Nikon went from the Photomic T to the Tn to the FTn in 3 or 4 years.)

[AlanG]

Originally Posted by terrycioni

I knew when I walked into the camera store in 1968 that the M4 I wanted would be EXPENSIVE when compared to the NIKON F I had bought a few months earlier - I also knew the M8 would be EXPENSIVE when I bought it in 2006 when compared to the D200 I bought a few months earlier - a few things with Leica history will never change.)

I hate to throw doubt on your memory or question what you paid, but I actually was selling cameras back in 1968 and Leica M4 bodies were only a little more expensive than a Nikon Ftn body back then. Many of the lenses were almost the same price best I recall. I've previously posted some of these old prices - from 1971 catalogs and don't have exact pricing available from 1968.

1971 Helix Camera:

Leica M4 w/ 50 f2 DR Summicron $519
35 2 $195
50 2 rigid $186
50 1.4 $255
50 1.2 $870
90 2 $195

Nikon Ftn w 50 1.4 $458 (note that the Leica 50 f2 cost $38 more than the Nikon 50 1.4)
35 2 $189.50
50 1.4 $148
50 1.2 $199.50
85 1.8 195
______________________

1977 PTN Master Buying Guide (not all brands or items prices are listed.) These are list not street prices.

Canon FD
Canon F-1 w 50 1.4 $729
24 2.8 $277
24 1.4 $1100
35 2 $290
50 1.4 $185
55 1.2 $285
85 1.8 $260
85 1.2 $700

Nikon F2 Photomic w 50 1.4 $815.50

No prices for Nikon lenses are listed in the catalog.

Leica
M5 f2 $1296
M5 f1.4 $1473
35 2 $270
50 1.4 $531
90 2 $384

Now:----------------------

Leica:
M7 with 50 f2 $5500
M7 body $3700-$4400
21 2.8 $4000
24 2.8 $3300
35 1.4 $3900
50 f2 $1800-$2000
50 1.4 $3300
90 F2 $3200

Canon
Eos 1V $1700
24 2.8 $305
35 2 $240
85 1.8 $355
24 1.4 $1170
35 1.4 $1150
50 1.4 $325
85 1.2 $1825

Nikon
F6 body $1900
24 2.8 $309
35 2 $320
85 1.8 $400
35 1.4 $700 manual focus
50 1.4 $300
85 1.4 $1025

So clearly Nikon and Canon have held down their lens prices over the years and Leica has not. E.g. the Canon 24 1.4 has only gone up a little bit - $70 (comparing 1977 list to current street price) in 31 years while it now has AF and electronic aperture control. This is probably due to manufacturing efficiency and higher volume, not reduced quality. I think that really is at the heart of the matter in limiting sales of Leica M gear.

[fotografr]

Originally Posted by AlanG

This is probably due to manufacturing efficiency and higher volume, not reduced quality. I think that really is at the heart of the matter in limiting sales of Leica M gear.

Pure conjecture on my part, but it could also be due to N & C manufacturing being more computerized/robotocized, whereas Leica still relies more on hand assembly.

[terrycioni]

Originally Posted by AlanG

I hate to throw doubt on your memory or question what you paid, but I actually was selling cameras back in 1968 and Leica M4 bodies were only a little more expensive than a Nikon Ftn body back then. Many of the lenses were almost the same price best I recall. I've previously posted some of these old prices - from 1971 catalogs and don't have exact pricing available from 1968.

1971 Helix Camera:

Leica M4 w/ 50 f2 DR Summicron $519
35 2 $195
50 2 rigid $186
50 1.4 $255
50 1.2 $870
90 2 $195

Nikon Ftn w 50 1.4 $458 (note that the Leica 50 f2 cost $38 more than the Nikon 50 1.4)
35 2 $189.50
50 1.4 $148
50 1.2 $199.50
85 1.8 195
______________________

1977 PTN Master Buying Guide (not all brands or items prices are listed.) These are list not street prices.

Canon FD
Canon F-1 w 50 1.4 $729
24 2.8 $277
24 1.4 $1100
35 2 $290
50 1.4 $185
55 1.2 $285
85 1.8 $260
85 1.2 $700

Nikon F2 Photomic w 50 1.4 $815.50

No prices for Nikon lenses are listed in the catalog.

Leica
M5 f2 $1296
M5 f1.4 $1473
35 2 $270
50 1.4 $531
90 2 $384

Now:----------------------

Leica:
M7 with 50 f2 $5500
M7 body $3700-$4400
21 2.8 $4000
24 2.8 $3300
35 1.4 $3900
50 f2 $1800-$2000
50 1.4 $3300
90 F2 $3200

Canon
Eos 1V $1700
24 2.8 $305
35 2 $240
85 1.8 $355
24 1.4 $1170
35 1.4 $1150
50 1.4 $325
85 1.2 $1825

Nikon
F6 body $1900
24 2.8 $309
35 2 $320
85 1.8 $400
35 1.4 $700 manual focus
50 1.4 $300
85 1.4 $1025

So clearly Nikon and Canon have held down their lens prices over the years and Leica has not. E.g. the Canon 24 1.4 has only gone up a little bit - $70 (comparing 1977 list to current street price) in 31 years while it now has AF and electronic aperture control. This is probably due to manufacturing efficiency and higher volume, not reduced quality. I think that really is at the heart of the matter in limiting sales of Leica M gear.

You get the point. You can quibble all you want about the FINE detail for example I said Nikon F - not FTn - which is fair comparison as neither F or M4 had a meter. In short Leica was and is more expensive - always has been always will be. This is the charm of this forum.... As you point Leica was more expensive....

Best Regards. Terry.

[AlanG]

Originally Posted by terrycioni

You get the point. You can quibble all you want about the FINE detail for example I said Nikon F - not FTn - which is fair comparison as neither F or M4 had a meter. In short Leica was and is more expensive - always has been always will be. This is the charm of this forum.... As you point Leica was more expensive....

Best Regards. Terry.

Yes but a Leica 35 f2 for instance went from being 3% more expense ($5.50) than a Nikon 35 f2 in 1971 to being 8.75 times as expensive now. And a 50 f1.4 Leica lens went from being 1.7 times as expensive in 1971 to being 11 times as expensive today. Back in 71 the Nikkor 85 1.8 and Leica 90 f2 had the same price.

In February 1960, the meterless Nikon F with 50 f2 was $329.50. The Leica M2 with dual range Summicron was $384 and the M3 with the same lens was $438. Yes the Leica was priced a bit more but not so much more that it would stop many buyers if they prefered it. Now days one might prefer a Leica but can't justify spending 8 or 11 times the price for the lenses.

In the early 70's my cousin's camera store in Washington DC discounted all of its stock of Leica gear to get rid of it as it was so difficult to sell any rangefinder gear at that time. Especially all of those unusual Leica accessories that we had several bins of. (Most of us had no clue what all of those adapters and accessories did.) A lot of other gear such as Linhof, Graflex, Koni, Mamiya and similar MF rangefinder gear became almost impossible to sell. I studied up on all of that stuff and sold most of it single handed while on my summer vacation from RIT. (No other salesman had an interest.) We had no problem selling Nikons, Nikkormats and Minolta SRTs. A few shops in DC had much better luck selling Leica gear - mostly to news shooters and other photojournalists (Pro Photo a camera and repair shop virtually next door to us) and Hellers which catered mostly to non-pro enthusiasts. Our store was on Pennsylvania Avenue a block west of the White House so we had a premier location for well to do customers.

I remember that it was difficult just to get gear from Leica and we'd get monthly letters showing the backorder status. One guy came in every month for a year checking on his Leica leather camera case order. I am not sure if he ever got it but it certainly discouraged me from trying to sell any more Leica gear unless we had it in stock. (Which became almost nil.)

Around that time we supplied all of the photo gear to the US Secret Service. Their camera of choice was the Beseler Topcon Super D. And they liked the Novoflex 640 and 400 lenses. We probably were one of the worlds biggest Topcon dealers for a while. ;-) And look what happened to Topcon. Makes you wonder doesn't it? At least Leica is still in the camera business.

[robola]

Its interesting to me the not infrequent analogies I see on this forum relating Leica and particularly M cameras to various automobile manufacturers and specific cars. In the case of the referenced E. Puts "Tao of Leica" article and Saab, I think he is incorrect and that Porsche and the venerable 911 series is a far more apt comparison in a number of respects.

For more than four decades the brilliant but idiosynchratic Porsche 911 has continuously evolved and has been refined to reach a state of near perfection. In the perception of both Porschephiles and the general public, it is the quintessential Porsche and arguably the most successful sports car of all time. Introduced in the mid sixties and based on the pioneering work of Ferdinand Porsche dating to the thirties, it long ago became the longest running, continuously in production model in the world.

By the seventies Porsche publicly recognized the limitations of the inherently obtuse rear engined layout. In a mistaken attempt to eventually replace the 911 model it invested heavily in the development and introduction of the more contemporary and conventional 924 and 928 models. Despite undeniable competence as automobiles, neither were ever totally accepted by the buying public and ultimately were both discontinued. They simply did not have the subjectively compelling DNA of the 911 and its rear engined ancestors.

Meanwhile the 911 soldiers on, the beneficiary of unremitting Porsche engineering efforts to tame some of its quirky-even diabolical characteristics. It has become slightly bigger, significantly heavier and a lot more complex. It also costs about 12 times as much today as when it was introduced. It is still unmistakably and uniquely a Porsche 911. Sound familiar?

I am heartened to learn that Porsche Consulting has been retained by Leica. I think what Porsche clearly learned is that they very much needed to preserve those characteristics that made them initially successful. The essence of a Porsche 911 is as compellingly present today as it was in 1964 despite enormous strides in performance and refinement. I trust Leica will be able to do the same with the M series-perhaps with a little help from their friends at Porsche.

[robola]

Its interesting to me the not infrequent analogies I see on this forum relating Leica and particularly M cameras to various automobile manufacturers and specific cars. In the case of the referenced E. Puts "Tao of Leica" article and Saab, I think he is incorrect and that Porsche and the venerable 911 series is a far more apt comparison in a number of respects.

For more than four decades the brilliant but idiosynchratic Porsche 911 has continuously evolved and has been refined to reach a state of near perfection. In the perception of both Porschephiles and the general public, it is the quintessential Porsche and arguably the most successful sports car of all time. Introduced in the mid sixties and based on the pioneering work of Ferdinand Porsche dating to the thirties, it long ago became the longest running, continuously in production model in the world.

By the seventies Porsche publicly recognized the limitations of the inherently obtuse rear engined layout. In a mistaken attempt to eventually replace the 911 model it invested heavily in the development and introduction of the more contemporary and conventional 924 and 928 models. Despite undeniable competence as automobiles, neither were ever totally accepted by the buying public and ultimately were both discontinued. They simply did not have the subjectively compelling DNA of the 911 and its rear engined ancestors.

Meanwhile the 911 soldiers on, the beneficiary of unremitting Porsche engineering efforts to tame some of its quirky-even diabolical characteristics. It has become slightly bigger, significantly heavier and a lot more complex. It also costs about 12 times as much today as when it was introduced. It is still unmistakably and uniquely a Porsche 911. Sound familiar?

I am heartened to learn that Porsche Consulting has been retained by Leica. I think what Porsche clearly learned is that they very much needed to preserve those characteristics that made them initially successful. The essence of a Porsche 911 is as compellingly present today as it was in 1964 despite enormous strides in performance and refinement. I trust Leica will be able to do the same with the M series-perhaps with a little help from their friends at Porsche.