The Magical Leica R .

[bill]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

That's a splendid idea, thank you Pete and Noel... I shall put out the mince pie, a carrot for Rudolf and of course an R-mount lens waiting for a digital body

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[miami91]

That's a splendid idea, thank you Pete and Noel... I shall put out the mince pie, a carrot for Rudolf and of course an R-mount lens waiting for a digital body

 

Regards,

 

Bill

 

Is the carrot for Rudolf the red nosed reindeer or Rudolf the red nosed CEO?

 

Jeff.

[Advertisement]

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

[bill]

:D:D

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[thebarnman]

That as the whole idea of Project AFRika. (Do a search)

 

The market for a digital R is too small for the investment to make any return so it was canned. Those above calling for all sorts of kludges to V-Luxes etc must be aware that R lenses can already be used very successfully on three different _full frame_ dSLRs.

 

That being the case, then I would think it would still be profitable for Leica to update their wider angle R lenses. Such as the 35mm and 24mm lens to perform like their M series cousins of the same focal lengths.

[andybarton]

Leica cannot make lenses for Japanese body manufacturers and the market for people to buy NEW lenses, then immediately change the mount, must be incredibly small.

[thebarnman]

Leica cannot make lenses for Japanese body manufacturers and the market for people to buy NEW lenses, then immediately change the mount, must be incredibly small.

 

I think you may have misunderstood what I was trying to say. What I'm saying is if there is a ready market of digital cameras from different manufacturers that can accept Leica R lenses, I think it would be in Leica's best interest to make sure their R series of lenses are up to date like their M series lenses are.

 

At least as far as I would know, there would be no reason to change the mount. I'm simply talking about R lenses.

[miami91]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I think you may have misunderstood what I was trying to say. What I'm saying is if there is a ready market of digital cameras from different manufacturers that can accept Leica R lenses, I think it would be in Leica's best interest to make sure their R series of lenses are up to date like their M series lenses are.

 

At least as far as I would know, there would be no reason to change the mount. I'm simply talking about R lenses.

 

The market he speaks of consists of cameras that can accept R lenses via adapter, adapters that either attach rather easily (R to EOS, R to 4/3), or that require significant and near permanent conversion (Leitax). In both cases, functionality is quite dumbed down, with stop-down metering, often flawed auto exposure, no recording of EXIF (unless your adapter has a finicky dandelion chip), and in the case of 4/3, a doubling of the focal length. Who's going to spend several thousands of dollars on new R lenses for this experience?

 

I think it's safe to say that those of us that use our R lenses on non-Leica dSLRs (a Canon 5D2 in my case) do so because we already own the glass and/or continue to use our film Rs and enjoy a digital option, not because we make a conscious decision to purchase a Leica lens over the alternatives (Canon, Voigtlander, Zeiss, etc.) that offer full compatibility with the camera body.

 

Best,

 

Jeff.

[bill]

That being the case, then I would think it would still be profitable for Leica to update their wider angle R lenses. Such as the 35mm and 24mm lens to perform like their M series cousins of the same focal lengths.

 

...based upon what logic...?

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[andybarton]

 

At least as far as I would know, there would be no reason to change the mount. I'm simply talking about R lenses.

 

If you put the R glass on a Canon, you can use an intermediate adaptor, but for Nikon and Sony you need to physically remove and replace the mount.

 

I have done this with my R glass and it works extremely well on a Nikon full frame body.

[Xmas]

...based upon what logic...?

 

Regards,

 

Bill

Hi Bill

 

Please explain what has logic got to do with it, this is wish upon a star, thinking.

 

Noel

[bill]

Ah, splendid... my point in a nutshell. Thank you Noel.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[thebarnman]

Based on what andybarton mentioned about certain non Leica cameras using R lenses and the fact that there are M users who buy upgraded lenses for use with their older M cameras. I would think the same would be true of R users. Particularly with the 35mm and 24mm R lenses.

[andybarton]

The reason why Leica stopped making the R line is because they were losing money hand over fist. The Market wasn't there for updated lenses then and it certainly isn't worth the investment now.

 

The M line is a whole system, dating back over 55 years. Lenses work just as well on M3s as they do on M9s. So there's no reason why owners of old Ms shouldn't buy new lenses.

[Xmas]

Based on what andybarton mentioned about certain non Leica cameras using R lenses and the fact that there are M users who buy upgraded lenses for use with their older M cameras. I would think the same would be true of R users. Particularly with the 35mm and 24mm R lenses.

 

Well there has been a M lens shortage all year because Leica have diverted production staff to making M9s instead, some M9 people have had to buy CV or ZM lenses, or older Leica lenses

 

Many film camera users have also had to buy CV or ZM lenses, or older Leica lenses.

 

This damages Leica a lot they are selling bodies but people are buying 3rd party lenses. A fraction of these people may may stay with their non Leica lenses.

 

It would not be rational for Leica to divert further or any resources away from M lens production, they need to try and retain a large % share of the M mount lens sales.

 

Simplistically Rs did not sell as well as M9s.

 

Noel

[AlanG]

The reason why Leica stopped making the R line is because they were losing money hand over fist. The Market wasn't there for updated lenses then and it certainly isn't worth the investment now.

 

The M line is a whole system, dating back over 55 years. Lenses work just as well on M3s as they do on M9s. So there's no reason why owners of old Ms shouldn't buy new lenses.

 

Yes, the M has a unique appeal that R lenses for another system would not have. At one time, I was looking for better wide angle lenses to use on the Canon system. Then Canon came out with the new 17 and 24 TS-E lenses which met my needs. Canon and Nikon are both working at improving their glass. Besides optical performance, AF and IS would be required for some lenses to be competitive today.

 

The shot below is a distortion test of the $2050 17 TS-E. The lens has lots of other great characteristics. So it demonstrates what is possible. I can't believe it would be worth Leica's efforts to try to improve upon it. And what would it end up costing... $8,000+? (Schneider is also making a line of tilt shift lenses for 35mm, but they are expensive and didn't look too appealing to me when I handled them last month.) From my perspective, I'm covered with the TS-E lenses for quality and the wide angle zooms for convenience. Alternatively, small, sharp, and fast wide angles for the M will have a place even if the small size necessitates some compromises in distortion and vignetting.

 

I think Leica's future is to continue to make unique products that can fulfill a lucrative small niche market. The R was an attempt to compete in a segment that was being well met by several others. And it will be much harder to compete in that market today.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Edited November 22, 2010 by AlanG

[janki]

Because of the large number of M lenses that are sold over the years, it was obviously a market for the digital FF M9.

 

The big question now, is whether Leica in essentially can base its future in the merciless "digital world", with the M9 camera system as their main product.

 

Is it in any extent, possible to attract new customers who are not already users of the M system?

Will it still be possible to sell very many M9 cameras in 2011?

 

I reckon as a fact, that the vast majority, who want a M9 camera, has now acquired one.

 

None of the Japanese camera manufacturers are currently able to deliver what must be defined as compact FF DSLR / EVIL cameras.

 

They continue to send shipments of its large, heavy, high-performance "FF DSLR containers" to the market.

 

I cannot free myself from the thought that Leica could have had an attractive niche product, if they could have offered a compact FF DSLR / EVIL camera system.

 

But, maybe the technology has not reached that level yet, in which makes it possible to produce such a camera system.

[AlanG]

I cannot free myself from the thought that Leica could have had an attractive niche product, if they could have offered a compact FF DSLR / EVIL camera system.

 

But, maybe the technology has not reached that level yet, in which makes it possible to produce such a camera system.

 

Yes, they may not have the technology and the resources to make the "camera system of the future" that they want. I think some kind of EVIL camera system will be in their future someday. Whether it is APS or FF, I can't say. There is a large base of M users and the M9 will eventually be replaced by an M10 and that will sell well to those same users and some new ones. As long as Leica can keep selling $2000 cameras such as the X1, they'll do OK. (This must be a pretty profitable camera.)

Edited November 23, 2010 by AlanG

[Xmas]

Hi

 

I think (and it is received wisdom) that a larger % of M9 purchasers are new to Leica than was the case for M8. This also explains the shortage of lenses, they get a body are used to kit zooms, but buy several fixed instead...

 

Leica can afford to delay mentioning a M9-2 or M10 until the panic dies down, and they need to offer a cash back, to clear dealer stocks.

 

Noel