Double Negative Posted December 9, 2011 Share #401 Posted December 9, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) @ Olsen/Steve; I'd have to agree Steve - I know I like my Ms exactly because of their size, build and quality (body, lenses, image). I didn't buy them for "features." In fact, I relish in their simplicity and despise cameras with tons of menus and buttons. Mostly because I can't read them anymore without glasses... Besides, I have a Canon DSLR for that sort of stuff. I still prefer my Ms unless I need something specific the DSLR offers. Different tools and all that - and as long as there are different kinds of jobs, there will be different kinds of tools. This is such an oft-discussed topic... "The future of the M." Leica hasn't changed much about the M since 1954 and they're doing okay. I suspect an overnight change to keep up with the Joneses (who make their money by selling upgrade bodies by the thousands) won't matter much. As for the Breitling, yeah - $5k is "entry level." Especially in Lugano. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted December 9, 2011 Posted December 9, 2011 Hi Double Negative, Take a look here Video mode on future M . I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Ellie Posted December 9, 2011 Share #402 Posted December 9, 2011 I think Leica is outside all product life cycle theory - they have been selling Summicron 50 for thirty years Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olsen Posted December 9, 2011 Share #403 Posted December 9, 2011 I have to disagree on both counts. I can't think of anyone I know who's bought a Leica because it had a similar feature set to a top end Canon or Nikon. My experience is that they buy the cameras because they prefer a small rangefinder to a large SLR. The important thing being it's a rangefinder, not an SLR, not an EVF. This is Leica's USP. Lose that and the company will fade away. By rangefinder I mean the means of viewing the scene, it gives a totally different view of the world than looking through an SLR. A bit like the difference between looking through a pane of glass and looking down a tunnel. The important thing with a M9 is that it is compact and light compared to competition. - I also have a 1Ds III - so I know. Please note that I am suggesting obvious changes that 'have' to happen if the M-camera shall survive. Even: They will make the M-camera cheaper. Take the shutters. Ten years from now there won't be made any shutters anymore. Shall Leica make them themselves....? To what price? The price of a Breitling watch? C'm on! 'Live view' is the new thing within viewfinding. 'Everybody' uses them. Even phone users. If Leica can persuade their M-customers that live view works just as well as today's viewfinder - that just might save the M-camera... And it will work just as well. Even better! Then we can use M-cameras with long tele lenses with 100% accuracy. Think of that! Wonder if it is not the big SLRs that has now met a dead end... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted December 9, 2011 Share #404 Posted December 9, 2011 I think the assumption "shutters will no longer be made"is a rather rash assumption. I recall a similar thing in the 1950ies about car tires as Hovercrafts were introduced. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwilliamsphotography Posted December 9, 2011 Share #405 Posted December 9, 2011 Marc, Leica is already ultra expensive. What I am suggesting is 'how to cope with future competition'. By reducing cost and staying competitive. Leica can't 'just forget about Canon and Nikon'. They will be around. I have both a 1Ds III and a M9 and see the obvious advantages with the M9. First of all size, compactness and weight. Still with a comparable file quality compared to Canon (and Nikon). Despite lower pixel count the M9 produces files with just as much resolution as the 1Ds III. If not better. The M9 is the smallest full frame digital camera on the market; an excellent market position! There won't be a 36 million pixel Full Frame (24 x 36 mm) camera - ever. Max is somewhere around 23 million. to the price of drastically reduced low ISO properties etc. None of the modifications I mention will make the M-cameras larger or more expensive. - (Possibly with the exception of AF, - but may be even that might make the camera cheaper. Depending on how it is done) They will make the M-cameras lighter and cheaper to produce. The changes I suggest will have to come. to keep the cost down and to keep up with competition. To be a predictor, you first have to keep up Olsen. The first error is to underestimate the competition. Pretty strong indications that the A99 and even stronger indications that the Nikon D800, will both be FF 36 meg. Guess who makes the sensor? The first salvo over the bow is the A77, and NEX7 which do exist ... APSC @ 24 meg ... you do the FF math. So, "won't ever" ... becomes "pretty soon". Sony already has the next generation EVF in the NEX7, which means the follow-up is already being worked on for the NEX7n or NEX8. All of The NEX cameras take AF lenses which gets better/faster with every cycle of the NEX camera ... which is an incredibly fast rate of issue I might add. Plus, they take M lenses. This upstart Sony camera is fast becoming the Digital CL that everyone has clamored for. Leica has a choice, and which is the right choice is anyone's guess. However, IMO, IF they hang their hat on all the wiz-bang toys, it is highly likely it will be outdated before they can even deliver the first "new" M camera. If you enter the techno arena then that is how you will be evaluated, and Sony will win. Keep to your long-term positioning and you are less vulnerable to the winds of e-change ... image quality first and simplicity as the watchword. I think their premium positioning should call for "future proofing" as opposed to "future following". Those in the know, know that for 35mm FF 18 or 24 meg is enough, so make those megs more high quality megs with quality monitoring and better firmware. When EVFs reach the level of unquestioningly out-performing the optical rangefinder ... only then consider it. In the meantime, add a step-less diopter correction to the existing rangefinder so people can actually see it better. Put a sync port on this camera for crying out loud. Make the cameras black and silver chrome again so they last. Increase the resolution and functionality of the LCD and add the sapphire screen like a premium product should already have, then make the warranty longer to back-up the premium status and reassurance. If you want to really see Premium in action ... look to the Medium Format Digital category. Almost every MFD innovation is made to fill a real need of the knowledgable user. Hasselblad solved the lack of an effective multi-point AF for MFD with True Focus APL, and further utilized their integrated manufacturing and software interface without changing the fundamental experiential base. Phase One leap frogged everyone with the real applied technology of their Sensor + pixel binning that expands the users ISO options, or their IQ backs that added a real high resolution, multi-functional LCD without altering the base quality experience at all. No CMOS there, No video ability, no EVF. Leica did a decent job entering the MFD category with the S2, which is basically an alternative (didn't exist) platform for premium lenses that help make it future proof ... and then went about making it better and better with improved firmware. There is a hint there IMO. -Marc Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Double Negative Posted December 9, 2011 Share #406 Posted December 9, 2011 ...'Live view' is the new thing within viewfinding. 'Everybody' uses them... It's nice, but I wouldn't want that to be my primary way of shooting. I prefer an optical finder that's bright, clear, doesn't require batteries or streams photons into my eyeball. It's more intuitive to shoot with the camera to your eye than down lower somewhere and staring at a screen. Same thing with EVFs, though at least you can shoot normally. Consider also that an optical finder won't affect your night vision and it's discreet. Finally - there's nothing stable about shooting with the camera at arm's length. Not saying that live view wouldn't be cool on the M. But the optical rangefinder is where it's at, IMO. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted December 9, 2011 Share #407 Posted December 9, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) I think the assumption "shutters will no longer be made"is a rather rash assumption. I recall a similar thing in the 1950ies about car tires as Hovercrafts were introduced. The Nikon J1 has no shutter and it may not be so long before a shutter is not needed in a larger sensor camera. I think the expression of what Leica shouldn't do from those who like the camera pretty much as is relates to their preferences and maybe cannot be extended beyond a relatively small market. Whereas Leica has already said they plan to expand the usefulness of the M and have expressed a desire to expand the user base. To that extent, Mr. Daniel's comments makes it look like they are considering all possibilities - AF, live view, EVF, video, etc. I agree with Marc that it will be tough to compete with Sony and perhaps others. (I too believe Sony will be the biggest player before long if they don't blow it.) Where I take issue with Marc is that Leica has previously fallen behind by not keeping up with the mainstream direction in cameras - SLR, AF, etc. And this left it a very small niche market that almost lead them to bankruptcy on a few occasions. So they may have institutional memory of this and don't want to repeat the mistakes of the past. I can't say if they can be a viable concern for the next 20 years or so with such a small market share. As I think that makes them even more vulnerable to the whims of their customers (who may not see a need to buy an M11 if it is not much different from an M10) and it may leave them too small to do the R&D needed to incorporate technology of the future. But this also does not mean that a camera in the tradition of the M will not be part of the Leica lineup for some time to come. Certainly a PC socket, diopter correction, and other improvements along those lines seem to be of obvious value. I also believe that resolution in the camera sensor can increase to the point where it gets all of the resolution from the best performing lens. Otherwise, the Nikon D800 with a 35mm f2 may be capable of capturing more detail at f8 than a Leica M9 with a much more expensive lens. (And have much better low light performance too.) So how will you justify that price? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olsen Posted December 9, 2011 Share #408 Posted December 9, 2011 I think the assumption "shutters will no longer be made"is a rather rash assumption. I recall a similar thing in the 1950ies about car tires as Hovercrafts were introduced. Jaap, Here I am not even 'predicting' what will happen in the future. 'Most' cameras sold today have no shutter... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olsen Posted December 9, 2011 Share #409 Posted December 9, 2011 It's nice, but I wouldn't want that to be my primary way of shooting. I prefer an optical finder that's bright, clear, doesn't require batteries or streams photons into my eyeball. It's more intuitive to shoot with the camera to your eye than down lower somewhere and staring at a screen. Same thing with EVFs, though at least you can shoot normally. Consider also that an optical finder won't affect your night vision and it's discreet. Finally - there's nothing stable about shooting with the camera at arm's length. Not saying that live view wouldn't be cool on the M. But the optical rangefinder is where it's at, IMO. I agree with you. But I am not at all sure that the future customer,- the guys shooting with IPhones today, will agree with us... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olsen Posted December 9, 2011 Share #410 Posted December 9, 2011 Marc, "Otherwise, the Nikon D800 with a 35mm f2 may be capable of capturing more detail at f8 than a Leica M9 with a much more expensive lens. (And have much better low light performance too.) So how will you justify that price?" This I want to see.. I do regular comparisons between my Canon 1Ds III (21 million pixels) and M9 (18 million pixels) with the wide range of lenses I have. Conclusion: M9 has no problem keeping up or even beat Canon IDsIII regarding resolution - up to 800ASA. On higher ISO settings that the Canon excelles through, most of all, excellent noise reduction software. It is important to notice that the new model Canon: the 1Dx will also have 'only' 18 million pixels. The first time Canon launches a new top-of-the-line camera with less pixels than the older one. This to meet customers expectation of high ISO performance and faster exposure series. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted December 9, 2011 Share #411 Posted December 9, 2011 The important thing with a M9 is that it is compact and light compared to competition No, equally important is the way that the world is viewed differently with a rangefinder compared to an SLR. An EVF camera merely presents an SLR view of the world albeit using different technology. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Double Negative Posted December 9, 2011 Share #412 Posted December 9, 2011 Who cares about shutters? I'm still waiting for my flying car that folds into a briefcase! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellie Posted December 9, 2011 Share #413 Posted December 9, 2011 Here's a hint; I just noticed the Leica M-system overview page has been rewritten the last weeks, and now focuses more on the mechanical rangefinder as far as I can see Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
janki Posted December 9, 2011 Share #414 Posted December 9, 2011 Leica abandoned the R- line, not because there was not a market, but because there was not a growing market for this system. With this business philosophy in the bottom, no one need worrying that Leica will stop producing rangefinder cameras. As long as there is a growing market for the M- camera and its lenses, the system will exist. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted December 9, 2011 Share #415 Posted December 9, 2011 Not just that, the R sstem never made money, only losses, and the R&D of the R9 brought Leica to the brink of disaster. They were not to repeat that scenario on the R 10. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted December 9, 2011 Share #416 Posted December 9, 2011 Marc, "Otherwise, the Nikon D800 with a 35mm f2 may be capable of capturing more detail at f8 than a Leica M9 with a much more expensive lens. (And have much better low light performance too.) So how will you justify that price?" This I want to see.. I do regular comparisons between my Canon 1Ds III (21 million pixels) and M9 (18 million pixels) with the wide range of lenses I have. Conclusion: M9 has no problem keeping up or even beat Canon IDsIII regarding resolution - up to 800ASA. On higher ISO settings that the Canon excelles through, most of all, excellent noise reduction software. It is important to notice that the new model Canon: the 1Dx will also have 'only' 18 million pixels. The first time Canon launches a new top-of-the-line camera with less pixels than the older one. This to meet customers expectation of high ISO performance and faster exposure series. What do you expect as there is so little difference between 18 and 21MP? However sharp edges are color aliased more with the Leica. And how does this justify the high cost of Leica lenses if resolution is one's main criteria? Time will tell but if the new D800 and other high MP count cameras to follow do not get more from the lenses than a 21-24MP sensor does, then tests will show it. (Potential for up to 25% higher resolution over 24MP) However, since the Nex7 is APS which is equal in pixel density to a full frame sensor of around 55 MP and it can accept various lenses, I think we know the answer already and there is a benefit that is easy to measure. I'd also bet that 21MP will not be the upper limit of Canon's cameras for much longer. Are you telling me that if a Leica lens works well on a Nex7 it would not be great on a 55MP full frame Leica? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwilliamsphotography Posted December 9, 2011 Share #417 Posted December 9, 2011 Marc, "Otherwise, the Nikon D800 with a 35mm f2 may be capable of capturing more detail at f8 than a Leica M9 with a much more expensive lens. (And have much better low light performance too.) So how will you justify that price?" This I want to see.. You are quoting someone else, I never said the above. -Marc Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted December 9, 2011 Share #418 Posted December 9, 2011 You are quoting someone else, I never said the above. -Marc He was quoting me addressing your earlier remarks. Confusing isn't it? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olsen Posted December 9, 2011 Share #419 Posted December 9, 2011 Who cares about shutters? I'm still waiting for my flying car that folds into a briefcase! Well, they cost money. And are noisy. And breaks down! Out with them! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwilliamsphotography Posted December 9, 2011 Share #420 Posted December 9, 2011 I agree with you. But I am not at all sure that the future customer,- the guys shooting with IPhones today, will agree with us... The folks shooting with iPhones today are Leica's future? Sony's future maybe, but Leica's? I wonder why Leica is building ultra swanky stores and boutiques in elite locations of major markets worldwide? Seems to be much more of a super upper-crust premium positioning with a heritage base, than a mass market product you can get from Best Buy. It would seem that this makes it clear that Canon, Nikon, and Sony are not Leica's competition. Barriers to price are ... and premium Brand exclusivity is how that barrier is overcome. -Marc Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.