mjh Posted December 11, 2011 Share #461 Posted December 11, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) What Olsen is saying is that following launch of desirable flagship cameras there was positive step change in sales/profits. While that isn’t really what he was saying (he actually downplayed this effect), it is certainly correct. Professional DSLRs help a lot in selling the much more profitable low-end models. That’s a well-known fact in the industry. And still vendors such as Sony or Pentax are reluctant to enter the professional DSLR market. Sony at one point looked like they wanted to compete with Canon and Nikon, only to shirk back from the attempt when their FF models were ready. The Alpha900 and Alpha850 were marketed as cameras for the amateur market. Yes, it would help a lot to be known as a supplier of professional cameras and equipment, but trying to break into that market would be a costly and risky endeavor. Sony has realized it probably wouldn’t be worth the effort (they appear to be doing fine regardless) and Pentax never even tried – even the medium format 645D is aimed squarely at the amateur market. Leica decided against such an effort when they canned the R10 project. Leica’s professional offering is the S2 and extending that system should keep them busy for quite some time. But there is also an amateur market to cater for and it isn’t fully served with the M and the X1, so there are some opportunities for increasing market share. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted December 11, 2011 Posted December 11, 2011 Hi mjh, Take a look here Video mode on future M. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Olsen Posted December 11, 2011 Share #462 Posted December 11, 2011 Just please don't say I should be interested as it may increase my financial wealth, I don't think it would make much difference People do so much strange with their savings. Like investing on stock funds (let some guy fill in the horse bets for you, - for a fee...). Then it is better to do the job oneself. I saved in shares for some years and tried to invest in companies I knew someting about. Through my business - or otherwise. This was the origins of my original interest in 'the annual reports of Canon, Nikon etc' I never did invest in any of them, though, by coincidence. I went out of shares in 2006. A decision I don't regret. Now I am a pensionnaire - so I am spending. Not saving. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted December 11, 2011 Share #463 Posted December 11, 2011 But there is also an amateur market to cater for and it isn’t fully served with the M and the X1, so there are some opportunities for increasing market share. Is the V-lux 3 invisible or just too obviously a Panasonic to fill that niche? ...or does it really exist at all? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
vanhulsenbeek Posted December 11, 2011 Share #464 Posted December 11, 2011 ....... Video just might be a 'must' to recruit younger customers. - We don't like it - but they do... And, really: Video? - No big deal.Then it is AF. My opinion is that Leica should go for it on their M-series cameras.... Not necessarily. Careful video shooting can do without AF. For AF, I will use my Iphone 4s Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjh Posted December 11, 2011 Share #465 Posted December 11, 2011 Is the V-lux 3 invisible or just too obviously a Panasonic to fill that niche? I think that segment (compact cameras with small sensors) is well served with the Panaleica models. I don’t quite see Leica entering this market themselves. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olsen Posted December 11, 2011 Share #466 Posted December 11, 2011 It seems it is creating the right buzz in the market that works for any manufacturer, makes sense. So maybe M9 or D3 or 1D are not most profitable per unit but it helps a great deal to shift other stuff. That could well be, but I don't think that the fantastic lift in turnover and result of Nikon in 2006/07/08 was a result of just a 'buzz'. The reason was that Nikon launched what their very faithful customers wanted: FF-DSLR (the D3 in 2006 and the D3x and D700 in 2007). - Nikon hadn't had a full frame product since the film days. - And that huge sales of FF-DSLR cameras also triggered sales of lenses etc. A huge demand had been built up. All this gave a higher turnover and result. Much higher! If all this FF-DSLR bonanza gave more sales of, say, Nikon PS camera, - I don't know. PS cameras play no important part in any of the camera producers annual results. That's a myth. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olsen Posted December 11, 2011 Share #467 Posted December 11, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) Not necessarily. Careful video shooting can do without AF. For AF, I will use my Iphone 4s Sure. Both you and I can make without AF - and video. But will the future Leica customer? ...I don't even have a Iphone. Too rich for my blood. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sp12 Posted December 11, 2011 Share #468 Posted December 11, 2011 I'm afraid I must disagree. Digital sensors of, say, 24 megapixels for FF are just about at their limit for a number of reasons. I predict a maximum effective or acceptable limit of 40 megapixels, and the improvement will not be linear, but only a fraction better and barely detectable for sensors of the same size. I can't think of any. I certainly have several F/2 and faster lenses that can resolve ~200MP FF equivalent densities wide open in the center. I agree that today's lenses are the limiting factor, and doubling the MP of the same sensor size will show no improvement whatsoever.[... snip agreements ...] Wrong. Bining (or Binning) is the term we used when combining data point translations into a single unit (pixel). Sometimes a lower pixel output looks sharper, depending upon the shape, contrast and there are factors rarely discussed: we see things the eye does not really detect. Consider a human hair on a white wall. You can see it at ten feet, however a dot of the same width is invisible. There are other examples and considerations, too.K, but I'd rather have the detail captured in any event and given the choice to bin than have it aliased ala the current M9 or lost entirely ala current AA smashed DSLRs. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted December 12, 2011 Share #469 Posted December 12, 2011 I can't think of any. I certainly have several F/2 and faster lenses that can resolve ~200MP FF equivalent densities wide open in the center. According to Erwin Puts ( page 352) anything over 80 Lp/mm is irrelevant. Zeiss even arrives at a maximum of 40 Lp/mm as the limit of meaningful photographic resolution. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mmradman Posted December 12, 2011 Share #470 Posted December 12, 2011 According to Erwin Puts ( page 352) anything over 80 Lp/mm is irrelevant. Zeiss even arrives at a maximum of 40 Lp/mm as the limit of meaningful photographic resolution. Dare I say 22MP for full frame (24x36mm) sensor. It is usually marketing gimmickry that creates wants and help to sell especially in saturated market. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted December 12, 2011 Share #471 Posted December 12, 2011 Sounds about right to me. Between 18 and 24 is in the sweet spot. Anything more will generate noise without benefit.( except of course for the marketing Brownie points ) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted December 12, 2011 Share #472 Posted December 12, 2011 I would bet dollars to donuts that few people here can truly see a difference in quality great enough to justify the very next great lens or FF sensor of greater pixel counts. That's not really why many buy Leicas. And I say that with respect. I agree with this but since when are many things in cameras justifiable by how they are used by most people? How many p&s cameras need 14-16MP but they have them and how many people typically get the most out of their current gear or need better? But camera companies always want to sell you the latest and greatest whether that is more pixels or a slight update to a lens design. And there are always some amateurs who are fanatics that buy expensive digital MF gear or shoot on large format film that will want even a tiny bit more of... whatever. For instance I hear some stereo music enthusiasts pay a lot for special cables. And how many people need a car that can go 200 MPH especially a 70 year old friend of mine who buys high end sports cars. Leica claims to have some of the best resolving lenses on the market so I think they should make sure that they aren't leaving any resolution on the table by not keeping up with sensor and processing technology... even if most people don't need it. And once Nikon, Sony, Canon, or Leica increase the pixel count, the others will follow if they can. Do you think Leica wouldn't have introduced the M8 several years ago with the only 36MP FF sensor and fast processor if it was available to them and they would have had a huge pixel count and resolution advantage over everyone else? I just don't see how the pixel race will come to an end as long as a manufacturer can show any benefit and the trade off vs. high ISO is acceptable to enough buyers. Since the D3X and the 5DII are about double the pixel count over the first 1Ds with improved high ISO noise, I think another doubling is possible within a few years. If a really good full frame lens used on a Nex 7 can be shown to resolve any more detail than it does on a D3X, that will pretty much confirm the advantage in resolution possible by going to a 55MP full frame sensor. Even if this does not make sense for most users. I do believe this is a case of diminishing returns but when has that stopped manufacturers or buyers of all kinds of things? This includes $4,000 lenses that may also need to be used in very carefully controlled ways to show significantly detectable differences in resolution from a $500 lens. The 200+ megapixel idea is from Ren Ng of what he hopes to see someday for high res Lytro cameras. I'm still impressed by many of the 2MP images I shot with my first digital camera. I won't replace my girlfriend's 3MP camera despite her wanting more MPs because it is more than enough for her needs despite what she thinks, And I am happy to use an "old" 7 MP p&s for many of my personal and vacation shots because I understand that it too is adequate for those applications. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sp12 Posted December 12, 2011 Share #473 Posted December 12, 2011 According to Erwin Puts ( page 352) anything over 80 Lp/mm is irrelevant. Zeiss even arrives at a maximum of 40 Lp/mm as the limit of meaningful photographic resolution. You mean, test methodology designed for analogue film doesn't really apply to modern imaging? Clearly 80LP/mm matters when we're still sensor limited by 55MP full frame densities with even moderately good lenses and technique. At the very least I want more MP for the increased sampling rate and therefore better noise performance. At the other end I can see myself cropping significantly for different compositions and I have serious applications (several times a year) where I need more than 100 MP (that's where I rent the Phase Ones and make due with 80). This is all ignoring the future of light field cameras. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted December 12, 2011 Share #474 Posted December 12, 2011 Sounds about right to me. Between 18 and 24 is in the sweet spot. Anything more will generate noise without benefit.( except of course for the marketing Brownie points ) That's what they said about 11-12 MP and some pro cameras are still in this range. But don't discount the influence of the people in marketing even at Leica. And MF has gone from 39 MP to 80MP fairly quickly and that surely stresses many lenses and perhaps requires new ones. I know one guy who got the Phase One IQ180 and he said he had to buy the new Rodenstock lenses to get the most out of it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjh Posted December 12, 2011 Share #475 Posted December 12, 2011 That's what they said about 11-12 MP and some pro cameras are still in this range. But don't discount the influence of the people in marketing even at Leica. Why complain about marketing when people are clamouring for more megapixels even here in this thread? Who cares that it doesn’t make much sense? Give people numbers and they will ask for more. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted December 12, 2011 Share #476 Posted December 12, 2011 Why complain about marketing when people are clamouring for more megapixels even here in this thread? Who cares that it doesn’t make much sense? Give people numbers and they will ask for more. True. Way back when I worked in a camera store and Schneider had a big sale. I had a wealthy customer who liked to shoot large format and I told him about the sale and asked if he wanted any new lenses. He said he wanted "all of them." I remember that he used to shoot 8x10 color transparency family snapshots using a huge Linhof tripod and camera. He collected Linhof gear. It taught me that there are all kinds of ways to pursue an interest in photography. As a budding architectural shooter I was very envious and was only able to afford the $150 for just one of his old Symmar convertibles that he was replacing with the new stuff. 36 years later, I still have that lens and can remember how important it was to me at the time. And now that I shoot for a living I can justify the tiny improvement that could come from a new camera or lens because I will use it. But I'm not sure if any of my clients will see it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted December 12, 2011 Share #477 Posted December 12, 2011 You mean, test methodology designed for analogue film doesn't really apply to modern imaging? Clearly 80LP/mm matters when we're still sensor limited by 55MP full frame densities with even moderately good lenses and technique. At the very least I want more MP for the increased sampling rate and therefore better noise performance. At the other end I can see myself cropping significantly for different compositions and I have serious applications (several times a year) where I need more than 100 MP (that's where I rent the Phase Ones and make due with 80). This is all ignoring the future of light field cameras. Better sampling has NOTHING to with better low (shadow) performance FF '35mm' but of course matters in larger sensors with larger pixels. let it not mix up our thread where I have already posited larger pixel wells with better shadow performance. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sp12 Posted December 12, 2011 Share #478 Posted December 12, 2011 I'm not sure what your argument is. All things equal more pixels means better high-ISO performance at the same reproduction size. Shadow noise is influenced most heavily by sensor-generated noise (though shot is a big factor as well), which improves with every generation of sensors and every generation of improved lithography. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted December 12, 2011 Share #479 Posted December 12, 2011 I'm not sure what your argument is. All things equal more pixels means better high-ISO performance at the same reproduction size. Shadow noise is influenced most heavily by sensor-generated noise (though shot is a big factor as well), which improves with every generation of sensors and every generation of improved lithography. Your optimism regarding boosting shadow detail and at the same time not over modulating highlights and mid-tones is not shared by any except the HDR multiple exposure enthusiasts. Shadows do not benefit significantly by boosting ISO. It just makes them noiser. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
reventlow Posted December 12, 2011 Share #480 Posted December 12, 2011 An M Leica is a wonderful tool and near perfect for what it is. You want a video camera get one, they do their job well. Please leave video, auto focus and other "improvements" out of the M Leica. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.