Jump to content

Making a M10 Macro & Telphoto friendly - a modern Viso or whatever

Guest BigSplash

By Guest BigSplash
in Digital Forum

Recommended Posts

rosuna

rosuna

Posted
Posted

Advertisement (gone after registration)

It seems we agree on this......so how does Leica address life after M9?

 

It is a good question.

 

Digital cameras have a business life of two to three years, at most. Then, a set of new features or incremental improvements are incorporated to the new model. So, Leica will be under great pressure if they try to expand the life of their products more than two or three years.

 

The M8 and M9 seem to have more problems, because those cameras don't resist 3 years of sustained sales. I think the problem is in the price, and features/performance.

 

Leica's offering needs some adjustments. The M cameras has to reduce the price, and incorporate some standard technologies that photographers consider are basic features, which do not erode the classical M concept. Live view, GPS positioning and referencing (automatic reference based on "places"), Wifi transfer, faster response, less power consumption, better image quality (specially when you increase the ISO)... The price of the body has to be more affordable (the body is only a part of a system, and the profit is related to the system), more reliable (better quality control in the factory), and the technical service faster. All those elements don't preclude the necessity of regular "updates", but it would allow "normal" product cycles (for a top or "pro" product).

 

.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 212
  • Created
  • Last Reply
stunsworth

stunsworth

Posted
Posted
Are you saying that shutter priority is available (ie R lens diaphragm closes up / down with the motors that it does not have) That is what I meant. by auto exposure..as opposed to aperture priority which it obviously does have.

 

No they don't support shutter priority in the way you describe - except wide open of course - but then neither would the old Telyt lenses you promoted so enthusiastically earlier in this thread.

 

The current M range doesn't support shutter priority either, though I'm sure most people would recognise that as an auto exposure camera, or are you saying that the M8/9 aren't an auto exposure camera?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest BigSplash

Guest BigSplash

Posted
Posted
Trust Leica to have at least some thinking power. Do you seriously entertain the thought that there is nothing going on regarding a future successor to the M9?:confused:

And, as a former CEO do you seriously expect a company to announce their thoughts on future product strategy to all and sundry -including the competition- years in advance?:rolleyes:

And do you seriously think that Solms is the capital of Wolkenkuckucksland where evil visoflexes are hatched?:eek:

 

Btw, it is intereasting to see that your sources are so reliable that you seem to think that there were only 2000 M8-2s sold - I think there are more on this forum alone....

 

Jaapv what is amasing that it seems you and others have no client driven input as to what you would like to see Leica do to protect their M business. Worse:

  • You said earlier that you will need to see something exceptional before you would buy a M10 as you feel the M9 is already excellent and meets your needs.
  • What can you do to an M10 to make it suddenly attractive...
    • Add waterproof seals ..NO! That will not accept old M lenses
    • Restore the framecounter display but with a LED or OLED luminescent type....your idea I think. YES, but will that drive extra buyers? Will add more cost..Yes!
    • Have a door for the SDCard...Yes but will that drive extra buyers?
    • Use the Maestro chip and increase the buffer memory and improve continuous mode performance to match existing Canon and Nikon DSLR...Yes and it probably would be interesting and drive a few sales.
    • Change sensor to CMOS as it seems more readily available and offers potentially LiveView....Many would see that as a retrograde step! Would it therefore add or lower the sales?
    • Other...????

I have suggested a way to move the M into a real system camera without damaging the M classic product. You obviously and others do not agree so what would you suggest Leica R&D should be looking at as they beaver away on the M10.

Link to post
Share on other sites
jaapv

jaapv

Posted
Posted

Of course not - we are no camera designers- nor marketing professionals, nor are we privy to facts and figures known to Leica - so I realize that my "client driven input" would be pretty nonsensical - as some other input I could mention is. I will point out obvious fallacies, but I would never presume to tell Leica - or any other company- how to run their business.

Link to post
Share on other sites
stunsworth

stunsworth

Posted
Posted
What can you do to an M10 to make it suddenly attractive...

 

Ok, Jaap says he wouldn't be interested in one, but that's without knowing the new features, and even if Jaap doesn't buy one, so what? That doesn't mean the camera will be a failure.

 

Off the top of my head suggestions for changes would be...

 

Viewfinder - electronic framelines that are auto selected for an individual focal length when a coded lens is mounted, but retaining the frame line lever for previews of other focal lengths and the existing pairs for uncoded lenses. Frame lines would automatically adjust for parallax and focussing distance. Built in dioptre. Adjustable magnification

 

Sensor - 20-30% increase in pixel count, better performance at high ISOs, self cleaning system.

 

Electronics - faster processor, larger buffer, improved battery life.

 

Now not all of those may be possible, I'm not a camera/electronics designer, but I'd be willing to bet that for most people it would be more attractive than your proposal to re-introduce a 50+ year old accessory that never sold in large numbers.

Link to post
Share on other sites
giordano

giordano

Posted
Posted

Advertisement (gone after registration)

John I accept your point that a 18 to 200mm zoom if it is adequate for pros is going to kill a certain segment of the market for a Viso. Clearly these pros will buy a DSLR and permanently keep the zoom fitted.....why ever use any other lens if the quality is adequate?

 

I cannot believe how stupid you are pretending to be about this. However happy a photographer might be with an 18-200 as their regular lens, they'll need another lens any time they want something wider than 18mm, longer than 200mm, faster than f/3.5 (or f/5.6 at 200mm), capable of focusing closer than 1:2, or whatever. Is that hard to understand?

 

I also accept that a tilt- shift lens is a need for serious architectural photos. However I have doubts that a 35mm format is adequate either.

 

It's also a need for light-hearted architectural photos and - as I suggested before - for many other situations where one needs to control perspective and/or the precise placement of the plane of sharp focus. If the 35mm format wasn't adequate for 90 or 95% of these uses, pros wouldn't buy these lenses and I wouldn't be banging on about them.

 

My point, once again, is that not having tilt-shift lenses would (a) ensure that no pro who needed or thought they might need such a lens would commit to the M10+FrankoViso combination, and (B) signal to the world that the M10+FrankoViso was not to be a true professional system that - as you put it - would deliver the best of both the rangefinder and DSLR worlds.

Link to post
Share on other sites
jaapv

jaapv

Posted
Posted
Ok, Jaap says he wouldn't be interested in one, but that's without knowing the new features, and even if Jaap doesn't buy one, so what? That doesn't mean the camera will be a failure.

Quite - just look into the M8 forum and take note of the number of Leica enthusiasts who don't have an interest in buying an M9 - It didn't stop the M9 from being a success.
Link to post
Share on other sites
rosuna

rosuna

Posted
Posted

[*]What can you do to an M10 to make it suddenly attractive...

 

A reliable camera (no more problems with the electronics, the rangefinder calibration, etc.), fast response (new processor and motherboard), better LCD (more resolution and a low consumption technology, if possible), live view, CMOS sensor with good IQ at higher ISOs, electronic focus confirmation or an improvement in the focussing accuracy of the rangefinder by optomechanical means, lower energy consumption, more resolution in the sensor (24MP or so), an improved software with simple but more elegant menus (the look of the current ones is coarse), more resistant LCD cover, more resistant and recessed control buttons at the back of the camera, better finishes for the body (real chrome version on brass, or a magnesium shell like that of the S2 if you want "painted" versions), integrated GPS chip for georeferencing the pictures...

... and a price not higher than the current one...

 

To sum up, a really modern camera in terms of technology and finish... Competitive, versatile... full digital in concept...

 

I find the current body too fragile, and prehistoric in terms of electronics technology...

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest BigSplash

Guest BigSplash

Posted
Posted
A reliable camera (no more problem with electronics), fast response (new processor and motherboard), good LCD (a low consumption technology, if possible), live view, CMOS sensor with good IQ at higher ISOs, electronic focus confirmation or an improvement in focussing accuracy by optomechanical means, lower energy consumption, more resolution (24MP or so), an improved software with simple but more elegant menus, more resistant LCD cover, more resistant and recessed control buttons at the back of the camera, better finishes for the body (real chrome version on brass, or a magnesium shell like that of the S2)...

... and a price not higher than the current one...

 

To sum up, a really modern camera in terms of technology and finish...

 

I find the current body too fragile, and prehistoric in terms of electronics technology...

 

I agree with your list of issues with the M9 that need addressing and hopefully will be. I am not sure about CMOS sensor in terms of image quality as I understood the CCD sensor actually yields better images than its CMOS cousin. I do think that Leica will be forced towards a CMOS sensor due to technology supply issues at a reasonable price.

 

Now suppose all of the above happens ....and the price remains at £5K will that be a sustainable business for M10.

 

How do you get people to convert from DSLR in sufficient numbers at that price?

You are limited at least as follows:

  • No Autofocus
  • No auto diaphragm capability

I assume that LiveView avoids the need for a Viso (ie EVIL solution) and that then Leica bring out Macro, and Telephoto lenses to suit. Correct?

Such a package would attract many from DSLR I guess.

Link to post
Share on other sites
rosuna

rosuna

Posted
Posted
I am not sure about CMOS sensor in terms of image quality as I understood the CCD sensor actually yields better images than its CMOS cousin.

 

That is not true. It may be true at very low ISO values, but it is difficult to be sure about a substantial better IQ if the pixel pitch is the same. That is my particular impression. For instance, the DxO measures don't support that hypothesis either. The best CMOS sensors are as good as the CCDs of similar pixel pitch, and much, much better when you increase the ISO.

Link to post
Share on other sites
rosuna

rosuna

Posted
Posted
I

How do you get people to convert from DSLR in sufficient numbers at that price?

You are limited at least as follows:

  • No Autofocus
  • No auto diaphragm capability

I assume that LiveView avoids the need for a Viso (ie EVIL solution) and that then Leica bring out Macro, and Telephoto lenses to suit. Correct?

Such a package would attract many from DSLR I guess.

 

The point for Leica is not in getting many people from the DSLR world. A rangefinder camera is different. The AF, diaphragm, etc. belongs to the NDA of the M rangefinders. Many people buy a M rangefinder just because they like the feeling of those tools, without AF, auto diaphragm, etc. A DSLR user may buy a M camera and use both. The concept has to be interesting enough for potential customers (it is), AND these potential customers shouldn't find barriers: a price too high considering the performance/features.

 

The point is how to sustain a product three years in the market, and introduce changes only in an incremental way every 3 years. The M9 will not resist in the market 2 more years, even with minor changes... That is because it is presented as a top class product (accordingly expensive), but that is not true from a technical point of view.

Link to post
Share on other sites
andybarton

andybarton

Posted
Posted
Many people buy a M rangefinder just because they like the feeling of those tools, without AF, auto diaphragm, etc. A DSLR user may buy a M camera and use both.

 

That's exactly what I did, although from a film SLR as digital ones hadn't been invented.

 

Lots of people use both - or even more

 

Now, if there's any more bitching on this thread, it will be closed without further notice. Thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites
pgk

pgk

Posted
Posted
Does anyone else see this as a 'slow-motion car crash thread' where you know you should look away and never turn back but for some unfathomable reason you just can't and you keep on looking and looking? :o

 

Pete.

And the car just keeps on rolling.....and rolling.....and rolling.....and...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...