photokina - Your Questions To Leica

[lct]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

...is leica company going to collapse if to day they say : Yes we will annonce a solution announced for R users !!!!

No but Leica is not alone most probably. If the 'R solution' is based on a third party's product, as expected, Leica's strategy depends on the latter's first of all.

[Advertisement]

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

[stunsworth]

If the 'R solution' is based on a third party's product, as expected, Leica's strategy depends on the latter's first of all.

 

Exactly. Leica have announced nothing because they have nothing to announce before the 3rd party releases _their_ camera.

[akarat]

an extremely great question !

You get my order, if it out for sale.

[eleskin]

I am holding off buying an M9 until a real chrome version comes out. For now, My M8 is serving me well with over 70,000 exposures and no breakdowns. I feel the M9 is an improvement over the M8, but not by a huge amount and certainly, $7,000 USD for a painted body is not what I want for my hard earned money. So please, please, Leica, offer a real chrome version at $7,000 USD. I would even pay $7,500 USD for real chrome, but for God sake, give the loyal customer more choices for this kind of money (M9 a-la carte please!!!).

[shootinglulu]

28 Lux PLEASE!

[leicanet]

R digital solution: +15

 

Will there ever be a possibility of a digital M with AF? minus 4 or 5

[Mike Rawcs]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The Leica M Viewfinder/Rangefinder design is more than 50 years old.

 

Lenses wider than 28mm (some would say 35mm) require an auxiliary finder. Lenses longer than 50mm (and the fastest 50mm lenses too) benefit from a viewfinder magnifier. The majority of Leica M lenses are not supported by the M camera "out of the box". Further, there's no built-in diopter correction and the eyepiece diameter is smaller than, for example, the Nikon D3/D3s/D3x which provide much better eye-comfort.

 

Is the existing viewfinder/rangefinder all we are ever going to get from Leica? With new design techniques and materials unavailable 50 years ago, why hasn't Leica addressed some of the limitations of the existing finder?

 

I second the above. Entirely.

[hoppyman]

Is the current Summilux 50 ASPH lens design still continuing?

Is there indication on when stock may be available once more?

[Ronazle]

Let jump onto the improved sensor (speed wise) bandwagon. I doubt very much if I will buy an M9 or M10 unless something is done to make it a viable available light machine. I find it very frustrating to get sometimes adequate available light photos while a colleague next to me with a Canon or Nikon is cranking them out faster than I can talk. Leica is supposed to be the benchmark for such cap[abilities. Currently, when I really need substantial available light capabilities I use an M3 with pushed Tri-X and one of the later great Leica lenses.

[erl]

Let jump onto the improved sensor (speed wise) bandwagon. I doubt very much if I will buy an M9 or M10 unless something is done to make it a viable available light machine. I find it very frustrating to get sometimes adequate available light photos while a colleague next to me with a Canon or Nikon is cranking them out faster than I can talk. Leica is supposed to be the benchmark for such cap[abilities. Currently, when I really need substantial available light capabilities I use an M3 with pushed Tri-X and one of the later great Leica lenses.

Ronazle, I am somewhat perplexed by your observation that you would not buy (use) an M8/9 for available light work, yet you persist with an M3 film camera and pushed Tr-X!

 

Have you actually tried an M8/9 in similar conditions? It is a serious, not flippant question. My experience, I believe to be substantial, clearly demonstrates the digital version to be superior to the filmic Leica in such situations. Of course it depends on your expectation and the truth is they are different. 'Better' is only a personal evaluation.

 

Your comparison with Canon or Nikon seems a bit uneven, as you have explained it. You have rated the Canikons as 'faster' than your capabilities. If you are using an M3 against motor drives that has to be accepted! Comparing their images (digital) against an M3 (film) is very "oranges & apples".

 

To be fair, I believe you need to compare the whole scenario on a level playing field, which will be different for every occasion anyway. Included must be portability and ease of handling as well as image quality, speed of response, noticeability and .......if see my drift. It is always about more than pixels and noise and any other selective reference. It is about all together as a package.

 

For this reason the best choice will likely be a different camera on many different occasions. Hence, no camera is perfect. Choose your preferences wisely and accept the shortcomings that accompany them.

[menos I M6]

Ronazle, I am somewhat perplexed by your observation that you would not buy (use) an M8/9 for available light work, yet you persist with an M3 film camera and pushed Tr-X!

 

Have you actually tried an M8/9 in similar conditions? It is a serious, not flippant question. My experience, I believe to be substantial, clearly demonstrates the digital version to be superior to the filmic Leica in such situations. Of course it depends on your expectation and the truth is they are different. 'Better' is only a personal evaluation.

 

Your comparison with Canon or Nikon seems a bit uneven, as you have explained it. You have rated the Canikons as 'faster' than your capabilities. If you are using an M3 against motor drives that has to be accepted! Comparing their images (digital) against an M3 (film) is very "oranges & apples".

 

To be fair, I believe you need to compare the whole scenario on a level playing field, which will be different for every occasion anyway. Included must be portability and ease of handling as well as image quality, speed of response, noticeability and .......if see my drift. It is always about more than pixels and noise and any other selective reference. It is about all together as a package.

 

For this reason the best choice will likely be a different camera on many different occasions. Hence, no camera is perfect. Choose your preferences wisely and accept the shortcomings that accompany them.

 

Erl, this topic is one, that comes up every now and then. It does come up often because it seems a viable and favorite topic, "to criticize" an otherwise very capable (but expensive) camera system, especially from the perspective of people, who have bought less costly camera systems with exactly this one feature, being better, than with the digital Leicas (noise behavior in higher ISO speeds).

 

It also is brought up regularly by people, who use both systems - modern DSLRs and Leica digitals, be it professionally or in an all out amateur use.

 

I am one of the people, who use a (now already old) Nikon D3 with Nikons best fast lenses and a Leica digital M with some very fast lenses.

 

I for one mostly shoot in low light (evening and night), entirely handheld.

 

It indeed is a fact (unarguably so), that the Leica cameras do have an issue here, directly compared to the imagers of Nikon (and I suppose also Canon with their latest offerings).

I am not writing about the direct comparison of numerical ISO speeds, as Leica, Nikon, Canon, … do measure them differently, resulting in Leica's ISO values being more conservative, while in the higher speeds, Nikon values seem, to be off by 1/2 − 1 full stop.

 

In any case, I usually compare them by their light taking capabilities as a system camera.

I can compare a Leica M8.2 with a 90 f2 Summicron, shot at ISO2500 and lowest reasonable shutter speed with a Nikon D3 and 70-200 f2.8 zoom with image stabilisation.

 

The shutter speeds on both cameras, that net reasonably sharp images are about the same in general. Although the Leica lens is one stop faster, the Nikon DSLR has a clear edge in cleaner ISO speed, netting mostly one stop more light at minimum.

 

At minimum is stated, as the Nikon sensor indeed reacts quite differently to under exposure, where the Kodak sensor turns out pretty nasty quick.

 

I see one thing very often, when such a point is brought up.

If someone clearly focusses on the lack of high ISO capability of the Leica sensor, compared to todays SLR offerings, the discussion often floats away into a "system comparison", "SLR vs RF discussion", a "better actuation and sharpness with Leica discussion" and other nasties…

 

This is not right!

 

I use my Nikon for its wonderful sensor (and the advantages, the modern DSLR brings with it - very tough weather capabilities being another very strong argument here).

I do use my Leicas preferably, as I like shooting these compact, high quality lenses more, than the heavy beasts, a SLR brings with it.

 

I do seriously want a better sensor in the Leicas for high low light work.

 

And no - being able, to handhold a Leica @ 1/8 sec is no viable advantage over a D3.

And no - less weight and bulk is not at discussion here.

And no - we are not discussing the wonderful Leica lenses here, that I love as much, as anybody else, using a Leica.

 

This is only - and only about the one difference between the Kodak sensor and more recent sensor offerings from other camera makers - about nothing else.

 

The current Leica M9 does have an unarguable edge regarding noise over the M8. Nobody questions that.

For me, this edge over the M8 is not enough, to justify an upgrade.

If there will be a follow up model with capabilities as good as (the old) Nikon D3 at least the people, who seriously use their cameras at ISO speeds of ISO3200 and ISO6400 will be very satisfied.

 

The pondering about better high ISO DSLRs by other people will never stop, but Leica doesn't build cameras for online discussions by internet analysts, but rather cameras for users.

Bring on a new sensor generation Leica! I am happy, to buy a new digital M with one of these.

 

Last comment - I also do use pushed Tri-X @ ISO3200 and ISO6400 in a M7 and M6 over the M8.2.

I know what I get with these speeds. I know, what I get is more to my liking, than the output from my M8.2.

I think, that the difference in output form pushed Tri-X and M9 files would blow me away so much, that I happily shell out the asking price for an upgrade.

[Ronazle]

Erl, I'll try and address your points as I remember them. Please put them in the context that I have been using Leica's, off and on, since the early 1950's. I do have two M8's and a number of excellent Lenses.

 

First: I WOULD use a M9, but will not buy one. I am sure you follow the distinction.

 

I have been educated greatly by digital and its instant playback. I have learned how steady/unsteady I am; how important shutter speed and lack of vibration always are; and the criticalness of focus with fast and long lenses. I greatly value the digital revolution and all of the capabilities it has fostered in me and others. I have no hostility to digital.

 

In very low light my M3 is more likely to yield usable photos, albeit in black and white, than my M8. Part of this relates to shutter vibration and another part is due to the longer rangefinder base. I can always resort to Tri-X at EI 2400 and get a usable photo. I might add that assuming capabilities are maxed, the M8 will not yield a superior photo (ignoring the color aspect) for me. When light is better, the M8 performs well.

 

Very simply, my view is that the original candid camera (i.e., Leica) has somewhat hobbled itself by not using/developing a sensor capable of rendering an acceptable image at EI 2400. I freely admit that I have not used an M9, but doubt if it will deliver under these conditions (low light needing EI 2400). By all means, correct me If this last supposition is in error.

 

When this fundamental available light problem is solved, I will use (and buy) an M9, M10, or whatever. regards, ron

[erl]

Ronazle, I respect your assessment of your particular experience, and declare it is longer than mine, at least with Leicas. I must add that I have recently printed, at A2 size, images I shot in India (Delhi) last October using the M9 + Noctilux @ ISO 2500. The occasion was a street parade (night) celebration a wedding. I am blown away by the printed image quality. To me they look like a medium grain film shoot, but with mainly better detail in high & low light areas. A sort of cross between Tri-X and Delta 100.

 

You can see a small selection on my website (see below). Go to 'Play' and then 'Travel' and from there you can select the relevant images. Clearly, web based images bare little resemblance to 'actual' images, but you may get an idea of what I am 'preaching'.

 

I freely acknowledge the Canon and Nikon sensors are superior to Leica in the high ISO range, but, as I said above, it nearly always about more than one factor. When combined as a package of all factors, Leica suits my needs best at present, along with its downsides. It's a personal decision.

[vizzo]

Hello Andreas,

 

here are my questions:

 

1. The M viewfinder: On the analog models there were 0,58 0.72 and 0.85 viewfinder possibilities. Why is this not possible for the M9? Will be this solution possible in the future or maybe through leica a la carte? the actual viewfinder is in my experience very inaccurate. I mean, I can't expect 100% precision due to it's a RF but the analogue models were more accurate

 

2. Leica has 4! 24 lenses. What about a summilux model for the 28? the 28 is the new 35 in photo journalism specially for indoor work. I don't think that journalists wnat to run around with an external viewfinder.

 

3.Although the m8 is obsolete Leica has written by anouncement of the M8 "an investment for the future". I would expect that firmware will be coming. And I hope that one of the firmwares will give the oportunity to use the back wheel to control under/overexposure as it is the case for the M8.2 and M9

 

4. What about a M with a CMOS sensor? it could be a possibilty to improve the noise. Maybe the sharpness is being reduced but many people would have both options aviable. It could a special cmos sensor for only black and white. Leica always want to do the things differently. This would be something

 

Thank you very much in advance for taking the time

 

David

[filiatrix]

+7

 

It is truly a shame that Leica left us with a lot of good R-lenses without a digital camera up to their standard to use them with.

[gdb]

I quite agree with Filiatrix

 

Whatever the reasons, it is really very sad to see that in fact the good financial situation of Leica has been acquired at the cost of sacrificing the R-line and therefore at the cost of those naïve R-users who have been trusting such an unfaithful and disrespectful company.

 

Not even one of my cents will go to Leica's pocket unless they repair this offence

 

Gérard

[stunsworth]

Whatever the reasons, it is really very sad to see that in fact the good financial situation of Leica has been acquired at the cost of sacrificing the R-line and therefore at the cost of those naïve R-users who have been trusting such an unfaithful and disrespectful company.

 

So would you have been happier if Leica had developed the R10, lost a lot of money, and gone out of business?

[andybarton]

Leica owe R users _nothing_, IMHO.

 

I too was disappointed when the R10 was cancelled, but I understood exactly why, and I moved on. I did not take this personally, nor do I see it as disgraceful behaviour.

 

Leica might possibly not even be here at all if they'd continued down that route. Who knows?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Sausalito]

Why does the X1 restrict RAW shooters to RAW + jpg?

 

Is there likely a firmware update coming that will enable RAW only as an option?

 

This is a "feature" that adds an enormous waste of time in workflow (over a long period of time), spoiling an otherwise outstanding photo experience!

 

thanks,

 

tom

[Hythe]

Why does the X1 restrict RAW shooters to RAW + jpg?

 

Is there likely a firmware update coming that will enable RAW only as an option?

 

This is a "feature" that adds an enormous waste of time in workflow (over a long period of time), spoiling an otherwise outstanding photo experience!

 

thanks,

 

tom

I agree. I want RAW on its own. It's all we want to work with.