Did Leica Management Learn Anything?

[wildlightphoto]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Doug, what's the alternative? Stay and plead/beg/whine/cry? Surely there's a next best thing or else, I'm assuming you still have your R8/9 that gives you the image quality of an APO-Telyt + DMR and allows you to focus anywhere in the field of view without using the failed Focus-Lock-Recompose kludge to one that dictates your compositions with focus "points", no?

 

The DMR isn't going to last forever, even with the user-supported battery solution. Some day it will no longer be serviceable/repairable, and I'd like an upgrade path for my APO lenses that involves more than putting them on a tripod and taking my time to photograph pretty flowers or sunsets. They're much more capable than that. A possible solution that fully uses the lens' capabilities has been discussed many times on this forum, I shouldn't have to repeat it here, and it's fully compatible with Leica's last statements on an R solution. A mount conversion that give the lens 1950s capabilities to use a downgraded sensor in a camera with a kludge viewfinder isn't an upgrade path.

[Advertisement]

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

[andybarton]

The only thing that you are missing by converting to a Nikon mount (in my experience) is the auto-diaphragm.

 

If you _can_ live with that, there are some highly capable alternatives out there.

 

Some sort of 4/3 or APS, EVIL Live View nonsense isn't even going to come close to a DMR, of course, but a Pro Nikon most certainly will, given my caveat above.

[stevelap]

I think efftee is missing the point here, regarding the expressed ire of R users. Perhaps not surprising, since he joined the forum post photokina '08.

 

That Leica decided they wouldn't make a DSLR R10 and so moved on to the S system is, of course, entirely their business. Having made that decision though, they went on to say to the R community, at photokina '08, something along the lines of 'don't worry, their will be a future solution for using your R lenses although it probably won't be solely Leica designed and built'.

Since then two years have passed without anything further being said on the subject and it is that, more than anything, which irks R people so much.

 

Plans change of course, and it may now be that the only solution there is ever going to be involves the use of the official PanaLeica 4/3rds adaptor, along with the unofficial adaptors for Nikon and Canon mounts. If that is the case though, Leica should announce it, so that R users know exactly where they stand and can take decisions accordingly.

 

This photokina has four days left to run, and there is of course a forum Q&A meeting on Saturday with Leica management, so let's see what transpires. I sincerely hope that Leica have something to say on the subject, even if it's not necessarily what many want to hear.

[wildlightphoto]

The only thing that you are missing by converting to a Nikon mount (in my experience) is the auto-diaphragm.

 

If you _can_ live with that, there are some highly capable alternatives out there.

 

Some sort of 4/3 or APS, EVIL Live View nonsense isn't even going to come close to a DMR, of course, but a Pro Nikon most certainly will, given my caveat above.

 

You're welcome to your opinion, Andy. I don't agree. IMHO, an AA-filtered 14-bit sensor is a downgrade, the Nikon's viewfinder isn't up to the tasks I regularly expect of the R8, the lack of auto-diaphragm is a show-stopper. I'm not advocating 4/3 or APS format (also a downgrade) and w.r.t. the viewfinder in an EVIL camera I'll withhold my opinion until I see a prospective camera myself.

[jaapv]

You know, Doug, I'm convinced that the main problem for Leica is the small size of the user group. Too small for Leica themselves to develop anything at a less than astronomical price, too small to generate any interest with other makers. Even if the mount were wholle patent-free there would not be a Sony or Samsung using it. I fear it is a dwindling chance that we will ever see anything that will surpass the DMR. The only hope is imo that DSLR sensors will get good enough to be happy with a Nikon-Leitax or Canon solution.

I don't need an automatic aperture with my long lenses

[aesop]

You know, Doug, I'm convinced that the main problem for Leica is the small size of the user group. Too small for Leica themselves to develop anything at a less than astronomical price, too small to generate any interest with other makers. Even if the mount were wholle patent-free there would not be a Sony or Samsung using it. I fear it is a dwindling chance that we will ever see anything that will surpass the DMR. The only hope is imo that DSLR sensors will get good enough to be happy with a Nikon-Leitax or Canon solution.

I don't need an automatic aperture with my long lenses

 

 

...this is a great post, Jaap - most useful one I have seen all day. IMHO.

[mooky]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'm not suggesting that used R glass is a reason to also build an R solution,,,,,,,,,,,,but I wonder how many new users would buy it if it ever comes to market.

 

I still think that the best solution for Leica, if they decide to go through with an R solution, is a new design - a 'bridge camera' - that allows both R and M legacy glass using some type of hybrid M mount, that also allows for an autofocus lens line. Yes, I know, it may not be possible, and stop down metering is an issue if you have R glass like I do. But with a new finder system - Fuji may have provided a new design which time will tell if it's a good idea - would allow Leica to start a new generation camera.

 

They would also keep making the traditional M line. This is just an idea, and it was Kaufmann that presented the loose idea in LFI - but it would give them a chance to move forward in a high tech age that they will have to survive in. Again, IMO, the way for Leica to survive is finding a way, a design that allows, M and R legacy glass users a reason to stay with Leica that goes beyond the traditional.

 

Can one camera provide that? Oh, this is also assuming they are stuck in the mud as to which way to proceed into the future. Have they learned anything? I'm 50/50 on that one.

[andybarton]

Surely, another part of the problem with getting other manufacturers interested in a "solution", is also the fact that they have moved on from mechanically stopping down lenses. All modern competitor lenses are electrically operated.

 

So, it's not just the case of shoe-horning in an R mount, there is a lot more to it than that.

[andybarton]

I know that we can send men to the moon using a casio watch computer, and I know that we can control drone fighting aircraft from a bunker 6,000 miles away, and all that, but how feasible is a mount that would accept an M lens, and R lens (both, presumably via an adaptor), plus electrically operated alternative lenses with autofocus?

 

The M and R option will always be in stop-down mode.

[Xmas]

...this is a great post, Jaap - most useful one I have seen all day. IMHO.

 

The obvious follow on logic step is the potential number of SLRs for the DMR was too small in the 1st place?

So good technical solution but zero market opportunity for amortizing development costs.

Management error fire CEO.

 

Noel

[sfage]

I "do" understand the issues with cost versus completed product. I am in an industry that demands that kind of accuracy. When I tell you that I must calculate -down to the second- what my labour costs will be, I really mean that I 'do' calculate them down to the second.

 

I have to, or I will not make a living.

 

I wonder if this is an issue that management is addressing less than it should. I understand that you can't stand over every employee with a stick and a stop watch, but maybe there are some areas that can and 'can not' be adjusted. I think we need to find the ares that 'can' be.

 

Is this why Nikon and Canon are winning in the between $2k and $9k dollar hole in the product line? Of course, it must be. So, what is it? Automation? Sure, it's easy for me to stand here and say "well, just buy the automation equipment, problem solved". On the other hand, maybe we need to go through every step of the manufacture process and say: "we're losing money here, here and there" ... and that's why we can't build a 4500 dollar machine.

 

YES! ... we need a QC guy. If we are able to find these money-losing areas, then, while we try this experiment (with the newly found holes in our assembly and tooling) we get him to analyse -with precision- the start-to-finish process and prepare an entire study OF that process on paper and report back to the board.

 

BUT! This process needs to start from the person that sits with a pencil and designs the camera, to the person who actually puts the camera in_ a_ box and on_a_truck for shipping. Analyse the entire start-to-finish.

 

 

I don't know. To my way of thinking, this has GOT to be one of the problem areas.

 

PS: engineers are a little like architects. They live in another world. Bob turns to the architect and says: "You've designed this section the building with metal cladding on the exterior. That's fine, but how do you expect me to get a man up there on scaffolding without costing me triple the money? I understand that it looks and functions the way you want it to but remember, SOMEONE has to BUILD it. You can't just design in a financial vacuum. By designing the building this way, I can't use scaffolding. I have to rent this scissor lift at $1500 a day."

[jaapv]

The obvious follow on logic step is the potential number of SLRs for the DMR was too small in the 1st place?

So good technical solution but zero market opportunity for amortizing development costs.

Management error fire CEO.

 

Noel

I don't think so. The DMR was planned as a limited production run - which was sold completely.

[wildlightphoto]

Surely, another part of the problem with getting other manufacturers interested in a "solution", is also the fact that they have moved on from mechanically stopping down lenses. All modern competitor lenses are electrically operated.

 

So, it's not just the case of shoe-horning in an R mount, there is a lot more to it than that.

 

It's not difficult, Andy. It's been discussed many times on this forum. A thinner camera, such as a mirrorless one, allows room in an adapter for motors that translate electrical signals to mechanical action. It's exactly what happens inside an electrically-operated lens except that the translating electronics and motor are in the lens instead of in an adapter. This hypotetical camera wouldn't be R-only, there could also be adapters for Nikon Rabbit Ears, AI, AF, AF-S, or G, Canon EOS or FD, Pentax A or K, Minolta/Sony, or any number of current or legacy lens mounts. I see a huge market for such a camera. Sigma, Tamron, Tokina etc all have the technology to make the electronics and motors, they put them in their lenses all the time.

[jaapv]

In our perception a large market has a horizon of hundreds, to a small factory like Leica thousands, to a large company tens of millions.

I fear you are thinking within the consumer horizon. The interest outside the few photographers that use legacy lenses is nil- and most of those legacy photographers prefer film.

[mooky]

I know that we can send men to the moon using a casio watch computer, and I know that we can control drone fighting aircraft from a bunker 6,000 miles away, and all that, but how feasible is a mount that would accept an M lens, and R lens (both, presumably via an adaptor), plus electrically operated alternative lenses with autofocus?

 

The M and R option will always be in stop-down mode.

 

Agreed Andy. The hybrid M mount with an R adapter would be the only way I can think of for it to work. Too, the electric mounts are now the norm, Nikon did it with the F mount legacy glass, and of course it's not the same. Look, even if they drop the R solution idea - I'm still listening for a word or two - fine.

 

They'll still have to find a way of surviving and as much as I have used, owned, and like the M's, I think it's a major long-term stretch for them to think that it will continue to propel them into the future. They have shoe-horned a FF sensor in the M9 but how do they bring more tech oriented users? It still makes sense to me that they have a body that can use M legacy glass and have AF capability and it wouldn't be a replacement for the traditional M either - it would allow them to stretch their legs, so to speak.

[wildlightphoto]

In our perception a large market has a horizon of hundreds, to a small factory like Leica thousands, to a large company tens of millions.

I fear you are thinking within the consumer horizon. The interest outside the few photographers that use legacy lenses is nil- and most of those legacy photographers prefer film.

 

It would also be very easy to adapt modern lenses to this hypothetical camera. The adapter would translate the electrical signals provided by the camera into the signals required by the lens. You would be able to use any current or legacy lens from any maker. You don't see a big market for this? Leica's role, if this camera were to be produced, would be only to provide the adapter. JUST A FREAKING ADAPTER.

[jaapv]

I can only hope you are right. (and they would provide a 750$ red dot of course )

[pico]

[...] I still think that the best solution for Leica, if they decide to go through with an R solution, is a new design - a 'bridge camera' - that allows both R and M legacy glass using some type of hybrid M mount, that also allows for an autofocus lens line. Yes, I know, it may not be possible, and stop down metering is an issue if you have R glass like I do. [...]

 

A mirror-less full-frame body would be a bridge. Name it the B1. It could use a proprietary mount to take M or R lenses via an adapter. I am picturing a two-piece adapter that fits the R lenses, and one piece can be removed to make it an M mount. Having the proprietary mount instead of an M with an adapter to R is important because it can allow another adapter with chips in it to manage other brand lenses, but Leica would not provide those. That would be up to another industry to make and market. (Relieving Leica of a disruptive technology trap.) The hand grip could contain some of the critical electronics and interchanged with after market grips which could contain other proprietary electronics. Leica could publish their specs as an Open Platform. Open but patented.

 

Stop-down (aperture priority default) is not a problem because the finder automatically brightens, and also dims down in very bright light. (That's the way the Lumix G1 behaves)

 

So what we would have is a camera with Leica's legendary compactness, full-frame digital, and the ability to use a wide range of lenses (but ships with the Leica mount adapter).

 

I'd like it if the LCD could be removed for greater compactness (menu items can be set through the viewfinder), and it could use rechargeable or regular batteries in a pinch. No flash, but a hot-shoe for the Leica flash.

 

Weather sealed, and a handy exposure lock.

 

Hey, Leica. I am retiring from my R&D job. Need help?

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[GreyCoupe]

I am getting to the point that Leica pretending that they learned from the R catastrophe and that they give a damn would be refreshing, if more fantasy.

[LuxBob]

I will eat some of my words. Today I was at Photokina. The best looking camera by far is the M9 Ti. It is so beautiful it makes the current M9 look a bit cheap. Only one thing lets it down and that is at the back it has the same plasticky look and feel. Okay, I accept all of the strategic and timing criticisms but boy oh boy this is a looker.