stunsworth Posted October 12, 2010 Share #41 Posted October 12, 2010 Advertisement (gone after registration) So why did they not state this and be more specific? The follow up question is why did they not identify the specific steps that they plan to take to achieve a stabilised increased production without the QC issues we keep hearing about. Frank, it was a relatively informal meeting, not a shareholder's meeting interrogating a board of directors. Maybe next time you should attend yourself, or alternatively contribute to the relevant thread when questions are asked for in the forum. You've already said that you couldn't be bothered to pose a question in that thread, so you can hardly complain when Leica didn't answer some very specific questions that you would _now_ like to ask Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 12, 2010 Posted October 12, 2010 Hi stunsworth, Take a look here The announcement that did not happen M10 at 10-10-10. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
andybarton Posted October 12, 2010 Share #42 Posted October 12, 2010 Don't forget that not every question submitted was asked. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saloti Posted October 12, 2010 Share #43 Posted October 12, 2010 I think there is absolutely no need to launch a M10 right now. And - fortunalety war zones are no reason for development anymore.... I would not expect a M10 before 2012, in the meantime Leica has different challenges in other segments...... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted October 12, 2010 Share #44 Posted October 12, 2010 Back to the future? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BigSplash Posted October 12, 2010 Share #45 Posted October 12, 2010 Now I understand... Bill: I doubt that you understand as all of your posts show zero comprehension of anything many people (ie not just me!) on this forum write I as usual see no actual added value, or contribution from this your latest input...... Just look at what you have written. ...Its not even humorous. Its just a one line provocative tiresome input that I have already asked the moderators to get involved in. I hope they do. [*]I understood from your last post that you were no longer interested in this posting ...so please be consistent and go away....Thanks! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SJP Posted October 12, 2010 Share #46 Posted October 12, 2010 After its launch on 13-13-13 we need to discuss the "best" bag for the M13. Thoughts anyone? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pop Posted October 12, 2010 Share #47 Posted October 12, 2010 Advertisement (gone after registration) After its launch on 13-13-13 we need to discuss the "best" bag for the M13. Thoughts anyone? The M13 will be provided with a yet to be invented carrying system which completely dispenses with bags and straps. Also, it obviously will carry its own particular method of reckoning aeons and moments, henceforth to be referred to as "Leica Time". Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill Posted October 12, 2010 Share #48 Posted October 12, 2010 Just look at what you have written. ...Its not even humorous. Bless you Frank, it wasn't meant to be humorous. It would have had a or a or a if it was. Everyone else understood that I was comparing fact-free pseudo-analytical codswallop with Kabbalah. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BigSplash Posted October 12, 2010 Share #49 Posted October 12, 2010 There is no need to quote posts immediately above the one that you're writing. If you do quote, it's rarely necessary to quote the whole post. There is a reply button provided. Making an M with a robot isn't possible. Changing the guts would make it a different camera, not an M9. Andy I do not agree with you. For me the M9 and actually any M (film and Digital) has a certain pedigree that has a lot to do with at least the following factors: Absolute commitment to using old M lenses and accessories within each generation as Stefan Daniels said in his video interview A classic design look and feel (I am sure you know what I mean, although it is difficult to define) Compatibility with the latest and best lenses in the world. A size and feel that is petite compared to any DSLR that I am aware of Absolutely superb after sales service and QC of new product, and reliability / integrity of the design. If all of the above can be achieved in a new production friendly design can you tell me please why "Changing the guts would make it a different camera, not an M9" ?. You are in my view looking at the wrong issue. Leica has the job to meet the criteria I list and do it in a way that takes the cost out of production, while improving reliability, outgoing QC, and making the thing more rugged. Personally and I have had feedback from other Leica users that they want lower price (driven by lower costs, and most likely higher volumes of production) , better quality control, better reliability etc and building handcrafted cameras that have to go back to the factory for tweaking is not the way to achieve this. You say Robots cannot be used to build a Leica M. That is a simplistic position and I have to agree. However does that mean as I suggest that: Leica should not use any form of automation (FYI they already do!)? Leica should not relook at the design of M9 and lenses to make them more production friendly using latest technology and production processes? You say that my suggestions would NOT make it a "M9 camera" ...could you please elaborate. What aspect of "M9 camera" would be degraded by applying my suggested approaches? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BigSplash Posted October 12, 2010 Share #50 Posted October 12, 2010 Bless you Frank, it wasn't meant to be humorous. It would have had a or a or a if it was. Everyone else understood that I was comparing fact-free pseudo-analytical codswallop with Kabbalah. Bill I understood that you were leaving this posting...but you continue with the above kind of input. Please get real! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted October 12, 2010 Share #51 Posted October 12, 2010 the M9 and actually any M (film and Digital) has a certain pedigree that has a lot to do with at least the following factors: Absolute commitment to using old M lenses and accessories... A classic design look and feel... Compatibility with the latest and best lenses in the world. A size and feel that is petite compared to any DSLR that I am aware of Absolutely superb after sales service and QC of new product, and reliability / integrity of the design. You don't even mention the optical rangefinder which is the very essence of an M camera. Without a traditional optical RF, it's just another camera. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
redbaron Posted October 12, 2010 Share #52 Posted October 12, 2010 "Leica has the job to meet the criteria I list." No they don't. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill Posted October 12, 2010 Share #53 Posted October 12, 2010 No, Frank, I'm not going anywhere. It is far more enjoyable watching your ludicrous postulations evaporate from this vantage point. Popcorn, anyone? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
redbaron Posted October 12, 2010 Share #54 Posted October 12, 2010 Frank, those seven companies you "turned around". Do you still work for them, or were you just a hatchet man? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted October 12, 2010 Share #55 Posted October 12, 2010 Gentlemen. Can we stop this pissing contest now, please? Thanks. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BigSplash Posted October 12, 2010 Share #56 Posted October 12, 2010 You don't even mention the optical rangefinder which is the very essence of an M camera. Without a traditional optical RF, it's just another camera. I agree that this was a serious omission and it should have been included in my list as the M9 without RF is a very different camera. That said today the alternative to RF is a mirror based design with a split screen central focussing "thing" which theoretically is not as acurate with respect to focusing as a Leica RF is in the range wide angle to about 90mm.....that is today and is fact. It is also the case that given time with new technologies such as laser distance measurement that could drive focus verification it maybe possible to achieve even more accurate focussiing. This could in future I believe be built within the constraints of a smaller M packaged camera (ie No need to have the bulk of today's DSLR). It could also eliminate some of the concerns that people tell us on this forum about inability to focus without magnifying screw on lenses etc. If the above is possible then why would one want to stay with RF apart from the fact that RF does not need batteries ...but a digital camera defacto does? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pop Posted October 12, 2010 Share #57 Posted October 12, 2010 If the above is possible then why would one want to stay with RF apart from the fact that RF does not need batteries ...but a digital camera defacto does? That about sums it up nicely. You ask why anyone would like to continue using perfectly reasonable technology if it might be possible to do it in another way which has yet to be developed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BigSplash Posted October 12, 2010 Share #58 Posted October 12, 2010 Frank, those seven companies you "turned around". Do you still work for them, or were you just a hatchet man? I am not sure what you mean by hatchet man. I increased revenue, changed product directions, and added significantly staff headcount. One example was Sema Group Telecoms which had revenue £3M (£2M loss) and 60 headcount....four years later I left the company with £120M revenue (£27M profit) a Queens award for export, and 1200 headcount.. Redbaron does this suggest a hatchet man approach? We can debate the other turnarounds but I think you are just trying to push me and for someone who does not even have a private letter address on this site I am not sure I wish to go there as you rather than me apparently wish to be less than open. You ask do I still work for them. On a daily basis no as my job was the turnaround(s) but I seem to be asked back for more help on a consultancy basis at several of the turnarounds. Redbaron please stop this type of questioning and please let's focus the posting. So far all I have heard from you are remarks such as; Do not feed him (with comments on the posting) Clean up if you do feed him I bet that he will have an input on 10-10-10 Well you have fed me with at least the inputs above and all of your inputs are not adding value plus seem to be directed at me at a personal level. I ask the moderator to stop this crap and insist that the focus of debate is on the posting NOT at the individual thread. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
redbaron Posted October 12, 2010 Share #59 Posted October 12, 2010 If the above is possible then why would one want to stay with RF apart from the fact that RF does not need batteries ...but a digital camera defacto does? It may not be important to you, Frank, but to a photographer it may just be the most important element of a camera's design. Rangefinders are a crap focussing system, I agree. Until you look at all the other options. (btw, I think you meant ipso facto, not de facto.) Just trying to establish the facts, Frank. Facts that would support my contention that you are trolling, probably in a professional capacity. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BigSplash Posted October 12, 2010 Share #60 Posted October 12, 2010 Gentlemen. Can we stop this pissing contest now, please? Thanks. Andy I agree ...please could you ask (as our moderator )those that seem to wish to attack me (the OP) at a personal level to stop it. I find it unacceptable that: Bill seems to attack, but adds no specific value or contribution and in any case tells us that he does not wish to participate in this thread. RedBaron wishes to attack my credibility as a turnaround person rather than adding avlue to what I am saying about 10-10-10. Why should i have to defend my CV here? Andy I think you have a moderator job to do and i wish you well. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.