The announcement that did not happen M10 at 10-10-10

[bill]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Just trying to establish the facts, Frank. Facts that would support my contention that you are trolling, probably in a professional capacity.

 

Quite.

 

By the way, were you aware, Redbaron, that corporate "turnarounds" are undertaken by teams, not individuals?

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[hoppyman]

I didn't take a tape-recorder to the meeting, nor did I take notes of what was exactly said. Did you?

 

You may call what I wrote interpretation, I don't mind. Its interpretation of what I heard and understood when I attended the meeting. It is not based on distorted quotations and hypothesis.

 

Uliwer, I first posted that interpretation here. It was from a quick initial effort by a professional translator. I was just trying to use that remark to indicate to Frank that Leica Camera does not have unlimited resources to produce an new M camera just 12 months after the M9. Actually in my personal opinion it would not make commercial sense for them either.

Personally I am not aware of anyone else except Frank here who expected a new announcement simply because the date was 10.10.10

[bybrett]

In a separate thread about Photokina there seems to be a consensus that all is well at Leica and that there was no need to bring out a M10 at this time, or even soon. I hope that Leica however have a M10 under wraps in adavanced development. There was also a feeling that the lens line up was (with arguably a few holes) excellent and here I fully agree ...I cannot think of any competing camera system that comes close.

 

I remain however disappointed that we had no exciting announcement for M users. I see four areas that I would like to have seen addressed:

1. A new camera M10...that I would want to buy and commercially could keep the production lines pushed to keep up with an ever growing backlog.
   
2. Significant improvements to the QC of new cameras leaving the factory, and a full out attack on improving the reliability / ruggedness of the camera such that it again becomes the camera of choice for professionals in war zones as it was in the Vietnam era.
   
3. Accessories that support the appeal to photographers in different market segments: Close Up work with bellows (I shall not use the V word as EVIL, Live view should do the same job), leather cases for travelling executives, a mini tripod that has a small ball (not the large one that Leica has in its catalogue today), etc etc.
   
4. A cost reduced entry model that may use plastic moulding for the case and be built in volume under subcontract rather than hand assembled at Solms
   

I have opted so far to NOT buy the M9 as I am eager to see the M10 when it eventually surfaces...and for me my M8 gives the same result as an M9 anyway. I guess if I have to wait 5 years for a M10 I may change my mind and buy the M9 however my ideal would be a camera (M10) with the following improvements:

• CMOS full frame sensor that gives the same (or better) image quality as CCD without aliasing filter. My gut feel is that since every top of the market camera uses CMOS Leica will need to go this route eventually. Leica confirmed they were looking at alternative sensors at the Photokina Q&A. With CMOS you get the advantage of being able to implement LiveView....and HD Video if this is a need.
  
• Better dynamic ISO range for the sensor (less blacks in shadows)
  
• ISO of order 50 through to a usable 1000 without heavy noise / grain at 1000. OK others will want 10,000+ but I am less demanding. I think ISO 160 generic is too high.
  
• Much faster and better in camera processing of JPEG etc...by using a derivative of the S2 Maestro chip set.
  
• Better than 5fps in continuous mode (current spec of Nikon & Canon) against Leica M9 of 2fps
  
• Better than 20 frames in buffer memory (curent spec of Canon & Nikon) against 8 frames Leica M9
  
• Firmware with known problems eliminated (red line etc) plus tethering capability and the software plus accessories to use tethering and remote triggering sensibly.
  
• Flash sync connector added plus hot shoe retained
  
• Frame Counter and battery state display replaced as per M8 but an OLIM display should be used as it is small and nightime readable.
  
• A shutter speed of 1/8000th should be reinstated as I actually use this a lot with ISO 160
  
• The USB input should allow an external battery capability (Cold weather usage), wireless remote triggering, tethering , external GPS input
  
• The rear monitor should have a saphire glass protective cover as standard
  
• Features such as bracketing, manual lens selection that M9 now offers should be retained.
  
• Ideally Focus Verification if that does not increase the camera size.
  
• Ideally a camera size of M7 rather than M8.
  
• Rugged build quality that does not provoke a need to occassionaly readjust the rangefinder mechanism as can happen today.
  
• A la Carte engraving and choice of leathers and finishes.
  
• Chrome Silver, and Chrome Black as Standard plus plated titanium (Ie not solid!) finishes with leather cover...possibly a Safari Green with a few lenses would be nice also as specials!
  

The above is the camera I would buy at a price of £5000 as I see it as giving me significantly more than my M8. I live in hope that one day it will be available.

I am interested to understand if others especially M8 users have a similar view of what they would like to see coming from Solms in 2011, 2012 .

 

Shall we start again?

 

Frank, I enjoy reading your suggestions, I don't agree with all of the above however I would like to add a higher quality review screen with immediate image rendering.

[earleygallery]

Frank is proposing a camera that has a laser focussing aid, live view, 'mass production' etc.,

 

If doing all of that one may as well add in AF into the mix, with a new mount if necessary (and the ability to adapt M mount lenses to fit of course).

 

So, we're all ready for a completely new Leica to replace the M then?

[dickgrafixstop]

Barnak must be rolling over in his grave. All this "help" to maintain his vision of a high

quality image from a useable small format camera, and what we find is a major r&d

expenditure for a marginally more acceptable body and the requirement to revamp the

finest lens lineup in the industry.

Leica will always be resource constrained and behind the technology curve unless a

major player adquires them as a "image maker" division. Ain't enough horsepower to

make generational advances and maintain the links to the existing inventories. Course it

could pull another R fiasco and leave M users holding the bag as well.

[Guest BigSplash]

Frank is proposing a camera that has a laser focussing aid, live view, 'mass production' etc.,

 

If doing all of that one may as well add in AF into the mix, with a new mount if necessary (and the ability to adapt M mount lenses to fit of course).

 

So, we're all ready for a completely new Leica to replace the M then?

 

James I think you are joking as your suggestion is not what I said or feel. Please note:

• While AF would be desirable it would mean adding a motor for focussing and then probably a second motor for aperture control. The lens would be much larger and the connections between lens and camera body would be more complicated although that is achievable (via the 6 bit coding lugs for example).
  

Bottom line the size of the lens would be significanly larger and this I think would detract from the M concept significantly. For that reason I would not want AF.

 

• Focus Verification is a totally different deal however and it seems could be achieved without a major R&D effort. Please note:
  
  • The lens lug that drives the rangefinder mechanism is already super accurate so no problem there.
    
  • The need would be for a way of sensing the lug movement and using this with a laser distance meter,
    
  • Leica has presumably considerable knowhow within their sports optics division to build accurate laser rangefinders and perhaps even has access to some chips although I do not know this
    

  [*]To be clear I am NOT sugesting that the rangefinder part is dropped. I am suggesting Focus verification as an additional tool that would be especially useful with a Noctilux at full aperture at night.

Today I find my Noctilux already difficult enough to use at full aperture, hopefully focus verification would be a welcome addittion and an aid.

 

James you mention mass production which I did not say. I mentioned the use of robotics, and building a camera that is easier to assemble and adjust without hiring and then training even more technicians. There is a difference. What I am suggesting:

• Would allow production to respond to demand which has not been the case for M9 it would seem
  
• Would yield a more reliable camera and would address QC issues that we read about here
  
• Would provide a more rugged camera as today there are so many linkages etc for the shutter (see Mark Norton photos)
  

I think the above benefits are good things, but maybe you disagree. If these things happened costs would be lower and that either means Leica make more money or they drop the price and drive up more demand, which is also a good thing I think. That though is certainly NOT mass production as seen by Canon or Nikon or Panasonic..I would not recommend Leica to go there.

 

You also mention changing the M mount plus adapter to accommodate AF lenses I guess. I would believe that would increase the camera size and make compatibility with older lenses questionable. I would not think that was a good idea.

[aesop]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

...Frank, from a strictly hypothetical point of view, what would you do if Leica said "No, thank you" to the entirety of your not inconsiderable efforts at turning it into a world beater?

[redbaron]

Why do you keep on with these ridiculous suggestions, Frank? It's obvious that Leica is not interested.

[Guest BigSplash]

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.

 

I do not understand your comment above at all...please could you elaborate.

 

If you are saying the following I agree:

• Rangefinder technology is accurate as needed for most situations, it is proven and does not need batteries
  
• M film cameras take great images and most do not need batteries. I have a M4,5, and M6.
  
  • Frankly I love M8 and this has during recent months encouraged me to start using my M6 again. Many people have had similar experiences.
    
  • Some people will never make the transition to M digital ....some of the most vocal people on this forum do not own ANY M digital camera.
    

If you are saying the following I disagree:

• That technology advances should not be exploited in future M digital cameras
  
• That a technology such as Focus Verification has no place alongside the rangefinder optics of a future M digital (which will have a battery!)
  

What exactly causes you to say "That about sums it up nicely." What do you mean?

[Guest BigSplash]

...Frank, from a strictly hypothetical point of view, what would you do if Leica said "No, thank you" to the entirety of your not inconsiderable efforts at turning it into a world beater?

 

In such a situation First I'd ask then what was wrong with what I am proposing?

 

Second if they could not articulate why my suggestions as a client are wrong for a company that wishes to be client driven I would try to get the specifics a different way. Hell I might even ask people on this forum such as Bill, RedBaron, James, Popp or even you for an input on the specifics as you are all very vocal but never actually give any input that relates to what you would like to see from Leica.......clever remarks seems to be the norm I am afraid.

[Guest BigSplash]

Quite.

 

By the way, were you aware, Redbaron, that corporate "turnarounds" are undertaken by teams, not individuals?

 

Regards, Bill

 

Bill I am unaware of any turnaround experience that you have. I only know that you were a director at CMG which was taken over by Logica. I was the guy who had to sort out the CMG mess in the Telecom division as Head of EMEA and I was shocked by what I inherited.

 

Your point that teams (not individuals, which you also need) are key to any turnaround is well taken, and I agree.

 

In the case of Leica Rudi Spiller reorganised, changed managers, promoted others and built I think a pretty good team with some heavy hitters in it: ...

 

So Bill I think Leica realise already what you suggest and have acted on this since two years already. I am afraid your comment as usual is too little too late!

[stunsworth]

Second if they could not articulate why my suggestions as a client are wrong for a company that wishes to be client driven...

 

I would expect their response to that they do listen to their clients, but they cannot implement every change desired by every client, since some are mutually exclusive. Also sometimes clients come up with suggestions that are totally bonkers that are not only impossible from an engineering point of view, but make no sense in the context of the M system.

 

Would the Leica M3 ever have been developed if Leica had been purely client driven? My suspicion is that what the client driven development would have led to would have been the IIIG and then the IIIH etc. Luckily Leica had designers that had a vision, and that vision has turned out to be valid for the last 60 years or so.

[redbaron]

What's this "client driven" business and what company in its right mind lets customers designs its products?

 

And by the way, Frank. Do you have any relevant optical or mechanical engineering or photographic experience?

[Guest BigSplash]

Barnak must be rolling over in his grave. All this "help" to maintain his vision of a high quality image from a useable small format camera, ...actually Barnak would be the guy who would welcome innivation, and embracing available technology to generate new exciting products.

• Wasn't he the guy who invented the first 35mm still camera when everyone else used big glass plates?
  
• Did he not have people say that 35mm would not give images of useable quality yet he pushed on and refused to listen to the nay sayers?
  

...........and what we find is a major r&d expenditure for a marginally more acceptable body

• Who has suggested a major r&d expenditure? The list of items I suggest is NOT a major R&D expense.
  
• The alternative is to do nothing and allow the M9 to gradually serve a dwindling market. It takes time to develop a next generation and the roadmap from client feedback which I had hoped this forum would provide and the Q&A session would have explored.
  

.......and the requirement to revamp the finest lens lineup in the industry.

• Who wants to revamp the finest lens lineup . Please read what I have repeatedly said and take note.
  

Leica will always be resource constrained This is a problem faced by ALL companies and the larger ones in the middle of a recession with printer and PC sales on the skid suffer very badly. At least Leica has some wiggle room in a well focussed market

........and behind the technology curve

• This is wrong. If M9 or the new lenses does not represent being at the leading edge of technology what is missing?
  
• It is old school thinking that you need to have all technologies and capabilities in house. The truth is you do not, and the smartest companies avoid this level of investment in raw technology if possible.
  
• Leica has done a superb job teaming with Kodak, Panasonic, Jenoptik, Adobe and several other 3rd parties ..this gives access to leading edge technology and avoids building up capital costs. Leica have done this while retaining their own IPR.
  

unless a major player adquires them as a "image maker" division. Ain't enough horsepower to make generational advances and maintain the links to the existing inventories. Course it could pull another R fiasco and leave M users holding the bag as well.

 

Your final point that Leica may find itself again in a situation with limited cash if (and when) the M9 plus new lens bonanza slows is an issue. That is my point in this posting. They need to have exciting new products ready to launch when sales inevitably drop off. Of course if you take a longer term view one would hope they have four profitable legs to their financial model...M camera, X1 camera, S2 camera , Sports Optics

[stunsworth]

Frank, I know this might sound patronising to you, but I have a suspicion that Leica themselves may have worked out themselves that an M10 would be a good idea at some stage. Still, looking on the bright side, they've saved themselves a considerable amount of consultancy fees by doing so.

 

Your analysis also misses out the contribution of the rebardged Panasonic cameras to their revenue.

[Guest BigSplash]

What's this "client driven" business and what company in its right mind lets customers designs its products?

 

And by the way, Frank. Do you have any relevant optical or mechanical engineering or photographic experience?

 

RedBaron here you go again....."Client DRIVEN" is not the same as "Client DESIGNED" ...if you do not understand the difference please advise your personal letter address and I shall explain as most people here will know the difference.

 

I have a Physics degree. I did research after university at STL laboratories as part of Dr Charles Kao six person team that won the Nobel Prize last year for Physics in the field of fibre Optics.

Subsequently after a stint as a senior expert technical advisor to the UN I joined Texas Instruments and eventually became European Technical Director where we had engagements with various companies in the photography business (Leica was one, Canon also) I am a MIEE chartered engineer ...

 

RedBaron you have asked about my qualifications before and now ask again. Why is this important to you?

 

Surely if I am in your opinion "shooting from the hip" and am in your view "plain wrong" you should address the specific issue I raise and argue the point .

 

Frankly you seem to want to ask me about my background with a view I guess to discredit me rather than the points I am making. I hope that I am wrong!

[aesop]

In such a situation First I'd ask then what was wrong with what I am proposing?

 

Second if they could not articulate why my suggestions as a client are wrong for a company that wishes to be client driven I would try to get the specifics a different way. Hell I might even ask people on this forum such as Bill, RedBaron, James, Popp or even you for an input on the specifics as you are all very vocal but never actually give any input that relates to what you would like to see from Leica.......clever remarks seems to be the norm I am afraid.

 

 

...Frank, there does not have to be anything "wrong" with your suggestions for them not to be adopted - you should know that.

 

We all make suggestions (passionately and succinctly) on the forum from time to time - some of us even go as far as contacting Leica directly on matters we feel are relevant to our specific relationships with the company. Your posts are deeply steeped in passion and opinion, and that itself is not necessarily a bad thing. You proffer ideas that are ostensibly sound but in actuality are simply sterile, and will remain so without any knowledge of Leica's raw numbers (this is not a criticism - you are not Leica). But critically for me, you appear to favour the sort of messaging I hope to leave behind at work every day at 16h59 (or thereabouts). As an enthusiast, it is the sort of thing I have always hoped my photography would take me away from. It goes without saying that this is my opinion.

 

Incidentally, re: specifics, I used to play jazz trumpet many years ago, and kept on incessantly "upgrading" to "better" instruments. I will never forget how I felt when I heard one of my abandoned trumpets in the hands of a true master. Monkeys, typewriters, Shakespeare, that sort of thing.

 

To surmise: any shortfall in the quality of my photography is squarely down to me - nothing to do with my pukka lenses or lightboxes. For me, it is clear what specifics need to be addressed.

[redbaron]

Your previous posts would suggest that you have very little photographic experience, which some might argue to be a prerequisit for camera design.

Feel free to send me anything via PM, but I will re-post it. I say what I have to say publicly.

[Guest BigSplash]

Frank, I know this might sound patronising to you, but I have a suspicion that Leica themselves may have worked out themselves that an M10 would be a good idea at some stage. Still, looking on the bright side, they've saved themselves a considerable amount of consultancy fees by doing so.

 

Your analysis also misses out the contribution of the rebardged Panasonic cameras to their revenue.

 

Agreed on all points. ..especially free consultancy. However I actually want Leica to succeed so its a pleasure. Glad that you see the value!

 

I would also believe that Leica know that one day the M10 is needed and presumably they are working on it now. The question is "What is the spec. of M10 and its lenses as driven by potential clients here?"

I have given my thoughts...Brett has added his ideas. James has suggested AF and a new M mount to achieve this with an adapter (which I disagree with) . ..most if not all people want to keep the classic feel and looks of an M camera.

 

I would add that the Panasonic rebadged cameras I suspect are not heavy profit contibutors relative to the revenue they generate. Some analysts would see this badly as it will drag down the % profit numbers that they enjoy for the M, S2 and X1 is my guess. Still I am sure that the revenue and actual profit that Panasonice bring is most welcome!

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[bybrett]

Your previous posts would suggest that you have very little photographic experience, which some might argue to be a prerequisit for camera design.

Feel free to send me anything via PM, but I will re-post it. I say what I have to say publicly.

 

I have a quite a bit of photographic experience but I couldn't "design" a camera.