Olsen Posted June 14, 2011 Share #281 Posted June 14, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) From the bottom up: When Lloyd Chambers expect a future M-camera to cost '$ 4K' - except for the fact that the dollar seems to be a very flexible thing these days, he is not in the same playing field as the top cameras in the business. A Canon 1Ds III costs $7K - and so does the Nikon equaliant, I am sure. So, what does he mean? Shall Leica compete on price? Rather, I would expect that Leica shall compete on quality. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted June 14, 2011 Posted June 14, 2011 Hi Olsen, Take a look here Open Letter to Leica — 10 Ways To Improve the M9 Rangefinder. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Xmas Posted June 14, 2011 Share #282 Posted June 14, 2011 That is a far higher proportion than I see with photographers in general. Go to the beach and count the number of Leicas amongst camera carrying tourists. Maybe 1 in 10.000 Even dental conventions. maybe 1 in 100.... Hi The street markets in London run at about 1 in 3000 even seen an occassional Barnack about 1 in 300000. The Pros attending parades and demonstrations 100% DSLRs, never a Leica. Noel Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted June 14, 2011 Share #283 Posted June 14, 2011 The Pros attending parades and demonstrations 100% DSLRs, never a Leica. Ahhh. The small and unobtrusive M is hard to spot;). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xmas Posted June 14, 2011 Share #284 Posted June 14, 2011 I just don't understand why are we so reluctant to incorporate new technology to give a breath of fresh air into a succesful product.The optomechanical RF mechanism we still use is a superb solution, but that also comes at a cost: its big, heavy, expensive, needs diopter correction lenses, needs magnifying lenses, and to some folks with poor eyesight needs a means of confirmation. Leica realizes that the more it tries with other camera series (S2, X1) the less it sells. I am speaking of a refurbished fully electronic RF with 2 small cameras with lenses located in a bigger base in the new camera. The operation is exactly EXACTLY the same with what you have now, the principles are the same, only it is done with electronics. Lens will stay the same with the same rotating focus tab, only now you dont need the central patch, just a target that will show you where it focus. I'm sure there is technology that can tell when contrast is at its best, or maybe a circuit that will add one camera signal to the inverted one of the other to produce close to 0 if that's possible. I don't really know, this is where innovation comes. Instead of coinciding patches you now only need left, right and middle led. There is no link to the VF which is left alone and why should it? The VF is for composing, the RF is well, for rangefinding. Instead there is now left plenty of room to add mag lenses, diopter adjustments, better eye relief, etc, etc. Provided, they can compare the two signals from the cameras, which I really dont see why not of course. And so, there you have it the M with new technology for the electronic afficionados. You are assuming either LV or a projection into a viewfinder, I assume? The display sprite saying where it focused if it is not where I actually wanted to focus what do I do then? That is I'm rocking focus lever back and forward and the sprite is hopping between two (or more) points neither (none) of which I want to focus on. I can focus my (dinked user) M3 in starlight, most current autofocus cameras will need active IR or illumination. Supposedly the ZM viewfinder is better than a M. You are trying to offer me less than I have already, do you work for Leica? Why did/do Zeiss not make an electronic Contax G, or ZM like you describe? If you canot focus a current M you need to change to a auto focus DSLR. Noel Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill Posted June 14, 2011 Share #285 Posted June 14, 2011 The operation is exactly EXACTLY the same with what you have now, the principles are the same, only it is done with electronics. ...then it is patently not the same. Glass. Fingers. Eyeball. Reflexes. Judgement. Experience. Result. Regards, Bill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
diogenis Posted June 14, 2011 Share #286 Posted June 14, 2011 ...then it is patently not the same. Glass. Fingers. Eyeball. Reflexes. Judgement. Experience. Result. Regards, Bill Indeed, So we have two versions: One M10 the original and one M10e the new one Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
diogenis Posted June 14, 2011 Share #287 Posted June 14, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) You are assuming either LV or a projection into a viewfinder, I assume?The display sprite saying where it focused if it is not where I actually wanted to focus what do I do then? That is I'm rocking focus lever back and forward and the sprite is hopping between two (or more) points neither (none) of which I want to focus on. I can focus my (dinked user) M3 in starlight, most current autofocus cameras will need active IR or illumination. Supposedly the ZM viewfinder is better than a M. You are trying to offer me less than I have already, do you work for Leica? Why did/do Zeiss not make an electronic Contax G, or ZM like you describe? If you canot focus a current M you need to change to a auto focus DSLR. Noel Noel, I am sorry to say, but you didn't understood a single word I wrote. Also, don't try to play the engineer. Just stick to te interface, because we are just consumers. thx Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted June 14, 2011 Share #288 Posted June 14, 2011 Just stick to te interface, because we are just consumers.thx So your system is still using the cam on the back of the lens, and the focussing cam in the camera body. So all the tolerances would need to be just as tight as today. Each of your two cameras will capture a small section of the total frame - in a similar way to what the focussing patch does at the moment. Given this, how would your automated focussing system know what part of the small image the photographer wants to be in focus? The left bit? the right? How would it work in practice? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted June 14, 2011 Share #289 Posted June 14, 2011 Even dental conventions. maybe 1 in 100.... I'm shocked. Leica isn't the camera of dentists anymore? Maybe they need to bring back the Visoflex, macro lenses, and a ring light. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted June 14, 2011 Share #290 Posted June 14, 2011 No - the current Noctilux is too unassuming - it gets eclipsed by white barrels... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pop Posted June 14, 2011 Share #291 Posted June 14, 2011 Now wait until you see the M9 Ivory edition with a Noctilux to match. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted June 14, 2011 Share #292 Posted June 14, 2011 From the bottom up: When Lloyd Chambers expect a future M-camera to cost '$ 4K' - except for the fact that the dollar seems to be a very flexible thing these days, he is not in the same playing field as the top cameras in the business. A Canon 1Ds III costs $7K - and so does the Nikon equaliant, I am sure. So, what does he mean? Shall Leica compete on price? Rather, I would expect that Leica shall compete on quality. There are much less expensive full frame cameras out there so the cost somehow is a bit more flexible. Additionally, there are APS dslrs, M4/3rd, Nex and other cameras that are useful and very inexpensive considering what goes into them. Especially if you need to conceal a camera or not look "professional." These and the various Nikon, Canon, and Sony DSLR cameras compete against what a Leica is best at. But the $7,000 cost of the M9 body does not tell the real story. If one can accept that a photographer only requires 4 lenses to cover his/her needs - 24, 35, 50, 75 this raises the price immensely even if you choose the slowest Leica lenses. Whereas a 5DII is only $2500 and a 24-70 2.8 zoom + a 50 1.4 only cost $1800. Alternatively a 5DII and 24-105 stabilized lens is only $3300 so one could buy the 5DII, the 24-105 f4 IS and a 50 1.4 for the price of a 50 Summilux alone. And at minimum, the 5DII could serve as a backup to a 1DSIII. An M9 and 24 3.8, finder, 35 2.5, 50 2.5 and 70 2.5 will cost $15,000. The popular Nikon D3s is $5200 and D700 is only $2700. And a lot of photographers seem to like the $1200 DX size D7000 which is a small body. Many photographers find it faster and easier to work with zooms - especially for press photography. Back in the 60s when Leicas were quite popular among press photographers, the price disparity between Leica and Nikon was not great. (Some Nikon lenses actually cost more than Leica lenses back then.) Since 1970 a Leica 50 1.4 has gone up by a factor of around 18 ($200 if I recall, to $3700) whereas a Nikon 50 1.4 manual focus lens only went up from about $150 to $400. So Canon and Nikon have kept lens prices down and Leica did not. 75 2.5 - $1700 50 2.5 - $1400 50 1.4 - $3700 - Canon 50 1.4 is $450 24 3.8 - $2500 viewfinder - $760 35 2.5 - $1700 Of course the faster top of the line lenses cost much more. There is a limit to the number of people willing to spend this much for a basic camera system regardless of quality. A lot of the "debate" about the M9 only occurs because of the price of the camera and lenses. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted June 14, 2011 Share #293 Posted June 14, 2011 They detected the Nikon F way to late, Zeiss at least had the Contarex marketed earlier, which was not competative in sales, but a SLR.Noel The Contarex was inappropriate for a professional who needed a large range of lenses. Besides, Nikon was very aggressive in its promotion, to the point of actually giving some F models to press and other professionals in order to be seen. (Not exactly giving away, but a permanent loan of sorts.) Nikon became known as the pro camera while Leica did almost nothing to compete in the same area. Perhaps Leica thought they did not need to do such promotion - most of my peers had Nikon F and Leica Ms (largely 2 and 4s). Still, whenever there was a televised press conference, all that clatter from the Nikon F36 cameras screamed "Nikons are here". The sound became so famous that it was emulated as an option for the fake motor drive sounds on cheap digital cameras. ...and all that time I loved the silence of the Leica. But I digress. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xmas Posted June 14, 2011 Share #294 Posted June 14, 2011 Hi duiogenis Noel, I am sorry to say, but you didn't understood a single word I wrote. The responsibility in the written word is that the writer should be clear, please try again. If you give me a spec it is not what you ment to say that counts but how I was able to intrepret it. That is what happens in contract law... Also, don't try to play the engineer. Just stick to te interface, because we are just consumers. thx Alas I an engineer, You may be the reqirements engineer in this i.e. if you want to specify the requirement for the enhanced rangefinder, if a sample engineer does not understand it is outline, then you have a problem. If I can misunderstand it what are the Leica engineers going to do? Alas I'm not a consumer I'm an unbiased sounding board cause I only use film. Noel Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjh Posted June 14, 2011 Share #295 Posted June 14, 2011 But the $7,000 cost of the M9 body does not tell the real story. Yep. Why even bother with designing a more affordable M when the total cost of the system would barely be affected by the price of the body? The lenses won’t get any cheaper (see my recent article in LFI). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
diogenis Posted June 14, 2011 Share #296 Posted June 14, 2011 So your system is still using the cam on the back of the lens, and the focussing cam in the camera body. So all the tolerances would need to be just as tight as today. Each of your two cameras will capture a small section of the total frame - in a similar way to what the focussing patch does at the moment. Given this, how would your automated focussing system know what part of the small image the photographer wants to be in focus? The left bit? the right? How would it work in practice? To be franc, I don't know Steve. And I don't care either. The current system works fine for me as it is. But there are folks that age and need some help with their eyesight. I just expressed my feeling that the current VF can indeed advance and it was a response to some that believe it cannot. That's all. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xmas Posted June 14, 2011 Share #297 Posted June 14, 2011 The Contarex was inappropriate for a professional who needed a large range of lenses. I thought the Contarex motor drive was not available until '68? All the non pros bought a F that is why they sold 700k Fs. Zeiss did not market properly. ... Nikon became known as the pro camera while Leica did almost nothing to compete in the same area. Perhaps Leica thought they did not need to do such promotion - most of my peers had Nikon F and Leica Ms (largely 2 and 4s. Yes the pros here carried an M with 35mm lux for close in, the F for stand off, with longer lens and motor. Canon did not really sell SLR to pros for a decade... Leica had not needed to market, they did not introduce a SLR until 64, and it was less a system camera than the Contarex. Nikon did real well the body was modular you could upgrade plain prism to a meter, the lenses all still worked, cept for the 21mm mirror up. The camera was high quality as reliable as a M. Noel Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
atanabe Posted June 14, 2011 Share #298 Posted June 14, 2011 Bottom line, if you like what you see, buy it, if not buy something else. A rangefinder camera in the purest form is what the M9 aspires to be. Does the frame line - crop issue not exist with the MP, M7, M6, M5, M4, M3, M2? No, they also have the same problem always have and by the way have produced some of the most memorable photos of the century. Does that make the M9 a bad camera because it does not have all of the electronic aids the modern DSLRs have - no, not in my opinion. I prefer the simple pure aspect of the M over the button crazy menu driven systems out there. Better LCD screen? Maybe, but I don't edit my photos as I shoot, I shoot digital like I shoot film, with a cramp in my gut hoping that I got the shot and really working it until I feel that I have exhausted the possibilities. With that, the only wish would be a bigger buffer so that I can shoot digital like I shoot film. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xmas Posted June 14, 2011 Share #299 Posted June 14, 2011 To be franc, I don't know Steve. And I don't care either.The current system works fine for me as it is. But there are folks that age and need some help with their eyesight. I just expressed my feeling that the current VF can indeed advance and it was a response to some that believe it cannot. That's all. This is a WINBNI then - if some people cannot use the rangefinder on an M, it is a ZM, DSLR or white stick. WINBNI - Would It Not Be Nice If It would change the design radically for the needs of a small % of the users, it might be a lot cheaper, but it might not work for some different small % of users. The Leica user community has rejected change e.g. the M5 bombed. The Contax G1 and G2 are loved by users, but lots of people tried and could not use them. Noel Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
diogenis Posted June 14, 2011 Share #300 Posted June 14, 2011 And who says that a better electronic RF is going to be a bad thing? The same happened with the electronic sensor when it was firstly introduced. Who is now building film cameras? No one,except maybe some models from Leica like the MP which really deserves it as it can work everywhere and forever Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.