pop Posted July 20, 2011 Share #81 Posted July 20, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) If they went to bed with likes of Panasonic or Sony instead of Imacon maybe Your choice of words is a bit peculiar. Imacon used to be a parts supplier. Presumably, Leica used to buy parts from them for money. Do you go to bed with anyone you buy things from? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted July 20, 2011 Posted July 20, 2011 Hi pop, Take a look here Stefan Daniel: New M and APS-C soon?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
mmradman Posted July 20, 2011 Share #82 Posted July 20, 2011 Your choice of words is a bit peculiar. Imacon used to be a parts supplier. Presumably, Leica used to buy parts from them for money. Do you go to bed with anyone you buy things from? I think my choice of words illustrate the point very well. It was not only any commercial arrangement but strategic partnership. Imacon was not any supplier of parts that could have been easily substituted but carefully selected partner providing parts and services that made DMR work. And if low sales of DMR were linked to low sales of R8/R9 why was that - despite R lenses were and still are best SLR lenses system didn't sell. Leica failed to jump on the bandwagon and join CanNikon in AF and later digital race. Back to compact system camera we are discussing here and lens for it. Leica had a chance to learn some valuable lessons over the last few years. Thankfully rejoined digital game with M9/S2 and provided life line to its lens production. No doubt compact line of cameras sell well on back of all the buzz created by 9/9/9 event. Next product will have to be commercially successful as even resurgent Leica can ill afford errors and to do that Leica will have to read market very carefully. Reading LUF wishful thinking as a gospel could well be road to ruin. It may even be the case that new CSC does not materialise in 2012 or ever. Leica German premises they seem to be swamped by M/S/lenses demand. Solution - Leica can provide brand name, outline design and some quality control while detailed design and production is shared with well chosen business partner. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Archiver Posted July 20, 2011 Share #83 Posted July 20, 2011 I'm just trying to get my head around the second and third statements. There will be a compact mirrorless aps-c camera with live view and autofocus. And there will presumably not be another line of lenses other than M or S. So far a few possibilities have been suggested: - the new body will take M lenses and autofocus via a moving sensor - the new body will take a third set of AF lenses designed by, but not made by, Leica. So technically they are not 'making' them - the new body will take both M lenses and these unknown Leica-designed (but not made) lenses Hmmm... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted July 20, 2011 Share #84 Posted July 20, 2011 He didn't say there wouldn't be a third range of lenses, he said it would be complicated. I can't see this new camera using standard M lenses, they're far too expensive for the target market. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosuna Posted July 20, 2011 Share #85 Posted July 20, 2011 I can't see this new camera using standard M lenses, they're far too expensive for the target market. The target market may be diverse. For instance, film M and M8/M9 users might be interested in a second body. On the other hand, sharing of components between the new camera and the M10 would be a decisive factor for cost reduction and efficiency in production. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest nafpie Posted July 20, 2011 Share #86 Posted July 20, 2011 What the people call 'Full Frame' is nothing else than 'The Leica Format', 24x36mm. Every true Leica camera must have that film-/sensor format. Stefan Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted July 20, 2011 Share #87 Posted July 20, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) I don't give a s...t what is a 'true Leica' or not. I just want a camera that handles like a Leica, shoots like a Leica, walks like a Leica and quacks like a Leica. No arbitrary shibboleths for me. And 24x36mm was not the first format Oskar Barnack used for his camera project! It is the total camera that counts. Else, why not proclaim that "every True Leica must use perforated 35mm film"? Or "every True Leica must have a 39mm screw lens mount"? The old man from the Age of the IIIa Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted July 20, 2011 Author Share #88 Posted July 20, 2011 Well said. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xmas Posted July 20, 2011 Share #89 Posted July 20, 2011 ... On the other hand, sharing of components between the new camera and the M10 would be a decisive factor for cost reduction and efficiency in production. I'd suggest it would increase risk one supplier defaults you lose two production lines. Lots of components will be generic like LCD displays, but you would not necessarily have the same physical constraints in two different cameras. e.g. sensor micro lenses would be different. I'd try for a job at Solms if I were you they might like blue sky thinkers. Noel Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SJP Posted July 20, 2011 Share #90 Posted July 20, 2011 What the people call 'Full Frame' is nothing else than 'The Leica Format', 24x36mm. Every true Leica camera must have that film-/sensor format. Stefan Hogwash The M8 is "the first digital M" which is a fact that cannot be ignored, revoked, disclaimed or denied. Also I would think that Leica are perfectly happy with their R and S cameras, and indeed with the panaleicas, X1 etc.. Lens quality and intelligent (minimal) design are the key factors. C'est tout. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted July 20, 2011 Share #91 Posted July 20, 2011 What the people call 'Full Frame' is nothing else than 'The Leica Format', 24x36mm. Stefan Since Leica was not first with 24x36, maybe this could more correctly be called the "Smith" or the Simplex" format? Some of these cameras were pretty evolved commercially available models while the Leica was just a prototype. But their timing was not good due to WWI. http://corsopolaris.net/supercameras/early/early_135.html Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest nafpie Posted July 20, 2011 Share #92 Posted July 20, 2011 Hogwash My opinion. Nothing more, nothing less. No reason *not* to stay friendly. The M8... I never used an M8... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
janki Posted July 20, 2011 Share #93 Posted July 20, 2011 This forum is often a very interesting study in terms of debate between adherents of traditional versus newer technology. I was reminded of one of the most famous statements that have been spoken from the pulpit of the Norwegian Parliament ever. It happened in connection with whether the new color TV technology should be implemented in Norway. Here is a free translation and quote from The Norwegian Broadcasting archives: The statement came during a debate in 1971, under the "hippie period" with much resistance against most things. Many saw color TV as unnecessary luxuries, and they meant that the money rather should go to good causes. The transition from black and white to color was not without a fight, including from the pulpit in the Norwegian Parliament. And in that regard fell the famous words of the then Member of Parliament for the Labour Party and later Head of the Norwegian Broadcasting, Einar Forde: "The Sin has come to Earth, but we will not have it in color." He ridiculed Puritanism and the opponents of the color-TV. Color TV was introduced in Norway the following year, in 1972. Then we can only think of the development further to the present day. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gyoung Posted July 20, 2011 Share #94 Posted July 20, 2011 Only reason to stick with 24x36 would be to make full use of existing lenses. If you are going to have new range of lenses. If not then other considerations apply. The quote indicates that aps-c is probably their chosen compromise. personally I think they might as well go for micro 4/3 where they already have 25 & 45 mm lenses and most revuews consider that quality is as good as aps-c at least at lower iso settings. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted July 20, 2011 Share #95 Posted July 20, 2011 I'm figuring they'll surprise everyone again by making a 36x48 live view AF zoomed optical viewfinder/electronically linked rangefinder body with a superimposed switchable EVF that uses S2 lenses but is somehow only a bit larger than the M9 and can also take, M, R, Hassy, Mamiya, Nikon, and Canon lenses. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted July 24, 2011 Author Share #96 Posted July 24, 2011 Text of Stephan Daniel's interview here: Lense.fr. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bo_Lorentzen Posted July 24, 2011 Share #97 Posted July 24, 2011 I would love to see a M10 as a regular M - not too confusing. and maybe a APC M mount camera, with Contax AX style AF, while it was sketchy on the AX, it is likely to work a LOT better on a contrast detection style sensor without a mirror housing attached.. the difference to modern AF is that no alignment is required because the sensor/film know when it is focused... the camera could use all current M lenses and maybe a few wider lenses made specifically to get a good wide on the format. Bo Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gvaliquette Posted July 24, 2011 Share #98 Posted July 24, 2011 Excerpts of Stefan Daniel's interview in Paris (Réponses Photo # 233, August 2011, page 12): ... Stefan Daniel: « La marque possède déjà deux gammes optiques, les M et les S, en développer une troisième serait compliqué ». Free translation: The brand has two lens ranges already, M and S, developping a third one would be complicated. In fact, the brand has THREE lens ranges, and we were promised "an R solution". What about "the R solution"??? Guy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted July 24, 2011 Author Share #99 Posted July 24, 2011 M + S = 2. Rs are not a lens range any more i'm afraid. The "R solution" would be the APS-C camera. Better than nothing. Those needing FF will use a Japanese DSLR the same way as they do currently. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoppyman Posted July 24, 2011 Share #100 Posted July 24, 2011 This will likely develop into micro analysis and personal interpretation of Stefan Daniel's words. Stefan is always honest but of course does not and can not reveal every detail. Nor should he. Here he appears to be talking about interchangeable lenses and there are two not three ranges. The R lens range has been discontinued, the stock discounted and gone and the R10 was cancelled along with planned new AF lenses for it. R lens production is finished just as serial production of thread mount lens production is finished. This is all well known here. The foreshadowed 'adequate' or 'suitable' solution to use R lenses on a digital camera was described from the beginning as not a camera either. Whatever form it takes, R lens compatibility need not be its primary function. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.