Stefan Daniel: New M and APS-C soon?

[luigi bertolotti]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

That's a compelling vision, however it would compete with the M and S, would probably be more expensive than the S. A larger, more expensive camera competing with their existing line might just kill the company.

 

... see post #101 on the matter...

[Advertisement]

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

[AlanG]

That's a compelling vision, however it would compete with the M and S, would probably be more expensive than the S. A larger, more expensive camera competing with their existing line might just kill the company.

 

First of all, this was a joke because I don't see Leica having this level of technology any time soon. And I meant to write 30x45mm. (Not that it matters for the purpose of the joke.)

I was afraid to call this the "final R solution" for obvious reasons. (I'm of Jewish German/Russian descent so don't get on my case for this.)

 

But somewhere down the line there could be a fairly universal format camera from Leica based on the S2 sensor format and technology.

 

Eventually, this format (S2) will have live view. If they make an EVF model without the mirror box and as the electronics and mechanical items get minimized, the camera could be quite a lot smaller than the S2. It should be less expensive to produce than an S2. Without a mirror box, smaller format and S2 lenses could work on it via adapters. They already sell S2 adapters for Hassy, Mamiya, and Pentax MF glass. Assuming the sensor is quite high res, a 24x36mm cropped format area using the R format lenses should be pretty good and would not crop the field of view of the lenses. Sort of like using Nikon DX lenses on a Nikon D3X body. Some of the R lenses might even cover the entire 30x45mm format. An EVF should work pretty well with stopped down R lenses so the lack of mechanical aperture linkage is not a big problem.

 

I don't know if this will happen but it is sort of the flip side of using M or R lenses on an APS body and the S2 system already exists. This would be a better approach than cropping the lens to APS format.

[AlanG]

An electronic visoflex?

 

I think I've been touting the advantages of an M with live view and a clip on EVF for quite a while. I have discussed this behind closed doors here in Washington with Obama and Boehner about 4.7 trillion times and the Tea Party representatives are still against it. They want to scale down the system and not expand it.

 

It is an obvious solution should they have a suitable sensor. The electronics in the M9 are ready for a total upgrade anyway.

[rosuna]

It would be a perfect camera for me; in the bush I always struggle with redundancy backup, as I carry two systems, M and R. A body that forms a bridge between the two would be perfect

 

I am insisting on that idea for a long time!

[wildlightphoto]

So they should have gambled the company on a throw of the dice?

 

Forecasting is tricky business (it's part of my day job) but it's not a throw of the dice. There are best-case scenarios, worst-case scenarios and what's considered most probable scenarios (which often considers numerous factors and judgement calls). Leica's sales projections for both M and S turned out to be much better than expected so it seems their most probable scenario was heavily weighted with pessimistic judgement. Considering the economic climate in 2009, it's not surprising; bad news often creates panic and pessimism, making the worst-case scenarios seem much more plausible. Just watch the stock market if you want to see this in action.

 

Under-forecasting sales can be damaging to the company too because production tools and technique is often optimized for the expected sales volume. Under-forecast sales and production facilities won't be up to the task, QC fails and customers get frustrated waiting months for product.

[mjh]

Leica's sales projections for both M and S turned out to be much better than expected so it seems their most probable scenario was heavily weighted with pessimistic judgement. Considering the economic climate in 2009, it's not surprising; bad news often creates panic and pessimism, making the worst-case scenarios seem much more plausible.

Actually it had very little to do with external factors like the economic climate. The real issue was that at the time, Leica couldn’t have built an R10 that would have compared favourably to the top-of-the-line offerings from Canon and Nikon, despite a similar if not higher price point. Even in a best-case scenario the R10 would have appealed to a small group of die-hard R system fans only. Leica’s assessment wasn’t clouded by pessimism; it was just realistic. And it still is: even in hindsight was it a sad but wise decision to can the R10 project.

[wildlightphoto]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Even in a best-case scenario the R10 would have appealed to a small group of die-hard R system fans only...

 

That's one of the pessimistic assumptions.

[mmradman]

That's one of the pessimistic assumptions.

 

Pessimistic? R O T F L !

 

With puny sales of about 45K R8/R9s clocked over the period of 13 years (averaged 3400/year) and short lived sales of few thousand DMRs against millions of FF AF DSLR CanNikons manual focus R10 circa 2009 (even if it was FF and dirt cheap) stood no chance.

[wildlightphoto]

Pessimistic? R O T F L !

 

With puny sales of about 45K R8/R9s clocked over the period of 13 years (averaged 3400/year) and short lived sales of few thousand DMRs against millions of FF AF DSLR CanNikons manual focus R10 circa 2009 (even if it was FF and dirt cheap) stood no chance.

 

Have a nice R O T F L, no skin off my nose.

 

Consider the large number of photographers who have never used an R body but are using adapters and mount conversion kits to use R lenses on their CaNikon bodies, putting up with mirror collisions, manual apertures, poor mirror box calibration, inadequate viewscreens and metering errors. You don't think they'd like to use R lenses on a digial body without these problems?

 

Consider a digital interchangeable-lens camera that has no AF, no IS or VR, no video or live view modes, limited lens range, slow frame rates and a small buffer. All it has going for it is small size and high quality. You'd think the only people interested in it are those who already have lenses to fit it, but Leica's M lens order backlog suggests otherwise. There are numerous photographers who want to ditch their big, button-festooned DSLR cameras for a small high quality camera, but are put off by the rangefinder focussing. You can get a small CaNikon, or a high quality CaNikon, but not a small high quality CaNikon. Before the R system was cancelled the direction Leica seemed to be taking for the R10 followed the S2, X1 and M9: small camera, big picture. That's a unique market position that the M9 is only partly filling.

 

Go ahead and R O T F L, I'll watch.

[AlanG]

That's one of the pessimistic assumptions.

 

I don't think that even a state of the art digital R body at whatever would be a "reasonable" price could have resuscitated the R system at that time. It is my understanding that most of the profit in the DSLR systems comes from sales of the lenses, and I think without AF lenses, the system was going nowhere. It is unfortunate for R users but at least there are some other bodies that the lenses can be used on.

 

Leica put whatever AF and digital imaging technology they could muster into the S2 where the body and lenses could be sold at much higher prices than the R system could and also did not have to be as technologically advanced as Canon and Nikon models. It does not have to sell in such high numbers to be profitable.

 

Meanwhile they made the most out of the M system going digital. I don't think what made the M successful ever transferred over to the R nor would it with a more modern digital R body. The M system has a unique place in the market and the M9 would not have been as successful if it came out years behind a modern AF digital rangefinder system from Canon and Nikon that it had to compete against. The competition against the R doomed it long ago and from what I can see in Mr. Daniel's statements he wants to make sure that future Leica products will stay much more current with technology and be more competitive in their segments. He knows that the unique spot that the M9 system is in will not carry the company forever.

 

From my perspective of hindsight, all of this seems pretty wise use of their resources and now they seem to have some solid plans on how to expand into other product lines and keep advancing the gear and the company.

[IkarusJohn]

The full translation provided by Geoff seems pretty clear - a new APS-C based EVIL or similar camera, between the X and M cameras, which properly competes with the Japanese products.

 

The R system was a film system. The door is closed on that chapter. All that is left is a legacy issue with lenses. I can't imagine Leica making the new camera to fit R lenses.

 

They can't meet demand for new M lenses, and they are reluctant to produce a third line of lenses.

 

However, if they are really going to compete with the Japanese, the lenses for the new camera have to be AF, and good AF at that. At this stage, the only manual focus lenses Leica produce are M lenses.

 

This is little more than a joining the dots exercise, but if the M10 has the possibility of going AF, the new camera may well bring with it a new line of AF Summarit-M lenses.

 

Cheers

John

[AlanG]

Consider a digital interchangeable-lens camera that has no AF, no IS or VR, no video or live view modes, limited lens range, slow frame rates and a small buffer. All it has going for it is small size and high quality. You'd think the only people interested in it are those who already have lenses to fit it, but Leica's M lens order backlog suggests otherwise. There are numerous photographers who want to ditch their big, button-festooned DSLR cameras for a small high quality camera, but are put off by the rangefinder focussing. You can get a small CaNikon, or a high quality CaNikon, but not a small high quality CaNikon. Before the R system was cancelled the direction Leica seemed to be taking for the R10 followed the S2, X1 and M9: small camera, big picture. That's a unique market position that the M9 is only partly filling.

 

Go ahead and R O T F L, I'll watch.

 

I think the M9 is selling despite the lack of technology not because of it. The rest of what you say about people wanting simpler DSLR cameras has been proven wrong over time as those features were added to film SLR cameras at various points in time in order to be competitive.

 

In any case there are lots of various cameras in the market today, some small, some large, some more complex than others... and most people are probably finding their needs to be well served by them.

[lct]

...if the M10 has the possibility of going AF, the new camera may well bring with it a new line of AF Summarit-M lenses...

Not sure if there is any link other than the mount itself between the M10 and the new APS camera. As i understand it, the M10 will be a rangefinder (so no AF) and the APS will use both MF and AF lenses as well as existing R's with an adapter.

[wildlightphoto]

I don't think that even a state of the art digital R body at whatever would be a "reasonable" price could have resuscitated the R system at that time. It is my understanding that most of the profit in the DSLR systems comes from sales of the lenses, and I think without AF lenses, the system was going nowhere.

 

The R10, according to Leica, was going to have AF. My main point was that Leica blew the sales projections. It's clear they did with the S2 and M9, too.

[wildlightphoto]

I think the M9 is selling despite the lack of technology not because of it. The rest of what you say about people wanting simpler DSLR cameras has been proven wrong over time as those features were added to film SLR cameras at various points in time in order to be competitive. .

 

I didn't say simper. I said smaller. The Olympus OM system was an instant hit in the pre-AF film era because it was smaller and lighter than the CaNikons of its day, with high quality.

[pico]

If the Panasonic G1 or later versions under Leica brand are not burning holes in peoples wallets, there is no chance in hell of a live-view, smaller camera with Leica lenses ever going to happen.

 

The Panasonic sensor is mediocre at average use.

 

The fact that Leica puts up with that says something - but I'm not sure what it is.

[AlanG]

I didn't say simper. I said smaller. The Olympus OM system was an instant hit in the pre-AF film era because it was smaller and lighter than the CaNikons of its day, with high quality.

 

Speaking or small, consider how small the Pentax and Minolta 110 format SLRs and lenses were and that is about an APS size.

 

I don't think an AF R10 system ever existed in more places than the imagination of vapor ware.

 

You said no AF, IS, live view, video, fewer buttons, etc. So I took that to mean simpler. A smaller FF DSLR with all of those features is certainly possible today. And the 5D is pretty small in my opinion. But I bet they could make it smaller however I am not sure if that would increase sales much. I don't know if that is so important to very many as lots of people buy larger DSLRs over current smaller ones or add the vertical base grips to the smaller cameras. I think some of the APS DSLR and EVIL cameras from Pentax, Canon, Sony, and others are quite small so they fill that niche. Full frame may be losing some of its importance and Leica is probably tuned in to this.

 

If Leica made a FF R digital camera today that is as small as an OM 1 but lacks AF, live view, video, IS, etc. it won't sell very well. Nor would its lenses. And I don't think leaving out those things saves much space or weight.

[Ronan]

I imagine a 'digital' Rangefinder with ether a APS-C or Full Frame sensor that moves to focus.

 

With no mirror inside you could mount almost ANY lens made for 35mm with an adapter. Chip the adapter and current lenses with no aperture ring should work fine.

 

Imagine the possibilities... Leica would make a ridiculous profit if they don't let their ego run the price up or limit the camera too much.

 

Maybe even include a 'swap sensor' technology/option for future upgrades...

 

All of this wrapped up in a M3 style body offering Chrome, Black Chrome, Black Paint and Titanium finishes.

 

But all of this is useless if Leica can't work on their QC... Too many issues with new bodies and lenses...

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[wildlightphoto]

If Leica made a FF R digital camera today that is as small as an OM 1 but lacks AF, live view, video, IS, etc. it won't sell very well. Nor would its lenses. And I don't think leaving out those things saves much space or weight.

 

Alan I don't know where you're reading that I believe a full-frame camera must not have those features. Leica's Maike Harberts in a video interview stated that the R10 as it was then planned would have AF, BTW. I did not claim the camera ever existed in the form of a working sample.

 

I'm not proposing that a camera should be made feature-less in order to sell. I'm pointing out that there's one that lacks the so-called "essential" features yet sells well, the M9. And I'm suggesting that one (of many) reasons it sells well is because of its size combined with high quality (both the camera and its output), and that the backlog of lens orders suggests purchasers new to Leica.

 

Allow me to recap:

 

• I do not believe a camera must be made without automated features in orer to sell. However I do believe that a camera can sell even if it does not include commonly-available convenience features if the camera has other valuable features that the commonly-available cameras lack
  
• The M9 is IMHO an example of a camera that sells well without numerous convenience features
  
• I believe that the internet wisdom which states categorically that a camera with few of the current popular convenience features will be purchased primarily by those who have a significant investment in lenses is wrong, and the cite the M9 and M lens backlog as suggestive evidence.
  
• I believe that there is a market niche for a small, full-frame high-quality TTL-viewing camera.
  
• Since TTL viewing is more versatile than rangefinder viewing, and since the M9 appears to be drawing new purchasers, I believe the market niche for a small, full-frame high-quality TTL-viewing camera is bigger than for a small full-frame rangefinder camera.
  
• At present there is no full-frame high-quality TTL-viewing camera near the size of the M9 on the market.
  
• Before the R system was cancelled, Leica seemed to be suggesting that the R10 would be closer to the size and weight of the R7 than to the R8/R9: a small full-frame, high-quality camera.
  
• Leica clearly mis-judged the demand for the S2 and M9, both of which are small for their respective sensor formats
  
• I believe that Leica also mis-judged the potential demand for the proposed R10 as outlined above.
  
• I do not believe that we can nor do I propose we do go back in time and resurrect the R system
  
• I believe the extraordinary market conditions in 2009 were a very big factor in mis-judging the projected sales of the S2, M9 and R10
  
• I also believe that I've wasted too much of my life explaining myself in this thread and on this forum. Adios.

[menos I M6]

Originally Posted by AlanG:

I think the M9 is selling despite the lack of technology not because of it. The rest of what you say about people wanting simpler DSLR cameras has been proven wrong over time as those features were added to film SLR cameras at various points in time in order to be competitive. .

 

Alan, I have to strongly differ on that, based on my experience with current DSLR cameras and opinions of other DSLR users, who came to the insight of how beautiful and essential Leica cameras are, when coming from a complicated DSLR.

 

A very interesting read regarding this, as of his opinion about the topic (DSLR and feature race of the manufacturers in the wrong direction) is Thom Hogans website.

 

Everybody, who has used both systems, especially people like me, who have started photography with current DSLR camera systems and then switched mainly to simple tools as Leica M will agree, that indeed most of current electronic camera's functions, offered are superficial and extraneous of the actual production of photographs in daily use, leading often even to overcomplicating things.

 

I rarely pick up my Nikons anymore since using Leica M. People, I talk with - beginners, advanced or professional shooters of DSLR systems infact either agree, that most of the functions and features their cameras offer are unknown to them or simply not used, as not useful to them for their work.

 

The market has concentrated on just two major players for professionals with only a handful of feature laden pro bodies, to cover every single possible aspect of photography (and lately adding motion pictures as well, as if these apparatuses are not complicated enough).

 

I see, it is time, to produce a simple digital, professional still camera, which does mount classic manual focus lenses and optionally offers, to mount modern AF lenses, but does nothing more than a digital equivalent of a Olympus OM-2/3/4 or Nikon FM3a (plus added AF functionality).

 

The beauty about the M system is its simplistic design and function and very much it's endless choice of beautiful lenses back from the early 20th century to today's best offerings.

 

A Leica R, that would have gone back to the roots of offering a compact body with R glass and potential AF compatibility on the performance level of a S2 would have been very, very interesting for the market.

 

It would have in no way raced with current Nikon/ Canon flagship professional cameras, but would have been a specialized camera in the market of SLRs, similar to what a M9 is Today for RF shooters.

 

A bloated, feature laden, big me too R10, based on the R8/9 design, playing of getting into body performance of Nikon and Canon surely was a dead end (I suppose, Leica has been developing the later, realizing, that such endeavor would have been a corporate failure).

 

I like the way, I can use the M. If Leica would have brought out a digital Nikon FM3a/ Olympus OM-3, that takes old and new Leica R lenses, I surely would have bought into this system, despite I have not one single R lens.

 

Btw - I would looooove, to use a Leica made, fast 300 to 500mm telephoto prime, manual focus or autofocus on a compact, digital Leica SLR body, similar in function to a M9 with that beautiful sensor, to exchange for my Nikon D3 for long lens motor sports. Nikon files are all fine and dandy, but I know, what Leica glass is capable of, just mentioning.

 

Second hand Leica R glass in this range is just still too expensive without any visible future body wise, to pick them up these days, if one can find them that is ;-)