eleskin Posted December 7, 2011 Share #21 Posted December 7, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) The hybrid approach with green light sounds like a great idea. I hope Leica is reading this! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted December 7, 2011 Posted December 7, 2011 Hi eleskin, Take a look here Leica EVIL. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Ellie Posted December 7, 2011 Share #22 Posted December 7, 2011 I'm not sure Leica will go for this, but reading the S-System Brochure I think the description could apply to a new all electronic EVIL too. No compromise IQ, good ergonomics (equally good for using right or left eye), robust and weather sealed, looking like a smaller S2 with one or two AF lenses initially, S2 body/lens size proportions but smaller, basic functionality for taking no compromise pictures, perfect for all M and R lenses too, etc. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jankap Posted December 7, 2011 Share #23 Posted December 7, 2011 I don't think it will be full frame either, it will either be APS-C or APS-H... I would hope for an APS-H though, and would make more sense, and Leica can still continue their APS-C X-1 line. Is the X1 a line or was it a test case only? To get a bigger market share EVIL should clearly stay under the M-prices (lenses and camera). Would it make sense to develop a line of lenses for APS-H? A format only somewhat smaller than FF. If no, would it be cost saving to produce redesigned M-lenses by adding AF and deleting the rangefinder coupler? With the option, that this modified line could be produced outside Germany. For APS-C it would make sense to design a new line, see Canon and Zeiss. Jan Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted December 7, 2011 Share #24 Posted December 7, 2011 According to Stefan Daniel, « For a small company, the M and S systems require already substantial work to maintain and develop. Adding a third mount, for Leica this would be… ». Suspension points... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jankap Posted December 7, 2011 Share #25 Posted December 7, 2011 According to Stefan Daniel, « For a small company, the M and S systems require already substantial work to maintain and develop. Adding a third mount, for Leica this would be… ». Suspension points... Interesting, but you hadn't answered differently in that interview, knowing that your M9 is a succes. Steve Jobs quit Apple. After him, a so called supermanager from Pepsi Cola was installed as CEO. A person without vision. He tried to copy IBM computers (Mac 6100, Mac 7100). That was nothing. In the meantime Jobs developed the Next. Leica has organized money to invest by selling a part of the company. So we can expect something. Jan Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosuna Posted December 7, 2011 Share #26 Posted December 7, 2011 According to Stefan Daniel, « For a small company, the M and S systems require already substantial work to maintain and develop. Adding a third mount, for Leica this would be… ». Suspension points... I would bet for a M camera with an electronic design: electronic viewfinder, electronic contacts, AF lenses... 24x36 format, price around 3,000 euros... direct compatibility with M lenses, and adaptor for ROM R lenses. A different mount is a possibility, but compatibility with M lenses would require an adaptor and shorter flange distance for the new system. It is OK if that new system is based on APS-C format, but in such a case the interest for M and R users is limited... and a quick development of a complete third set of lenses would be necessary (M, S and the new one). I don't know if the technology is there yet in any case. For the future M10 (a classic M camera with CMOS), the drawings of the design process of the M9 Titanium camera were very promising: there are prototypes with a beautiful modern but classic look, from a slight redesign and change in materials and assembly. I don't think the idea of another APS-C evil camera by Leica is very attractive (just the idea). Look at the market right now, including Ricoh. And Fujifilm is the next one... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted December 7, 2011 Share #27 Posted December 7, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) Hi Ruben, i would not hold my breath for a €3K full frame camera. The M10 will be full frame for sure but when i look at the EVIL i see APS in my crystal ball. Not sure if i read "-H" or "-C" after APS though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjh Posted December 7, 2011 Share #28 Posted December 7, 2011 Suitable APS-C CMOS sensors are a commodity, APS-H not so much. Would the slight increase in sensor real estate be worth the added expense (and both larger and heavier lenses)? I’m not so sure about that. FF would be a bolder and more attractive move, but a bad idea if increasing market share was an objective. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jankap Posted December 7, 2011 Share #29 Posted December 7, 2011 I think so too, because of the sensor costs. Leica followed the fourthirds standard with a small systemcamera: the Digilux-2. The successor (the second try) could be in APS-C. Jan Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosuna Posted December 7, 2011 Share #30 Posted December 7, 2011 FF would be a bolder and more attractive move, but a bad idea if increasing market share was an objective. FF and 3000 euros may be unattractive for companies like Sony or Panasonic, but that small potential market would be huge for Leica. I don't have the numbers, but many projects not interesting enough for giant firms may be for small firms. Leica is not the only one in that position, but other brands have chosen APS-C systems already. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosuna Posted December 7, 2011 Share #31 Posted December 7, 2011 I think so too, because of the sensor costs. Leica followed the fourthirds standard with a small systemcamera: the Digilux-2. The successor (the second try) could be in APS-C. Jan There is no substantial difference between micro 4/3 and APS-C. On the other hand, that segment of the market is already crammed of systems with several bodies each of them. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted December 7, 2011 Share #32 Posted December 7, 2011 Not that the Digilux2 was a micro-4/3rds system camera.. And Leica dissociated itself quite firmly from the whole 4/3rds idea, after the resounding "success" of the Digilux3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted December 7, 2011 Share #33 Posted December 7, 2011 ...Leica followed the fourthirds standard with a small systemcamera: the Digilux-2.. There is no substantial difference between micro 4/3 and APS-C... Hehe so Digilux 2 = APS-C if i follow you well folks In (not so) round figures: - The Digilux 2 had a 8.80x6.60mm sensor hence a crop factor of about 4. - A micro 4/3 has a 17.30x13.00mm sensor hence a crop factor of 2. - An APS-C has a 23.70x15.60mm sensor hence a crop factor of about 1.5. ... IINW. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
40mm f/2 Posted December 7, 2011 Share #34 Posted December 7, 2011 Format per se does not matter for picture quality as long as resolution, dynamic range,sensitivity, color reproduction etc are at high levels (which can be accomplished now with smaller pixels than 2 years ago and may be even better next year). So it is really dependent on sensor technology. For much smaller pixels existing M-lenses will become resolution limiting. Leica has to decide whether it wants to support existing M-lenses on a new system (M owners like me would be happy but new client might not care) or develop a new lens line. A new lens line could have a better form factor than what Sony offers for Nex (or Samsung). But looking at the S-line Leica may have a problem to develop and manufacture enough new lenses to make potential customers interested in a new system. A single lens system like X1 is of course easy. It will be interesting to see next September what Leica has decided. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted December 7, 2011 Share #35 Posted December 7, 2011 It does matter for DoF. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jankap Posted December 7, 2011 Share #36 Posted December 7, 2011 Hehe so Digilux 2 = APS-C if i follow you well folks In (not so) round figures: - The Digilux 2 had a 8.80x6.60mm sensor hence a crop factor of about 4. - A micro 4/3 has a 17.30x13.00mm sensor hence a crop factor of 2. - An APS-C has a 23.70x15.60mm sensor hence a crop factor of about 1.5. ... IINW. The Digilux-3 was the four/thirds (with mirror). I don't believe, that Leica had a micro 4/3 (without mirror). Both formats are/were with a crop factor 2. Sorry for the mistake. Jan Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosuna Posted December 7, 2011 Share #37 Posted December 7, 2011 It does matter for DoF. I would say the whole "look" of the picture is affected by the format size. I know APS-C cameras are capable of pretty good image quality... that is not the point. The point is the differentiation of the product in the market, and the compatibility with the M and the R lenses. There is a cost advantage of APS-C sensors, and another one related to accessibility (more options with different suppliers). But Leica may sell cameras with higher prices and margins, and they do not go after mass produced products, so that is not a big problem (if they can control the total cost and place it into reasonable limits). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted December 7, 2011 Share #38 Posted December 7, 2011 What is sure is that: - current and earlier M lenses work fine with APS-C (R-D1, Ricoh, Nex-5N) and APS-H (M8) cameras; - and that both M10 and EVIL would be able to offer an "R solution" if the M10 had an EVF. Then the main differenciation factors would be: - RF+EVF for the M10 vs EVF for the EVIL; - FF for the M10 vs APS-H or APS-C for the EVIL. YMMV of course. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosuna Posted December 7, 2011 Share #39 Posted December 7, 2011 I mean differentiation with other EVIL models by other brands in the market. The differentiation you are describing is with other Leica products, and I think it is not necessary. Complementarity and synergies is the key in the Leica portfolio. Price and general design of the product is enough differentiation in the catalogue. My point is this: the M system shouldn't pretend to be a "classic" system forever, because in the long term that would imply its demise. In order to survive, it needs to evolve. I am not saying the classical M camera has to disappear, but the system itself needs to get new customers and that means bodies with new features and lower prices. On the other hand, Leica needs a new platform (system if you like the term) for developing a new offering based on EVIL concept, the new paradigm. The M system is perfect for that, as a base of reference. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kdriceman Posted December 7, 2011 Author Share #40 Posted December 7, 2011 What I am looking for is a compact, advanced body with EVF, video and auto focus that will also accept my M lenses, but will be less expensive than the M9/M10. This is essentially what exists in the NEX5N/7 and the GXR. So I would want the Leica to offer something I can't get in these cameras. A FF sensor that could really complement the M lenses would do it for me. Otherwise, why pay what i think will be substantially more for the Leica EVIL than a NEX 5N or a NEX 7 or a GXR? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.