pico Posted June 13, 2012 Share #121 Posted June 13, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) I doubt the dealers know anything about Leica and Photokina that we don't, and we know nothing at all. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted June 13, 2012 Posted June 13, 2012 Hi pico, Take a look here Photokina predictions. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
lars_bergquist Posted June 14, 2012 Share #122 Posted June 14, 2012 Not to spoil your story, but the next camera that re-defined the field after M3 was the F. Not Leica F though... That is correct. Having thought out of the box once, Leica did not manage to do that the next time. (Their box was named 'Visoflex'). We know the consequences. What is the name of Leica's box today? The old man from the Age of the Pentax Spotmatic Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted June 14, 2012 Share #123 Posted June 14, 2012 And in the early 1950's, nobody could imagine anything like a M3 – everybody from Britain to Japan tried to make a better Leica IIIc. But the team in Wetzlar could, and did. Well, the M3 was hardly a surprise.Two decades earlier... Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/179760-photokina-predictions/?do=findComment&comment=2039707'>More sharing options...
k_g_wolf ✝ Posted June 14, 2012 Share #124 Posted June 14, 2012 My god, JAAP ! You got one of these ?? Best GEORG Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted June 14, 2012 Share #125 Posted June 14, 2012 I wish....:rolleyes:Such a thing must be worth well into six figures. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul J Posted June 14, 2012 Share #126 Posted June 14, 2012 I agree that a M with an optional but very good EVF would open the door to new, longer lenses, and not only recycled R optics. And a macro lens or two. But the M niche is not just a technological niche, but also a pricing and target group niche. And whatever you do to a M, even if you rip out the optical combined rangefinder, it will stay within that pricing and target group niche. Leica will need to sell cameras to new kinds of people. People who don't have the money for a M kit, but who also have no reason to prefer a Leica to a Panasonic. The red dot cuts no ice there. Leica can only do that by thinking out of the box. Few of us do. I think that during the coming years, we may well be surprised. In the middle 1920's, nobody could imagine anything like a Leica. But Oskar Barnack and his pal Ernst Leitz II could, and did. And in the early 1950's, nobody could imagine anything like a M3 – everybody from Britain to Japan tried to make a better Leica IIIc. But the team in Wetzlar could, and did. There were 35mm cameras before the Leica I. It didn't matter. There were cameras with combined rangefinders before the M3 – like the Contax II/III of 1936. It didn't matter. Because Leica did it right, and re-defined the field. The old man from the M3 Age There certainly is an air of expectation about which is quite exciting. One can hope. And I hope for a traditional optical rangefinder with extended modern capabilities that go unnoticed. I'd rather no evf, to be honest, but in this day and age I'm not sure how it will be avoidable. However. It wouldn't surprise me if we just saw a bastardised M9 with a plug in EVF ala X2. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted June 14, 2012 Share #127 Posted June 14, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) Not me either. The old man from the Age of the Brilliant Finder Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosuna Posted June 14, 2012 Share #128 Posted June 14, 2012 The classic M cameras (digital rangefinder cameras) are one thing... and any other type of camera is a different product, for a different public. The M rangefinder camera has to be simple and... well, classic. But due to its own nature it will be expensive and limited in features and possibilities. Nothing wrong with that. I like it. You can expand the concept a little, using modern technology, but there are clear limits. Any other product being 1 cheaper, 2 more versatile, 3 with modern features... cannot be a classic rangefinder. The two cameras may share several basic parameters, and interchangeability, but that is all. The first type of camera cannot be the second type, and the second type cannot be the first type. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramosa Posted June 15, 2012 Share #129 Posted June 15, 2012 Peter Karbe does not like the 75mm Summilux, and I do not know why. An ASPH 75mm Summilux would be a tragedy, the spoiling of a fine lens. I agree. This isn't intended to roil the waters, but I'm not a fan of Peter Karbe and his all-too-perfect lenses ... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted June 15, 2012 Share #130 Posted June 15, 2012 […] The M rangefinder camera has to be simple and... well, classic. But due to its own nature it will be expensive and limited in features and possibilities. Nothing wrong with that. I like it. You can expand the concept a little, using modern technology, but there are clear limits. […] You are arguing for some kind of puristic M concept, saying that the development potential is small in any case, so … what then? I would say that an M with an accessory (good) EVF would be a good deal more versatile than a M2 with a Visoflex II. It could in fact be more versatile than a SLR camera. The versatility of a camera that I can twitter from, or that will tell me where the nearest McDonald's is, is one that I am little interested in. But If it is possible to build a camera that has most of the versatility of a SLR but is more compact because it uses a smaller sensor then 24x36, has no mirror box and no optical viewfinder (but a good EVF!) and can sell for 3,000 U.S. dollars – well then Leica are ready for a new market. Or rather, for its old market, of the glory days. For the equivalent of this bought you a Leica in the 1950's. The old man from the Age Before the Nikon F Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosuna Posted June 15, 2012 Share #131 Posted June 15, 2012 I would say that an M with an accessory (good) EVF would be a good deal more versatile than a M2 with a Visoflex II. It could in fact be more versatile than a SLR camera. That would make easier the life of rangefinder users. Many of them would be happy. But it does not make the rangefinder camera or M system more attractive to a substantial number of new potential users. That is because the rangefinder and viewfinder are quite expensive. Many potential buyers of a camera do not want or like reflex cameras, because these cameras do not offer distinctive features and are more expensive and bulkier tan mirrorless cameras. And this trend will become stronger in years to come (no for professional photographers, or for those who perceive distinctive features in reflex cameras for them). You do not solve this problem with a EVF in a reflex camera. The arguments are similar. The pentaprism and the viewfinder/rangefinder are expensive and complex optomechanical devices. Very expensive. And many potential buyers are not interested in them. They are satisfied with an EVF and look for size and price. You have to offer a reflex camera, or a rangefinder camera, because there exist people looking for that, but they are not the standard solution, the referential solution, anymore. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjh Posted June 15, 2012 Share #132 Posted June 15, 2012 Many potential buyers of a camera do not want or like reflex cameras, because these cameras do not offer distinctive features and are more expensive and bulkier tan mirrorless cameras. At least in Germany there are much more DSLRs sold, compared to EVIL cameras. In fact there have never been so many DSLRs sold than in the last 12 months (even when the sales figures for mirrorless cameras are growing even faster). The pentaprism and the viewfinder/rangefinder are expensive and complex optomechanical devices. Very expensive. And yet mirrorless cameras aren’t any less expensive than DSLRs with APS-C sensors. A pentaprism isn’t that expensive and a pentamirror is even cheaper. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted June 15, 2012 Share #133 Posted June 15, 2012 I agree. This isn't intended to roil the waters, but I'm not a fan of Peter Karbe and his all-too-perfect lenses ... To clarify my comment - I understand how important it is to make the very best lens as regarded in some hard metrics, and to that end Karbe's engineering is appreciated. It is honorable that Leica continues to make history. It is just that I'm an old guy and am fond of what I know best: three lenses, all earlier ones. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosuna Posted June 15, 2012 Share #134 Posted June 15, 2012 At least in Germany there are much more DSLRs sold, compared to EVIL cameras. In fact there have never been so many DSLRs sold than in the last 12 months (even when the sales figures for mirrorless cameras are growing even faster). That is because I say there is a solid trend... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted June 15, 2012 Share #135 Posted June 15, 2012 [ … ] You have to offer a reflex camera, or a rangefinder camera, because there exist people looking for that, but they are not the standard solution, the referential solution, anymore. [ … ] I agree fully with that reasoning. The old man from the Kodachrome Age Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosuna Posted June 15, 2012 Share #136 Posted June 15, 2012 And yet mirrorless cameras aren’t any less expensive than DSLRs with APS-C sensors. A pentaprism isn’t that expensive and a pentamirror is even cheaper. A good optical viewfinder is expensive, a poor one is not. The expensive or cheap are relative terms, of course. A good (large, bright, with full coverage) pentaprism is not expensive on an expensive camera (like the D800, or 5D MIII) but it would be prohibitively expensive on a cheaper model. So cheaper cameras have pentamirrors or smaller pentaprisms. The markup in the low to medium segment of the photographic products might be very sensitive to small differences in production costs. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosuna Posted June 23, 2012 Share #137 Posted June 23, 2012 Photokina rumors... well, those are not rumors, but hints... Hasselblad, Fujifilm, etc. Y entre otras, Hasselblad (In Spanish, sorry). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdai Posted June 24, 2012 Share #138 Posted June 24, 2012 A mirrorless Hasselblad would be awesome ... perhaps Fuji could help them on a body and sensor besides making those lenses - time to dust off my CF lense? thanks for the link, Rubin - and congratulations to your soccer team! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IWC Doppel Posted August 6, 2012 Author Share #139 Posted August 6, 2012 Time for a resurrection me thinks Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
algrove Posted August 7, 2012 Share #140 Posted August 7, 2012 If (and that's a very big IF) Leica wants to sell to more people than us M lovers, they had better change the body altogether. How many times have you heard people comment about the old man with the old camera? Or the guy with the old camera. Or have people ask you how old your camera is? Why do they say that? The M looks passe to most. These camera buyers will be better positioned in the future to upgrade their current cameras and have the disposable income to buy the Leica of the future. A large percent of the "people" I'm talking about will eventually buy something other than a P&S. Leica must be in that market to attract the 40 years olds and above with any money left or any useable balance left on their credit cards. They need a different design than the M I love because it does not have a modern look for more than one percent of camera buyers now or in the future. Sure keep this M we love going, but build a more modern looking camera with all the bells and whistles people have come to expect plus something way out there different. I do not pretend to know what that should be, but they had better do something spectacular if they are going to survive in the long run. They have done this with the S, why not with a new body other than an M, X, or S. Hey, Apple brought out the iPhone and look what it has done to their bottom line. Leica needs an iPhone-like device that the upper masses can embrace like they have embraced the iPhone and iPad. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.