urs0polar Posted June 15, 2012 Share #21 Posted June 15, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) Leica is not Nikon. The M9 sells very well so far and what you like in EVILs could well be present to some extent in the M10. I agree that the M9 sells well, and I didn't mean to say I like EVILs... I think they are a powerful concept though. My perfect cameras of what's out right now would be the MM and the S2, even if there was a full-frame NEX. Can't afford either top of the line Leica, but the M8 and my film Rs are pretty nice. I was thinking -- I know it's a bit of a backwards analogy, but imagine if Porsche made a "classic" 911 that was just for the enthusiast who wanted to simply "drive"... no power steering, the crazy into-the-floor clutch, all the gauges in German with "druck" everywhere... all hand made. I think people would buy it. If they were to do such a thing, the only way they could do it today would be to sell the softer modern 911s with the automatic transmissions, etc like they do now. Yeah, the new ones are easier to drive, more comfortable, require less tuneups, are faster... but they are not the same. You have to actually know what you are doing to drive the old ones well. I think the M bodies are like that -- just a joy to use, and when you actually do something cool with it, you know it was you and not some onboard computer. The M's niche is that it doesn't have all that fancy stuff. However, that doesn't mean another camera made by Leica can't have that stuff ... why limit them? Who cares if it takes the same lenses? At the end of the day though, if they put focus peaking/etc into the M10, that's cool too; I'll probably want one. I just don't understand why people think it's always either/or. Or are people worried that, like the R line when the S2 was introduced, this new EVIL thing, if FF, would cause the M line to be discontinued? The M is quite successful; I'm not convinced that would happen. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted June 15, 2012 Posted June 15, 2012 Hi urs0polar, Take a look here If the M10 were to focus like the NEX-7. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
lct Posted June 15, 2012 Share #22 Posted June 15, 2012 […] The M's niche is that it doesn't have all that fancy stuff. However, that doesn't mean another camera made by Leica can't have that stuff ... why limit them? Who cares if it takes the same lenses? […] Leica. As Stephan Daniel said last year, adding a third system to M and S would be too heavy for a small company like Leica. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted June 15, 2012 Share #23 Posted June 15, 2012 Life before Blackstone? Things might have changed by now. They have to build SOMETHING in this huge new Portuguese factory and the Leica Park Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted June 15, 2012 Share #24 Posted June 15, 2012 I agree that a 24x36 EVIL would be, as of today, "too much / too risk" for Leica : it should be very costly , so targeting the same market of the M line (with some marginal broadening of it) ; moreover, this would impose them to make a number of new costly-to-develop lenses : of course, R users would be happy to use their legacy lenses... but they can't count on them to broaden the market share, and to achieve this, you can't stick with the current M line of lenses which is strictly "confined" by the VF/RF limits: all of this, imho is too risky in industrial terms : without pretending to be their planning advisor, I think they had to plan for selling 1,5x or even 2x the current M numbers (the global investiment would be huge, with some costly outsourced technologies) : is there such a room for a 7-8000 Euro camera ?. The EVIL with APS/APS H I think is also a serious and costly project to carry on, but imho with less intrinsic risks, and with the capability of a more solid growth of market share. This wouldn't mean that they must not think to EVF in the 24x36 market, but a "step by step approach to the FF EVIL" is possible and less risky : - Make M10 with CMOS, classic RF and accessory EVF with focus peaking - Usual M market... plus the R lenses owners - During the 1st year, add just 1 or 2 lenses (macro + tele) that, de facto, can be used only with the EVF (M mount but not RF coupling... "Viso"... ) - 2nd year : see how this thing goes on... make the EVF "better" if technology allows, make a zoom... - If results are satisfactory, they maybe will be able to say that market is ready for a real FF EVIL - new line - not a new M Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter H Posted June 15, 2012 Share #25 Posted June 15, 2012 ......................................I was thinking -- I know it's a bit of a backwards analogy, but imagine if Porsche made a "classic" 911 that was just for the enthusiast who wanted to simply "drive"... no power steering, the crazy into-the-floor clutch, all the gauges in German with "druck" everywhere... all hand made. I think people would buy it. If they were to do such a thing, the only way they could do it today would be to sell the softer modern 911s with the automatic transmissions, etc like they do now. Yeah, the new ones are easier to drive, more comfortable, require less tuneups, are faster... but they are not the same. You have to actually know what you are doing to drive the old ones well. I think the M bodies are like that -- just a joy to use, and when you actually do something cool with it, you know it was you and not some onboard computer. The M's niche is that it doesn't have all that fancy stuff. However, that doesn't mean another camera made by Leica can't have that stuff ... why limit them? Who cares if it takes the same lenses? .............................. I hope and believe there's a significant difference between an M camera and a "classic" Porsche or a Swiss watch. Its not just about the pleasure to be gained from the sense of mechanical precision. It has to be about the outcome. It doesn't matter if a Porsche is inefficient compared with a Golf, or if a Swiss watch is inaccurate compared with a cheap plastic thing. They are toys, jewellery. But it does matter if an M camera is simply a nice bauble. It has to produce photos that compare with the best available. As long as it does that, there will be a market for it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill Posted June 15, 2012 Share #26 Posted June 15, 2012 I hope and believe there's a significant difference between an M camera and a "classic" Porsche or a Swiss watch. Its not just about the pleasure to be gained from the sense of mechanical precision. It has to be about the outcome. It doesn't matter if a Porsche is inefficient compared with a Golf, or if a Swiss watch is inaccurate compared with a cheap plastic thing. They are toys, jewellery. But it does matter if an M camera is simply a nice bauble. It has to produce photos that compare with the best available. As long as it does that, there will be a market for it. As always, it depends.... A racing driver won't drive a Porsche as described at Le Mans and have any expectation of winning against a "modern" car. However, if he wants to progress quickly and enjoyably along a winding road between two Tuscan towns he may well take the Porsche in preference. It would be the horse for the course. It would get him from A to B in good order and with a big grin on his face. If that is the desired outcome it is the perfect tool for the job. In that instance the Porsche is not a "nice bauble", but the "best available". Regards, Bill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter H Posted June 15, 2012 Share #27 Posted June 15, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) Indeed Bill. But the point I was trying to make is that, in addition to being a pleasant thing to use like the old Porsche, it has also to be able to deliver results that compare with the best available from the contemporary competition. Baubles are perfect if what you want is a bauble. I'm saying that M cameras need to be more than that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill Posted June 15, 2012 Share #28 Posted June 15, 2012 In that case, Peter, I fully agree. You know my views, oft-expressed, on tools for the job. Baubles are for Christmas trees. Regards, Bill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
urs0polar Posted June 15, 2012 Share #29 Posted June 15, 2012 In that case, Peter, I fully agree. You know my views, oft-expressed, on tools for the job. Baubles are for Christmas trees. Regards, Bill I agree with both of you guys. The M is not going to stand up to any modern DSLR on the sidelines of a football game (American or otherwise ... )... no tele and no motor drive (well, no 10fps). In this use case, the M is a bauble. The players are simply too far away. This is the modern race car use case. However, intuitive street shooting, connection to subject, portrait stuff, landscapes, the M is at least equal if not superior in some ways. This is the classic Porsche use case. But, of course, I'm stretching the analogy. I'm just saying that it wouldn't stop me from buying an M even if they came out with something that performed better than the M in its weak areas because I'm not interested in the type of photography that needs those weak areas. I have to imagine others might think like me even if the majority thinks otherwise -- therefore, there's a market for the classic M no matter what anyone, including Leica, comes up with, even if it's FF. Anyhow this is a really interesting discussion and I can't wait to see what the M10 turns out to be. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Pop Posted June 15, 2012 Share #30 Posted June 15, 2012 I don't think the Leica M is a bauble, any more than the Porsche is a bauble...if we're defining bauble solely on the grounds of price, maybe. But "outcome" and "utility" isn't just one thing. The M9 doesn't have to become more like the Nex or the Canon 5D to be a "good camera" and therefore "be about outcome". If cars were all about 'outcome' we'd all just drive Toyota Corollas. The M? It's a different camera. These debates about 'who is behind the times' are so tiring. Leica has things like the S2. They also have the M, and lots of cameras in between (whether made by Panasonic or not...it's a moot point). Photography is a lot like music - a LOT. The M is like a grand piano...it's expensive, it's not perfect for everything, it's classically built and much the same as 100 years ago. But the arguments that go on...It's like saying the grand piano is no good anymore and just 'stuck in the past' because someone else builds a synthesizer with an electronic drum machine inside, and 'when will steinway start building synthesizers?' or 'why does't Martin get with the times and stop building acoustic guitars?' A grand piano is perfectly fine if that's the playing experience (process) and sound (outcome) you like. It has nothing to do with nostalgia and everything to do with choice. Likewise with high-feature electronic instruments/synthesizers. If you want a camera like the Nex.....buy a Nex and stop waiting for Leica to build one. People need to realize that the decisions around the M are actually quite intentional - they're not based solely on some old nostalgia when there's supposedly better solutions (outcomes) out there. I've said it before and I'll say it again: There is nothing new in photography, image-wise...all of the new designs, gadgets, focus peaking, sensor comparisons, and other equipment masturbation that takes place hasn't changed the types of photographs we see....at all. Does digital mean that National Geographic looks fundamentally different? Do the pictures in Time magazine now have some great new quality because they're shot on a 5DmkIII? Not at all. I for one love the simplicity of the M9 (and my MP). The only things I wish for are faster writing speed (which adds value no matter what), perhaps better screen resolution, and better battery life, maybe a bit more info in the viewfinder. But it's an M, and I like it that way. I have a M4/3 with a Leica adapter if I want those experiences, live view, etc. The Younger Man who misses Kodachrome every day.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted June 15, 2012 Share #31 Posted June 15, 2012 Jon, I agree with every word you have written. And written so well. I was born in the same year as 35mm Kodachrome, and last year I read its obituary – as that of many old friends. But while K64 was great in it's day, the M9 is great in it's own day, and a good deal more convenient. And let's face it, the pictures are technically better. In any case, nothing can replace that smell of a folding roll film camera. Or the sheer experience of a charge of magnesium powder … The old man from the Kodachrome Age Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
timberline12k Posted June 15, 2012 Share #32 Posted June 15, 2012 I don’t own a rangefinder, but have ordered two Leica lenses, a 35mm and 50mm. Those two focal lengths appear to be in the sweet spot of a rangefinder and its technology. I should receive my first lens by September after which time I will purchase a used M9 or new M10. I think there is little incentive for other manufacturers to build a FF MILC (Full Frame Mirrorless Interchangeable Lens Camera) because they only have lenses to support the APS-C and 4/3rds markets. I sold several DSLR lenses (plus one more in August) and X100 to help fund this transition, but there will still be additional out of pocket cost which is why the decision has taken so long. I want to make this change because of my experience with the X100 and Zeiss manual focus lenses on my DSLR. A rangefinder appears to include the best features of both, but with limitations. Because of those limitations, I probably won’t consider additional lenses. The D800E offers the advantage of through lens viewing while using macro and wide angle lenses. Focus peeking seems intriguing especially with the increasing demands of higher megapixel sensors. I have not considered selling my remaining manual focus DSLR lenses (Zeiss 21/2.8 and Zeiss 100/2), but might investigate it if focus peeking was easily available on a rangefinder. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted June 16, 2012 Share #33 Posted June 16, 2012 Well, David, both Canon and Nikon do certainly build lenses to cover the 24x36mm format. They still think that the SLR has some advantages over mirrorless – mainly faster autofocus, I'd say – but when that advantage is gone, they too will go mirrorless. The old man from the Kodachrome Age Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
timberline12k Posted June 17, 2012 Share #34 Posted June 17, 2012 Well, David, both Canon and Nikon do certainly build lenses to cover the 24x36mm format. They still think that the SLR has some advantages over mirrorless – mainly faster autofocus, I'd say – but when that advantage is gone, they too will go mirrorless. The old man from the Kodachrome Age Lars, That is part of the reason I am starting the transition to a rangefinder and M-mount lenses, but it seems like an EVF would be needed for macro and wide angle (without using a separate viewfinder). That all being said while I have yet to have any real experience until I get my first lens. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted June 17, 2012 Share #35 Posted June 17, 2012 Well, David, both Canon and Nikon do certainly build lenses to cover the 24x36mm format. They still think that the SLR has some advantages over mirrorless – mainly faster autofocus, I'd say – but when that advantage is gone, they too will go mirrorless. Do you use a mirror-less camera now? I have one, the Panasonic G1 and the viewfinder sucks. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted June 17, 2012 Share #36 Posted June 17, 2012 David, and Pico: I have no problem with optical accessory finders with wide angle lenses. When I grew up, all focal lengths except 50mm required one! I do in fact prefer them to any EVF I have seen to date. Some people even prefer them to the built-in finder, even when it has the required frames, because they are much brighter and clearer. In that case the camera finder is used only for exposure info, and focusing. Macro, like long lenses, and by the way, perspective control lenses require viewing through the lens, and thus either a SLR or a EVF. Electronic viewfinders are improving fast. They will soon approach the clarity and definition of a decent SLR matte screen. If Leica bring out a new M with a CMOS sensor with real live view capability, then I simply cannot see why they should not stick an accessory EVF on it, the way they did with the X2. We'll see in September. The old man from the Kodachrome Age Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted June 17, 2012 Share #37 Posted June 17, 2012 Do you use a mirror-less camera now? I have one, the Panasonic G1 and the viewfinder sucks. Ummm.. That camera is from 2008 and the viewfinder is at least three generations obsolete... The Digilux 2 sucks even more, and that is even less of an argument against present day’s EVFs. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted June 17, 2012 Share #38 Posted June 17, 2012 Yes. Any experience with the "EVF2" for X2? Edit: Funnily enough it is advertised as an "Electronic Viso-Flex viewfinder" in the Leica site. The one for the M10, if any, could well be presented as an up-to-date Visoflex with some reason. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted June 17, 2012 Share #39 Posted June 17, 2012 With the (apparently identical) Olympus version on the Olympus XZ1. Quite acceptable, but not an SLR type experience by any stretch of imagination. And a long way off from a real viewfinder. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
-ph- Posted June 17, 2012 Share #40 Posted June 17, 2012 Do you use a mirror-less camera now? I have one, the Panasonic G1 and the viewfinder sucks. Try the OM-D. It has a slightly refined version of the VF-2 (the same as the one for the X2). I did not have ample time to play with it, but it seemed to be quite fine to focus my 50lx even without magnifying the image. If I had it available on my M9, I certainly would use it most of the time. Peter Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.