Mini M? [MERGED] AKA X-Vario

[Ruhayat]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The flip side of this is why would they keep the M in production if it is not profitable and the other cameras are?

 

For all we know, each M - and ASPH FLE whatever lens - itineration may be a loss leader for a couple of years before they recoup their R&D costs. But they still come out with it because it's their flagship that is designed to show people what they are capable of so that people will want to fork out bigger sums just to get the Red Dot.

 

I'm not being sarcastic. The same strategy worked for Apple for years - get off the shelf PC components that are not even the high end (INTEGRATED graphics cards, for heaven's sake), package them in a fancy shell, spend millions on marketing dollars to build a myth around yourself, acquire a hard core horde of fanbois, and voila - you can sell whatever you want at higher margins than what the rest of the industry can, and get away with it. EDIT: or use the cash pile to produce some innovative products that take years to create and then have to be sold as, yep, loss leaders for a few years again.

[Bill W]

I for one would sure like it if Leica produced a few more 50 APO Summicron loss leaders.

[AlanG]

The Apple statements are off target I feel. Apple computers were not selling and the company was in dire straights. Producing the iPod and then the iPhone saved the company and then made it take off. People didn't buy those because they thought Macs were so great.

 

I am just pointing out that if one makes an argument that newer less expensive cameras are necessary for Ms to survive it is not based on any financial evidence that has been presented. But if they truly are, then Leica should concentrate on making a lot more of them and better ones too.... and put the M and M lenses on the back burner until they have the resources to prop them up. (Of course I don't think this is the case.)

 

There can also be an argument made that Leica plans to expand and is simply using the prestige of its brand to grow. Once the various models are selling well, I have no idea if the M will be needed to give "prestige" support. They have certainly dropped numerous products over the years when sales could not justify production.

 

I bet the MP is still profitable to make in small quantities as is an $11,000 lens and I think the M line overall is profitable but limited in potential market size.

[pico]

This thread has sieved out the frequent whiners, for example several vociferous members who criticize Leica's production for a camera they have renounced, and they would never purchase one anyway because it does not satisfy their unrealistic fantasy.

 

I take this as an ideal thread to populate my ignore list.

 

So very many have taken Leica's new camera as an opportunity to declare, "my aspirations are greater..." but most cannot evince the same in their own work.

 

This thread's negative posts are about persons posturing, Internet personality building and have nothing to do with real life.

[janki]

As I see it, the Leica X-Vario is a camera that is very suitable for documentation of various kinds.

 

It is a camera I can have in readiness "under the seat" in the car, - if something interesting would emerge.

 

It is also a camera that easily fits in a very small backpack along with a bottle of soda and a packet of biscuits.

 

Of course one could desire a faster zoom.

But, as others have mentioned, it is a compromise solution, considering the dimensions and weight.

Much can here certainly be compensated by use of a "slightly higher" ISO.

 

Besides, there is no point to equip the camera with a bright lens that only causes images with lousy corner quality, at full aperture.

 

"My" Norwegian photo magazine, FOTOGRAFI, has already had a small test round with X-Vario.

They say that the camera actually focuses very quickly in auto focus mode, even in dim room light, - and that the LCD display is very detail-rich and good to use.

 

And, based on the few web images that have been available until now, it appears that the camera actually also produce images with great quality.

[pete hogan]

Leica: You loved them yesterday, you love them today, and you'll love them tomorrow.

[glenerrolrd]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I hate the camera/car comparisons we often read on here, but, an example that springs immediately to mind is the Porsche Cayenne. I doubt many 911 fans were chomping at the bit to buy a large 4X4.

 

Ops ..you have this example wrong . Porsche actually did substantial research on the market for the Cayenne before they committed to the new factory . What they found was that the owners of their 911 s were purchasing an SUV as their other car? So they developed an SUV that was attractive to their loyal customer base . Sold plenty to 911 owners that needed more space .

 

My preferred camera is the Leica M but this doesn t mean I will not have an MF system (the s2) and maybe a smaller body to carry everywhere .

 

I think a lot of the disappointment is not getting a small format solution that I considered attractive . I wanted to buy one but the camera wasn t designed for me . And it seems like it will be a long time before Leica comes back with a new camera .

[Johanb]

I've been following this thread with great interest and I find that a lot of valid and a lot of not so valid points have been made.

 

Something that struck me though is that a lot of the critic seems to be that people want something smaller than an M, but still FF (or APS-C) and with interchangable lenses.

 

I recently bought my first M (an M2 with 35 summicron) and given that as far as I know the digital M's are slightly bigger I'm struck everytime I pick it up of how small and compact it is. It's a FF camera with a wideangle lens!

 

Does a camera really need to be smaller? I hope I'm not stepping on too many toes here but I think if the M is to big of a camera to carry with you you're better of doing a wee bit of exercising than buying new gear.

 

Just my two cents...

[earleygallery]

Ops ..you have this example wrong . Porsche actually did substantial research on the market for the Cayenne before they committed to the new factory . What they found was that the owners of their 911 s were purchasing an SUV as their other car? So they developed an SUV that was attractive to their loyal customer base . Sold plenty to 911 owners that needed more space .

.

 

Porsche: The Cayenne Launch - Harvard Business Review

 

http://wheresthesausage.typepad.com/my_weblog/2011/11/the-porsche-cayenne-successful-stretch-.html

 

I think my example is valid. Whilst 911 drivers eventually came round to the concept, initial reactions were mostly negative it seems. Similar to how many M users react when Leica introduce a non M camera......

[dkCambridgeshire]

I've been following this thread with great interest and I find that a lot of valid and a lot of not so valid points have been made.

 

Something that struck me though is that a lot of the critic seems to be that people want something smaller than an M, but still FF (or APS-C) and with interchangable lenses.

 

I recently bought my first M (an M2 with 35 summicron) and given that as far as I know the digital M's are slightly bigger I'm struck everytime I pick it up of how small and compact it is. It's a FF camera with a wideangle lens!

 

Does a camera really need to be smaller? I hope I'm not stepping on too many toes here but I think if the M is to big of a camera to carry with you you're better of doing a wee bit of exercising than buying new gear.

 

Just my two cents...

 

There are too many forum members who think they know more about digital camera design than Leica - especially regarding what they think is feasible. They always moan - they moaned about the X1 and X2 and now they moan about the X Vario too. They are never satisfied - aways wanting what is not feasible or practical - always comparing Leica products to mass produced Far East offerings.

 

Leica have made what is probably a superb new compact zoom camera but their marketing of same has been poor with resultant disappointment from all those (including myself) who really did expect the MINI M to actually be just that ie a small M camera.

 

I don't think the X Vario will be the 'Edsel' that the forum's critics predict. The camera has much going for it - especially the Leica IQ which has always been an uppermost priority in Solms' designs and expectations

 

The next few weeks will hopefully result in more positive feedback from X Vario users and reviewers and thus give us a more balanced verdict - to counteract the 'never say good' critics' unjustified opinions.

 

dunk

[Ecaton]

Pictures, please, from and of that new Leica. I hope I see a "I Love My X-Vario" thread soon.

[digitalpowershot]

I do not think that the camera is bad (it focuses fast as above mentioned), but they over-hyped it! No wonder then that "we" expected something else.

 

Hopefully they will sell a lot of them.

 

I'm really starting to like the camera...

[pgk]

Leica have made what is probably a superb new compact zoom camera but their marketing of same has been poor with resultant disappointment from all those (including myself) who really did expect the MINI M to actually be just that ie a small M camera.

There are many whom aspire to owning a Leica but who do not want the 'complexity' of an interchangeable lens rangefinder camera, nor the 'faff' of using rangefinder/manual exposure. The Mini M does not particularly appeal to me BUT I can think of people I have met whom it will appeal to and who can afford it. The fact that it looks not totally unlike an M rangefinder in some ways will probably add to its attraction as will its name implying M-like qualities.

 

I have to say that I am rather disappointed in the arrogance shown by many in this thread who seem to believe that they are the only aim audience that Leica should bother with and that any new product should satisfy their perceived needs. I doubt that I will ever buy aMini M, but I am not going to decry it because I would prefer something else (that elusive mechanical M type rangefinder which I just know won't sell much;)).

[dkCambridgeshire]

I've been very poorly but now I feel prime,

I've been out today for the very first time.

I felt like a lad as I walked down the road,

Then I met Old Jones and he said, 'Well I'm blowed!'

My word you do look queer!

My word you do look queer!

Oh, dear! You look dreadful: you've had a near shave,

You look like a man with one foot in the grave.'

I said, 'Bosh! l'm better; it's true I've been ill.'

He said, 'I'm delighted you're better, but still,

I wish you'd a thousand for me in your will.

My word, you do look queer!'

 

That didn't improve me, it quite put me back,

Still, I walked farther on, and I met Cousin jack.

He looked at me hard and he murmured,'Gee whiz!

It's like him! It can't be! It isn't! It is!

By gosh! Who'd have thought it? Well, well, I declare!

I'd never have known you except for your hair.

My word you do look queer!

My word you do look queer!

Your cheeks are all sunk and your colour's all gone,

Your neck's very scraggy, still you're getting on.

How old are you now? About fifty, that's true.

Your father died that age, your mother did too.

Well, the black clothes I wore then'll come in for you.

My word! You do look queer!'

 

That really upset me; I felt quite cast down,

But I tried to buck up, and then up came old Brown.

He stared at me hard, then he solemnly said,

'You shouldn't be out, you should be home in bed.

I heard you were bad, well I heard you were gone.

You look like a corpse with an overcoat on.

'My word you do look queer!

My word you do look queer!

You'd best have a brandy before you drop dead.'

So, pale as a sheet, I crawled in the'King's Head',

The barmaid sobbed,'Oh you poor fellow,' and then

She said, 'On the slate you owe just one pound ten,

You'd better pay up, we shan't see you again.

My word you do look queer!'

 

My knees started knocking, I did feel so sad.

Then Brown said, 'Don't die in a pub, it looks bad,'

He said, 'Come with me, I'll show you what to do.

Now I've got a friend who'll be useful to you.'

He led me to Black's Undertaking Depot,

And Black, with some crepe round his hat said, 'Hello,

'My word you do look queer!

My word you do look queer!

 

Now we'll fix you up for a trifling amount.

Now what do you say to a bit on account?'

I said,'I'm not dying.'He said,'Don't say that!

My business of late has been terribly flat,

But I'm telling my wife she can have that new hat!

My word, you do look queer!'

 

I crawled in the street and I murmured,'I'm done.'

Then up came Old Jenkins and shouted,'By gum!'

'My word you do look well!

My word you do look well!

You're looking fine and in the pink!'

I shouted, 'Am I?... Come and have a drink!

You've put new life in me, I'm sounder than a bell.

By gad! There's life in the old dog yet.

My word I do feel well!'

 

 

So ... KEEP THE FAITH!!

 

dunk

[Ruhayat]

For perspective:

 

How big is the smallest f2.8 constant zoom? My Tamron 28-75mm has a filter size of 67mm.

This X Vario has a filter size of 43mm.

 

The closest APS-C competitors:

Fujifilm XF 18-55mm f/2.8-4.0 : 58mm

Sony 18-55mm f3.5-f5.6 : 49mm

Vario-Elmar 28-70mm f/3.5-6.4 ASPH : 43mm

 

Could/should Leica have gone for f5.6 max at the cost of an increase in size to, say, 46mm or 49mm? Sure. But they didn't, so either they couldn't, or they felt the lens-to-camera body ergonomics are better at 43mm than it is at 46mm.

 

The RX1 is a case study in bad lens-to-camera body ergonomics, to me: the lens is too big for that body, the grip too flat and too tight on the right hand side.

The Ricoh GXR is a case study of great ergonomics: the grip is moulded and the lens is set far away so you can get a good grip and it balances beautifully with a 35mm C-Biogon (equivalent FOV to the Sonnar on the RX1), and even up to the 75mm Summarit with its 46mm filter.

[Viv]

Looks like Fuji has scared the pants off Leica with the X100S.

 

So Leica introduces the Vario, with the same-sized sensor as the X100S, no viewfinder built in, a slow zoom lens and a ridiculous price.

 

OOOOPS!

[onceuponatime]

For perspective:

 

How big is the smallest f2.8 constant zoom? My Tamron 28-75mm has a filter size of 67mm.

This X Vario has a filter size of 43mm.

 

The closest APS-C competitors:

Fujifilm XF 18-55mm f/2.8-4.0 : 58mm

Sony 18-55mm f3.5-f5.6 : 49mm

Vario-Elmar 28-70mm f/3.5-6.4 ASPH : 43mm.

 

 

 

 

Lens lengths

 

86mm 18-50 f2.8 Sigma

71mm 18-55 f2.8-4 Fuji X

85mm 18-46 F3.5-6.4 Xvario

[Ruhayat]

Lens lengths

86mm 18-50 f2.8 Sigma

71mm 18-55 f2.8-4 Fuji X

85mm 18-46 F3.5-6.4 Xvario

 

Then I'd say Leica achieved their objective quite nicely.

 

Given that Leica wanted to start with an existing body size - same as the X1/X2 - to keep the S/M/X lines uniform, they had to design a lens to fit. Looking at the X Vario, I'd say Leica chose well. If the lens had been as fat as the Fuji's, it would be the RX1 all over again: over-dominating lens that doesn't leave much space for a good grip. Looking at the photos (it's not arrived here yet), that X Vario lens already looks just a little too fat for the body size as it is.

 

Worse still: imagine if the lens were as fat as the Sigma and just as long. Would pretty much be unbalanced, given the body size chosen. You might as well get an entry level DSLR with kit zoom then, and that opens up a whole another can of worms.

[mjh]

Looks like Fuji has scared the pants off Leica with the X100S.

When Fuji announced the X100s, the X Vario was already in the hands of its beta testers.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Guest badbob]

What's the cost of owning a Leica? A M9 with small zoom vs the X Vario with small zoom? That difference alone should be all the justification necessary for the X Vario.