rosuna Posted November 20, 2013 Share #2421 Posted November 20, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) I like the rangefinder. I am at the tip of the iceberg. The real problem with Leica is the prices, and how the prices rise every year. They avoid competition by means of differentiation (rangefinder, Pro Format), but now they need to expand the portfolio and they cannot extend the "strong differentiation" logic to those areas of the market in which strong sales can be expected, this is, cameras in the $3,000-$1,500 price range. What kind of product may be just different in that segment of the market? Anything Leica goes to offer is in the market already, at a lower price. Even an M FF camera without rangefinder would find a strong competitor (the new Sonys). Leica can be a little different or even better (materials, M lenses performance, simplicity), but that implies little differences in prices as well. You have a Sony A7 for $1,500, so you cannot sell a similar Leica for $4,500... maybe $2,500. Leica is the only manufacturer of digital rangefinder cameras, and the only manufacturer of 30x45 cameras. Leica is the best for M lenses support, and the only S lenses supporter. OK, what is the next step? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted November 20, 2013 Posted November 20, 2013 Hi rosuna, Take a look here The Sony A7 thread [Merged]. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Rick Posted November 20, 2013 Share #2422 Posted November 20, 2013 The real problem with Leica is the prices, and how the prices rise every year. Actually, the M price came down from the M9. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dwbell Posted November 20, 2013 Share #2423 Posted November 20, 2013 OK, what is the next step? An M240 with no red dot for 1500USD more. Naturally. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
algrove Posted November 20, 2013 Share #2424 Posted November 20, 2013 Actually, the M price came down from the M9. You are correct, $50. But we got a new camera body, larger/better LCD, 6 more MP (frankly, do we really need 36MP for large prints?), better buffer, LV capability, EVF option, thicker manual, better box (OK so you dislike the box from the thread you started), bigger/better battery capability, more buttons, video capability (I have never hit the button on lots of bodies so far), new CMOSIS sensor, and I could go on. However for $50 less, it's a Leica deal. P.S.-Also, I can now use my R lenses from 15-500mm. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted November 20, 2013 Share #2425 Posted November 20, 2013 Nothing personal but curious all those kind people giving advice to a century old company earning a lot of money... When i read this good forum i have sometimes the feeling that some of us consider this old Leica lady like a newbie needing to parrot what canikosony are doing. Leica has simply the best RFs ever made, one of the very best MF ever made, the best lenses ever made so why would they have anything to do but getting those superb things to work better, faster with less quality issues together? Another cheaper system? Perhaps... Why not... But why would this be urgent and why would any Leica stuff be cheap anyway? There are PanaLeicas and other brands for that. You want a cheap system to use Leica lenses with at the highest IQ level folks? There is only one so far the Ricoh for M lenses. So go for it and wait when Sony or others are capable to fit FF Leica M glass, which is not for tomorrow if i believe what i'm seing on the Sony forum... err... i meant the Sony thread of the Leica forum. Edit: R glass? Yes indeed but why would those rather big lenses sit better on a tiny mirrorless camera than on a good old DSLR? I'm staying tuned but i don't hold my breath... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucklik Posted November 20, 2013 Share #2426 Posted November 20, 2013 I wonder if 36mp make sense on a handheld camera. From my point of view 24mp, without image stabilization is more then enough. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
algrove Posted November 20, 2013 Share #2427 Posted November 20, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) I like the rangefinder. I am at the tip of the iceberg. The real problem with Leica is the prices, and how the prices rise every year. They avoid competition by means of differentiation (rangefinder, Pro Format), but now they need to expand the portfolio and they cannot extend the "strong differentiation" logic to those areas of the market in which strong sales can be expected, this is, cameras in the $3,000-$1,500 price range. What kind of product may be just different in that segment of the market? Anything Leica goes to offer is in the market already, at a lower price. Even an M FF camera without rangefinder would find a strong competitor (the new Sonys). Leica can be a little different or even better (materials, M lenses performance, simplicity), but that implies little differences in prices as well. You have a Sony A7 for $1,500, so you cannot sell a similar Leica for $4,500... maybe $2,500. Leica is the only manufacturer of digital rangefinder cameras, and the only manufacturer of 30x45 cameras. Leica is the best for M lenses support, and the only S lenses supporter. OK, what is the next step? You got me to thinking and if Leica brought out a 24MP FF, mirror less M mount camera for $1k more than the Sony, I would buy it in a flash and so would many more, even non-Leica owners. Now this camera they could call the Mini M and perhaps get away with it this time. Trouble is, the purists would complain about the use of the "M" since there would be no RF, but that would be for Leica to sort out. At least they could use the same sensor and much of the M240 guts, especially if they were going to soon come out with a new M340 say for example, which could be an M240 on steroids, way better EVF, better processor, even a better buffer, programmable buttons, maybe 28-30MP, etc. (Frankly, 24MP is sufficient for most and way too much for internet postings only) It seems this camera could be ready for Photokina in 10 months since without the RF, Leica would only have to get a top notch OLED fit into the body somehow. They would have to be very careful on pricing so as to not take away from M240 sales. If they price it over $3k, say $3-4K we might buy it, but they would not get many new customers since the Sony a7 would be half price or less than half, but then it would be a Leica so perhaps they could demand big money for their first venture into a mirror less FF. Who knows. Then again, maybe the new M360 will be what we are currently discussing. If they remove the RF, can Leica fit an OLED in nearly the same space thereby leaving the body looking almost like todays M240? What's the German word for mirror less? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucklik Posted November 20, 2013 Share #2428 Posted November 20, 2013 Has anyone used a MATE 28-35-50 on a A7®? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
algrove Posted November 20, 2013 Share #2429 Posted November 20, 2013 Nothing personal but curious all those kind people giving advice to a century old company earning a lot of money... When i read this good forum i have sometimes the feeling that some of us consider this old Leica lady like a newbie needing to parrot what canikosony are doing. Leica has simply the best RFs ever made, one of the very best MF ever made, the best lenses ever made so why would they have anything to do but getting those superb things to work better, faster with less quality issues together? Another cheaper system? Perhaps... Why not... But why would this be urgent and why would any Leica stuff be cheap anyway? There are PanaLeicas and other brands for that. You want a cheap system to use Leica lenses with at the highest IQ level folks? There is only one so far the Ricoh for M lenses. So go for it and wait when Sony or others are capable to fit FF Leica M glass, which is not for tomorrow if i believe what i'm seing on the Sony forum... err... i meant the Sony thread of the Leica forum. Edit: R glass? Yes indeed but why would those rather big lenses sit better on a tiny mirrorless camera than on a good old DSLR? I'm staying tuned but i don't hold my breath... All good points, but even though the M240 looks smallish when using my 15/2.8 and long R lenses, it works, except when the EVF causes lockups. We all know many of us will whatever they come with in the future as long as it is a step in the right direction. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted November 20, 2013 Share #2430 Posted November 20, 2013 You are correct, $50. But we got a new camera body, larger/better LCD, 6 more MP (frankly, do we really need 36MP for large prints?), better buffer, LV capability, EVF option, thicker manual, better box (OK so you dislike the box from the thread you started), bigger/better battery capability, more buttons, video capability (I have never hit the button on lots of bodies so far), new CMOSIS sensor, and I could go on. However for $50 less, it's a Leica deal. P.S.-Also, I can now use my R lenses from 15-500mm. I feel bad now. Maybe, I should have offered to pay more? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted November 20, 2013 Share #2431 Posted November 20, 2013 I don't know John. M is too flawed? I really want to tell you that in daily shooting, this is the least flawed camera I've ever owned. I'm not sure what flaws you imagine. Look over on SH site and his high ISO shots he posted today. He has a sort of stupid comparison. But, the M comes out with better AWB. The 6400 ISO shots show a lot more color noise in the A7R and that is with Steve over exposing the M240 by about a stop. If, you only read the LUF site you would think the poor old my is way behind the curve. I do understand the price point of the Leica is too high for some. I also would like to see it in the $4K range. I'll cut Leica some slack for having an expensive RF and being a small company, but at some point they need to get below $5K, from my point of view. From their POV, why do they care... they can't keep up with demand... for now. I also agree that the M9 was and is a great camera. I still have all of those files in LR. I never look at them and wish, if they were taken with my M. All of the files from M8 through the M look silly good to me. It's the glass, baby! Really? You like your M? I would never have guessed! We all know, in some detail that you like your M, Rick. That's not the point. Why didn't I buy it? and why do I think it's flawed? Well, at risk of repeating myself, my core problem is that the M9 was perfect in its conception - rangefinder, simple controls, enough MP, lovely colour rendition (for those who liked Kodachrome) and the beautiful simplicity of a manual camera. Rather stupidly, I was influenced by Leica's history and its camera for life marketing. People here (including you, if I recall correctly) have pointed out just how silly I was. So, our digital Leicas are disposable consumables. Where the M9 was a stretch financially (well, my ex-wife thought so), it has turned out to be a reckless extravagance. What on earth is the point (apart from an indefensible waste of resources) making such a fine body with a core that cannot be upgraded, or after 10 years replaced or repaired. It makes no sense at all. Then came the M - another beautifully crafted body, with upgraded LCD and new sensor, but some pretty crap compromises for a camera which is far more electronic than the M9 - indifferent EVF (compared to what is now available) with apparently no ability to upgrade, and the same fixed focal point in the middle of the frame. So, partly my issues are with Leica, and partly with the camera concept. I would support a continuation of the M9 style of camera, but it has to have a real commitment to long term support (firmware upgrades, sensor upgrades etc etc); but if we accept the disposable nature of digital, then build it in a disposable way, and make it state of the art in what it does. It can still have that manual, minimalist control that we all love, but get up to speed with what the electronics have to offer, and cut the camera for life crap. Yes, it is all about the glass - big money on cameras is no longer the game. Cheers John Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted November 20, 2013 Share #2432 Posted November 20, 2013 ...even though the M240 looks smallish when using my 15/2.8 and long R lenses, it works... I'm sure it does to some extent but even if i didn't find the time (pious lie) to try my R lenses on it so far, do you really feel comfortable with this combo, i mean as comfortable as with your Canon or Nikon FF bodies? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted November 20, 2013 Share #2433 Posted November 20, 2013 I know some will say this is a dumb question (actually it's a reflection of my lack of interest in technical detail unless it actually has an impact on my photography), but why if the problem is incidence, why would the 21 Summilux ASPH give better results on this camera than the 28 Summicron ASPH? Does the exit pupil of the Summicron sit closer to the sensor? or is something else happening? Cheers John Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted November 20, 2013 Share #2434 Posted November 20, 2013 John, I actually can't make any points against post #2433 of yours. I understand how you feel. About the only thing I could say, is that I'm not sure if Leica made a cheaper body it would make much of a difference in the price. Leica would need to adopt mass production to be competitive with Sony prices. Sony pumps these cameras out like a Foxconn factory craps out iPhones. I would think Leica would have a hard time ever doing that. Also, for me too, the M is somewhat of a budgeted item. But, I sell my old one (M8 -->M9--->M240) and then only pony-up $3k for the new one every 3 years. Realistically, this is less than buying something like a Sony A7R and accessories and lenses every couple of years every time the next new thing comes out... which is exactly what some poster here do. Then they complain the M line is expensive... which it is for sure... but, some practice this false economy chasing the next new thing. I've posted this before, but it is so right on:The Online Photographer: Letter to George Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted November 20, 2013 Share #2435 Posted November 20, 2013 John, I actually can't make any points against post #2433 of yours. I understand how you feel. About the only thing I could say, is that I'm not sure if Leica made a cheaper body it would make much of a difference in the price. Leica would need to adopt mass production to be competitive with Sony prices. Sony pumps these cameras out like a Foxconn factory craps out iPhones. I would think Leica would have a hard time ever doing that. Also, for me too, the M is somewhat of a budgeted item. But, I sell my old one (M8 -->M9--->M240) and then only pony-up $3k for the new one every 3 years. Realistically, this is less than buying something like a Sony A7R and accessories and lenses every couple of years every time the next new thing comes out... which is exactly what some poster here do. Then they complain the M line is expensive... which it is for sure... but, some practice this false economy chasing the next new thing. I've posted this before, but it is so right on:The Online Photographer: Letter to George A couple of assumptions I take issue with there, Rick. No one said Leica could or should be competitive with Sony on price (or drop its quality that far) - I think I said elsewhere, I would pay$1,500 more for the Leica version of an A7R, primarily because it would have simpler, more direct controls, and would have better image quality with my Leica glass. Of course such a camera would be cheaper to make, without the optical rangefinder, the savings would be significant. I have no doubt it would still have a beautiful form. As we keep being told, electronics are cheap. No, I'm not in the least interested in the upgrade cycle - if my camera works well, I'll stick with it, thank you. I loathe the waste inherent in always buying the latest model - sure, you spread the price, but the waste of resources is appalling. Cheers John Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
naturephoto1 Posted November 20, 2013 Share #2436 Posted November 20, 2013 A couple of assumptions I take issue with there, Rick. No one said Leica could or should be competitive with Sony on price (or drop its quality that far) - I think I said elsewhere, I would pay$1,500 more for the Leica version of an A7R, primarily because it would have simpler, more direct controls, and would have better image quality with my Leica glass. Of course such a camera would be cheaper to make, without the optical rangefinder, the savings would be significant. I have no doubt it would still have a beautiful form. As we keep being told, electronics are cheap. No, I'm not in the least interested in the upgrade cycle - if my camera works well, I'll stick with it, thank you. I loathe the waste inherent in always buying the latest model - sure, you spread the price, but the waste of resources is appalling. Cheers John My guess if Leica offers a camera without the RF and substitutes a high quality EVF similar to the A7r, be prepared to spend $4500+. Rich Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
woorob Posted November 20, 2013 Share #2437 Posted November 20, 2013 Rick, The "Letter to George" is fantastic. Maybe a bit to close to home even. Thanks for a great read! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted November 20, 2013 Share #2438 Posted November 20, 2013 No, I'm not in the least interested in the upgrade cycle - if my camera works well, I'll stick with it, thank you. I loathe the waste inherent in always buying the latest model - sure, you spread the price, but the waste of resources is appalling. Cheers John Exactly. I'm the same way. I have the M-lenses. Just upgrade the body when wanted and the old body goes to someone else. Old resource repurposed to a new user... unlike the other PAS and camera of the day stuff sitting in people's drawers. What a waste. The M8 is from 2006 and I bet a higher percentage of them are still working and being used compared to Nikon, Canon and Sony combined. And, the image quality is still right up there with the M. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted November 20, 2013 Share #2439 Posted November 20, 2013 I know some will say this is a dumb question (actually it's a reflection of my lack of interest in technical detail unless it actually has an impact on my photography), but why if the problem is incidence, why would the 21 Summilux ASPH give better results on this camera than the 28 Summicron ASPH? Does the exit pupil of the Summicron sit closer to the sensor? or is something else happening? I have no idea about the position of the exit pupil but the 28 Summicron was designed when film was still king (I think the lens was launched in 2000). It is also a lens designed as small as possible (it is faster and, I think, smaller than it's predecessor Elmarit) so I'm not sure the angle of incidence of the light rays was something the lens designers gave a great deal of thought to. The 21 Summilux, as you know, was designed in the digital M era and I'd be surprised if angle of incidence wasn't one of the primary design constraints (clearly the designers were less bothered about the size). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted November 20, 2013 Share #2440 Posted November 20, 2013 Very true, Rick - if only Leica continued to service them, then I'd be very happy. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.