tookaphotoof Posted March 7, 2015 Share #861 Posted March 7, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) No, that's not the case at all. The point is that the M-A is perfect because it plays to Leica's strengths and there's nothing electronic to go wrong. Pure simplicity, and it should operate flawlessly for a very long time. More than one already have had a new M-A because of a problem. Apart from that, the M-A is on my must have list. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted March 7, 2015 Posted March 7, 2015 Hi tookaphotoof, Take a look here What do you want in the next digital M?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
IkarusJohn Posted March 7, 2015 Author Share #862 Posted March 7, 2015 Yes, a winder issue. Haven't heard more about the cause. Hopefully, it's not because Leica has just rebadged some cheap plastic parts from somewhere else ... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pop Posted March 7, 2015 Share #863 Posted March 7, 2015 The Konost has its own thread: http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/digital-forum/364476-konost-merged-5.html : Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted March 7, 2015 Author Share #864 Posted March 7, 2015 The Konost has its own thread: http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/digital-forum/364476-konost-merged-5.html : Careful, Pop. That's how rumours start. Are you saying that the M-A internals come from Konost Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pop Posted March 7, 2015 Share #865 Posted March 7, 2015 Careful, Pop. That's how rumours start. Are you saying that the M-A internals come from Konost The digital ones only. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanJW Posted March 7, 2015 Share #866 Posted March 7, 2015 No, that's not the case at all. The point is that the M-A is perfect because it plays to Leica's strengths and there's nothing electronic to go wrong. Pure simplicity, and it should operate flawlessly for a very long time. The problem I was identifying has nothing to do with film v digital, save for the fact that digital development is based on waste. Pointless waste in pursuit of bigger numbers we really don't need. I cannot help but think of rare metals squandered and landfills poisoned by badly made electronics biffed because something "better" comes along. If digital development is based on waste, then aren't you as guilty as the rest of us for being seduced? There is no reason compelling anyone to purchase the next digital M or any digital M for that matter, but you have some kind of digital M don't you? Film cameras also were replaced with "improved" models. Didn't Leica make different versions of iii's and M's? Using film is also wasteful of metals and polluting but that is a subject that has been thrashed here too much. The difference -- and you are right about it -- is that a digital camera is a computer and thus not usable forever compared to a purely mechanical camera. (Maybe that's why I prefer mechanical watches without batteries). But I am hooked on digital cameras so it is too late for me. I'm a goner. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotografr Posted March 7, 2015 Share #867 Posted March 7, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) No, that's not the case at all. The point is that the M-A is perfect because it plays to Leica's strengths and there's nothing electronic to go wrong. Pure simplicity, and it should operate flawlessly for a very long time. The problem I was identifying has nothing to do with film v digital, save for the fact that digital development is based on waste. Pointless waste in pursuit of bigger numbers we really don't need. I cannot help but think of rare metals squandered and landfills poisoned by badly made electronics biffed because something "better" comes along. That's true and is a legitimate concern. However, think about all the darkroom chemicals and water laced with silver that went down our darkroom sink drains during the film era. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted March 7, 2015 Author Share #868 Posted March 7, 2015 Of course! But isn't it also legitimate for me to express my frustration that when the inevitable cheap component breaks, we get directed to the new product, rather than reliable repairs? Sure, Leica isn't alone in this, yes I have fallen for the newer is better trap, but none of that makes it a good idea. After my house, my biggest supporter Nile expenditure is my car. I'm confident that Audi will support this investment with spares and repairs until the car is completely dead. I'm not sure why Leica should be any different, for the price they charge. If they're saying that in future it is unrealistic to expect a camera to last more than 10 years, then they should charge less and make the body from plastic. PS - I was responding to Al, and my post crossed with Marc's. Yes, chemicals go down the drain, and and yes that does cause me some concern - less concern than throwing away a 4 year old $10,000 camera because of the failure of an electronic component (okay, I didn't throw it away, I traded it, and yes leica would have repaired it, but you get my point). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rand Posted March 7, 2015 Share #869 Posted March 7, 2015 None of these three have a sensor that is suitable for a Leica M.... Sorry, you drank the Koolaid. Go over to the Fred Miranda site - Sony forum, Sony a7,a7r pics thread and see MANY fine pictures using Leica glass that are fantastic. Sony sensor is awesome, body has problems - shutter bounce etc. Leica twits busy bellybutton gazing, fawning over Special Edition Leicas covered in hummingbird feathers from the Amazon. Should be worried about a camera body with no diopter adjustment (CanNikon has had for 15 years plus). Should be worried about a camera body with no bottom plate hinge -dumber than a stump. Should be worried about lens and camera repairs that takes MONTHS!!! Just my 2 cents. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted March 7, 2015 Share #870 Posted March 7, 2015 Again Sony? What does it have to do with rangefinders? Using R lenses on a Sony why not but whom would have the (fill the blank) idea to spend little fortunes on M lenses if it were to use them on a Sony body only? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mornnb Posted March 7, 2015 Share #871 Posted March 7, 2015 Sorry, you drank the Koolaid.Go over to the Fred Miranda site - Sony forum, Sony a7,a7r pics thread and see MANY fine pictures using Leica glass that are fantastic. Sony sensor is awesome, body has problems - shutter bounce etc. Leica twits busy bellybutton gazing, fawning over Special Edition Leicas covered in hummingbird feathers from the Amazon. Should be worried about a camera body with no diopter adjustment (CanNikon has had for 15 years plus). Should be worried about a camera body with no bottom plate hinge -dumber than a stump. Should be worried about lens and camera repairs that takes MONTHS!!! Just my 2 cents. Unfortunately Leica could not just purchase the Sony sensor. Yes, Sony may have the best sensor technology in the world. However they are not optimised for Leica lenses and suffer edge smearing and colour changes in the corner for wide angle Rangefinder lenses. The Leica M's 24MP sensor generally performs with Leica lenses better. For a higher resolution Leica, Leica would need a custom design. Another issue that keeps the price of the bodies high! Here is what Leica is doing differently, Microprisms designed to better capture light from extreme angles. Sony has tried offsetting micro prisms at the sensor edge on the A7r to better pick up extreme light angles at the corners, but it doesn't work as well. Here is what the A7r is doing: The problem I was identifying has nothing to do with film v digital, save for the fact that digital development is based on waste. Pointless waste in pursuit of bigger numbers we really don't need. I cannot help but think of rare metals squandered and landfills poisoned by badly made electronics biffed because something "better" comes along. I reject your anti-progress attitude, there are a lot of improvements that can still be made to make an even better Leica camera. The price of progress is obsolescence, yet it's usually worth it. Leica's lenses are capable of a lot higher resolution than the sensor in the current Leica M is able to pick up. If you want to talk about waste, do you not think it is a waste of technical ability to spend $8000 on a 50mm APO Summicron to put on a body that can pick up less than half the resolution the lens is capable of? Now why do I say less than half the resolution the lens is capable of? Because we can see what a 35mm camera with a sharp lens is capable of with Canon's new 50MP 5Ds. Take a look at this example shot on the 5Ds with Canon's 70-200mm II IS at f8. Zoom in to 100%. (note this lens is in a similar league of sharpness to a Zeiss Otus or a Leica APO) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted March 8, 2015 Share #872 Posted March 8, 2015 Sorry, you have no idea what you are talking about. When the M was designed Leica and Sony got together - Sony has been supplying sensors to Leica for over a decade- and decided that Sony was not able to supply a suitable sensor. And yes - Leica has had diopter adjustment on many cameras for decades, just not on the rangefinders, as the optical principles of the design get in the way of such a feature. Btw., your remark about Leica twits violates the forum rules. Sorry, you drank the Koolaid.Go over to the Fred Miranda site - Sony forum, Sony a7,a7r pics thread and see MANY fine pictures using Leica glass that are fantastic. Sony sensor is awesome, body has problems - shutter bounce etc. Leica twits busy bellybutton gazing, fawning over Special Edition Leicas covered in hummingbird feathers from the Amazon. Should be worried about a camera body with no diopter adjustment (CanNikon has had for 15 years plus). Should be worried about a camera body with no bottom plate hinge -dumber than a stump. Should be worried about lens and camera repairs that takes MONTHS!!! Just my 2 cents. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tookaphotoof Posted March 8, 2015 Share #873 Posted March 8, 2015 Sure, Leica isn't alone in this, yes I have fallen for the newer is better trap, but none of that makes it a good idea. After my house, my biggest supporter Nile expenditure is my car. I'm confident that Audi will support this investment with spares and repairs until the car is completely dead. Hate to disappoint you, but Audi simply isn't. Not one single car manufacturer is. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted March 8, 2015 Author Share #874 Posted March 8, 2015 Isn't what? Audi is part of VAG group, and yes they support and supply's parts for cars for an incredibly long time. So far I really like the CMOSIS 24 MP sensor. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jlindstrom Posted March 8, 2015 Share #875 Posted March 8, 2015 At least in the EU there is legistlation that says they have to supply spares for 10 years after end of sales. So Audi cars will be serviceable for minimum 18 years from first sales, because their model life is usually roughly 8 years including facelifts. After that it's up to 3rd party parts & new old stock etc... For electronics, I believe the legistlation says 3 years. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mornnb Posted March 8, 2015 Share #876 Posted March 8, 2015 For electronics, I believe the legistlation says 3 years. 2 years is the legislative requirement in Australia. I don't believe the USA has any such requirements. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tookaphotoof Posted March 8, 2015 Share #877 Posted March 8, 2015 I know all that John, but there is a big difference in what you write in both posts. If you maintain your car well you can easily outrun the availability of oem car parts. Now let's be honest, how many of us will buy a car to keep for ever? Two of mine are bought with that in mind, one has been bought to trash and swap every 5-10 years. My analog cameras are bought to last me a lifetime. My M240, well... It's bought to be able to serve me for about 5 years. By then, digital has probably moved on in great lengths and I'll find it uneconomical to repair. It's why I accepted Leica's offer to upgrade the M8.2. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted March 8, 2015 Author Share #878 Posted March 8, 2015 5 years for a $10,000 camera is one of many reasons the M-A is the best buy in the Leica range. PS - Actually, I'd go further. Leica does well forging a new and strong direction based on applying existing technologies better than anyone. If you take out the CMOSIS sensor and the rangefinder, the M(240) is a me too camera, and a poor one at that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tookaphotoof Posted March 8, 2015 Share #879 Posted March 8, 2015 That's why I don't feel the need to buy a special edition digital M John. If you buy a new M240 for 6300 euro today and use it for about 5 years, annual costs aren't that bad I think. Some friends think I'm mad buying a Leica. They spend around €7,00 a day on cigarets. Now that's what I call a waste of money. [emoji1] Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
colonel Posted March 8, 2015 Share #880 Posted March 8, 2015 I want a bug free M9 with a choice of sensors: either a ultra high resolution version or a or a high iso version. Perhaps even a monchrom version if they feel so inclined. And how about making them factory interchangeable/replaceable?(Leica should have pretty solid expertise in sensor swaps by now.) I know it is utopian but, you asked. I have no idea why anyone would want that shutter, sensor or CPU after the M240 I mean the M9 is great fun and great quality as a second hand buy but doesn't really compare to the M240 IMHO Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.