Jump to content

What do you want in the next digital M?


IkarusJohn

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Customisation options work differently from model choices. You only need to evaluate them one at a time - doable.

The point of a plethora of models is not to give the customer choice but to keep the brand in the media year round with NEW! announcements.

It would be fun if all news channels and bloggers colluded to only mention new cameras every photokina.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Customisation options work differently from model choices. You only need to evaluate them one at a time - doable.

The point of a plethora of models is not to give the customer choice but to keep the brand in the media year round with NEW! announcements.

It would be fun if all news channels and bloggers colluded to only mention new cameras every photokina.

 

It works the same. You only evaluate the models one time — doable. Just as doable as evaluating customization options. One looks at the models within one's budget or price range, so that narrows the selection a great deal and simplifies the decision-making. Buyers don't consider buying the entire product line; they focus on the one or two models that fit their needs and budget.

 

Making new models just for media attention would be terribly expensive if that were the main reason. New models require a good deal of work, and a parts supply for 7 years. It's not as if Canon and Nikon can't afford advertising or marketing and have to seek media attention by creating new models. If you look at their model lines, the distribution is quite rational in that there is something for nearly every budget. By offering something for nearly every budget, they are much more likely to sell cameras than if they offer just a few price options that won't fit a lot of potential buyers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

By offering something for nearly every budget, they are much more likely to sell cameras than if they offer just a few price options that won't fit a lot of potential buyers.

 

The R.I.P. phone manufacturers used to say the same before the iPhone was released.

Granted, their products were crap. But simplicity was and still is the key factor in Apple's products.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The R.I.P. phone manufacturers used to say the same before the iPhone was released.

Granted, their products were crap. But simplicity was and still is the key factor in Apple's products.

 

It's not simplicity per se. It's great design, which offers ease of use, which involves simplicity among many other factors. And Apple is not succeeding by offering a paucity of options. Apple offers many variations of its products. A new Mac can cost anywhere from $499 to over $10,000 — a 20X price range!

 

Most camera buyers are sensitive to price and don't have Leica-buyer deep pockets. Meeting diverse budgets with a diverse product line has proven to work for Canon and Nikon. To say that offering diverse models is "nonsense" is to argue with success. And Leica is no stranger to this strategy as Leica also offers a wide range of models (S, M, T, X, various compact P&S) in a very wide range of prices. A peek at the Leica web site reveals 8 variations of the M alone, not to mention a la carte M options.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't help repeating myself:

 

The most valuable feature of the next version of the M (240) would be an upgraded sensor in the SAME body -- with an upgrade offer for owners of the M (240) to this new M (xxx).

 

All the rest of the features mentioned above pale in comparison to Leica being the FIRST camera company to make a digital body that does not depreciate to nothing.

 

Gimme a sensor upgrade path.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't help repeating myself:

 

The most valuable feature of the next version of the M (240) would be an upgraded sensor in the SAME body -- with an upgrade offer for owners of the M (240) to this new M (xxx).

.

 

The sensor alone does not a camera make.

 

The processor, electronics and hardware of the M.240 are a bit clunky - EVF blackout time, inability to move the EVF focus point; buffer upgrades of the M-P; video quality, high ISO banding etc.

 

As a stand alone item on the R&D bench the next generation sensor's noise floor will likely be lower, but with it there will also be associated electronics and processing changes that are essential to transfer these gains into a functional camera.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The lag in taking the photo in live view mode or with the EVF and the blackout time after taking the actual photo is absolutely annoying!

Also, when in EVF mode and wanting to have a peak at the photo afterwards is annoying. I would want it to be able to immediately show the histogram on my camera screen instead of the EVF.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not simplicity per se. It's great design, which offers ease of use, which involves simplicity among many other factors.

 

Easy of use and simplicity often go hand in hand. Other factors, like aesthetics, often backfire (e.g. iPhones are slippery).

 

And Apple is not succeeding by offering a paucity of options. Apple offers many variations of its products. A new Mac can cost anywhere from $499 to over $10,000 — a 20X price range!

 

Like a Canon camera is either a DSLR or a P&S, a Mac can be a laptop, an iMac, a Mac Mini, or Mac Pro. Very different product categories.

 

Now, Canon has 40 different products in the P&S category.

Apple has 5 different products in the laptop category: Big and small screen MacBook Air, big and small (retina and non) MacBook Pro.

That's it. Then you can customize your product adding more memory and stuff to fit your pocket, but it is just 5 products vs 40. And even a kid can understand the differences between them.

 

To say that offering diverse models is "nonsense" is to argue with success. And Leica is no stranger to this strategy as Leica also offers a wide range of models (S, M, T, X, various compact P&S)

 

I just said that offering 16 DSLR models and 40 P&S models is nonsense. I don't know who you are quoting.

 

Leica is offering 6 digital models: S, M, M-E, Monochrome, T, X. The P&S are just rebranded Panasonic stuff at a higher price.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The lag in taking the photo in live view mode or with the EVF and the blackout time after taking the actual photo is absolutely annoying!

Also, when in EVF mode and wanting to have a peak at the photo afterwards is annoying. I would want it to be able to immediately show the histogram on my camera screen instead of the EVF.

Coming from a mechanical Visoflex it is bliss - there the lag is before the image is taken...;)

Btw, if you set the autoreview to "hold" and hold the shutter after exposing, the blackout is replaced by a frozen scene, which is much less annoying.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Easy of use and simplicity often go hand in hand. Other factors, like aesthetics, often backfire (e.g. iPhones are slippery).

 

How exactly did the aesthetics or slipperiness of the iPhone "backfire"? The iPhone has sold like crazy. Backfire? People buy cases anyway; slipperiness solved. I thought we were talking about the virtues of simplicity, which you said was a "key factor" that helped Apple succeed. Now the aesthetics of the iPhone "backfired"? So it would have been more successful if it had worse aesthetics or a more grippy design? :confused: The M is arguably one of the most beautiful cameras — its aesthetics are often noted. And yet it too is "slippery" among current cameras. That doesn't stop people from buying an M (or adding grippy attachments).

 

Your point about Canon's "nonsense" is that too many models allegedly cause "decision paralysis" ... and the proof of this is that Canon is not successful? :confused:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Now the aesthetics of the iPhone "backfired"? So it would have been more successful if it had worse aesthetics or a more grippy design?

 

Yes, I think the iPhone would have sold a little more if it had a more grippy design.

Remember the original iPhone 4 antenna issue ? That was because aesthetics was given priority over functionality. Several people went Android because of that.

 

Your point about Canon's "nonsense" is that too many models allegedly cause "decision paralysis" ... and the proof of this is that Canon is not successful? :confused:

 

Canon is a giant, and can afford stupid marketing strategies because their products are top notch. I for one would buy a 5Ds even if their own web site said it's crap :)

 

Would Canon be more successful if they had better marketing and a more rational product line ? I am totally convinced they would.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I think the iPhone would have sold a little more if it had a more grippy design.

.

 

I walked over the Golden Gate Bridge the other weekend and did pass time wondering how many tourist phones ended up over the edge.

 

However judging by the vast number of phones on the end of selfie sticks - clearly the latest fad, a good number have solved the grip issue.:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Since we now have EVF and LV in the 240 and presumably will continue to have it in the next digital M... would it be crazy to consider wanting a zoom lens?

 

....not crazy at all. I use a Zeiss Contax 28-85/f3.3 Vario Sonnar, which works beautifully and I also use a Leica 80-200/f4 Vario Elmar-R and Zeiss Contax 100-300/f4.5 Vario Sonnar which are good but a bit difficult to focus quickly hand held (the definition of the EVF is marginal for this). Now all these lenses although capable of excellent quality, because they were designed for SLR cameras and are retrofocal, so need an adapter, work out very large on an M.

 

If a purpose built zoom were to be designed from scratch for M's with live view, I would suggest the same range as the Zeiss 28-85mm but maybe one could get away with it being a little slower at f4, it could be far more compact. Having used both systems, both one touch, focus/trombone zoom and two touch, separate focus zoom rings, I am 100% convinced that one touch is the way to go for a mid range zoom. For a longer/tele zoom, there is an argument for two touch but I still prefer one touch of the Zeiss to the Leica.

 

Wilson

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...