Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
hammam

Leica stubborness will hurt sales

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Haven't read the other replies...

 

Are you a business person? You're commenting on a business strategy, so I'm interested in qualifying your comments.

 

I must disagree on one of your points: why would the lens coding keep customers away? Those who have old lenses are already committed, and those who are new will want to buy new ones. Keep in mind Leica does not benefit from the second-hand market.

 

Are you a market specialist? You're commenting on a market reaction, so I'm interested in qualifying your comments.

 

Maybe reading the whole thread would enlighten you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maybe you should sell your M8, if you do not like the IR issue. I have over 7000 M8 shots without cut filters, though in winter, it has not been a problem for me. You have alternatives - film, an Epson (oops, has IR sensitivity), Canon, Nikon (watch out for IR sensitivity here too),.....

 

Aah, there comes the absolute end-all argument. Does it always have to elicit this kind of useless and irrelevant comment?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Through an unanticpated and unintended fault in the camera we now have a situtaion that makes coding manditory rather then optional for the most used M lenses -the wide-angles. I find it curious that we have people advocating for a closed system as a result of a screw-up in the camera's development.

 

Why would Leica go through the engineering hell and expense of producing an M compatible camera with the intention of users being able to have the incomparable benefit of being able to use the universe of M lenses. Only to turn it into a closed system as a result of an accident in development. Why would you want the M mount which is the worst possible mount for digital if it wasn't to have it open to M lenses? Leica could have developed a better DRF at less cost and without the limitations of the M8 if it had abandoned the M mount for a new digital mount. What was the purpose of that expensive exercise?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But, Tom, all this follows on from Leica's own fault, not mine! It is their problem! It is THEIR responsibility to correct this problem with no damage to me, the buyer.

 

ASK FOR A REFUND and forget about the M8.

 

You are the typical person who nags for the size of the M8, then nags for no full frame, then they try to explain that no miracle can be made, then they make it, call it M8.... but IR cannot be controlled as much as wanted and then you shot at them !!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

people here try to explain to you why third part coding is not that simple because even amoung Leica lens range there are difference amoung the same focal length!! and you still insist

 

PLEASE LEICA DO NOT PUT A MENU !!!!!!!!!!! this guy will nag that when selecting a Leica 21 it does not give proper result using a Zeiss 21

 

Sorry for losing my temper, but you kill anyone nerves. The only closed system here is you way of thinking !!!!!!!!!!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dear Leica

 

I have a 90mm cron, a Noct, a 50mm cron, a 50mm elmar, a 50 mm summitar, a 35mm cron, a 35mm lux, a 28mm cron and a 21mm Elmarit. All are uncoded. I have a bunch of other non leica M comaptible lenses as well, but first things first. Why cant you fix the firmware to work with these lenses by menu selection? Why do I have to ship them off and WATE (pun intended). While you are at it, please let me know when I can expect the filters I ordered three months ago.

 

Sincerely yours,

 

A Happy M8 user

 

Join the club. Now that the new FW is loaded in my M8 and it was pouring yesterday, I 'Sharpied' 11 M lenses plus the 90 macro tube. The only one that was bogus was my 135 Tele-elmar, which I coded as a Tele-elmarit so I have to move the preview lever to work. Not sure if reading the coding will affect the color balance - have not seen any official word on how using a cut filter without coding works in terms of color.

Tom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's be a little hypothetical here. Let's imagine that the M8 was released on the market with no problem whatsoever. No magenta cast and no need to use IR-cult filters. Everybody would have happily gone out and shot away with it, with any lenses they had, Leica, C/V, Zeiss and what not. And the results would have been great, give or take small differences due to different quality lenses. And nobody would have given it a second thought.

 

But suddenly reality strikes: there is a magenta cast due to IR sensitivity, and if you want to correct it, you can't use your third party lenses anymore.

 

A normal M8 would let you use your C/V lenses (agreed, Guy, with some vignetting, which is a far lesser problem than cyan drift), but a defective M8 won't. And you will have to pay for that. Don't you see how wrong this is?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

One thing that could be done -- perhaps by the guy doing the machining on the WATE filter/shade combo -- is to mill half-washers to fit around the base of a Leica lens mounting ring, with holes cut for the six bit coding, and alignment markers -- in other words a metal (or possibly plastic) stencil. Include in the Ziplock bag two sharpies, siler/white and black, and a sheet with the lens code. This would make easy and quick to self-administer the lens codes to any lenses that have the Leica mount; and when the sharpie wears off, it woud be simply to re-apply. Sell the kit for $50, and make several thousand bucks from it.

 

JC

 

Brilliant! (from a guy who just spent hours doing it by hand - got some OK right away!)

Tom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aah, there comes the absolute end-all argument. Does it always have to elicit this kind of useless and irrelevant comment?

 

 

Not irrelevant at all, it is the results that count, see my vindication comment and the poster I replied to, above in this thread.

Tom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You obviously have no washing machine either, no tv.

 

You're a funny chap ... when was the last time you've worried about your washing machine ... do you watch TV seriously? LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Let's be a little hypothetical here. Let's imagine that the M8 was released on the market with no problem whatsoever. No magenta cast and no need to use IR-cult filters. Everybody would have happily gone out and shot away with it, with any lenses they had, Leica, C/V, Zeiss and what not. And the results would have been great, give or take small differences due to different quality lenses. And nobody would have given it a second thought.

 

But suddenly reality strikes: there is a magenta cast due to IR sensitivity, and if you want to correct it, you can't use your third party lenses anymore.

 

A normal M8 would let you use your C/V lenses (agreed, Guy, with some vignetting, which is a far lesser problem than cyan drift), but a defective M8 won't. And you will have to pay for that. Don't you see how wrong this is?

 

IR sensitivity is a problem at the current 'state of the art' for everyone. Do not blame Leica. If you can invent a digi sensor with no IR sensitivity and otherwise good color response, you will most likely get rich!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IR sensitivity is a problem at the current 'state of the art' for everyone.

 

That's a very bold statement ... now show us an example as "good" as the M8.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ASK FOR A REFUND and forget about the M8

 

I have no intention of doing either. I like the camera and I like what the current management of Leica is doing. So I'll keep the camera and continue to express my opinions about my experience as a user. I suggest you do the same and I promise not to invite you to bugger off if I don't like your opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ASK FOR A REFUND and forget about the M8.

 

You are the typical person who nags for the size of the M8, then nags for no full frame, then they try to explain that no miracle can be made, then they make it, call it M8.... but IR cannot be controlled as much as wanted and then you shot at them !!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

people here try to explain to you why third part coding is not that simple because even amoung Leica lens range there are difference amoung the same focal length!! and you still insist

 

PLEASE LEICA DO NOT PUT A MENU !!!!!!!!!!! this guy will nag that when selecting a Leica 21 it does not give proper result using a Zeiss 21

 

Sorry for losing my temper, but you kill anyone nerves. The only closed system here is you way of thinking !!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Well, I'm fighting for everybody, at the risk of being yelled at by people like you. Stop yelling, thank you. And stop putting words in my mouth. As you can see, I can do that very well without you. I have never nagged for anything you mention. In fact, I have praised the M8 quite often. I even said that I learned to live with the IR-filter, and many other good things. The very first time I handled an M8, I posted here saying how great it was and that it really felt like an M and so on. So, so much for your comments.

 

I am raising an important issue. Okay, the problem is complex, but I'm hoping Leica will tackle it sooner rather than later. So, yes, I insist.

 

I think Hank puts it quite simply and intelligently below.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Through an unanticpated and unintended fault in the camera we now have a situtaion that makes coding manditory rather then optional for the most used M lenses -the wide-angles.

 

 

I see lots of posted pix on this forum with WA lenses (limited to 24mm myself at the moment) on the M8 and no filter that look great! It is not 'manditory' to use a cut filter.

Tom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's a very bold statement ... now show us an example as "good" as the M8.

 

For example, I was using a Bowens Illumitrans slide duplicator to digitize a Kodachrome slide using a Nikon D70 and kept getting a red blur through the center of the image that was not in the slide. Lifting off the white diffuser I noted the flash tube was parallel to the red blur in the images. I then did the duping with a hot mirror filter on the lens, end of problem. DPR is replete with IR the issue examples. See especially Nikon D2H.

Tom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What am i supposed to do with my Summicron 40/2, Summaron 35/2.8, Minolta 28/2.8 and the like in all that?

Buying new Leica lenses?

I did it already thanks but am i supposed to trash my dear old lenses including Leica's?

Or should i use a 'sharpie' after having spent little fortunes in 30 years for Leica?

And all this to compete against Cosina?

What a shame my friends.

A closed Leica is no more a Leica.

 

That is a Summicron-C 40/f2 right and that lens was made for the Leica CL, correct.

If you find a filter that fits this lens let me know because a regular filter will not screw on to it. I know I have that lens and I have not been able to find any filters for it let alone a IR blocking filter.

Not sure about the Summiron but does that have eyes?

As for the Minolta, well it is a Minolta. Although it has a Leica M mount it to was made for the Leica/Minolta CL. Not that you can't use the CL lenses on M cameras but these cameras and lenses have been out of production for around 30 years and the lenses were never intended to be used on the real M bodies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am raising an important issue. Okay, the problem is complex, but I'm hoping Leica will tackle it sooner rather than later. So, yes, I insist.

 

But they have tackled it - the new FW and the Leica cut filters. Take it or leave it.

Tom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
These other companies should they introduce a digital rangefinder with interchangeable lenses will most likely have to have a lens-specific optimization program too. They may have to chip their lenses like Nikon or do something else. They may not be able to use the Leica coding system as is now implemented.

Tom

 

It makes very little sense that they will do it unless they will really have to. Otherwise, why introduce an M mount at all? Epson did not do it (and they do have close relations with Cosina). If they will not have the IR issue then they will only have to try to minimize light fall of using internal or external tool. Epson's software does great job it that even with very extreme lenses. with the very low noise of the epson's sensor you don't even get noise when you compensate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That is a Summicron-C 40/f2 right and that lens was made for the Leica CL, correct.

If you find a filter that fits this lens let me know because a regular filter will not screw on to it. I know I have that lens and I have not been able to find any filters for it let alone a IR blocking filter.

Not sure about the Summiron but does that have eyes?

As for the Minolta, well it is a Minolta. Although it has a Leica M mount it to was made for the Leica/Minolta CL. Not that you can't use the CL lenses on M cameras but these cameras and lenses have been out of production for around 30 years and the lenses were never intended to be used on the real M bodies.

 

B+W may be able to make a special order 486 filter for you. The rat is probably not worth the race, however. Another option is step-up rings. B+W makes a vast array of them.

I actually have the 90 Leitz Rokkor (sold by Minolta?, maybe the only German-made Japanese lens) that takes 40.5mm filters but am not bothering with it on the M8 with cut filters, have not even shot with it on the M8 either (have other 90s).

Tom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue., Read more about our Privacy Policy