earleygallery Posted December 5, 2013 Share #121 Posted December 5, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) I read that as Panasonic will manufacture the components and Leica will assemble the cameras. I'm pretty sure that Leica make the X series in a similar way. Has anyone who has done a factory tour seen the machines that churn out X lens assemblies or bodies? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted December 5, 2013 Posted December 5, 2013 Hi earleygallery, Take a look here CEO Alfred Schopf and future products. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
rosuna Posted December 5, 2013 Share #122 Posted December 5, 2013 I read that as Panasonic will manufacture the components and Leica will assemble the cameras. I'm pretty sure that Leica make the X series in a similar way. Has anyone who has done a factory tour seen the machines that churn out X lens assemblies or bodies? The important thing, to me, is the general design of the device and, more specifically, the design of the lens. The X2 build quality is not at the quality standards of the M, S or R systems. The X Vario is better. This is of paramount importance. A Leica camera has to feel like a Leica. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosuna Posted December 7, 2013 Share #123 Posted December 7, 2013 This seems to be the design goal for the new system: Long ago, the first Leica proved that high resolution and sharpness was not the exclusive domain of large- and medium-format films – a film format of only 24 × 36 mm was more than sufficient, and made much smaller cameras possible. Thanks to its lens, the X Vario is now able to achieve this imaging quality in an even smaller format and, as a result, with an even smaller overall camera size, which is an outright winner in the “compactness” discipline of the pentathlon. Peter Karbe: A Look through the Vario-Elmar Lens Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted December 7, 2013 Share #124 Posted December 7, 2013 Have they ever justified it? It's always been expensive, and we now have an additional digital cost involved. 1954- M3 ~ $250 average salary ~$4700 = 5.3% 2013- M ~ $6950 (MP $4995) average salary ~$69000 = 10% (7% for the MP) I remember reading that when Capa got his Contax kit, it cost the same as a car. An equivilent 3 lens leica kit would cost a small cars worth today, so things don't change that much. Michael This does not take the slide of the US $ against the Deutschmark/Euro into account, which it should, as the camera is manufactured in Europe. Incidentally, the Leica M3 was born in the same year as Angela Merkel. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted December 7, 2013 Share #125 Posted December 7, 2013 This seems to be the design goal for the new system... Yes size indeed, including AF lenses which should remain small unlike FF ones. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosuna Posted December 7, 2013 Share #126 Posted December 7, 2013 Yes size indeed, including AF lenses which should remain small unlike FF ones. It was the key marketing argument of the original 4/3 system as well... but it failed. The sensor is almost 4 times smaller than FF though... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted December 7, 2013 Share #127 Posted December 7, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) Too much DoF. APS is a better compromise from this standpoint. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosuna Posted December 7, 2013 Share #128 Posted December 7, 2013 Yes size indeed, including AF lenses which should remain small unlike FF ones. ... but, hopefully, as fast as typical FF lenses are... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
algrove Posted December 8, 2013 Share #129 Posted December 8, 2013 The Sony FF Af 35/2.8 is very small and functions well so IMHO AF lenses to not need to be "larger" than current M lenses. Granted Sony lenses are not Leica lenses, but Zeiss seems to have done well with their current FE designs. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted December 8, 2013 Share #130 Posted December 8, 2013 The Sony FF Af 35/2.8 is very small... 62 x 37mm vs 52 x 34mm for the Summarit 35/2.5, which is not bad at all, but the Zeiss 55 is bigger than the Summarit 90 (64 x 71mm vs 55 x 67mm). There is no free lunch. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted December 8, 2013 Share #131 Posted December 8, 2013 62 x 37mm vs 52 x 34mm for the Summarit 35/2.5, which is not bad at all, but the Zeiss 55 is bigger than the Summarit 90 (64 x 71mm vs 55 x 67mm). There is no free lunch. As we all know, Sony is not going to build wide angle lenses using similar designs (and issues) as some Leica wides. Additionally, the Sony body is thinner so that distance has to be made up by a longer lens barrel for an identical lens design as used on a Leica. (The same as the thickness of the M to E adapter.) You could probably find some SLR lenses that are shorter than some Leica lenses when you don't count the length of the adapter necessary for their use on the A7. . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
barjohn Posted December 8, 2013 Share #132 Posted December 8, 2013 Don't forget you need more diameter to include AF motor. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted December 8, 2013 Share #133 Posted December 8, 2013 What's the point of getting small bodies if lenses are big? All good reasons to prefer APS for AF lenses IMHO. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted December 8, 2013 Share #134 Posted December 8, 2013 What's the point of getting small bodies if lenses are big? All good reasons to prefer APS for AF lenses IMHO. APS lenses produce a 15MP image when used on the A7R. So you have that option and future models will have higher res. How is a smaller lighter less expensive body not a good idea? It seems that Sony has also been working to keep the lens weight down. And they are introducing slower light weight lenses at least to start with. (Larger faster heavier A mount lenses are already available.) Here is all you need to know about why this will be attractive to me. Sony A7R 455g 24-70 f4 430 g Total - 885g. Nikon D800 - 1000g 24-70 F4 710g Total 1710g Canon 5D3 - 950g 24-70 f4 -600g Total - 1500g. Sony Nex7 APS - 350g 16-70 f4 (yes more reach) 308g. Total 658g. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted December 8, 2013 Share #135 Posted December 8, 2013 ...how is a smaller lighter less expensive body not a good idea?... If it cannot use small AF lenses it is useless for me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted December 8, 2013 Share #136 Posted December 8, 2013 If it cannot use small AF lenses it is useless for me. Did you read what I wrote above? It uses APS lenses and their FF lenses are light and probably as small as they can make them for this thin body. The 16-50 APS zoom collapses and is about as small as you could want. (This is the only reason I bought a Nex 6 or any mirrorless camera.).The A7r and 24-70 zoom is just a little more than half the weight of the competition and only 230g more than APS. How many options do you need in one camera? Nobody else is doing anything close to this. If it still useless to you then you'll have to buy something else or keep waiting. Sony makes a lot of small APS cameras also (with FF and APS leneses) thus they are offering plenty of choices.. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted December 8, 2013 Share #137 Posted December 8, 2013 I have nothing against Sony, i'm still using one of their bodies, but this topic is about future Leica products and whether they will be FF or APS. If Leica launch an APS mirrorless with small f/1.4 or f/2 AF lenses what competition will they find at Sony's or others? And how would those possible competitors allow me to use my M lenses w/o vigneting and smearing? Just curious. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosuna Posted December 8, 2013 Share #138 Posted December 8, 2013 Fujifilm is the obvious competition, with APS-C sensors, and Sony with cheaper cameras and FF. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted December 8, 2013 Share #139 Posted December 8, 2013 As I said, I think APS is all many need for many purposes. The smaller size is great and I am perfectly happy to trade off a little quality for the Nex 6 and small 16-50. In a vacuum, it would be ideal for Leica to make a really nice APS AF system and I wish they had done this some time ago. But times have moved on and the competition is fierce. A FF mirrorless design such as the A7 is now a much better solution for those with high end desires or needs. They will probably be happy to live with the larger lenses. Keep in mind that an A7r with 24 to 70 is a lighter than an M and 50 Summicron without an EVF. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
michaelwj Posted December 8, 2013 Share #140 Posted December 8, 2013 This does not take the slide of the US $ against the Deutschmark/Euro into account, which it should, as the camera is manufactured in Europe. Incidentally, the Leica M3 was born in the same year as Angela Merkel. Of course not, I'm not that smart (or diligent). But they have never justified the price of their cameras, and that they have always been expensive. Michael Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.