earleygallery Posted January 30, 2014 Share #121 Posted January 30, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) I'm not 'threatened' by the idea at all, that's laughable! My first digital camera didn't have a screen, so I have experience of such a feature. It's an idea that some like, but I suspect few would actually pay for. As I said, show us your money! The MM offers something more i.e. better quality B&W images. Removing the screen offers less. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 30, 2014 Posted January 30, 2014 Hi earleygallery, Take a look here A digital M6. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
pop Posted January 30, 2014 Share #122 Posted January 30, 2014 If Leica marketed the digital "M6" properly (and they are pretty good at appealing to the vanity of their customers) – something along the lines of "a camera for the true photographic purist", "real photographers don't chimp":D, etc. ... Not at all, not at all!They could make the camera with an optional (attachable) screen and sell it as the first FF camera which liberates the photographer from the tyranny of corporeal presence at the shooting site.Consequently, we could start a thread or a dozen about the insane price of the detachable display and how a proper phone was much more useful at a third the price. Which then could evolve into the usual flame war about whether it had to be an iPhone or a Galaxy which then would lead to the customary debate about Samsung violating Leica's patents. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bla Posted January 30, 2014 Share #123 Posted January 30, 2014 I think that when developing a camera, focussing only (and I mean only) on the necessary to take a picture while trying to make that as usable and reliable and good as possible, that would present an opportunity for Leica. I mean let's face the truth: with the digital Ms, Leica managed some fairly good cameras but I think the main word that comes to my mind is "too late" (actually two words.. ) They offered the M8 when digital cameras had been around for years already, the review screen and the shutter rewind has been medieval until the M240, which introduces Live-view and Video (for example the GH1 of 2009 does both better), the lens mount will be sealed against incoming light probably in the next version I have the feeling they're running after the competition while relying on their name, reputation, stylishness and having the smallest full frame camera on the market. (oh no, not anymore) Sony is just the start. There will be many more soon, I foresay. A digital film M (I wouldn't want to restrict it only to the M6, but take the best pick from every iteration or even better redo it from scratch) could offer something the others don't have. Ruggedness, reliability, simplicity, great handling, long battery life, the essence of things, while still being stylish and producing great images. That would be something new. It's not at all about retro. And to me it's always like: what isn't there, cannot break. (If they had focused on the mechanics and electronics more than on funky features, maybe they wouldn't have the strap lugs coming off and the camera simply dying in colder temperatures...) That's my opinion and as always the digital film M should not replace the "normal" digital M but rather complement it. Like the Monochrom does. Greetings, Arvid Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted January 30, 2014 Share #124 Posted January 30, 2014 It seems the less functional Leica make a camera the higher the desirability and price. Look at the Apple M! Maybe they should make it without a screen or viewfinder/rangefinder. Use the phone for both functions. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rodluvan Posted January 30, 2014 Share #125 Posted January 30, 2014 The MM offers something more i.e. better quality B&W images. Removing the screen offers less. This is simply not true. Even a cursory read of this thread will tell you otherwise. I'm astounded by this continued unabashed misrepresentation. Here's a few: Smaller/lighter body. A more durable body. A more weather resistant body. A cheaper body component-wise. A cheaper body manufacturing and R&D-wise . A different user experience and handling. A less battery consuming body. A better looking body (don't deny it, this is paramount to many). I could go on. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bla Posted January 30, 2014 Share #126 Posted January 30, 2014 Not at all, not at all! They could make the camera with an optional (attachable) screen and sell it as the first FF camera which liberates the photographer from the tyranny of corporeal presence at the shooting site. Consequently, we could start a thread or a dozen about the insane price of the detachable display and how a proper phone was much more useful at a third the price. Which then could evolve into the usual flame war about whether it had to be an iPhone or a Galaxy which then would lead to the customary debate about Samsung violating Leica's patents. Well, wouldn't that be great? I'd rather discuss that or which color for the camera bag than why the thing is failing, why the quality control is sub-standard and stuff... With Leica asking premium prices I'd like to have something that lasts. And don't give me that "digital stuff cannot last for more than 2 years" stuff. With digital image quality approaching and sometimes surpassing film, I don't really see why you'd have to replace the camera too soon. Oh. I just saw the problem. People would not be buying a new one every 3-4 years. Except for the gearheads. Well, I wonder how they managed with the film M, that (as previously stated) could be passed on to your children. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted January 30, 2014 Share #127 Posted January 30, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) This is simply not true. Even a cursory read of this thread will tell you otherwise. I'm astounded by this continued unabashed misrepresentation. Here's a few: Smaller/lighter body. A more durable body. A more weather resistant body. A cheaper body component-wise. A cheaper body manufacturing and R&D-wise . A different user experience and handling. A less battery consuming body. A better looking body (don't deny it, this is paramount to many). I could go on. It won't be cheaper. It will cost Leica money to design the new body and they'll sell them to a minority of people who want such a camera, which will mean the cost per unit will be substantially higher than a standard M. I'm not sure that the screen is a problem with regards to weather sealing or durability either. If you don't care about the screen what does it matter if it gets damaged? You could also just buy a broken M8 and use it on whatever default settings it has. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bla Posted January 30, 2014 Share #128 Posted January 30, 2014 You could also just buy a broken M8 and use it on whatever default settings it has. If I had access to the firmware I would let it show the important stuff in the lcd on top. Oh wait, on the M8 I don't have to set much. Well, how's that possible? Just try me I have thought about this for quite some time... But the sensor may not be 100% up to today's standards anymore... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted January 30, 2014 Share #129 Posted January 30, 2014 But the sensor may not be 100% up to today's standards anymore... It's essentially the same sensor as used in the ME (current model) just a smaller version. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
swamiji Posted January 30, 2014 Share #130 Posted January 30, 2014 It's essentially the same sensor as used in the ME (current model) just a smaller version. Which is... out of date... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted January 30, 2014 Share #131 Posted January 30, 2014 Which is... out of date... It doesn't work anymore? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rodluvan Posted January 30, 2014 Share #132 Posted January 30, 2014 It won't be cheaper. It will cost Leica money to design the new body and they'll sell them to a minority of people who want such a camera, which will mean the cost per unit will be substantially higher than a standard M. Is this the argument you're going with? Really? Every new camera costs money to develop, all things being equal (which is the valid point), this costs arguably less. It's an assertion that a minority (for your comment to make any sense I'll assume you mean a very small minority) would want this camera. You wouldn't want this camera, that's about as much as we know. I'd want one and I definitely don't want a M240. A minority (of what, btw?) wants the MM, or the ME or even a M240. They're still around, aren't they? Every single release from Leica is produced and bought in quantities that would make any any other substantial camera manufacturer go broke using the same business model they currently have. Leica isn't catering to any majority. Heck, their tagline could read "Leica - Limited Edition" I'm not sure that the screen is a problem with regards to weather sealing or durability either. If you don't care about the screen what does it matter if it gets damaged? You could also just buy a broken M8 and use it on whatever default settings it has. I'll refrain from commenting. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tonki-M Posted January 30, 2014 Share #133 Posted January 30, 2014 If Leica marketed the digital "M6" properly (and they are pretty good at appealing to the vanity of their customers) – something along the lines of "a camera for the true photographic purist", "real photographers don't chimp":D, etc. – I suspect they would sell an awful lot more than you seem to think. You were probably among those who dismissed as fanciful the idea of a black and white only model (which was touted here as an idea for years before it became a reality). As an aside, James, I've noticed that whenever someone here tries to discuss the possibility (or simply the desirability) of a "screen-less" thinner digital M, almost without fail you and Zlatkob dive into the thread to dismiss the idea. Almost like you both feel threatened by such a notion. u mean like "pure photography" of the Df? look how that turned out. Mini-M was a disaster also... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted January 30, 2014 Share #134 Posted January 30, 2014 Is this the argument you're going with? Really?Every new camera costs money to develop, all things being equal (which is the valid point), this costs arguably less. It's an assertion that a minority (for your comment to make any sense I'll assume you mean a very small minority) would want this camera. You wouldn't want this camera, that's about as much as we know. I'd want one and I definitely don't want a M240. A minority (of what, btw?) wants the MM, or the ME or even a M240. They're still around, aren't they? Every single release from Leica is produced and bought in quantities that would make any any other substantial camera manufacturer go broke using the same business model they currently have. Leica isn't catering to any majority. Heck, their tagline could read "Leica - Limited Edition" I'll refrain from commenting. As an indicator, a Leica ME new is approx. £4K. An MM is approx. £6K. Now I'm not stating that I know for a fact about Leica's costs or pricing policy, but I reckon it's a fair bet that the higher cost of the MM is mostly due to the production cost v number of units they expect to shift. The MM is a niche version of an already niche camera. They sell fewer units therefore the cost per unit is higher. Apply that to a 'digital M6'. Not only is there the cost per unit based on (I would expect) fewer units sold, but you also have the development costs (someone has to design the new body), and tooling costs. Remember the MM uses the same body as the M9/ME. There was no additional body design/tooling work required. I hope this is making some sense to you. I'm not trying to say the idea of a digital M6 is impossible, quite the opposite. But surely you can see that it will appeal to a smaller proportion of people that a Leica M would, or even an MM. I'll say it again, if people really want this camera, form a group of enough of you who are ready to buy such a camera, speak to Leica, show them your money and it just might be possible. Otherwise forget it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted January 30, 2014 Share #135 Posted January 30, 2014 u mean like "pure photography" of the Df? look how that turned out. Mini-M was a disaster also... The problem with the Df is the product not the idea. The same with the "Mini-M", it was the product that disappointed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
swamiji Posted January 30, 2014 Share #136 Posted January 30, 2014 It doesn't work anymore? It's 2007 technology. That is several life times in chip design... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted January 30, 2014 Share #137 Posted January 30, 2014 I'll say it again, if people really want this camera, form a group of enough of you who are ready to buy such a camera, speak to Leica, show them your money and it just might be possible. Otherwise forget it. Yes, you've made this point many times. Are you head of product development at Leica now? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted January 30, 2014 Share #138 Posted January 30, 2014 Yes, you've made this point many times. Are you head of product development at Leica now? No Ian I'm not. I'd be happy to assist them with their quality control and customer service processes though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rodluvan Posted January 30, 2014 Share #139 Posted January 30, 2014 I'll say it again, if people really want this camera, form a group of enough of you who are ready to buy such a camera, speak to Leica, show them your money and it just might be possible. Otherwise forget it. I'm sure there are some big fish in this forum, but I'm not about to take out another few mortgages on my house for a camera. Actually, I participate in this thread mostly because I grew increasingly disturbed by the lack of honest discourse. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjh Posted January 30, 2014 Share #140 Posted January 30, 2014 Yes, you've made this point many times. And I wonder how many times the point needs to be made, given that it’s just commonsense. Leica have deliberated about six years before they decided to build a monochrome M, a fairly modest development from the model on which it was based. A display-less M would be more costly to develop than the M Monochrom and the expenses would have to be recouped from only a small number of units likely to be sold. Tell Leica what you want and what you are willing to pay; nothing else would do to resolve such doubts. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.