Erwin Puts: " Leica can not disregard the writing at the wall"

[biglouis]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I think size increase is the least of Leica's problems and frankly a non sequester.

 

I meant to add in my original post that my goto camera since I sold my M8 is my Ricoh GR. Same sensor as the 'T' btw.

 

Now, the Ricoh is a camera to emulate. Tiny, Impressive IQ, incredible customisation, very nicely built. Probably as well built as any Leica product in the X range. A real photographers 'alternative' or second-body camera.

 

I'd like Leica to have a similar product but the various X variants don't do it for me. The Ricoh does and imho every photographer should own one.

 

LouisB

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[IkarusJohn]

Many might ask , 'Why 'hopelessly'?" … No need to build an APS-C camera any bigger than necessary - and it's pocketable.

 

dunk

 

 

Too small for my hands, too small for comfortable use.

 

For me, the M3 and T are as small as I want ... many might say.

[gbealnz]

Too small for my hands, too small for comfortable use.

 

For me, the M3 and T are as small as I want ... many might say.

 

John,

not disagreeing with you, but curiosity got the better of me.

I checked the respective sizes.

 

X2 (no X1 in the program I used, but I believe the X1/X2 are the same size), as opposed the T.

 

There is no difference in the vertical height, both are 56mm tall.

Width is different for sure, 124mm for the X2, 134mm for the T.

Depth, front to rear is difficult as the T has no lens and so is only 33mm, whereas the X2 is 51mm, but includes the stubby (retracted) lens. The body itself is quite a bit thicker in looks to the T.

 

Owning an X1, and using it for travel, this diminutive size is an advantage in my mind.

Gary

[IkarusJohn]

Gary, that it wouldn't work for me shouldn't spoil the pleasure it gives you.

 

The M and T are as small as I want.

[jrp]

Leaving "snob value" to one side, what is Leica's USP? To me it's having small interchangeable full frame lenses. For that, when shooting things that don't move, I'm prepared to put up with manual focus and having a harder time framing and previsualising the shot and having a sensor that is limited in comparison to the Sony sensors. It's the old adage: the best camera is the one that you have with you.

 

It helps that the Leica lenses are high quality, but Zeiss, Sigma et al have been raising their game and producing lenses designed for digital sensors from the outset.

 

But shooting is not an end in itself. Part of the reason that camera phones are popular is because they make it very easy to share photos without having to print them. That is not, however, enough: the Samsung Android camera has not done as well as you might expect, although that may be down to the battery life.

 

Leica has to face the writing on the wall in two ways, imho: get a much better sensor into the M line and get some wireless capability into the bodies. Easier said than done.

[jaapv]

There are differences between users. Many of us do not put up with manual focus, they prefer it

Zeiss and Sigma are not upping their game, they have been playing the same one for many decades. Some R lenses were built by Sigma, Zeiss lenses (and cameras) in the fifties were arguably better than Leica, and Canon LTM lenses outperform their Leica counterparts from the time, etc.

Still Leica is the last RF manufacturer standing.

There must be something else

[jrp]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Still Leica is the last RF manufacturer standing.

There must be something else

 

Branding / snob value?

 

And what about Fuji? They are clearly trying hard to recreate the rangefinder experience with added autofocus. So far they have not managed to do so in full frame with small lenses which are, as I say, the Leica USP in my view.

[jaapv]

I don't think so. In fact Contax had a better reputation than Leica did. And was more expensive...

 

I have not seen one rangefinder camera from Fuji yet - a bit hard to recreate an experience in that case. Retro-look cameras are more of a snob product really. Fake instead of the real thing.

The cameras are very good - but would have been so in any other, more functional design.

[bill]

"Retro-look cameras are more of a snob product really. Fake instead of the real thing."

 

I call "bollocks".

 

A little over two years ago I used five Leica bodies - M, R and LTM - and a multitude of lenses mostly Leica and Zeiss.

 

Then I tried a Fuji X-10

 

Today, I have four Fuji X-series bodies - X-Pro1, X-T1, X-M1 and X100s - and Fujinon 14, 18, 23, 27, 35, 56, 60, 18-55, 18-135 and 55-200mm lenses plus legacy telephoto lenses. All that is left of my Leicas are my IID and M2, both with 50mm lenses. I have not used either in over a year.

 

It's not about "retro-look", whatever that is. It's about form factor. I use and enjoy the X-Pro1 "rangefinder" form factor because I have spent the past 20-odd years using Leica M. The X-Pro1 suits me better than any M digital because it is a) more similar to a film Leica form factor and more reliable. I'm looking forward to the X-Pro2, too.

 

Equally, I use the X-T1 because of it's "SLR" form factor; it is more suited to some types of photography, particularly macro and tele work. It is not a DSLR; it is not as bulky. Oh and it's weatherproof.

 

Both the "rangefinder" and "SLR" Fuji X-Series form factors occupy different photographic niches. However, critically, they use the same lens mount and the same lenses. Result - only one system to buy into for any purpose. The X-M1 is, for example, a simple little beast, broadly equivalent to the Leica T in terms of target market - but it can take, without any form of adaptor, the finest Fujinon glass.

 

Did I not mention the glass? The 23, 35 and 56mm lenses in particular match Leica's finest - and did I mention reliable?

 

"snob" and "fake" are two words that do not apply to Fuji's X-Series products. Such words are only bandied about on this forum - which speaks volumes.

 

I don't come here and piss on those who choose to continue to use Leica - and I don't see any reason why those who do so have any excuse or justification to piss on others.

 

And people wonder why I don't post here anymore...

 

Bye.

[ho_co]

Bill--

Some of us find the Fujifilm cameras unattractive because initially they were made to look as if we were supposed to like them, in other words, "hoaky" or "derivative."

 

You're right that they perform well, that they feel good in the hand, and that (implied) people who like them really like them.

 

Your enthusiasm, I think, underlines Erwin Puts's point that is the title of this thread.

[jaapv]

Yes- indeed as is the depicting of a Leica camera as snobbish Bollocks...

I dislike a retro-look form factor, like BMW minis, new Rococo chairs, digital radios made to look 1950-ies.

I like Morgans, Nilfisk vacuum cleaners, Atco lawnmowers ,and Leica M.

I might point out that I said Fuji were very good cameras.

"Retro-look cameras are more of a snob product really. Fake instead of the real thing."

 

I call "bollocks".

 

A little over two years ago I used five Leica bodies - M, R and LTM - and a multitude of lenses mostly Leica and Zeiss.

 

Then I tried a Fuji X-10

 

Today, I have four Fuji X-series bodies - X-Pro1, X-T1, X-M1 and X100s - and Fujinon 14, 18, 23, 27, 35, 56, 60, 18-55, 18-135 and 55-200mm lenses plus legacy telephoto lenses. All that is left of my Leicas are my IID and M2, both with 50mm lenses. I have not used either in over a year.

 

It's not about "retro-look", whatever that is. It's about form factor. I use and enjoy the X-Pro1 "rangefinder" form factor because I have spent the past 20-odd years using Leica M. The X-Pro1 suits me better than any M digital because it is a) more similar to a film Leica form factor and more reliable. I'm looking forward to the X-Pro2, too.

 

Equally, I use the X-T1 because of it's "SLR" form factor; it is more suited to some types of photography, particularly macro and tele work. It is not a DSLR; it is not as bulky. Oh and it's weatherproof.

 

Both the "rangefinder" and "SLR" Fuji X-Series form factors occupy different photographic niches. However, critically, they use the same lens mount and the same lenses. Result - only one system to buy into for any purpose. The X-M1 is, for example, a simple little beast, broadly equivalent to the Leica T in terms of target market - but it can take, without any form of adaptor, the finest Fujinon glass.

 

Did I not mention the glass? The 23, 35 and 56mm lenses in particular match Leica's finest - and did I mention reliable?

 

"snob" and "fake" are two words that do not apply to Fuji's X-Series products. Such words are only bandied about on this forum - which speaks volumes.

 

I don't come here and piss on those who choose to continue to use Leica - and I don't see any reason why those who do so have any excuse or justification to piss on others.

 

And people wonder why I don't post here anymore...

 

Bye.

[IkarusJohn]

I thought the point was that there is no reason for the Fuji cameras to look like M cameras other than to be derivative, hence the "snobbish" comment - perhaps it was too subtly made.

 

The huge appeal of the M cameras (from a design perspective) is that form follows function.

 

It's great that the "Gentleman Amateur" enjoys his Fujis (particularly if he posts elsewhere).

[lct]

My Fuji X-E2 is not a rangefinder but its ergonomics and design look very good to me. Better so than my digital Ms due to the smaller size and lighter weight of the Fuji body. The X-E2 is not a full frame camera though but i shows what an RF-less "digital CL" could look like is Leica had not preferred the T route for some reason.

[IkarusJohn]

I like the T, but I see no reason for it to look like an M - it isn't one. I wonder what the T would look like with a built in viewfinder - an A7?

[bill]

...

It's great that the "Gentleman Amateur" enjoys his Fujis (particularly if he posts elsewhere).

 

I don't miss predictable, small-souled snide crap like that either. No wonder this forum has such a bad name everywhere else. It's so nice to shut the lid again and just walk away.

[IkarusJohn]

Agreed!

[zlatkob]

Leica managed to produce a digital "replica" of their 35mm film cameras with only a 10% increase in weight and volume. Who else achieved that?

 

Leica has done very well with only a 10% increase. Over time, they may find ways to shrink the digital M back to its film era size. In the DSLR world, Canon is trying to shrink their cameras and lenses. The 6D is essentially a smaller, lighter version of the 5D2. And version II of their 24-70/2.8 zoom is smaller, lighter and better than the original. Canon already makes the world's smallest & lightest APS-C DSLR. I read an interview with a Canon designer who said he envisioned their cameras becoming smaller in the future. Here is the quote:

 

"I previously said that I believe the optimum size among Canon cameras is the AL-1. I believe that the trend towards compact, lightweight equipment is a certainty among categories encompassed by advanced amateurs, and even professional equipment, [so] the entire [EOS] system will move toward a more lightweight form."

 

The "optimum size" AL-1 was made in 1982 and it's dimensions were: 142 x 87 x 48 mm; weight: 490 g.

[MarkP]

I can fully understand why the Fuji range is so appealing. I agree with Bill and ICT as I think they are not 'retro' in the pejorative sense. Fuji also has a reputation for innovative cameras and lenses that perform exceptionally well.

 

However, I couldn't give a toss as to what is said elsewhere about this forum - it is often assumed elsewhere because someone owns a Leica they are a rich luddite snob, using arcane overpriced equipment, who couldn't take a good photograph to save their life (I might agree with them on overpriced ). Other than a few aberrations from time to time (which usually are misunderstandings), I have overall found this to be a place of people who are tolerant, thoughtful, respectful, and mostly very helpful and generous with their knowledge and experience.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[IkarusJohn]

I couldn't agree more, Mark.

 

I've learnt a lot here (though it has cost me a lot!). Pleasant place to visit. If I had a Fuji system, I wouldn't visit here - what would be the point?

[jrp]

Puts has a number of articles along similar lines on his blog -- that Leica's ethos and business model are not sustainable.

 

As others have pointed out above, the business model challenge is not exclusive to Leica. Puts seems, however, to be questioning Leica's capacity to meet it with their current strategy.

 

This does not mean that other manufacturers necessarily have a winning strategy (look at the way that the Japanese electronic giants have lost in the last five years what they made in the previous 20+).

 

Time will reveal.

 

PS: Anyone know what % of Leica's sales are to Russians?