A very hypothetical "what if?"

[pop]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

As I have said before in a few threads, I have made the change from SLRs, bridge cameras and whatnot to RF cameras. I would not even refuse but I'd be utterly unable to use the pilot's cockpit CheshireCat seems to favor for most of my photographic needs.

 

The RF as implemented in the Leica M works in a strictly limited set of circumstances. Where it works, its accuracy and above all its ergonomics are in most circumstances vastly superior to all other kinds of focussing I have had the pleasure of using. As with any other method or tool used for the purpose, you'd better be aware of its drawbacks before you undergo some serious shooting.

 

Phase detection is, of couse, a nice thing to do. It is, however, not a focussing method. It's just a component, much like a mirror. You would have to see the entire system in order to judge its capabilities.

 

If an RF is medieval, you would have to call a mirror antique. They were known to he ancient Egypts.

[lct]

...I also believe many members will happily switch to another camera brand, provided:

- They can use their Leica lenses without side effects (color vignetting, blurry corners).

- They have a proper way to focus...

Ricoh did try as well. Was doable given its smaller APS-C format but the experience did not last much longer than the Epson's if any. We will see a FF mirrorless doing as well or better when pigs can fly. Hard to admit for some Leica bashers i guess but nothing can beat a Leica to fit M lenses that's as simple as that. R lenses are another story.

[Advertisement]

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

[BerndReini]

Hard to admit for some Leica bashers i guess but nothing can beat a Leica to fit M lenses that's as simple as that. R lenses are another story.

 

M lenses - that's the caveat. There will be lenses designed for digital cameras that will outperform M lenses by a margin. M lenses were designed for film cameras, where the angle of incidence is much more forgiving due to the three-dimensional surface of film. Leica will design lenses that are better suited for digital capture - as they are doing by the way with their cinema lenses. These lenses will be Leica's future as a company. I will shoot an M rangefinder as long as I can focus one, but future generations of photographers will only be interested in the results with digital sensors and for that Leica will develop something else.

[farnz]

... There will be lenses designed for digital cameras that will outperform M lenses by a margin. ...

That depends on your terms of reference and definition of "outperforms". I'm not aware of any lens designed for the 135 format that's said to outperform the 50/2 APO-Summicron asph for example.

 

Pete.

[CheshireCat]

We will see a FF mirrorless doing as well or better when pigs can fly.

 

Pigs will learn how to fly, and faster than you think

[BerndReini]

50mm and longer does not have the same issues as wider lenses. Once you get to 35mm and wider, the limitations of the M lens design for digital becomes obvious. Tele centric designs show much less vignetting and color fringing with digital sensors. The angled micro lenses and in camera processing try to minimize these problems. The S system for

example was designed as a digital system from the ground up, and I am sure that this helped a lot. The wider angle lenses for the S system will surely outperform their M equivalents.

[lct]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Pigs will learn how to fly, and faster than you think

Been hearing this for 30+ years. Nothing new under the sun.

[AlanJW]

 

I also believe many members will happily switch to another camera brand, provided:

- They can use their Leica lenses without side effects (color vignetting, blurry corners).

- They have a proper way to focus.

 

Currently, there is no camera that satisfies the above conditions. But this will change in the near future.

 

Why would another camera manufacturer (or sensor manufacturer) design a system to use M lenses? They will want to sell their own lenses. To the extent M lenses can be used with some sort of manual focus, that is a plus but it is not going to be the main reason for the camera's existence. The Sony FF A7 series are excellent cameras but I did not have great results with Leica lenses with an A7r and found the focus peaking to be too fiddly, especially if the lens was stopped down. One reason I happen to like the Leica EVF2, as crappy as it is, is that I also have a rangefinder. The EVF is a superior device for framing many lenses, but is not superior in focus accuracy with manual lenses. Then there is the issue of ergonomics. The simplicity of the Leica system does not appear to be the goal of Sony or any other Japanese company. They are into consumer electronics with menus and submenus and subsubmenus and controls that can change function on the fly. Leica still has the advantage there. Those other companies have a DNA that is different than Leica's and it is unreasonable to expect that any of them would want to replicate a Leica in both functionality and ergonomics.

[CheshireCat]

Why would another camera manufacturer (or sensor manufacturer) design a system to use M lenses?

 

They wouldn't. It will just happen that M lenses will work great anyway.

 

Those other companies have a DNA that is different than Leica's and it is unreasonable to expect that any of them would want to replicate a Leica in both functionality and ergonomics.

 

They wouldn't. It will just happen that they will have better functionality and ergonomics.

I for one, find Leica split menus, submenus and user profiles as ergonomic as Sony (i.e. some developer wrote down the list of functions from the marketing guys meeting whiteboard and coded it into the firmware as is, keeping the brain in energy-saving suspend mode).

[BerndReini]

As I've said before, M lenses were not designed for digital sensors. I believe Leica could have made the T system full frame, but then they would be competing with the M. That's why they have the T and S system strategically placed on either side. Leica could probably produce superior wide angle lenses for either system. Making a digital system that works with the M lens series was a compromise born out of necessity for Leica.

 

No other manufacturer will develop a digital rangefinder for Leica M lenses. It wouldn't make any sense. But EVFs will continue to improve. I am a professional cinematographer and during the film days everyone enjoyed looking through an optical viewfinder. Well, that luxury pretty much doesn't exist anymore. EVFs are the norm in the moving images world and people are getting used to it. The next generation of photographers won't think twice about it. It will just be what still cameras are like and Leica will have to get on board with it. As far as I'm concerned, the first thing they need to improve with the next itineration of EVFs is the lag time. I find that unacceptable at the moment. I was looking forward to using the EVF for tightly framed portraits, but the lag makes it not suited for that.

[algrove]

Wow! Intersting thread and counter arguements.

 

I admit I tried the a7R, but returned it for shutter noise and shutter vibration issues plus lack of M type of quality images with M and R lenses even with solid tripods.

 

Guess I'll stick with my RF M and M lenses. I will not sell my "film" M lenses since I mostly shoot in the sweet spot of about f5.6 anyway.

[BerndReini]

Same here, and I still do shoot black and white film. But if I didn't already own a nice selection of M lenses, I can't say I would run out and spend the kind of money they demand now.

[thrid]

I think it really depends on the quality of the competing product.

 

The 240 is going for about $7000 now after the most recent price hike. I have little doubt that a Japanese firm could produce a camera of professional build quality for $3000-4000 or less with a better sensor than the 240 (or at least better color science i.e. no green shadows etc).

 

Comparisons to the film clones is maybe not such a good measuring stick.

 

A new Leica film camera ran between $2500-3400 in the 1990's and 2000's.

The Voigtlanders were well under the $1000 mark (circa $500) and the Zeiss was priced in between.

You could buy a used film Leica for about $1000-2000 and usually they were in excellent or better condition. It only took a little extra effort to stretch for the genuine article, unless you really were on a tight budget. Also film Leicas were forever. They did not become 'obsolete' on a three year cycle, so you looked at them as a longterm expenditure.

 

There is no doubt that there would be people who would never buy a digital clone simply because it was not made by Leica.

 

But there are an awful lot of shooters out who are not part of the 1% and don't have the $7000-14000 necessary to get in to the M system.

 

Leicas have never been cheap, but they also weren't priced out of reach of all but the most well heeled. But the camera market has changed dramatically in the past few years. Unable to compete head-on in the digital era, Leica has been forced to seek refuge in the luxury segment, where they can sell a smaller number of cameras and lenses and still thrive. The brand certainly has the history and prestige to do so.

 

In the film days I would shoot with 2-3 bodies (28/35/50 or 35/50/90). There simply was no time to swap lenses, when you were shooting on the run and obviously there are no zooms for the M (Tri-Elmar excluded) to make a single body more flexible.

 

Now I'm forced to shoot with one 240, simply because I don't have $14,000 - 21,000 to put together a full kit (not counting backup bodies). Instead I put the 35 on the M and the 50 on my Nikon D600.

 

So, yes. If the price was right and the camera delivered the goods I would buy a digital clone. I've always been of the opinion that serious photographers do not tie their self worth to a camera brand, but the pictures they take. If the clone was well made, delivered good image quality, had the proper ergonomics and was priced appropriately I would buy one. And I am certain that many others would do the same.

 

Leica is in an awkward position. They had to flee in to the luxury segment to survive. But there is always the danger that some day someone will decided to make a better clone at a significantly lower price and steal some of their customers. But I have a feeling that there will always be enough people around who will demand the genuine article regardless of the price. The brand will always be a status symbol that some people are willing to pay for.

[BerndReini]

A very good argument. I want to add that there is also that intangible aspect of Leica, which may be the result of a combination of the build quality, the mystique, the heritage, and the layout of the camera: I just love handling a Leica M. It brings me joy and makes me want to pick up the camera and shoot with it. No other camera does this for me in the way any of my Leica Ms do. And in the end, if I don't get that joy from handling a camera, I won't use it for personal work. This is where Leica gets it right every time.

[bocaburger]

You could buy a used film Leica for about $1000-2000 and usually they were in excellent or better condition. It only took a little extra effort to stretch for the genuine article, unless you really were on a tight budget. Also film Leicas were forever. They did not become 'obsolete' on a three year cycle, so you looked at them as a longterm expenditure.

 

 

In the film days I would shoot with 2-3 bodies (28/35/50 or 35/50/90). There simply was no time to swap lenses, when you were shooting on the run and obviously there are no zooms for the M (Tri-Elmar excluded) to make a single body more flexible.....

 

Now I'm forced to shoot with one 240,

 

Same here. With the prices of used M240's under $5K I could swing a second body, but there are a couple of non-economic reasons I haven't pulled the trigger. For one thing, the M240 is larger and heavier than a film M. Multiplied by two it is quite significant. Not just shooting them at once, I mean carrying a second one in the bag. For another thing, I look upon a second one as twice as much chance for something to go wrong and aggravate me. Why I'm sticking with a lowly Nex6 as backup.

[Edward Louis Marit]

They wouldn't. It will just happen that M lenses will work great anyway.

 

 

 

They wouldn't. It will just happen that they will have better functionality and ergonomics.

I for one, find Leica split menus, submenus and user profiles as ergonomic as Sony (i.e. some developer wrote down the list of functions from the marketing guys meeting whiteboard and coded it into the firmware as is, keeping the brain in energy-saving suspend mode).

 

 

I couldn't disagree more. A colleague proudly showed me his new Fuji mirror less camera. The viewfinder was dim and cluttered with whizzing flashing lights. There were millions of little dials and buttons operating reams of complicated menus. I thought to myself " what a horrible over complicated piece of crap" while smiling and congratulating my colleague.

[FA85]

if you want to compete with leica and leica users, you need to have heritage and history. that's why no new comer can threat leica, even almighty sony,

 

Mazda miata is no porsche 911

 

 

+ i dont think any company in their right mind would create a mechanical digital camera with major drawback (no AF) from scratch just for to take business from very loyal leica users. R&D costs a lot.

[thrid]

A very good argument. I want to add that there is also that intangible aspect of Leica, which may be the result of a combination of the build quality, the mystique, the heritage, and the layout of the camera: I just love handling a Leica M. It brings me joy and makes me want to pick up the camera and shoot with it. No other camera does this for me in the way any of my Leica Ms do. And in the end, if I don't get that joy from handling a camera, I won't use it for personal work. This is where Leica gets it right every time.

 

I totally understand that. To me the gestalt of the 240 is very much same as the film cameras and it gives me more pleasure to shoot with than any other digital I have used.

 

But if I am given the choice between buying a properly designed clone that I can afford and shooting under compromised circumstances (not enough bodies) or not at all I will go with the alternative. The pictures are the most important thing.

[BerndReini]

Yes, the picture are the most important thing. But this is exactly what we keep forgetting. I just bought myself a nice Christmas present: a silver gelatin print of a Peter Turnley photograph printed by Voja Mitrovic. When I look at that photograph, I am reminded that I should not think about equipment so much.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[mjh]

Once you get to 35mm and wider, the limitations of the M lens design for digital becomes obvious. Tele centric designs show much less vignetting and color fringing with digital sensors.

And yet there is no 35 mm system on the market that was designed for accommodating telecentric lenses. It should be interesting so see whether some vendor will introduce such a system (with a much wider throat size than we are accustomed to in the 35 mm world).