The next speculation

[lct]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I referred to speed of course.

[rramesh]

For me it's very simple. I love the rangefinder and that's the reason for purchasing the M. To me there's nothing better for my needs. Plus I can use all of the wonderful Leica glass, in addition to the ones from Zeiss, Voigtlander and others.

 

The comparison with other cameras is meaningless as none of the others are true rangefinders.

[lct]

+1

[edwardkaraa]

The argument against the Sony A7 series, from my point of view, is that:

 

1. I get zero pleasure and satisfaction from using them.

2. The lenses, though excellent, are huge, and the AF tends to screw up just when you need it most.

3. It doesn't work with my RF lenses.

4. Manual focus can be a chore, and not as precise as a RF for wides. You need to focus WO then stop down for best results.

5. The sensor, while excellent at high iso, produces very funky colors that are not at all to my taste.

 

YMMV.

[timde]

The time that Leica was the only option never existed. Leica and Zeiss have been playing their game of optical leapfrog for more than 75 years...Not to mention manufacturers like Canon, Nikon, Konica and a host of small firms over the years.

 

My statement remains true. In the past there was competition for lenses and M mount bodies. There are now two options, one is significantly cheaper than the other. Capabilities are different too ... certainly took the idea of a digital M off the cards for me. Film ... different story.

 

 

Zeiss Loxia... bigger than ZM lenses no?

 

 

Perhaps, but not by much. The A7 body is smaller than the M so overall its more or less the same.

[jaapv]

Leica, Zeiss, Voigtlaender, Perar. I think that is  some competition that has been around fora while.

 

In bodies there is a different situation. I doubt whether Zeiss and Voigtlaender are still producing any film bodies. Leica even introduced a new one. Of course, there are no other digital M cameras. Here Leica is the last man standing.

[lct]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Perhaps, but not by much. The A7 body is smaller than the M so overall its more or less the same.

 

Thank you timde but if those Zeiss lenses are bigger than ZM's that are bigger than Leica's i'm not sure to see the point. So much the better for Sony users of course but people who can afford Leica lenses will continue to look for a body able to use them w/o IQ compromise IMHO. Sony can do it if they want but i doubt they will reiterate the Ricoh experience in the full frame format.

[Mornnb]

Thank you timde but if those Zeiss lenses are bigger than ZM's that are bigger than Leica's i'm not sure to see the point. So much the better for Sony users of course but people who can afford Leica lenses will continue to look for a body able to use them w/o IQ compromise IMHO. 

 

The Sony A7 is without compromise in terms of image quality. It has the best full frame sensor any manufacturer makes. Sony has become the Kodachrome of the digital age, their image sensors have set the standard.

The problem is it's not optimised to work well with wide angle rangefinder lenses, you have colour fringing and edge smearing that you don't get on the M240. And the camera is lacking in terms of design and a great user experience.

The M240 has an excellent sensor, with 13 stops of dynamic range compared to 14 for the Sony. Ahead of Canon's 11.5 stops. I find it has an excellent colour accuracy. And for M lenses, it does the best job.

[biglou]

The R system failed because the development costs of a new FF camera, AF or not we're too high related to the projected sales/expected price point. Therefor it was upgraded to the S system where it was possible to charge a high price for low sales volumes. In retrospect a brilliant decision as the DSLR market is collapsing.

 

I am not convinced, the brillant move would have been if Leica invented the concept of A7 (sony) 24/36 with different adaptors giving the possibility to use M lenses as well as R lenses (with a diaphragm command on the adapter) and a new line of autofocus lenses S like for those wanting autofocus.

Here Leica could have a real number of sales and scale economy.

S system is like making an old camera in digital times, a dead end methink even if this camera has great qualities, wich i am sure it has.

Leica S is a DSLR, as you say, and this market is shrinking for some reason, one of them is nothing can beat 10x magnification for a very accurate distance setting.

[edwardkaraa]

The Sony A7 is without compromise in terms of image quality. It has the best full frame sensor any manufacturer makes. Sony has become the Kodachrome of the digital age, their image sensors have set the standard.

The problem is it's not optimised to work well with wide angle rangefinder lenses, you have colour fringing and edge smearing that you don't get on the M240. And the camera is lacking in terms of design and a great user experience.

The M240 has an excellent sensor, with 13 stops of dynamic range compared to 14 for the Sony. Ahead of Canon's 11.5 stops. I find it has an excellent colour accuracy. And for M lenses, it does the best job.

The sensor is excellent no doubt but the lossy raw compression, sensor glass reflections, and the Sony color demosaicing makes it inferior to the leica M sensor in my opinion.

[Mornnb]

I am not convinced, the brillant move would have been if Leica invented the concept of A7 (sony) 24/36 with different adaptors giving the possibility to use M lenses as well as R lenses (with a diaphragm command on the adapter) and a new line of autofocus lenses S like for those wanting autofocus.

Here Leica could have a real number of sales and scale economy.

 

Yes. They did it, the Leica T. Sadly though it's an APS-C camera. Photographers willing to spend this much money on a camera really want a full frame.

A full frame Leica T could be at a lower price point than the M due to the lack of a Rangefinder, and would provide T mount autofocus lenses and work with M lenses with an adaptor quite well. This is what Leica needs to increase their market share IMHO. A full frame Leica T would be a Leica CL for the digital age.

[jaapv]

I am not convinced, the brillant move would have been if Leica invented the concept of A7 (sony) 24/36 with different adaptors giving the possibility to use M lenses as well as R lenses (with a diaphragm command on the adapter) and a new line of autofocus lenses S like for those wanting autofocus.

Here Leica could have a real number of sales and scale economy.

S system is like making an old camera in digital times, a dead end methink even if this camera has great qualities, wich i am sure it has.

Leica S is a DSLR, as you say, and this market is shrinking for some reason, one of them is nothing can beat 10x magnification for a very accurate distance setting.

Obviously the question of an R replacement was raised at that meeting in 2007. The answer by Mr. Daniel was: "There will be an R replacement. But it will not be made by Leica". He also made it clear that Leica was thinking EVF even back then, but did not consider the quality good enough yet.(in 2007)

 

Yes, the S is a DSLR, but it is also a medium format camera. That is a whole different ball game from the 135 and APS class DSLRs. There are not many midformat cameras that can be used easily outside a studio and/or tripod setting. The only one I can think of offhand is the Pentax 645D.

The sales target for the S was 1000 cameras a year. I think it has sold - and is selling quite a bit beyond that.

[rosuna]

 Photographers willing to spend this much money on a camera really want a full frame.

 

 

No, I am not sure about that. Many people wants a small camera (+ lens). Many people don't want a large camera (+ lens). So this is a problem of optimization with constraints. It is not an equation with two variables, price and format size. Not at all.

 

Many people wants high quality, fun to use, stylish, small camera (+ lens), and the price is not on the top of the priorities list. This is the typical Leica potential buyer. The T system is well conceived, and the T camera is wonderful. The only problem is the system needs more lenses, and more distinct lenses (Leica should try harder here). It is a question of time. 

[algrove]

Obviously the question of an R replacement was raised at that meeting in 2007. The answer by Mr. Daniel was: "There will be an R replacement. But it will not be made by Leica". He also made it clear that Leica was thinking EVF even back then, but did not consider the quality good enough yet.(in 2007)

 

Yes, the S is a DSLR, but it is also a medium format camera. That is a whole different ball game from the 135 and APS class DSLRs. There are not many midformat cameras that can be used easily outside a studio and/or tripod setting. The only one I can think of offhand is the Pentax 645D.

The sales target for the S was 1000 cameras a year. I think it has sold - and is selling quite a bit beyond that.

Jaap, the 645Z is the latest Pentax iteration with a CMOS 51MP Sony sensor that is very streetable even with older legacy lenses.  I used to walk around with my Hasselblad SWC with P45+ digital back mainly for landscape and never felt it a weight or other problem.

 

The problem with the S is first cost and second it is NOT anywhere near cutting edge even when the 37.5MP 007 model comes out. I am afriad it will be too little too late. Someone told me that for Leica to change sensor size it would have to redevelop most S lenses. Not sure oif this is true. All other MF manufacturers have moved on from the 25-40MP sensor range.  That Sony sensor has taken over for Hasselblad and Phase One in addition to the better tuned Pentax 645Z.  Again the Z is ⅓ the price of the other caneras with the same sensor and somehow they extract more from that sensor than the other two.  Maybe there is nothing lost in the translation between Pentax and Sony with both speaking the same language.

[algrove]

No, I am not sure about that. Many people wants a small camera (+ lens). Many people don't want a large camera (+ lens). So this is a problem of optimization with constraints. It is not an equation with two variables, price and format size. Not at all.

 

Many people wants high quality, fun to use, stylish, small camera (+ lens), and the price is not on the top of the priorities list. This is the typical Leica potential buyer. The T system is well conceived, and the T camera is wonderful. The only problem is the system needs more lenses, and more distinct lenses (Leica should try harder here). It is a question of time. 

You know the T reminds me of the Sony a7 series which for many many months went without many lens choices. Now that it is an excepted system, new lenses abound, and now in both AF and MF Zeiss glass, not just Sony or Sony/Zeiss glass.

 

As the T is not anyway near the volume numbers of the a7, it looks like it will only be Leica who will make glass for it in the near term.

[jaapv]

Louis, I tried, in my film days, to do a safari with a Mamiya 654E and 500 MM lens plus 2x extender - The shots I that got were great, but even if the camera was easily handholdable, it was a bit clumsy with the lens Fortunately I had my R7/280 4.0 APO as a backup

[algrove]

Louis, I tried, in my film days, to do a safari with a Mamiya 654E and 500 MM lens plus 2x extender - The shots I that got were great, but even if the camera was easily handholdable, it was a bit clumsy with the lens Fortunately I had my R7/280 4.0 APO as a backup

That 280/4 lens is a jewel amongst all the other R lenses. I know you like the 70-180, but I always liked the 280. Today my jewel is the APO 180/2.8,

[AlanJW]

The sensor is excellent no doubt but the lossy raw compression, sensor glass reflections, and the Sony color demosaicing makes it inferior to the leica M sensor in my opinion.

And in my opinion as well.  I really wanted to like the A7r and hoped it would be a good backup for my M240.  I ended up selling it because (i) the image quality wasn't there with M lenses and it was difficult to focus manually; (ii) Sony ergonomics are awful, even though the A7 was a huge improvement over the Nex series; it is still burdened by menus and submenus and wheels and buttons that change function at odd times; and (iii) it was about the noisiest camera I have owned; even without a mirror it clacked like a screen door slamming shut.

[jdlaing]

And in my opinion as well.  I really wanted to like the A7r and hoped it would be a good backup for my M240.  I ended up selling it because (i) the image quality wasn't there with M lenses and it was difficult to focus manually; (ii) Sony ergonomics are awful, even though the A7 was a huge improvement over the Nex series; it is still burdened by menus and submenus and wheels and buttons that change function at odd times; and (iii) it was about the noisiest camera I have owned; even without a mirror it clacked like a screen door slamming shut.

I heard one for the first time this weekend as it was behind me at a shoot and you are correct. It got my attention.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[algrove]

And in my opinion as well.  I really wanted to like the A7r and hoped it would be a good backup for my M240.  I ended up selling it because (i) the image quality wasn't there with M lenses and it was difficult to focus manually; (ii) Sony ergonomics are awful, even though the A7 was a huge improvement over the Nex series; it is still burdened by menus and submenus and wheels and buttons that change function at odd times; and (iii) it was about the noisiest camera I have owned; even without a mirror it clacked like a screen door slamming shut.

I sold mine too mainly for the same reasons. I was on a quiet beach one morning with a fellow Leica M240 shooter testing the then new A7r and from 50-100 meters away he could hear the shutter even with soft waves coming ashore. Sent it back with adapter the next day as images too much affected my that horrible shutter.