AlanJW Posted August 7, 2015 Share #101 Posted August 7, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) Yes, that's very true (nothing worse than not being talked about). I just read Erwin's post on the Q (from back in June) - I think he makes some really good points. Principally: The Q is very good but over priced The M needs a wake up call as the only camera not offering AF Now, I'm no fan of AF, but there is a point that Leica's premium price needs justification; and perhaps that justification is wearing a bit thin. Back in the days of the M3, Leica could bring together the innovations from other cameras into the first properly integrated package, with its very fine lenses. We still have the lenses, but in the digital age, they need to offer more than a brass body ... Having said all that, I'm also quite sure that Leica is well aware of all this. My expectation is that the gap between the X & Q fixed lens cameras and the M & T system cameras will get a bit of a shake up later this year - new system camera and re-defined M ... Hopefully that will include pricing. Cheers John John, you are probably right about the last paragraph but likely not about the last sentence. "Hope" is correct, but I seriously doubt we will see lower prices because the Leica business model (i.e. the way to maximize profits) does not include competing on price or its corollary, seeking to expand sales volume. If we are lucky, the M(360) (or whatever they call it) will not be significantly more expensive than a M(240). Apparently the Q is selling well so this proves the pricing model to Leica and encourages them to keep at it. The only exception seems to be the Safari set, which is probably selling so well that Leica regrets it. Ultimately, as long as consumers like us are willing to pay Leica prices, they will be happy to take our money. I'm as guilty as the rest with my drawer full of two M bodies, a Q, and an assortment of lenses, so I am not trying to cast any aspersions. And I don't even have one of the special models like M60 that are even more expensive. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted August 7, 2015 Posted August 7, 2015 Hi AlanJW, Take a look here Does the Q Portend the Death of the M?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
IkarusJohn Posted August 7, 2015 Share #102 Posted August 7, 2015 As it turns out, the quote I have removed did not violate German law. I have re-instated the quote and added a link to the source. I also apologise for the disruption of the thread. Thanks Phillip. Copyright, as it applies to the internet, is a tricky beast; particularly as we're not just talking the US & Germany. The complicated thing about the internet is that for most legal issues, the law which applies is the law of the place where the person accesses the internet - not where the owner, the server or poster resides, but the viewer. That creates terrible problems for compliance ... Cheers John Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted August 7, 2015 Share #103 Posted August 7, 2015 John, you are probably right about the last paragraph but likely not about the last sentence. "Hope" is correct, but I seriously doubt we will see lower prices because the Leica business model (i.e. the way to maximize profits) does not include competing on price or its corollary, seeking to expand sales volume. If we are lucky, the M(360) (or whatever they call it) will not be significantly more expensive than a M(240). Apparently the Q is selling well so this proves the pricing model to Leica and encourages them to keep at it. The only exception seems to be the Safari set, which is probably selling so well that Leica regrets it. Ultimately, as long as consumers like us are willing to pay Leica prices, they will be happy to take our money. I'm as guilty as the rest with my drawer full of two M bodies, a Q, and an assortment of lenses, so I am not trying to cast any aspersions. And I don't even have one of the special models like M60 that are even more expensive. I think that is right. After thinking about James's new thread on the new camera, I don't even think the camera will necessarily be cheaper than the M (though it probably has to be). As I recall, the M(240) was cheaper than the M9 - the Monochrome was, for a while, Leica's most expensive M camera. If the new system camera ditches the heritage (some would say hangover) M features - brass top and bottom, baseplate, ovf etc etc, and rethinks what it is doing in the digital space with a new AF system camera, then many of the assumptions we have to date will not be relevant. The form factor may be similar (like the Q), but that is because it's a proven positive - the alternatives start to look like bloat. The pricing will be irrelevant, if they get the camera right. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanJW Posted August 7, 2015 Share #104 Posted August 7, 2015 "The pricing will be irrelevant, if they get the camera right." Yes, even though whatever they do, some will think they got it wrong. They just need to get it right for enough customers. Figuring out what customers will want to buy beforehand is the tricky part of product development and marketing. Apple has a knack for this, and I hope Leica does too. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjh Posted August 7, 2015 Share #105 Posted August 7, 2015 Now, I'm no fan of AF, but there is a point that Leica's premium price needs justification; and perhaps that justification is wearing a bit thin. Most Leica cameras have AF – the S, the T, the X, the Q – and the Panaleicas of course. AF is nothing special. But a camera system geared towards manual focusing and nothing else – that’s special. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted August 7, 2015 Share #106 Posted August 7, 2015 "The pricing will be irrelevant, if they get the camera right." Yes, even though whatever they do, some will think they got it wrong. They just need to get it right for enough customers. Figuring out what customers will want to buy beforehand is the tricky part of product development and marketing. Apple has a knack for this, and I hope Leica does too. Yes, though the incredible thing which Apple achieved was to give us what we didn't know we wanted yet. Sometimes, leadership is important. I know that's been a problem for Leica in the past. Hopefully it won't be now. The Barnack camera and the M3 were bold moves. Most Leica cameras have AF – the S, the T, the X, the Q – and the Panaleicas of course. AF is nothing special. But a camera system geared towards manual focusing and nothing else – that’s special. Agreed - I'm optimistic the M will stay special, and the new system will be something else ... special. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Kilmister Posted August 7, 2015 Share #107 Posted August 7, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) I agree with @mjh: because MF is actually so much more precise in certain circumstances. I have quoted previously that to focus on a bird in a bush using AF is a nightmare. Twigs and branches take precedence over the bird. Great shot of twigs ... where is the bird? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted August 7, 2015 Share #108 Posted August 7, 2015 I agree with @mjh: because MF is actually so much more precise in certain circumstances. I have quoted previously that to focus on a bird in a bush using AF is a nightmare. Twigs and branches take precedence over the bird. Great shot of twigs ... where is the bird? Like here: Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/246942-does-the-q-portend-the-death-of-the-m/?do=findComment&comment=2868284'>More sharing options...
AlanJW Posted August 7, 2015 Share #109 Posted August 7, 2015 I agree with @mjh: because MF is actually so much more precise in certain circumstances. I have quoted previously that to focus on a bird in a bush using AF is a nightmare. Twigs and branches take precedence over the bird. Great shot of twigs ... where is the bird? Agree. Manual focus keeps you in control. For our manual lenses, however, will there continue to be a purely optical rangefinder? I think Leica has said they will keep the rangefinder but does that mean it can never be improved with new technology? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
algrove Posted August 7, 2015 Share #110 Posted August 7, 2015 Interesting - I might need to dust off my red filters and do some comparison. Any recommendations on a good subject, distance and aperture? I've got a tripod somewhere too ... Shoot white clouds on a blue sky for drama. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheshireCat Posted August 7, 2015 Share #111 Posted August 7, 2015 Like here: Like that one. But apart from the fact the final result is arguable, I have no problems at all with such subjects (and even more covered ones) using my 1Dx, because I know how to use the AF system. ... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted August 7, 2015 Share #112 Posted August 7, 2015 Too slow, in my hands at least, one has maybe one or two seconds to get the shot (illustration, not for its artistic merit or otherwise, I have better Kudu shots.)These are very shy creatures. Fiddling with focus points is not going to cut it. This was taken with a Telyt-V 280 (3) on Visoflex III with an M9, btw. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheshireCat Posted August 8, 2015 Share #113 Posted August 8, 2015 Too slow, in my hands at least, one has maybe one or two seconds to get the shot [...]. These are very shy creatures. Fiddling with focus points is not going to cut it. Too slow ? All I need to do is keep one button pressed to force center-AF-point only. Then the AF will take a fraction of a second to focus. You know, these modern "complicated computer cameras" have programmable buttons, and I put them to good use... This is another incarnation of the RF is faster than AF myth. It is as ridiculous as thinking that a bike is faster than a car. But yes, the bike is easier to drive. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loren Posted August 8, 2015 Share #114 Posted August 8, 2015 Like here: I cry fowl! That is not a bird! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted August 8, 2015 Share #115 Posted August 8, 2015 Too slow ? All I need to do is keep one button pressed to force center-AF-point only. Then the AF will take a fraction of a second to focus. You know, these modern "complicated computer cameras" have programmable buttons, and I put them to good use... This is another incarnation of the RF is faster than AF myth. It is as ridiculous as thinking that a bike is faster than a car. But yes, the bike is easier to drive. Too slow because you have to focus-recompose. And make sure the focus point missed all the twigs.Which increases the time needed exponentially with the number of twigs up to the point of impossibility. This was on a full matte screen, btw, which made it much easier still. But, show us a shot to illustrate your point. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheshireCat Posted August 8, 2015 Share #116 Posted August 8, 2015 Too slow because you have to focus-recompose. And make sure the focus point missed all the twigs.Which increases the time needed exponentially with the number of twigs up to the point of impossibility. This was on a full matte screen, btw, which made it much easier still. But, show us a shot to illustrate your point. You also have to focus-recompose with a RF. The focus is obviously locked by keeping the shutter button half-pressed while recomposing, so there is no problem with twigs. You should try an AF camera eventually Also, with birds, I don't even recompose and crop in post. Can't wait to have a modern high-MP camera. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdlaing Posted August 8, 2015 Share #117 Posted August 8, 2015 How, exactly, is focus locked on a rangefinder by keeping the shutter button half pressed? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cirke Posted August 8, 2015 Share #118 Posted August 8, 2015 This is another incarnation of the RF is faster than AF myth. It is as ridiculous as thinking that a bike is faster than a car. But yes, the bike is easier to drive. nothing is faster than a good AF ... and easier Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrp Posted August 8, 2015 Share #119 Posted August 8, 2015 Too slow because you have to focus-recompose. And make sure the focus point missed all the twigs. Why don't you just focus on the clutter-free neck? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted August 8, 2015 Share #120 Posted August 8, 2015 How, exactly, is focus locked on a rangefinder by keeping the shutter button half pressed? Yes i have nothing against AF provided i can do MF as well, which is hardly the case with modern fly by wire lenses BTW, but what does AF have to do with rangefinders exactly? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.