Bill Livingston Posted August 27, 2015 Share #541 Posted August 27, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) Question remains to whom will it sell. The target group for this type of camera is much larger than the potential market for M cameras. Remember, market size is a potential, not a reflection of actual sales. M cameras perform exceptionally well in their small target group of customers. Give the price, so does the Q from the evidence we see at the moment. There is a viable customer group who wants simplicity and speed, but very high image quality and is aware, or would be interested in, the pedigree of Leica, but who would never really be bothered with manual rangefinder cameras, or manual rangefinder cameras would be completely unsuitable for the sort of photography they would want to use the camera for... I would Iove to see Leica produce a DSLR or an equally fast system camera with AF If priced reasonably, it could be a huge success. Priced too high, it will be another elitist niche camera and Leica will have lost an opportunity to increase their customer base. Leica need to decide who they are... hopefully not a brand reduced to supplying niche cameras to rich enthusiasts or brand conscious fashionistas. I would like to see them compete at the highest level in each product category... but their products have to outperform the competition, and the price points must be at a small premium. No one objects paying more for quality, performance, reliability and service, but it has to be worth the extra, the extra must be justified and reasonable, and it cannot simply charge that premium because of the name alone. Those days are going... It won't be long before no one really cares. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted August 27, 2015 Posted August 27, 2015 Hi Bill Livingston, Take a look here NEW M.. This year.. This Fall.... I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
sls Posted August 27, 2015 Share #542 Posted August 27, 2015 Hold on a second. I moved to Leica about 5 years ago because I got fed up with Canon bulky lenses and AF. All this talk is moving towards bulky lenses and AF. So let all got out and by Canon or Sony with prime lenses. I like the Q as it is because it feels like my MM/50mm and compliments it. If I could wave my magic wand the Q would still be 28mm, but have a sensor with twice as many pixels and the file size would remain at the current 43mb at 28, 35 and 50mm. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Livingston Posted August 27, 2015 Share #543 Posted August 27, 2015 Then you have the camera(s) you need. Why does every new camera Leica bring out have to be YOUR perfect camera? Leica need to win customers from Canon/Nikon et al, if they seriously want to compete in anything other than elitist niche markets. Customers, pros and serious amateurs alike, will pay a small premium if it is worth it... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
colonel Posted August 27, 2015 Share #544 Posted August 27, 2015 I would be disappointed to see the T go, not because I have one, but because it is a great camera with three great zooms. It compliments my M, gives me a Leica System backup for my M Lenses if needed and is relatively (for a Leica) inexpensive. I could go on but I see no need to. It's just a rumor Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted August 27, 2015 Share #545 Posted August 27, 2015 I have nothing against wishful thinkings but Leica can simply not compete vs Sony/Zeiss at the same price level i'm afraid. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted August 27, 2015 Share #546 Posted August 27, 2015 I have nothing against wishful thinkings but Leica can simply not compete vs Sony/Zeiss at the same price level i'm afraid. Nor should they, provided the quality is there, and it is more than just a red dot. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted August 27, 2015 Share #547 Posted August 27, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) Hold on a second. I moved to Leica about 5 years ago because I got fed up with Canon bulky lenses and AF. All this talk is moving towards bulky lenses and AF. So let all got out and by Canon or Sony with prime lenses. I like the Q as it is because it feels like my MM/50mm and compliments it. If I could wave my magic wand the Q would still be 28mm, but have a sensor with twice as many pixels and the file size would remain at the current 43mb at 28, 35 and 50mm. If you are happy with your present system why worry about a hypothetical new camera? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joakim Posted August 27, 2015 Share #548 Posted August 27, 2015 Maybe we should have a poll about what feature we like most on this rumored new camera of which we don't know anything Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted August 27, 2015 Share #549 Posted August 27, 2015 Nor should they, provided the quality is there, and it is more than just a red dot. Quality better be fantastic to justify $8k for an EVIL and a mere 50/2. There would be no RF to explain that. Won't happen or last long if any. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
robert blu Posted August 27, 2015 Share #550 Posted August 27, 2015 Even if this rumored camera is not what I was desiring, but this is just me, I find interesting Leica looking for a larger market share aiming at new clients. I'm, many of us are happy with the RF experience but not everyone is. And it will help the company to stay in the business. Let's see what will come... robert Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndreasAM Posted August 27, 2015 Share #551 Posted August 27, 2015 I was re-reading the specs of the Q, because of the rumoured new system camera based on the Q. One aspect is the introduction of the AF in the camera. The used AF-system in the Q is, allegedly, highly praised across the Q-reviews. I was coming across some interesting articles on the net about the detailed workings of this Panasonic DFD-AF focusing system, which differs from normal Phase Detection in a quite specific way. Here is the Imaging-Resource link. In the article/interview a lot is explained in detail about the workings and the pro's and few cons of the DFD-system: http://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2014/06/05/panasonic-executive-interview-part-i-why-no-long-teles-and-depth-from-defoc Using this DFD-system in combination with a possible new focusing system (the by Leica patented opto-electronic viewfinder) seems very logical. Although I know that few forum members are very interested in the AF-system, it might be of (general) interest for future developments of the Leica M's and Q's and for those who are interested in the upcoming system camera from Leica. Regards Andreas Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
colonel Posted August 27, 2015 Share #552 Posted August 27, 2015 There is a viable customer group who wants simplicity and speed, but very high image quality and is aware, or would be interested in, the pedigree of Leica, but who would never really be bothered with manual rangefinder cameras, or manual rangefinder cameras would be completely unsuitable for the sort of photography they would want to use the camera for... I would Iove to see Leica produce a DSLR or an equally fast system camera with AF If priced reasonably, it could be a huge success. Priced too high, it will be another elitist niche camera and Leica will have lost an opportunity to increase their customer base. Leica need to decide who they are... hopefully not a brand reduced to supplying niche cameras to rich enthusiasts or brand conscious fashionistas. I would like to see them compete at the highest level in each product category... but their products have to outperform the competition, and the price points must be at a small premium. No one objects paying more for quality, performance, reliability and service, but it has to be worth the extra, the extra must be justified and reasonable, and it cannot simply charge that premium because of the name alone. Those days are going... It won't be long before no one really cares. I agree with your first sentiment. However a DSLR would be a crushing failure. Everyone except the Canikon cash cow is moving away from this outdated format, and those guys are only a matter of time. Leica adds simplicity, build and design to a common concept. It also generally sneaks in an innovation or a way of doing things that others don't. Leica's customer service is very important as well, and actually of growing importance in terms of product differentiation. I mean Apple phones have been spec wise behind the top Android phones for some time but I know people that only buy them for the support, or the design, or both. For the this and the brand Leica will be comfortably more expensive. Don't expect anything else and Leica is not trying to compete head on with mass market camera companies at a slight premium. This would never work and anyway would not be useful or interesting for the market. Leica needs to sell expensive premium brand things that are noticeably different. its not mass market. anyone who wants good value should look elsewhere ... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest NEIL-D-WILLIAMS Posted August 27, 2015 Share #553 Posted August 27, 2015 I wonder if arte de Mano is making red 1/2 cases for it Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
microview Posted August 27, 2015 Share #554 Posted August 27, 2015 If you are happy with your present system why worry about a hypothetical new camera? Only because the M is quite heavy to carry around, performance virtues regardless. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjh Posted August 27, 2015 Share #555 Posted August 27, 2015 I was coming across some interesting articles on the net about the detailed workings of this Panasonic DFD-AF focusing system, which differs from normal Phase Detection in a quite specific way. Here is the Imaging-Resource link. In the article/interview a lot is explained in detail about the workings and the pro's and few cons of the DFD-system: http://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2014/06/05/panasonic-executive-interview-part-i-why-no-long-teles-and-depth-from-defoc Using this DFD-system in combination with a possible new focusing system (the by Leica patented opto-electronic viewfinder) seems very logical. DFD has nothing to do with phase detection. It is better thought of as an extension of contrast-based AF. Phase detection requires two different light paths through the lens so you have two images (captured simultaneously) to compare. A contrast-based AF, on the other hand, measures micro-contrast and by comparing the micro-contrast at different focusing positions the camera can decide which position provides a sharper image. Now a contrast-based AF needs lots of these measurements at different positions, and by necessity a lot of the shifts in focusing will be in the wrong direction. DFD now tries to be more intelligent than just measuring micro-contrast; rather it analyses the bokeh of an unsharp image which provides clues as to where the lens is in relation to the optimum focus position (provided the algorithm is fed with lens-specific info about its bokeh). Thus DFD can help the basic contrast-based AF in much the same way as phase detection does in hybrid AF systems. However, I don’t quite see which role DFD could usefully play in a rangefinder camera, be it a traditional opto-mechanical or some new-fangled electronic rangefinder. Also note that DFD only works with AF lenses whose characteristics are known. It wouldn’t be much use with adapted and/or manual lenses. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndreasAM Posted August 27, 2015 Share #556 Posted August 27, 2015 DFD has nothing to do with phase detection. It is better thought of as an extension of contrast-based AF. Phase detection requires two different light paths through the lens so you have two images (captured simultaneously) to compare. A contrast-based AF, on the other hand, measures micro-contrast and by comparing the micro-contrast at different focusing positions the camera can decide which position provides a sharper image. Now a contrast-based AF needs lots of these measurements at different positions, and by necessity a lot of the shifts in focusing will be in the wrong direction. DFD now tries to be more intelligent than just measuring micro-contrast; rather it analyses the bokeh of an unsharp image which provides clues as to where the lens is in relation to the optimum focus position (provided the algorithm is fed with lens-specific info about its bokeh). Thus DFD can help the basic contrast-based AF in much the same way as phase detection does in hybrid AF systems. However, I don’t quite see which role DFD could usefully play in a rangefinder camera, be it a traditional opto-mechanical or some new-fangled electronic rangefinder. Also note that DFD only works with AF lenses whose characteristics are known. It wouldn’t be much use with adapted and/or manual lenses. Michael, Thank you, as always, for the concise summery of the technical workings of the DFD-system. I wouldn't be able to phrase it this well. Perhaps I should have been more precise in my post by saying that it differs from the more often used Phase Detection system in DSLR's at the moment. What I find interesting about the concept are a few aspects: 1. The speed of this system can match or superseed that of Phase Detection without needing the more than 100k Phase Detecting pixels on the sensor (1% of the total pixels). So this increases the image quality of the sensor and only needing the few Contrast-bases Detection pixels for the final very precise focusing. This simplifies the sensor design, thus lowering price and decrease failure rate in production. 2. The use of this system isn't very straining on the processing power, the focus failure rate is much lower and it isn't that depended on the contrast of the object and lighting conditions. All sounds good for shooting in low light conditions?! 3. Because the concept of the system is based on the use of the bokeh-information of the lens (stored in the databank of the camera or on the chip of an AF-lens), to derive the distance and direction where to focus, it is very similar to what the patent of the opto-electronic viewfinder describes as the concept of focusing, albeit with a different physical measuring system (ERF). So software and algorithms developed by Panasonic for the last 5 years or so could be invaluable knowledge for developing the ERF by Leica. Which makes it more probable that a Opto-Electronic Viewfinder is on the way? The database of, the 22 or so, MF M-lenses could well be stored on the databank of the camera, as is intended with the ERF (see the patent), thus using it with MF or AF lenses is very well possible. But my technical knowledge is limited and perhaps I am a skating on very thin ice here? Regards, Andreas Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
freitz Posted August 27, 2015 Share #557 Posted August 27, 2015 Lots of speculation. If a new M, I would like to be able to keep my current lens setup and use new AF lens if of the same quality. I enjoy the range finder system and I doubt they would stray away from that. If AF I would like a strong offering from quality but also I hope to keep the compactness of the current lens design. Would be disappointing to have to buy all new lenses that are much larger then the current offering. If a new system, I would like it to be able to take M lenses; I would be disappointed if they decided to do something along the lines of the A7RII. As many have stated there are already to many companies competing in that segment. High quality AF lens if that is what they are pushing for. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jip Posted August 27, 2015 Share #558 Posted August 27, 2015 They already have a DSLR it's the S system... why would they make a fullframe DSLR while they actually got rid of the R system. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjh Posted August 27, 2015 Share #559 Posted August 27, 2015 What I find interesting about the concept are a few aspects: 1. The speed of this system can match or superseed that of Phase Detection without needing the more than 100k Phase Detecting pixels on the sensor (1% of the total pixels). So this increases the image quality of the sensor and only needing the few Contrast-bases Detection pixels for the final very precise focusing. This simplifies the sensor design, thus lowering price and decrease failure rate in production. Yes, DFD has a couple of advantages as you’ve mentioned, but then of course one would also have to hear the other side. It is not like those phase detection pixels would cause a noticeable degradation of image quality. Still it is true that DFD requires fewer modifications of the sensor and is guaranteed not to influence the image data in any way. The advantage of phase detection on the sensor is that it is more robust, working with virtually any lens. Also phase detection can fully replace the contrast-based AF under certain conditions while DFD is only used for getting a ballpark figure for the distance, with contrast-based techniques employed for homing in on the perfect focus. In any case it is good to have some competition between rivalling approaches. 3. Because the concept of the system is based on the use of the bokeh-information of the lens (stored in the databank of the camera or on the chip of an AF-lens), to derive the distance and direction where to focus, it is very similar to what the patent of the opto-electronic viewfinder describes as the concept of focusing, albeit with a different physical measuring system (ERF). So software and algorithms [/size]developed by [/size]Panasonic for the last 5 years or so could [/size]be invaluable knowledge for developing the ERF by Leica. Which makes it more probable that a Opto-Electronic Viewfinder is on the way? The database of, the 22 or so, MF M-lenses could well be stored on the databank of the camera, as is intended with the ERF (see the patent), [/size]thus using it with MF or AF lenses is very well possible.[/size] A rangefinder, opto-mechanical or electronical, is a non-TTL system and had no use for bokeh data for the main lens. Of course DFD based on the image sensor and the main lens could still be combined with data from an electronic rangefinder, but I’m not sure how this would be used. Perhaps DFD could drive AF lenses while an electronic rangefinder would be used with manual lenses. But this again raises the question of whether it would be worthwile to turn the M into an AF camera. Current rumours are about a new mirrorless system that is not derived from the M line, even when it may be possible to adapt M lenses. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjh Posted August 27, 2015 Share #560 Posted August 27, 2015 They already have a DSLR it's the S system... why would they make a fullframe DSLR while they actually got rid of the R system. I have said it before and I say it again: There will be no new DSLR system, neither from Leica nor from any other vendor. Any new system will be mirrorless. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.