interview with Dr. Kaufmann and CEO Kaltner on the SL

[cpclee]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

"We could easily go up with our megapixels, but you must always want to ensure you have the right balance between the megapixel, what the sensor is delivering, and the frame rate. And for this, we consciously decided on 24 megapixel in that camera, because this is the perfect megapixel size that we would like to have to deliver best in terms of the picture quality. And picture quality is where we have a strong heritage."

 

"For prime lenses, there will be additional lenses. It’s an old Leica tradition to have prime lenses. As for the zooms, there might be something coming somewhere in the future. At the end, you will have a system with it’s own lenses, so there will be additional SL lenses."

 

On the M system:

 

"Because the M incorporates the spirit of this company. And the spirit is between revolution and tradition. Purity and clear lense design also in the future, and we might possibly look into the lens portfolio of former days. Because I see still a few opportunities there, to create lenses for the M where you can then shoot in a different style."

 

http://www.clubsnap.com/forums/entry.php?b=118

[cpclee]

The remark about the purity of the M system is interesting to me.  I don't find the M so pure anymore after the added EVF, grip and fancy high tech framelines...

[jaapv]

Hi-tech? An LED to replace a light window?

[Peter H]

The original Leicas were at the forefront of technology.

 

If the EVF for example is impure in this context it is because it's out of date, not because it exists.

[cpclee]

I guess I'm still trying to understand exactly what moving to the LED accomplishes.  To me it's a bit like power steering on a Porsche

 

Hi-tech? An LED to replace a light window?

[cpclee]

Out of date or out of place? Because out of place is exactly how I find it when an EVF is attached to an M.  And then there is the irony of it: You'd only need an EVF if the rangefinder is not the right tool for the job.

 

The original Leicas were at the forefront of technology.

 

If the EVF for example is impure in this context it is because it's out of date, not because it exists.

[Peter H]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Out of date or out of place? Because out of place is exactly how I find it when an EVF is attached to an M.  And then there is the irony of it: You'd only need an EVF if the rangefinder is not the right tool for the job.

 

Out of date.

 

I can understand that you might feel it's out of place (assuming you mean physically rather than ideologically), but if you only attach it when you need to use it it won't get in the way. 

 

And is it any more out of place that the attachment optical viewfinders that have always been part of the Leica package?

 

And no, I sense no irony in using it when the RF is not the optimum tool. Seems perfectly sensible to me. 

 

I don't go in for super-long telephoto lenses but occasionally my 180 R lens is useful, as are one or two very wide lenses and the R macro lens. The EVF allows me to use my one M camera for everything I care most about in photographic terms. Without the EVF, as in M9 days and earlier, I'd need additional cameras. Now I only need one. That's a kind of purity too isn't it?  And by the way, part of my discomfort with the SL, but that's another story...

[jaapv]

I guess I'm still trying to understand exactly what moving to the LED accomplishes.  To me it's a bit like power steering on a Porsche

1. Better controlled and stable lighting of the framelines.

2. Choice of colour (can be practical under some lighting conditions).

[cpclee]

Good point actually and the visioflex is another example

 

And is it any more out of place that the attachment optical viewfinders that have always been part of the Leica package?

[jaapv]

The original Leicas were at the forefront of technology.

That I rather doubt. Cameras like Contax and Robot were far more innovative and advanced.

[Peter H]

That I rather doubt. Cameras like Contax and Robot were far more innovative and advanced.

 

OK, so Leica has a proud tradition that we must fight to uphold, of being a bit behind the competition...

[rodluvan]

"We could easily go up with our megapixels, but you must always want to ensure you have the right balance between the megapixel, what the sensor is delivering, and the frame rate. And for this, we consciously decided on 24 megapixel in that camera, because this is the perfect megapixel size that we would like to have to deliver best in terms of the picture quality. And picture quality is where we have a strong heritage."

 

 

what hogwash. the heritage of Leica is the 35mm format and the (small) size of the camera (and lenses) that go along with it, developed in an era where medium format was king. emphasis on picture quality (resolution) was an unavoidable consequence of using a smaller format while still trying to produce prints that were comparable to those of larger formats.  

 

this legacy of Leica seems to be all but forgotten, apparently even by Leica themselves being too busy concocting nifty words salads to sell their latest abomination 

[jaapv]

As I read it you are saying the same as Dr. Kaufmann - a heritage of optimal image quality to compete with natively superior formats.

Nor do I see anything abominable in the SL - it is not a rangefinder, true, but for an SLR-replacing mirrorless system it appears to me to be pretty good, a worthy R successor. The R cameras and lenses are not particularly small either.

[otto.f]

The remark about the purity of the M system is interesting to me.  I don't find the M so pure anymore after the added EVF, grip and fancy high tech framelines...

 

I put my bet on a new pure optical rangefinder M without EVF, but with newly gained more precise focusing of the M240, just as Leica chose to continue or introduce the M7, the M-A, the MP, etc.

[earleygallery]

OK, so Leica has a proud tradition that we must fight to uphold, of being a bit behind the competition...

 

LOL!

 

Actually it's probably true. I've just received a camera I bought on a whim whilst looking at an online auction, never heard of it before - a Zeiss Tenax ll.

 

Same as this one http://www.leicashop.com/vintage_en/zeiss-ikon/35mm-viewfinder-cameras/zeiss-ikon-tenax-ii-sku26102-1.html

 

It's pre war, 1937. 35mm but takes square format images, and has bayonet mount lenses which include a single 'goggle' for the rangefinder adjustment. Leaf shutter which is built into the body, and a lever on the front of the camera which you push down to wind the film on.

 

Compared to an LTM body is ultra high tech! Of course I'd much rather trust an LTM Leica in use today - simplicity usually also means reliability (that said it seems to be working perfectly).

[Peter H]

I put my bet on a new pure optical rangefinder M without EVF, but with newly gained more precise focusing of the M240, just as Leica chose to continue or introduce the M7, the M-A, the MP, etc.

 

An M, in other words.

 

The EVF is not compulsory.

[rosuna]

For the future Ms I would ask for lighter and smaller bodies (thinner). I think the brick-shape M bodies make sense with the original proportions (digital bodies feel too large and heavy).

 

For the future M lenses I would like to see zooms... like the Tri-Elmar 28-35-50...

[cpclee]

I agree with you 100% on the dimensions of the M.  Would love for them to bring back the thinner/shorter film M size

 

I also agree with the Tri-Elmar.  Digital should make that lens even more versatile than in the film days given the high ISO capabilities.

 

For the future Ms I would ask for lighter and smaller bodies (thinner). I think the brick-shape M bodies make sense with the original proportions (digital bodies feel too large and heavy).

 

For the future M lenses I would like to see zooms... like the Tri-Elmar 28-35-50...

[CheshireCat]

I put my bet on a new pure optical rangefinder M without EVF

 

The interviewer clearly asked what can we expect in the future for the M system.

And the answer(s) did only mention new lenses.

 

Overall, Leica's message is the following:

- We don't care about MP

- We will only provide new lenses, especially new "old" lenses (wtf)

- The M will remain pure (no new technologies)

 

And the logical conclusion is: there is no plan for a new M camera.

 

Now, they also said they listen to the Leica community. Well, listen to this: after reading this interview, I am ordering Zeiss lenses for my Sony camera.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[Peter H]

The interviewer clearly asked what can we expect in the future for the M system.

And the answer(s) did only mention new lenses.

 

Overall, Leica's message is the following:

- We don't care about MP

- We will only provide new lenses, especially new "old" lenses (wtf)

- The M will remain pure (no new technologies)

 

And the logical conclusion is: there is no plan for a new M camera.

 

Now, they also said they listen to the Leica community. Well, listen to this: after reading this interview, I am ordering Zeiss lenses for my Sony camera.

I'm not sure that your