barjohn Posted December 17, 2015 Share #1 Posted December 17, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) A blogger just posted an article on Mr. Huff's blog stating that he sold his M and replaced it with the SL and that the SL is really just a better M without a rangefinder. Does it make sense for Leica to consolidate down to just 3 or 4 models, say S, SL, Q and T? They could focus their resources and leverage off of the technology in each and optimize profits. Further, they could reduce the repair volume with no RF to recalibrate or lenses to be calibrated to a RF. Maybe this would improve turn around and hence customer service? Thoughts? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted December 17, 2015 Posted December 17, 2015 Hi barjohn, Take a look here Should Leica Replace the M with the SL?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
tompoes Posted December 17, 2015 Share #2 Posted December 17, 2015 I did make the switch from the M to the SL and share the views of the blogger on the site of Steve Huff but do not see that the SL will replace the M. Yes for me but for many others not. The next M will probably include a lot of the technologies of the SL and offer the Leica users 2 unique options. The form factor of the M, the rangefinder experience and the link to many historic M cameras will attract a lot of buyers. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Spencer Posted December 17, 2015 Share #3 Posted December 17, 2015 I think it makes no sense at all to get rid of the M. The rangefinder is a unique and very useful system for a lot of people. I think there will always be a place for it. I think it does make sense now to basically phase out the T. I think three interchangeable lens systems, S, SL, & M makes the most sense and then they can have some non-interchangeable lens cameras like the Q. I expect the next M to feature a better sensor, and I hope it would have a BSI sensor which ought to make the excellent M lenses even better--colour cast would be basically gone. I think the M can be more of a stills camera only too. I don't think it needs to have video. I would still like to see a nice attachable EVF for lenses longer or shorter than 28-75(90) mm. That plus better speed and responsiveness and perhaps a little smaller size would make a great camera and a great complement to the SL. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
barjohn Posted December 17, 2015 Author Share #4 Posted December 17, 2015 While the RF does offer some advantages over an EVF, the same is true for the EVF vs the RF. The issue is that the market size for a RF and its inherent maintenance and cost is rather small compered to the market for an SL style camera. With limited resources, where should Leica spend its money? Repairs on M's are more difficult and take a long time so it reduces the effectiveness of the CS department. Most users, I think, would like to have a week or less turn around for repairs but this doesn't appear to be economically feasible with the current cameras. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tompoes Posted December 17, 2015 Share #5 Posted December 17, 2015 I think it makes no sense at all to get rid of the M. The rangefinder is a unique and very useful system for a lot of people. I think there will always be a place for it. I think it does make sense now to basically phase out the T. I think three interchangeable lens systems, S, SL, & M makes the most sense and then they can have some non-interchangeable lens cameras like the Q. I expect the next M to feature a better sensor, and I hope it would have a BSI sensor which ought to make the excellent M lenses even better--colour cast would be basically gone. I think the M can be more of a stills camera only too. I don't think it needs to have video. I would still like to see a nice attachable EVF for lenses longer or shorter than 28-75(90) mm. That plus better speed and responsiveness and perhaps a little smaller size would make a great camera and a great complement to the SL. The T is another market and includes at the moment 3 really fantastic lenses, what it needs a new processor and improvement in the AF department. With the recent announcement of a new T lens i am more confident that Leica will continue with the T. The last weeks i have taken a lot of pictures with the T and the 11-23/18-56 zoom lenses and the SL with some M lenses. On a 5k iMac screen it is very difficult to identify the differences in quality. This says a lot about the T and the marvelous zoomlenses. For more then a year i have been skeptical about the T system but recent shoots with the SL and the T proved to me that the T is a unique system in its own right. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
satijntje Posted December 17, 2015 Share #6 Posted December 17, 2015 A blogger just posted an article on Mr. Huff's blog stating that he sold his M and replaced it with the SL and that the SL is really just a better M without a rangefinder. Does it make sense for Leica to consolidate down to just 3 or 4 models, say S, SL, Q and T? They could focus their resources and leverage off of the technology in each and optimize profits. Further, they could reduce the repair volume with no RF to recalibrate or lenses to be calibrated to a RF. Maybe this would improve turn around and hence customer service? Thoughts? I also switched from M240 to SL. The main reason was that my eyesight is not good enough anymore to work with the Rangefinder. If my eyes would be still perfect, I would have stayed with the M. John Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roberto Watson Posted December 17, 2015 Share #7 Posted December 17, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) IMO Leica M rangefinder has no replacement, you can pick any other camera and learn to use it, and even master it, but the usage of M body is diferent as you may know. Even a Fuji X100T with it´s sophisticated finder is a much diferent camera. No other camera allows you as a photographer to do what a Leica M RF does. It has nothing to do with file size, neither image quality, neather manual or autofocus, it may sounds romantic but form me it mostly has to do with usage simplicity and the way Leica´s rangefinder represents the object to be photograph. There is a learning curve of curse, it can be like replacing your entire life SLR for a mirrorless camera, you can do it, but it won´t be the same. I hope Leica maintains it´s M line for a long time yet. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
edwardkaraa Posted December 17, 2015 Share #8 Posted December 17, 2015 The M is synonymous to Leica. Without it Leica would have been out of business long time ago. Anyhow I think numbers talk. I'm sure if there are enough sales, the thought would never cross anyone's mind in Wetzlar. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
keithlaban.co.uk Posted December 17, 2015 Share #9 Posted December 17, 2015 No. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramarren Posted December 17, 2015 Share #10 Posted December 17, 2015 A blogger just posted an article on Mr. Huff's blog stating that he sold his M and replaced it with the SL and that the SL is really just a better M without a rangefinder. Does it make sense for Leica to consolidate down to just 3 or 4 models, say S, SL, Q and T? They could focus their resources and leverage off of the technology in each and optimize profits. Further, they could reduce the repair volume with no RF to recalibrate or lenses to be calibrated to a RF. Maybe this would improve turn around and hence customer service? Thoughts? As I posted on another thread, I think Leica has been doing an outstanding job of managing its product lines, sales, and profitability without my needing to offer opinions and advice about them. I'm not a Leica corporate strategist and I'd prefer not to make believe I am one; they know their business, finances, etc., far better than I ever could. There's plenty of room in the photographic equipment market for an M camera. Perhaps with the delivery of the SL, the M typ 262 makes the most sense—a model without the additional Live View and other typ 240 features—but how much or how little it costs Leica to continue development of the line is an evaluation I'll leave up to Leica. They're not in financial trouble and they're growing the line of system cameras (T, M, SL, S) as well as fixed-lens cameras (Q, X, smaller compacts) with success as far as I can tell. I haven't seen any lack of service and support either: any queries I've sent to Leica USA for support have been answered in a timely and efficient manner, and all my service needs have been attended to with care and expediently too. Coming up with solutions for made-up problems doesn't seem to me to be a very good use of my time. Perhaps this is one reason why I only rarely read photo equipment blogs. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
barjohn Posted December 17, 2015 Author Share #11 Posted December 17, 2015 Your experience doesn't match mine or that of many others on this forum. Leica is notorious for taking months on repairs and frequently getting a response to emails can be challenging. Either you have been luck or are among the privileged few with a special relationship that gets you better service. A search of this forum (not the SL forum, it's too new) would show you many cases of slow repairs. Calling it a mode up problem is nonsense just because you haven't experienced it. Anyway, that was not the point of this thread, it was merely to ask the question whether the SL was in fact a better M than the M as has been alluded by at least a couple of bloggers including Steve Huff, and if so would it make sense to no longer build a RF? Can we focus on that aspect alone please? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted December 17, 2015 Share #12 Posted December 17, 2015 A blogger just posted an article on Mr. Huff's blog stating that he sold his M and replaced it with the SL and that the SL is really just a better M without a rangefinder. Does it make sense for Leica to consolidate down to just 3 or 4 models, say S, SL, Q and T? They could focus their resources and leverage off of the technology in each and optimize profits. Further, they could reduce the repair volume with no RF to recalibrate or lenses to be calibrated to a RF. Maybe this would improve turn around and hence customer service? Thoughts? John + Pot + Spoon... stir. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter H Posted December 17, 2015 Share #13 Posted December 17, 2015 I do sincerely hope the M262 isn't the future for the M line or all my worst concerns about the implications of the SL launch would be confirmed. I do strongly believe that there's room for both the M and SL to exist and develop alongside each other. In fact, done well, it would be the ideal arrangement, in my opinion. But the potential for the M as the only camera that can combine the benefits of a peerless OVF and, we hope, a superb detachable EVF in one truly compact package, and produce IQ that matches anything out there, should not be sacrificed. There can always be an M262-style stripped-down version, but the M should be as advanced as a MF RF camera can be, as long as those advances are made in the name of superlative photographic ability and are not there for the sake of extra features, and retain the M's excellent operational simplicity. If Leica are thinking along these lines, of a technologically advanced M, then the answer to the OP's question is a solid no. Otherwise, it's a wobbly maybe. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramarren Posted December 17, 2015 Share #14 Posted December 17, 2015 Your experience doesn't match mine or that of many others on this forum. Leica is notorious for taking months on repairs and frequently getting a response to emails can be challenging. Either you have been luck or are among the privileged few with a special relationship that gets you better service. A search of this forum (not the SL forum, it's too new) would show you many cases of slow repairs. Calling it a mode up problem is nonsense just because you haven't experienced it. Anyway, that was not the point of this thread, it was merely to ask the question whether the SL was in fact a better M than the M as has been alluded by at least a couple of bloggers including Steve Huff, and if so would it make sense to no longer build a RF? Can we focus on that aspect alone please? That's not the made-up problem I was referring to, but that's beside the point. Don't take it personally. (bolded) Sure. The SL and the M are two completely different cameras in design and intent, to my eye and use. The one does not replace the other. The RF camera type was basically obsoleted as being the innovation edge in camera design by the SLR in the 1950s on the basis of the SLR's much greater lens versatility, due to the TTL focusing and viewing system. Yet the RF camera remains a useful, if limited, complement to the TTL camera for situations where the optical rangefinder/viewfinder nets a working advantage. Just because one person, or even quite a few, have decided that for their purposes the SL's greater versatility and capabilities serves their photographic needs and desires better than the M does not mean that there's no value to the M as a separate camera line. This is not a new decision point—it's the same one as between Leica M and Leica R, or between any RF and any SLR/TTL camera. The only questions that need to be addressed are whether Leica sees the ongoing cost of development and maintenance of the M line as being more expensive than its profitability, and whether those monies are better spent in other development areas. Only Leica can address those questions with any credibility, IMO. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted December 17, 2015 Share #15 Posted December 17, 2015 ... I do strongly believe that there's room for both the M and SL to exist and develop alongside each other. In fact, done well, it would be the ideal arrangement, in my opinion. But the potential for the M as the only camera that can combine the benefits of a peerless OVF and, we hope, a superb detachable EVF in one truly compact package, and produce IQ that matches anything out there, should not be sacrificed. There can always be an M262-style stripped-down version, but the M should be as advanced as a MF RF camera can be, as long as those advances are made in the name of superlative photographic ability and are not there for the sake of extra features, and retain the M's excellent operational simplicity ... We have always disagreed on the struck out bit above. Having two viewfinders has always denigrated the elegance and superb simplicity of the M with the OVF, matched with peerless IQ. Using large R lenses on the beautiful small M body, with a clip-on EVF borrowed from Olympus will always be an anathema to me, and a second rate result not in keeping with the rest of the M camera. The M has always (until the M(240) came along) been about the best lenses between 16mm and 135mm, with a sweet spot between 28 & 90. For photography wider than 28 (or 21 at a pinch) and longer than 90, the SL form factor is simply better. AF is not always an improvement, but it is useful. I'm sure at some point I will add to my AF lenses perhaps with a long prime and the new 50 Summilux will always be there to tempt me (do I really need 4 50mm lenses?). I think I've said before that I don't believe the M form factor works well with what the SL brings - bigger lenses. I know I could attach my 180 Elmarit-R and 2x Extender to my M Edition 60 (if it had an LCD and live view), but I wouldn't - it's all wrong on that camera, where it is nicely balanced (long and heavy, but perfectly balanced) on the SL. For the sort of photography where I want to use a telephoto lens (as an example), I don't want to use an M camera - it's too small and the OVF isn't appropriate. The SL does that sort of thing so much better, and always will. Similarly, for the outdoors where I like to take pictures, I want the weather sealing and ruggedness of the SL, not the M60 and not the Monochrom (though maybe the M-A, that's a camera that I would take with the SL, I think). The M is really about the OVF and the limitations that naturally brings with it. Most photography is actually done between 28 & 90, at least the sort of photography where the M shines. Cheers John Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
viramati Posted December 17, 2015 Share #16 Posted December 17, 2015 How can it replace the M it's not a RF camera it's a totally different type of camera. That said I have 'changed' from the Leica M system for the Sony A7 system and now only have the Q and a couple of RF lenses. I have to say the The Huff site has really gone down hill of late!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
barjohn Posted December 17, 2015 Author Share #17 Posted December 17, 2015 While I don't possess market demographics for the M, one only need look through this forum to see it is mostly up there in age, me included and that means eye sight that in many cases does not work well with a RF even if we wanted it to. I liked the RF a lot but gave up when I realized I could not focus it well in low light no matter how hard I tried. Far too many misses. While I agree with the poster above that a superb M focused on what it does best and optimized by being made thinner and slightly smaller would be an attractive camera to a segment of the market, I'm not sure the SL isn't a better more versatile camera. Just get rid of the fake SLR hump and put the view finder where it is on the M and improve the M lens performance and one has the best of all worlds...maybe. It will be interesting to see. Maybe the electronic RF will make an appearance. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramarren Posted December 17, 2015 Share #18 Posted December 17, 2015 I do sincerely hope the M262 isn't the future for the M line or all my worst concerns about the implications of the SL launch would be confirmed. I do strongly believe that there's room for both the M and SL to exist and develop alongside each other. In fact, done well, it would be the ideal arrangement, in my opinion. But the potential for the M as the only camera that can combine the benefits of a peerless OVF and, we hope, a superb detachable EVF in one truly compact package, and produce IQ that matches anything out there, should not be sacrificed. There can always be an M262-style stripped-down version, but the M should be as advanced as a MF RF camera can be, as long as those advances are made in the name of superlative photographic ability and are not there for the sake of extra features, and retain the M's excellent operational simplicity. If Leica are thinking along these lines, of a technologically advanced M, then the answer to the OP's question is a solid no. Otherwise, it's a wobbly maybe. (bolded) The M-P body is only a little bit smaller and lighter than the SL body. The shape is different, sure, but in absolute terms there's no big gain on compactness between them. I see this myself: they fit about the same in the same camera bags with the same lenses fitted. It's the lenses for the M that are small, but they are also the reason why moving to digital was troublesome for the M. While I don't possess market demographics for the M, one only need look through this forum to see it is mostly up there in age, me included and that means eye sight that in many cases does not work well with a RF even if we wanted it to. I liked the RF a lot but gave up when I realized I could not focus it well in low light no matter how hard I tried. Far too many misses. While I agree with the poster above that a superb M focused on what it does best and optimized by being made thinner and slightly smaller would be an attractive camera to a segment of the market, I'm not sure the SL isn't a better more versatile camera. Just get rid of the fake SLR hump and put the view finder where it is on the M and improve the M lens performance and one has the best of all worlds...maybe. It will be interesting to see. Maybe the electronic RF will make an appearance. (bolded) It's very ironic to read this. One of the reasons most people would have a Leica M in their bag was that the RF was traditionally easier to focus in dim light compared to an SLR finder. The SL is certainly a more versatile camera, just as SLRs are more versatile than RFs. "Better" is a different kind of evaluation. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjh Posted December 17, 2015 Share #19 Posted December 17, 2015 The SL was never intended as a replacement for the M. Frankly I find rather odd to even entertain the thought. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted December 17, 2015 Share #20 Posted December 17, 2015 The SL was never intended as a replacement for the M. Frankly I find rather odd to even entertain the thought. Odd isn't the word I'd use - I'm thinking more of something that lives under bridges in Norwegian folklore. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.