For four years I have waited for this day which has not come

[Nick Bedford]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I dunno about you but I'm having a great ol' time making pictures with the M 240. Its files are so detailed and you can get a solid 13 stops out of them. I don't even use 3/4s of the camera's features really.

[jaapv]

It seems as if Leica is looking for a much broader source of funding then any of the M/Q/T/S/SL segment could ever provide.

Surely they lost money in their T/S sectors and probably SL and Q as well ... Blackstone was not happy with them

( which sent out the wrong signals ).

... so now smartphones and other gadgets shall provide what's needed most

funding & possibly new investors... which in turn alienates their most loyal followers in the M segment,

people like me who stuck with them throughout the 80ties and who want to see some sort of reward ( innovations ),

but how foremost  do not want their expensive cameras

associated with cheap trinkets.

How long Leica can hold on and provide us with the illusion of a healthy $365m company

is to be seen ...

cloud "2000 and nine" we have all been sitting on seems to be steadily disappearing from the horizon ...

 

The only real fact in your post  is that Leica is a profitable 365 Million (Euro!) company. The best result the company ever had.

 

( http://www.morgenpost.de/wirtschaft/article207385499/Kamerahersteller-Leica-mit-Rekordumsatz.html )

( https://global.handelsblatt.com/breaking/exclusive-leica-cameras-posts-record-sales-vamps-up-chinese-cooperation)

 

 

The rest is unfounded smoke and innuendo.

The supposition that Blackstone is unhappy with just about the only camera maker that is turning a decent profit is rather surprising. Nor does the supposition that all their cameras are losing money make any sense in the light of a record turnover -up 12% on the preceding year- and a solid double-digit profit, up as well.

 

So - come up with facts and sources.

[bocaburger]

How different people are. After using the 240 from the beginning I increasingly find the view/rangefinder improvement the main thing that puts it ahead of the other M cameras.

That you see not much difference  in IQ or noise is not surprising, given that you prefer JPG output. Should you use the camera to its full potential, the difference would be clear, especially on the noise front.

My M9 arrived new with a horribly maladjusted rangefinder, which I calibrated myself to perfection.  Had my M9's rangefinder only been a wee bit out of calibration, I might not have realized it could be bettered, and then getting an M240 I might have believed there was some optomechanical improvement when in fact it was simply that more M240s left the factory in perfect alignment.  Also, I find the LED-lit framelines a distraction, becoming more so as the ambient light level drops.  I absolutely despise the red lines.  I wish Leica would have allowed for user choice of line brightess as they do for display brightness.  

 

As for the difference in IQ and noise, I didn't say there wasn't any difference, just not much.  It's not a quantum leap.  Alone it would not have been a compelling reason for me to upgrade.  But since you bring up the subject of jpeg vs DNG, the M240's jpeg quality is the other thing besides the quietness that made the upgrade totally worth it to me.  To finally be able to choose whether to shoot and process DNG is, to me, a sign that Leica finally got their act together and is justifyied calling the M240 a professional camera.  Because a lot more pros than you think shoot jpegs.

 

And as I have stated many times, I shot DNG for all the years I owned an M8 and then M9, because I had no other choice, their jpeg output was so inconsistent as to be untrustable and unusable.  In those years I became very skilled at PP, first with C1 and then LR.  I am not some incompetent tyro.  Before I bought an M240 I tested it extensively compared to the M9 shooting DNG, the only file format the M9 can capably produce.  And there was some improvement in noise, but by comparison to the benchmark set at the time by C*** and N*** it was nothing to crow about.  Other improvements in IQ were incremental at best.   

 

But I bought a second M240, which I never felt like I wanted to do with either the M8 or M9.  The improvements in quiet operation and the ability to choose to shoot jpeg when the occasion warrants were dealmakers for me. 

[Tailwagger]

With all due respect, the M line is done. There will over time be marginal advances to bring new buyers in but Leica likely believes there is nothing left to improve where the return on investment from their perspective is worthwhile. The SL is their new direction and it will eventually grow into a MF competitive platform and then the Q and T are the lesser cost alternatives. Professionals to be catered to are the SL and S users. Can't say I blame them. When you look at the M how much more aside from tweaking is there really left to do? I don't believe they have an interest in going to full frame 50mp sensors or a curved one or whatever. It is what it is and aside from the occasional refresh the focus of development is not the M

 

 

 

If that truly is the case unless the company can be profitable producing the SL at the $3-4K level, then failing a takeover/buyout by one of the major players, Leica, as  a camera manufacturer is likely dead. Professionals are far more price sensitive than well-healed consumers. If a Leica provides advantages that result in more money, then fine but businesses don't stay in business very long by overspending on tools when lesser cost ones will satisfy their customer base just as well.  How many pros will elect to drop $5300 on a 50mm 1.4 prime?  Some sure, but is there really a larger market there than with continuing to cultivate M customers? Unless the M faithful cave and follow move to SL land as well, I find it very difficult to see how they will prosper with this strategy. And as far as MF goes, they certainly today are not a leader, either in reputation or product, in that market.  And despite its small size, it is a market that is becoming increasing more competitive with mirrorless offerings from Fuji and HBlad.  Can Sony be far behind?  Had the SL been MF to begin with, perhaps, but they are late to the party and those users dont tend to switch systems all that often.  

 

Not saying you might not be spot on regarding what they're thinking, but I dont see this as a successful strategy. Leica survived by hanging its future on what can only be seen in the broader context as a boutique product for connoisseurs and radicals that bridged the emotional experience of shooting film into the digital age. The M has stuck, it has a following. The jury may still be out on the Q/SL, but regardless of how you view the worth of the X and T lines as tools for photographic expression, AFAICT they certainly havent succeeded at positioning themselves as the pinnacle APS-C camera that everyone who values compactness aspires to own someday.   The M is Leica, whether they leica it or not (sorry couldnt resist). They can no more leave RF, be it EV,  optical or hybrid based, off the development list than Porsche can give up on a rear engine 911. 

[jdlaing]

If that truly is the case unless the company can be profitable producing the SL at the $3-4K level, then failing a takeover/buyout by one of the major players, Leica, as  a camera manufacturer is likely dead. Professionals are far more price sensitive than well-healed consumers. If a Leica provides advantages that result in more money, then fine but businesses don't stay in business very long by overspending on tools when lesser cost ones will satisfy their customer base just as well.  How many pros will elect to drop $5300 on a 50mm 1.4 prime?  Some sure, but is there really a larger market there than with continuing to cultivate M customers? Unless the M faithful cave and follow move to SL land as well, I find it very difficult to see how they will prosper with this strategy. And as far as MF goes, they certainly today are not a leader, either in reputation or product, in that market.  And despite its small size, it is a market that is becoming increasing more competitive with mirrorless offerings from Fuji and HBlad.  Can Sony be far behind?  Had the SL been MF to begin with, perhaps, but they are late to the party and those users dont tend to switch systems all that often.  

 

Not saying you might not be spot on regarding what they're thinking, but I dont see this as a successful strategy. Leica survived by hanging its future on what can only be seen in the broader context as a boutique product for connoisseurs and radicals that bridged the emotional experience of shooting film into the digital age. The M has stuck, it has a following. The jury may still be out on the Q/SL, but regardless of how you view the worth of the X and T lines as tools for photographic expression, AFAICT they certainly havent succeeded at positioning themselves as the pinnacle APS-C camera that everyone who values compactness aspires to own someday.   The M is Leica, whether they leica it or not (sorry couldnt resist). They can no more leave RF, be it EV,  optical or hybrid based, off the development list than Porsche can give up on a rear engine 911.

 

Buyout by whom? It's not a publicly held company.

[sblitz]

All of you singing the praises of the M240 etc that is my point. If the line is fully developed waiting for some technological breakthrough Leica needs to broaden its base. This is what's it's doing, including the underwater X, the Q, the Polaroid, and the professional registration etc. Jaap says be patient there is something coming Sep 30, okay then I am patient. It will be an interesting show

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Spizzi]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Let's just see what this is about ok?

 

http://leicarumors.com/2016/09/22/invitation-for-world-preview-of-new-leica-cameras-on-september-30th-sent-out-in-singapore.aspx/

 

[edwardkaraa]

The M is as perfect a product as can be. That's why there isn't much room for improvement. It will continue to attract purists and all the young people looking for the analog experience, years ahead. It is by no means a dead end. I'm sure there will always be incremental improvements to sensors, EVF, and even the RF but the concept will always remain the same. The Q is a success because it follows similar principles and the SL is doubtful because they went for huge instead of minimalist. The SL could have been a great success if it had the M form and smallish native lenses.

[Herr Barnack]

I dunno about you but I'm having a great ol' time making pictures with the M 240. Its files are so detailed and you can get a solid 13 stops out of them. I don't even use 3/4s of the camera's features really.

 

Same here.

 

I think the M-P 240 is an outstanding camera.  No, it doesn't have ISO 888 billion capability - guilty as charged.  As it turns out, precious few of us make images inside of a black hole. 

[M28]

With all due respect, the M line is done. There will over time be marginal advances to bring new buyers in but Leica likely believes there is nothing left to improve where the return on investment from their perspective is worthwhile. The SL is their new direction and it will eventually grow into a MF competitive platform and then the Q and T are the lesser cost alternatives. Professionals to be catered to are the SL and S users. Can't say I blame them. When you look at the M how much more aside from tweaking is there really left to do? I don't believe they have an interest in going to full frame 50mp sensors or a curved one or whatever. It is what it is and aside from the occasional refresh the focus of development is not the M

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

BLASPHEMER!!!!!

[jaapv]

The M is as perfect a product as can be. That's why there isn't much room for improvement. It will continue to attract purists and all the young people looking for the analog experience, years ahead. It is by no means a dead end. I'm sure there will always be incremental improvements to sensors, EVF, and even the RF but the concept will always remain the same. The Q is a success because it follows similar principles and the SL is doubtful because they went for huge instead of minimalist. The SL could have been a great success if it had the M form and smallish native lenses.

Shades of the Leicaflex as its shape suggests?

That one got extinct because it was a dinosaur. A magnificent dinosaur, but nonetheless too large, too expensive (and still every camera built was sold below cost...). Just imagine: The paradigm-shifting Olympus OM1 hit the market in 1972, the Leicaflex was replaced by the Minolta/Leica R3 in 1974, with the catch-up R4 still in the future.

[jaapv]

If that truly is the case unless the company can be profitable producing the SL at the $3-4K level, then failing a takeover/buyout by one of the major players, Leica, as  a camera manufacturer is likely dead. Professionals are far more price sensitive than well-healed consumers. If a Leica provides advantages that result in more money, then fine but businesses don't stay in business very long by overspending on tools when lesser cost ones will satisfy their customer base just as well.  How many pros will elect to drop $5300 on a 50mm 1.4 prime?  Some sure, but is there really a larger market there than with continuing to cultivate M customers? Unless the M faithful cave and follow move to SL land as well, I find it very difficult to see how they will prosper with this strategy. And as far as MF goes, they certainly today are not a leader, either in reputation or product, in that market.  And despite its small size, it is a market that is becoming increasing more competitive with mirrorless offerings from Fuji and HBlad.  Can Sony be far behind?  Had the SL been MF to begin with, perhaps, but they are late to the party and those users dont tend to switch systems all that often.  

 

Not saying you might not be spot on regarding what they're thinking, but I dont see this as a successful strategy. Leica survived by hanging its future on what can only be seen in the broader context as a boutique product for connoisseurs and radicals that bridged the emotional experience of shooting film into the digital age. The M has stuck, it has a following. The jury may still be out on the Q/SL, but regardless of how you view the worth of the X and T lines as tools for photographic expression, AFAICT they certainly havent succeeded at positioning themselves as the pinnacle APS-C camera that everyone who values compactness aspires to own someday.   The M is Leica, whether they leica it or not (sorry couldnt resist). They can no more leave RF, be it EV,  optical or hybrid based, off the development list than Porsche can give up on a rear engine 911. 

In a nutshell: the M is the signature camera that defines the corporate image. Even if Leica had to produce it at break-even or a bearable loss, they could not afford to drop it.

[edwardkaraa]

Shades of the Leicaflex as its shape suggests?

That one got extinct because it was a dinosaur. A magnificent dinosaur, but nonetheless too large, too expensive (and still every camera built was sold below cost...). Just imagine: The paradigm-shifting Olympus OM1 hit the market in 1972, the Leicaflex was replaced by the Minolta/Leica R3 in 1974, with the catch-up R4 still in the future.

I have a problem with the leicaflex comparison. The SL may be a high quality item but it's very ugly and not well thought out ergonomically. Imagine the SL without handgrip, and the EVF, instead of protruding to the back, protrudes to the front like a traditional OVF prism. Now that would be a handsome and functional camera in my humble opinion.

[jaapv]

Judge for yourself, Edward, Twice an SL

 

 

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!

 

 

 

 

[edwardkaraa]

Judge for yourself, Edward, Twice an SL

 

 

sl.jpg

 

 

 

 

slnieuw.jpg

Of course I see the similarities

 

I'm adamant though that without the grip and the backward protruding EVF it would be much nicer

[jaapv]

oh- I agree. I do think that Leica tried to go retro, both in name and shape, and I am not convinced that is was a good idea. The Leicaflex is largely forgotten , whilst the M or the R series are much more in the public mind. Just imagine this camera with R8-type design.

[mmradman]

oh- I agree. I do think that Leica tried to go retro, both in name and shape, and I am not convinced that is was a good idea. The Leicaflex is largely forgotten , whilst the M or the R series are much more in the public mind. Just imagine this camera with R8-type design.

Leica is probably keeping best for last. Digital R8 lookalike will probably follow after several iterations; first SL, than R3 , etc...

[edwardkaraa]

oh- I agree. I do think that Leica tried to go retro, both in name and shape, and I am not convinced that is was a good idea. The Leicaflex is largely forgotten , whilst the M or the R series are much more in the public mind. Just imagine this camera with R8-type design.

I was hoping just for that

[jaapv]

All of you singing the praises of the M240 etc that is my point. If the line is fully developed waiting for some technological breakthrough Leica needs to broaden its base. This is what's it's doing, including the underwater X, the Q, the Polaroid, and the professional registration etc. Jaap says be patient there is something coming Sep 30, okay then I am patient. It will be an interesting show

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

30 Sept. When did I say so? But who knows? There are rumours.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[lct]

The R8 was larger than the Leicaflex and the R3 was not smaller than the latter if memory serves. Modern cameras have no reason to be that bulky anymore. Olympus, Minolta and Leica with R4/R7 cameras have shown that compactness and quality are compatible. Leica has chosen another route for M5, R8/R9 & SL601 cameras, i don't understand why.