jaapv Posted January 1, 2017 Share #661 Posted January 1, 2017 Advertisement (gone after registration) Eventually Leica will have to find a new meaning to the M Why? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 1, 2017 Posted January 1, 2017 Hi jaapv, Take a look here Leica M 10. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Bill Livingston Posted January 1, 2017 Share #662 Posted January 1, 2017 Given that the mounts determine the cameras, I think they would have been better advised to have only two. A 'dumb' M mount and a 'smart' mount. It would have been much more efficient and all you need is an adaptor for each to make all lenses compatible with all bodies. But of course there were the R lenses, so an adaptor would be needed for them, too. All a bit messy. Sometimes you just need to make the hard decisions. Trying to please everybody ties you up in knots and the difficulties in future product development expand exponentially. The M deserves special treatment... I'm not so sure the R cameras do.... look at the values of R cameras nowadays ... yet M3's and forward still sell at relatively high values and are still very desirable. Individually the T, the Q, the Xseries, the S, the SL, all are excellent performers... but an EVF M style camera with AF with an SL mount could replace all of them... with a larger studio camera if they must and then a small range, just two in fact, with fixed lenses to meet the Q and X Vario market... The point being you could have two main body shells, one dumb, one smart (determined by the mount as I've already said) and then, if they must, build whatever variation within that simple product offer... much like they do with the current M variations. There are hundreds of different permutations possible and we could argue about them ad infinitum... Point is, it sounds like too many management changes with different views and poor long term planning. That's indicative of a company that became reactive rather than clear minded and proactive, at least for a period. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Livingston Posted January 1, 2017 Share #663 Posted January 1, 2017 Why? Because eventually it will be driven into an ever smaller niche. It's too iconic and simply too nice a product to wither away. M should be Minature, keeping small, exceptional lenses of the very highest quality and a suitable high quality body to mount them on. All the other stuff they do, Sofort and stuff, should just be an income stream through licensing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted January 1, 2017 Share #664 Posted January 1, 2017 Because eventually it will be driven into an ever smaller niche. It's too iconic and simply too nice a product to wither away. Which would not be a problem, as other camera systems would replace it. As evidenced by the continued production of Leica's real icon, the film M. Digital Ms are just an electronic derivate of the icon and thus dispensable should the situation arise. It is more than likely that Leica feel it will build the digital M as long as there is an economic rationale to do so - which is something different from their stated policy for the film M - "we will build them as long as there is demand". Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
imants Posted January 1, 2017 Share #665 Posted January 1, 2017 Bills right .................... plus we forget that the game has changed dramatically for camera companies since the advent of digital. Pre digital most camera companies stayed put with their designs and put a heap of R&D into lenses, the film companies were the ones that needed to innovate ...... not so in today's climate. Camera companies have to enhance the latest software advances otherwise they will be left floundering we already see companies like Fuji being extremly proactive in software upgrades. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted January 1, 2017 Share #666 Posted January 1, 2017 We tend to forget that there are limits to technology. There is a point when further technological development brings no practical gain. The reason is the limiting factor of the design of the human body. As that point approaches camera companies will have to revert to design, build quality, ergonomics, lenses, etc. Sounds familiar? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
imants Posted January 1, 2017 Share #667 Posted January 1, 2017 Advertisement (gone after registration) ..............and portability Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted January 1, 2017 Share #668 Posted January 1, 2017 That too, but it depends on the size of your Donkey. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
imants Posted January 1, 2017 Share #669 Posted January 1, 2017 the pocket reigns supreme over the donkey Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Livingston Posted January 1, 2017 Share #670 Posted January 1, 2017 It is more than likely that Leica feel it will build the digital M as long as there is an economic rationale to do so - which is something different from their stated policy for the film M - "we will build them as long as there is demand".Actually Jaap, those two statements say exactly the same thing... you are just using different words. I also disagree that the film M is the icon... I think the M concept, small, manual, easy to understand cameras that give real control to the user is what the M is... whether it is film or digital, optical rangefinder or EVF really doesn't matter in the scheme of things. Very few people outside in the real world give a toss about either of those things... but the M as a concept is very attractive and is a foil against increasingly dumbed down cameras that in reality appear ever more complex in a rush to sell on features rather than benefits. My background is very much in the film era... with Nikon F2A's and later Olympus OM-1 cameras when I wanted something smaller. I looked at Leica at that time, but the rangefinder annoyed me with its limitations with zoom and longer and shorter focal lengths and it was simply too expensive. I remember paying around £160 or £200 for my OM-1 and my OM-2 was probably only £100 more. The Leicas were just far too much money. I could afford the latest Nikon and I had a couple of lenses left over from my F2A's days, but they had simply got too big and after a while, I just had to change... with some regret because I was most certainly a Nikon guy. I had an FM for a while and it was nice... but I never quite jelled with it. My first digital was a Nikon DSLR, and then I had a D100 and a D200 when that came out... but by then they had moved too far away from what I wanted and understood. The only camera left to me was the M... and by now, I could afford to invest in one. But I bought it for the simplicity and the size and the build quality... the rangefinder part of it was something I had to accept was part of buying into the M system... heresy I know, but the rangefinder is the bit I like the least... but I'm getting used to it and am quite fast and accurate now... but it was a long learning curve, not helped by the fact that one of my lenses, in fact the only one I had at first, wasn't calibrated properly and I didn't know... So I suppose I have reason to be slightly cynical about the rangefinder as a focussing solution and am particularly sympathetic to those who post on here complaining about focus and rangefinder calibration issues... and the fact that Leica spend months getting things calibrated properly while you lose the use of your very expensive camera and lenses while it's being done and then charge you for it, when it's actually an issue with the fundamentals of the design and the manufacturing process in the first place. Yet... for some reason, I still love my M... especially now I have finally got my 35FLE which actually works properly and seems to be bang on in terms of calibration... unlike my Summicron 35 that had dreadful focus shift/ out of calibration and cost me photographs I cannot replace. So when I really sit and think about it, it's the size, the build quality, the form factor and the haptics of the M I love... anything that can retain those advantages and resolve the other issues is good by me. So no, if the M changed to an EVF or some new focusssing system that was fast and accurate and with a manual option, I wouldnt give a damn... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tailwagger Posted January 1, 2017 Share #671 Posted January 1, 2017 Actually Jaap, those two statements say exactly the same thing... you are just using different words. I believe what he is saying is that Leica will continue to sell film versions regardless of return on investment, whereas on the digital side, resources devoted to an M must be as profitable as they would have been had they been devoted to a non-RF camera instead. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cirke Posted January 1, 2017 Share #672 Posted January 1, 2017 I'd like a ML [emoji56] iPhone with Tapatalk Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted January 1, 2017 Share #673 Posted January 1, 2017 Because eventually it will be driven into an ever smaller niche. It's too iconic and simply too nice a product to wither away. I hate to tell you this Bill, but the M is already very much a niche product but one which still seems to have sufficient adherents to make it economically viable. As a percentage of cameras produced and sold I suspect M cameras numbers are absolutely miniscule. But as long as people want a high quality, portable rangefinder camera, film or digital, it will continue to sell. I hope for a long time to come. For Leica its iconic status will drive other camera sales and I'm impressed with Leica's other offerings even if some don't gel with me or suit my requirements. As photographic innovation goes they are IMO currently at the top with excellent daring designs, but this does not mean that they should not continue to offer their most iconic camera in a very basic iteration - doing so in fact would be, again IMO, a very daring statement by a company, which believes in the best of both the past and the future. Its a new year, lets hope that we can all continue to enjoy our photography and the amazingly good equipment that is now on offer. FWIW I now have two Kodak Digital DCS Cameras - and we have moved forward incredibly in the last 20 years. The evolution since the complexity of the last Kodak DCS model (discontinued in 2005) is quite extraordinary. There has been a greater evolution in photography since 2000 that in the preceding 160 years. Currently there is a rather odd contemporary conceptual exhibition on at the Mostyn Art Gallery in Llandudno near me. Its a strange exhibition but intriguing because it illustrates so well how so much that many of us grew up with and accepted as being how things were and would continue to be, has actually slipped into the past. The slides hanging in transparent sheets on the walls now seem a relic from a ver, very long time ago. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted January 1, 2017 Share #674 Posted January 1, 2017 I believe what he is saying is that Leica will continue to sell film versions regardless of return on investment, whereas on the digital side, resources devoted to an M must be as profitable as they would have been had they been devoted to a non-RF camera instead. Quite correct. Well, maybe not 100% as profitable as other models, as Leica will probably take into consideration that the M is their signature camera, but yes, I think that the digital M must pay its way, whilst the film M symbolizes the heritage of the company. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Livingston Posted January 1, 2017 Share #675 Posted January 1, 2017 Oh good, so Leica think that a future digital could be a non RF camera... as has already been proven anyway. And a film M will continue to be manufactured, even if at a loss? How few film M's would they need to sell per year to decide there was no longer 'sufficient demand'? But in any case, the likely outcome is a non rangefinder digital camera, which Leica have already got, anyway. And no rangefinder film camera, either. Seems to me Jaap, that all you are saying is Leica are suggesting a time when they will no longer produce a rangefinder camera at all. Well, that was pretty obvious from the first time you made that statement... yet so many here say that the moment Leica abandon the optical rangefinder they will go elsewhere for future cameras. Where? No one else makes a viable optical rangefinder, so what would they buy? Surely they would be better off buying whatever non-rf digital camera they would be choosing from, from Leica... unless it was just a protest purchase. So, do you think a future Leica digital camera in an 'M like' form factor, that can be used with legacy glass, is a possibility? People say these things... and it looks impressively strong and dramatic... but it doesn't really mean anything as it's rarely thought through to a conclusion. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted January 1, 2017 Share #676 Posted January 1, 2017 I did not say that, Bill. I said that they probably have different criteria for the viability of the film models as opposed to the digital ones. Plus a stronger motivation to continue to offer their heritage model. If only because digital cameras require extensive R&D every few years, whereas film cameras are a fully developed product. They only need to sell one once in a while to keep the line going, nor are they dependent on the fickleness of digital parts supply companies. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianman Posted January 1, 2017 Share #677 Posted January 1, 2017 I believe what he is saying is that Leica will continue to sell film versions regardless of return on investment, ... They say themselves "as long as there is demand". I don't think the investment in that area is very high, even with the M-A. However it seems that even now demand is still there and I wouldn't be at all surprised if it is actually increasing. I know that I will most likely be buying a MP (film) rather than an M10 (or whatever), depending on the specs. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Livingston Posted January 1, 2017 Share #678 Posted January 1, 2017 Actually, I don't think digital cameras require extensive R&D every few years. R&D is ongoing in any company that designs and makes things. And despite the way marketing presents things, most advances are evolutionary, not revolutionary, boring as that sounds. Yes, every now and again there is a 'step change', but that new technology or way of thinking has come from elsewhere, so even that becomes evolutionary as the new technologies are adapted into a variety of products. Look what happened with digital... which was a step change. EVERYTHING changed, even the cars we drive and the way we listen to music or consume TV. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshua Lowe Posted January 1, 2017 Share #679 Posted January 1, 2017 I still find any camera relying on two viewfinders confused. Long term I don't see the M being the camera Peter hopes for. The M has utilized multiple viewfinders for decades, doesn't seem confused at all. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Livingston Posted January 1, 2017 Share #680 Posted January 1, 2017 The M has utilized multiple viewfinders for decades, doesn't seem confused at all. Only to overcome the inherent limitations of the rangefinder. Name one that hasn't. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.