Jump to content
Einst_Stein

Next, a full frame upgrade, ML,

Recommended Posts

Not really. It would eat into both the SL and M lines, rather undesirable I would say. 

 

It would eat into SL and M lines, I agree. But what would be the problem? It would create its own market, and maybe a bigger one (which everybody is free to doubt).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not really. It would eat into both the SL and M lines, rather undesirable I would say. 

 

You are certainly correct, but where does Leica really make their money: is the sale of a camera body or the sale of multiple lenses?  

 

I do not pretend to know the answer to the market strategies, but it just seems to me to put as many bodies into the market place so as to increase the sales of lenses, accessories, etc. . . .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would not be surprised if Leica offers a full frame L mount camera like CL, simply a M with EVF.and AF.

Why would they want to do that? They already have a full frame L mount camera, the SL. You are asking, effectively, for a smaller full frame L mount camera, yes? Have you looked at any of the SL lenses? Not much point in shrinking the SL if you are going to be shooting with the 24-90 or the 90-280. Even the 50SL is a huge lens. A smaller camera would not really have any advantages with the larger SL lenses.

 

Seriously, if you want compact, L mount that’s what the CL and TL2 are for. Want full frame L mount? That’s exactly what the SL is for. Want to use M lenses on a full frame body? You’ve already got a choice of the M or the SL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are certainly correct, but where does Leica really make their money: is the sale of a camera body or the sale of multiple lenses?  

 

I do not pretend to know the answer to the market strategies, but it just seems to me to put as many bodies into the market place so as to increase the sales of lenses, accessories, etc. . . .

How to sell lenses if you confuse the customers?  A SL user will be mainly buying SL lenses, if they are using M lenses those are mostly lenses they already possess.

A Leica M user: Leica M lenses, obviously.  What would the owners of a QL buy? The camera is too small for the behemoth SL lenses, the  TL lenses will render APS-C crops, the M lenses,  well, it will not offer a better platform than the M or for those that want an EVF the SL. Would Leica have to introduce a new system of Mini-SL lenses to fit this QL?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’ve never really understood the argument that releasing a new version of a camera eats into the sales of another. Say Leica sells 5,000 M units a month (it’s just a guessed figure). They have covered their R&D costs and they can continue producing the camera for so long as there is demand.

 

They already have 3 film M cameras and 4 M digital cameras on offer. We can expect at least 2 of those digital M cameras to drop out over the next few months. The digital M range will reduce to the M10, and other variants will follow - at least a monochrom version. In order to survive, the M digital needs these variants. This idea that Leica is competing with itself suggests that offering variants does not increase market share - if that were the case, then Leica’s product design and planning is hopelesly flawed. I doubt that is the case.

 

Putting the M camera on a pedestal, and refusing to push the boundaries will doom the system. An optical rangefinder version, like the M10 will always exist. Consider the rage and disappointment of some over the loss of video and tethering with the M10.

 

I think the essence of the M system is the lens offering. To make the most of those lenses, I’d like to see the standard M10, with monochrom, EVF, video and M-D versions. They will be staggered, so that surges on release get captured, and the M range expanded. I have no doubt that overall, the theoretical 5,000 units per month would be exceeded, there’d be an increase in secondhand sales of M cameras, with an increase in lens sales.

 

Sound far fetched? The M9 spawned the M9, M9P, Monochrom & M-E and the M(240), the M-P, M(262), M(246) & M-D. Was Leica competing against itself, and did overall sales fall? If anything, expanding the L mount camera range will cost the M range.

 

Like the shibboleth M means messucher, it doesn’t stand closer scrutiny. The M1, MD and MDA rather suggest that Leica can and will release an M mount camera if there’s demand (the M1 dated from 1959). The greater risk for Leica is if there’s demand that they don’t meet, the system won’t expand and buyers will be left with the L mount choices. Those L mount offerings don’t satisfy everyone, as is clear from here - a smaller full frame version, for instance.

 

Increasing M lens sales surely has to be profitable ...

Edited by IkarusJohn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do they want to do that? Why Leica offer CL in such a short time after TL2?

 

Simple, it is expected to catch more market base. Whenever people are polarized on CL vs. TL arguments, it is probably a very meaningful sign to offer both.

 

Same applies SL. I have SL and two zooms. As much as I like them and appreaciate it's size, a CL like FF will still make a lit of sense.

 

This is why Leica presents CL along with all SL+TL lenses. Leica certainly does not believe CL is too small for SL lenses.

 

I bet most M10 users should be happy if the OVF is replaced by SL grade EVF. The AF capable L mount is a bonus. If it really eats M market, not a problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shibboleth or not, M for Messucher is the acronym Leica decided upon in 1954...

I agree on the need of further developing and diversifying the M series. But adding an L mount is hardly the way to do so

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Same argument I read before why Leica. Should not offer the CL.

Out of interest -where did you read that? I mostly recall M users clamoring for a CL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I doubt the SL EVF could fit into an M body (I’ve already asked that question) and adding AF to the M system wouldn’t boost M lens sales. I don’t think the SL was made the size it is for the fun of it.

 

The SL AF lenses are the size they are for a reason - speed, quality and AF. The SL body needs to take the sensor, cope with heat generation, fit the EVF, the larger battery and balance those lenses.

 

If there ever is an EVF based M canera, my guess would be the 020 EVF or equivalent, and M mount. I don’t see Leica doing an M sized version of the SL. Why would they do that? Then again, I’m usually wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not in this case, I think, John.  Although I suspect the Panasonic GH5 one could just be shoehorned in - and it is superior to the SL one (high-res OLED).

But I doubt whether Leica would risk antagonizing their rather conservative M customer base by adding such newfangled stuff - see the  collective wrath they called upon their heads by introducing Video...

Edited by jaapv

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shibboleth or not, M for Messucher is the acronym Leica decided upon in 1954...

I agree on the need of further developing and diversifying the M series. But adding an L mount is hardly the way to do so

So, the M1, MD and MDA cameras from the 1950s and 1960s weren’t M cameras? Or do you just ignore them as being inconvenient? I’d insert a rolling eyes response, or tongue sticking out, but I’m on my iPad. Edited by IkarusJohn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you recall Leica filed a patent for a 'digital rangefinder' mechanism several years ago which has never seen the light of day.

 

The fact they have re-designed the RF components for the M10 suggests this has been abandoned and the  M series form factor is never going to change. 

 

In many ways the CL is an M with an EVF ...... with the logical choice of APS-C to keep the size down, now that there is really no quality penalty for the smaller sensor. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the dual-camera rangefinder patent was solely filed to scupper Konost.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, the M1, MD and MDA cameras from the 1950s and 1960s weren’t M cameras? Or do you just ignore them as being inconvenient? I’d insert a rolling eyes response, or tongue sticking out, but I’m on my iPad.

Nobody claimed Leica is consistent... I'll insert for you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you recall Leica filed a patent for a 'digital rangefinder' mechanism several years ago which has never seen the light of day.

 

The fact they have re-designed the RF components for the M10 suggests this has been abandoned and the  M series form factor is never going to change. 

 

In many ways the CL is an M with an EVF ...... with the logical choice of APS-C to keep the size down, now that there is really no quality penalty for the smaller sensor.

 

Oh, I agree. I doubt Leica will ever stop producing an M camera with optical rangefinder. I think that will remain the manistay of the M system. Like the aircooled 911 ... oh, hang on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×