Really “Is it the end of M road”?

[Ouroboros]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

No, it didn't. But it did matter to Hasselblad, as it shifted their customer base. For Hasselblad that was a necessary move, as their audience was dwindling in the direction of zero.

The shift was preceded by some desperate attempts, like the Lunar, but with the X1D they seem to have pulled it off. However, their original customers have nowhere to go now.

 

Leica has already gone through this phase with the M8 and diversifying with the  X, SL and CL. The interesting thing is, that they managed to hang onto their original customer base by evolving the M series. This puts them in a much stronger position as they still have their signature product and archetypal camera concept to bolster their brand identity.

 

So where is the 'debate' about the future of the M series?

 

Hasselblad suffered badly under various combinations of ignorant ownership and weak management and there have been some similarities with Leica's direction in the past.  Far from 'having nowhere to go', those former Hasselblad users have more choice since cessation of production of the V series than they previously had and Hasselblad do not play to the amateur audience, so I'm unclear of what it is you are trying to say.

 

The contrast between signature product and niche product viability will always be a blurred one on this side of the fence.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[AdamSinger]

Is not the Leica CRF the Harley Davidson of the camera world?

 

I think we should rename the Leica Forum ‘The Leica Chapter ‘ get leather jackets with Satan's snappers, perhaps tattoos across our knuckles Summ ilux

and develop a certain Leica owner's swagger by stuffing a Noctiluxs in both pockets, and make a highly indentifiable noise every time we rev up the shutter.

 

Doubtless some will say 'yeah but one is a motor bike and one is a camera,and have you ever tried holding a Harley up to your eye?’

 

I hope the and believe the M will last as long as the V twin Harley, and nobody ever bought a Harley because it is the acme of 21st Century motorbike technology.

Edited August 5, 2018 by AdamSinger

[StS]

I guess Leica had the advantage that the concept of the Leica-M was more easily transferred to the digital world than the Hasselblad-V system, where a 60 x 60 mm digital sensor would still be prohibitively expensive these days. Personally, I liked the 6x6 square and would find a large square sensor an interesting addition to the field. They appear to have found their way with the X-System now (how about a square-sensor X using the full image circle of the X-lenses?).

 

Stefan

[Jeff S]

.

 

Leica has already gone through this phase with the M8 and diversifying with the X, SL and CL. The interesting thing is, that they managed to hang onto their original customer base by evolving the M series. This puts them in a much stronger position as they still have their signature product and archetypal camera concept to bolster their brand identity.

And it helps to be able to use those beautiful and (mostly) small M lenses not only on every M model, but also on all the new cameras. Those lenses, and legacy integration, enhance the signature.

 

Jeff

[pgk]

Gee another post about ..”its not the equipment ..its how you use it “  .  

 

So useful on a thread about the future of the M camera ?  

 

Lloyd threw out a preposterous point of view to provoke debate and sure to catch some clicks for his website .   This should not detract from the excellent testing he performs and the effective display of the results .  Obviously if you have all the gear you desire and are happy ..the its  of no use .  

 

Thus thread could be a lot better if members contributed to the debate ABOUT THE FUTURE OF THE M .  But I know thats too much to expect . 

 

Well to assess the future of any camera its worth looking at its history, despite the fact that, as we all know so well, things are different now. So far the Leica M system has survived many competitors, so I need an extremely good reason why it cannot continue to do so - much better ones from the rantings of someone with a bias - and I do understand a little about scientific testing as I used to MTF lenses myself.....

 

DL point of view is that the M has reached its end of life .  He outlines an argument that then M (and RF photography ) has been  surpassed by mirrorless alternatives.  My POV is that for many applications ..landscape for example he is correct ..but that RF photography will still have a place in journalism ,street and travel .  And some photographers will simply prefer the M .  

 

If it doesn t continue to evolve ..e.g . provide improved capabilities ....then would enough owners of existing M buy new models ? 

 

Its a point of view and its wrong. He's very incorrect about landscapes as are you. Cameras are more capable than 99% of their owner's needs and uses today. My M9s produce perfectly saleable landscapes, as do the numerous Large Format cameras which still continue to be used. Both are also used for portraits. Trying to categorise and put equipment in little boxes is a pointless exercise because it hasn't worked like that for decades, but many still try to do it because its 'traditional' to do so. What matters far more is using the camera as you want to do so and it is a fundamental to understand this in order to assess any potential changes in a camera system such as the M.

 

The M may well evolve but then again, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" may well be a highly relevant marketing in a throw away world in which a niche market can offer a different product. Just about every 'improvement' suggested for the M system is already available on another camera, well implemented and effective in use. The M has to compete with its lower specification and usability, not by attempting to compete technically - I don't know why we are still discussing this, it is so obvious.

[Gobert]

Is not the Leica CRF the Harley Davidson of the camera world?I think we should rename the Leica Forum ‘The Leica Chapter ‘ get leather jackets with Satan's snappers, perhaps tattoos across our knuckles Summ iluxand develop a certain Leica owner's swagger by stuffing a Noctiluxs in both pockets, and make a highly indentifiable noise every time we rev up the shutter.Doubtless some will say 'yeah but one is a motor bike and one is a camera,and have you ever tried holding a Harley up to your eye?’I hope the and believe the M will last as long as the V twin Harley, and nobody ever bought a Harley because it is the acme of 21st Century motorbike technology.

A comparison between Leica and HD is like a mouse and an elephant. I’m fond of my Leica, but an HD .... no thanks. Same to tattoos, no thanks as well.

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

In think this post :
 
https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/287222-solo-exhibition-coming-up/
 
proves Mr. DigiL 100% wrong. (And the MP brigade on this forum too, I would suggest) The same 24 MP produces a great exhibition.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating - this one appears to be rather tasty.

[Tragg]

In think this post :

 

https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/287222-solo-exhibition-coming-up/

 

proves Mr. DigiL 100% wrong. (And the MP brigade on this forum too, I would suggest) The same 24 MP produces a great exhibition.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating - this one appears to be rather tasty.

 

Agreed. The number of MPs is a very simplistic way of judging the picture making abilities of a camera.  

Edited August 5, 2018 by Tragg

[AdamSinger]

A comparison between Leica and HD is like a mouse and an elephant. I’m fond of my Leica, but an HD .... no thanks. Same to tattoos, no thanks as well.

 

My point is that Harley and Leica occupy similar places in their respective markets, the Leica M is marvelous camera , it is also a life style product as is a Harley, both are tools and joyous anachronisms like using a clockwork watch to tell the time. I have always loved Leicas but I know that at the end of the day a Leica is a commercial product, not religious icon and thus subject to the same vicissitudes of fate as any other commercial product. The M will last as song as we keep voting for it with our wallet its fate is in our collective hands.

Edited August 5, 2018 by AdamSinger

[M11 for me]

My point is that Harley and Leica occupy similar places in their respective markets, the Leica M is marvelous camera , it is also a life style product as is a Harley, both are tools and joyous anachronisms like using a clockwork watch to tell the time. I have always loved Leicas but I know that at the end of the day a Leica is a commercial product, not religious icon and thus subject to the same vicissitudes of fate as any other commercial product. The M will last as song as we keep voting for it with our wallet its fate is in our collective hands.

 

There is a difference though: It seems that Leica can set any price and the lenses and bodies are sold. With HD we see now some import taxes and already it has a big effect on revenue and profit. I would think that it would not matter wether that HD cost 30k or 33k. But in real life it does with HD but probably not with Leica. Price with Leica seems to be much more elastic.

[adan]

The issue, as Andy points out, would be one of CS managing sensor and electronic upgrades and one of volume.  $20,000.00 for an upgrade might be somewhat pessimistic, but it would be more than the unit cost of the sensor, processor and related electronics.  I seem to recall that those components cost somewhere around $2,000.00 (not sure if this was guesswork).  Fitting the new upgrade should not be too much more than $1,000.00 per camera, provided the volumes are right.

 

There are companies that will upgrade 1960s Ford Mustangs to 2018 technologies. Engines, suspensions, instrumentation, etc.

 

Price 1967 - $4500 or so

Inflation adjusted - $28000

Actual 2018 Mustang - $25500-55000

Upgraded 1967 Mustang - $100000+

 

https://revologycars.com/car/1966-mustang-gt-22-fastback/

 

Now, cars aren't cameras, and someone willing to just buy parts, and rebuild their own with "sweat equity," and not carry any liability on the product (warranty at a minimum) can probably do it cheaper. But maybe not - it has been noted that building a $15000 econobox from factory parts can cost $95000 just for the parts (purchased retail).

 

I'll listen to anyone who can come up with a parts price list, a schematic of the (re)construction, a solid estimate on labor hours required for disassembly, reassembly, re-written and debugged firmware,** systems testing, operational testing and adjustment, and a reasonable profit margin on top. Leica is not a charity.

_______________

 

**M9 has - four-position off/S/C/ST switch, USB port, ISO dial (already mentioned), no multi-function button on front, no horizontal thumb-wheel on back, different buttons, different LCD dimensions (in mm and pixels), no LV/EVF, no EVF ports in the hot shoe, no LV/EVF-compatable double-acting shutter. Stock M10 firmware can't function with the M9 external controls, stock M9 firmware can't function with M10 electronics and internals.

 

It'll require "custom" firmware - which Leica don't do themselves. Gets contracted out to someone who also wants a profit. And the creation cost will be about the same for firmware for that one camera as for 50000 regular M10 cameras. And if you want a firmware upgrade/support for that new "90mm Summilux f/1.5" that comes out next year - it has to be re-created and re-compiled just for your one-off conversion.

 

https://www.edn.com/electronics-blogs/embedded-basics/4442394/Understand-firmwares-total-cost

 

A very conservative firmware revision estimate - $100 per hour for 40 hours (one dedicated week) = $4000 all by itself. Repeat for every different submodel/typ (-P, Monchrom, M-E, 240, 246, 262, M-D, etc.)

 

https://www.upwork.com/hiring/development/cost-hire-software-developer/

Edited August 5, 2018 by adan

[pico]

A comparison between Leica and HD is like a mouse and an elephant.

 

Deardorff 8x10 is the Harley of cameras.

[farnz]

I hope it's the end of this thread soon.  

 

It irritates me to think that this thread may still be generating clicks for cash for the errant reviewer ...

 

Pete.

[IkarusJohn]

Hi Andy,

 

I’m sure all true, but rather pessimistic. While it was the M9 that stimulated the thought, my speculation was a future M standardised to simplify upgrades.

 

Let’s agree that while in theory, to be able to extend the life of bodies with electronic upgrades, it won’t happen - I agree cost would make it difficult. I’m not sure why you refer to retail parts, as this would be a service provided by Leica (they don’t charge retail on current repairs), but that is another issue.

 

Cheers

John

Edited August 5, 2018 by IkarusJohn

[Gobert]

Deardorff 8x10 is the Harley of cameras.

I think that’s a better comparison. Let’s Ducati (or so) be the Leica, light, powerfull, meant for advanced riders and somewhat niche.

[AdamSinger]

There is a difference though: It seems that Leica can set any price and the lenses and bodies are sold. With HD we see now some import taxes and already it has a big effect on revenue and profit. I would think that it would not matter wether that HD cost 30k or 33k. But in real life it does with HD but probably not with Leica. Price with Leica seems to be much more elastic.

The £1.4 million Blue Edition is a collaboration between Swiss watchmaker Carl F. Bucherer and the boutique Harley Davidson workshop Bünderbike and features grips draped in jewellery, heat-resistant LED engine lights (to illuminate a window to the crank shaft), and a ‘safe’ which houses a diamond ring and a Bucherer watch.

 

My case rests Mi'lud, this is also true of Aston Martin or Ferrari, or Patek Philippe all of these companies are in the same business as Leica, just using different products. In no way is this a denigration, if this is what it takes to keep them going good on them

Edited August 5, 2018 by AdamSinger

[pico]

I think that’s a better comparison. Let’s Ducati (or so) be the Leica, light, powerfull, meant for advanced riders and somewhat niche.

 

The 900ss Ducati I had imposed an impression of confidence unlike any bike I've owned. A good thing was that it didn't have enough torque to throw a high-side as I accelerated to WFO in a strong, knee dragging turn onto the road to my house. There is a special virtue of the pulsed kind of power a ^~V twin gives that more cylinders have not.

 

That turn is in the bottom left of this photo. (That whole road was my drive.)

Edited August 5, 2018 by pico

[Jon Warwick]

Agreed. The number of MPs is a very simplistic way of judging the picture making abilities of a camera.

Yes - but once again, I think the number of MPs needs to be connected to print size.

 

Often on this forum, people say “24mp is enough for me”, but without any info to support why that is the case. All I can assume is many people don’t print, or simply print in small sizes.

 

If you print very large prints, especially where fine detail is needed like landcapes, then 24mp is pretty useless.

 

I admit this is coming from someone who is currently in the French Alps and carrying a 5x4 large format camera around, with negs that I will get drum scanned to 750mb so that the image opens at 60”x50” at 300dpi.

 

So maybe I have a quite different perspective of “resolution”.... what i do think is that images off my M240 are very unsatisfying in comparison!

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[adan]

Well, engineering and science do tend to be pessimistic (or at least skeptical), because you have to identify all the possible problems with a concept before you can solve them. The first thing a good scientist does with a bright, shiny new theory is to try and rip it apart themselves, questioning every assumption and every bit of logic, on the assumption that it is all potentially flawed. Because if they don't, some other scientist will find the flaws for them. Embarassing.

 

That doesn't mean simply saying "it can't be done." It means having the "joyful doubts" that ensure it really can and will be done (beyond the optimistic, arm-chair, blue-sky imaginings that equal about 1% of a "good idea.")

 

Forward compatability - a future M standardized to simplify upgrades - requires the ability to predict the future of a still-evolving technology. What will be, say, the "wi-fi" innovation of 2025 or 2035 (not a "better" wi-fi, but some entirely new "must-have" feature) - and how does Leica have any idea what it will be, and how a camera made today must be designed to accomodate it? Expandability on the board (which means unused space and "larger than necessary" today)?

 

That's not pessimism, that's just a hard-nosed recognition of how technology advances.

[Tragg]

Yes - but once again, I think the number of MPs needs to be connected to print size.

 

Often on this forum, people say “24mp is enough for me”, but without any info to support why that is the case. All I can assume is many people don’t print, or simply print in small sizes.

 

If you print very large prints, especially where fine detail is needed like landcapes, then 24mp is pretty useless.

 

I admit this is coming from someone who is currently in the French Alps and carrying a 5x4 large format camera around, with negs that I will get drum scanned to 750mb so that the image opens at 60”x50” at 300dpi.

 

So maybe I have a quite different perspective of “resolution”.... what i do think is that images off my M240 are very unsatisfying in comparison!

 

The current M series cameras have evolved from the M3, a 35mm film camera. Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe that 24MPs is approximately equivalent to the resolution of 35mm film stock