Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
markgay

Would you give Leica a free hand in M9 design?

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

It's an interesting question: whether the conservatism of the existing customer base, many of whom have bought only used M-camera and lenses, would permit, in the sense of buying, a new camera that was not at all like an M and could not use M lenses....

Matter of tastes i guess. You don't need Leica lenses, others like me do. So instead of your Ricoh at any price i'd much prefer a digital CL personally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Matter of tastes i guess. You don't need Leica lenses, others like me do. So instead of your Ricoh at any price i'd much prefer a digital CL personally.

 

Hear hear! And the cumulative evidence is that we're eventually going to get one!

 

Can you imagine how many new photographers this would bring into the Leica sphere! So many times reading different photo-forums you see people bemoaning the fact that they can't afford to buy into the system - and we forget how privileged we are in being a part of this 'exclusive club'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest malland

lct and plasticman:

 

Both of your posts remind me of a guy who a few years ago wrote on the Photonet Leica Forum that he would start to print digitally if only Leica made a scanner...

 

The Ricoh GRD2 is here and it's successful: the world is not waiting for a Leica scanner or a digital CL.

 

Imants, I don't get the meaning of your etching. Care to explain?

 

—Mitch/Bangkok

Flickr: Photos from Mitch Alland

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...The Ricoh GRD2 is here and it's successful: the world is not waiting for a Leica scanner or a digital CL...

Your scanner comparison escapes me a bit Mitch. Do you mean that Leica should stop making Leica's for small sensor digicams? BTW the CL saved Leica at the time of the M5 debacle. Good sense is here IMHO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well in fairness I'm not waiting for a digital CL - I bought an R-D1s while I wait for an M9 (and actually I'm much more pleased with it than I thought I would be - but that's another story).

 

As for the GRD - my intro to Leica was through the D-lux2 - and I still think the lovely grainy files from that camera were better than the Ricoh (not to mention the faster RAW write times). But I guess that's another story, too...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest malland
Your scanner comparison escapes me a bit Mitch. Do you mean that Leica should stop making Leica's for small sensor digicams? BTW the CL saved Leica at the time of the M5 debacle. Good sense is here IMHO.
No, lct: it just struck me as funny that someone was not willing to start scanning until Leica would make a scanner, his idea being that anything made by Leica was going to be the best. Never mind that Leica had no expertise in that field.

 

—Mitch/Bangkok

Flickr: Photos from Mitch Alland

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest malland
Well in fairness I'm not waiting for a digital CL - I bought an R-D1s while I wait for an M9 (and actually I'm much more pleased with it than I thought I would be - but that's another story).

 

As for the GRD - my intro to Leica was through the D-lux2 - and I still think the lovely grainy files from that camera were better than the Ricoh (not to mention the faster RAW write times). But I guess that's another story, too...

Yes, the R-D1s is supposed to be very good. I have both the D-Lux-3 and and the GRD and GRD2 — I prefer the latter by far. While the D-Lux-3 is a good camera, it's not usable at ISO 1600 and unpredictable at ISO 800. The GRD2 is good at both speeds and the handling characteristics are better, although those of the D-Lux-3 aren't bad.

 

—Mitch/Bangkok

Flickr: Photos from Mitch Alland

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'd rather Leica concentrated on the lenses and gave the job of developing the body to Nikon (or another competent Japanese manufacturer).

 

So buy one Nikon and forget about Leica.

For me Leica should be made and design by Leica no by others.

This is like Ferrari only make the motor and Porsche make the car.

It was not one realy Ferrari

 

Best,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest malland

Rui, that's okay if your objective in life is to have a Leica, Me, I think it's more important, and more interesting, to make good pictures — and whatever camera-lens combination is best for me is the one I will use. I'm not that interested in consumerism and don't care it I have a "real Leica", real Ferrari, or real Rolex, though I must say I like Porsche better than Ferrari...ugh, I shouldn't have said that.

 

—Mitch/Bangkok

Flickr: Photos from Mitch Alland

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To answer the original question:

I don't think that Leica needs me to sanction anything that they consider necessary - either in a design, technical or economical kind of way.

 

I will vote with my wallet once something is there to decide on - until then, I grant them the freedom to do whatever they see fit - even if it is not my cup of tea.

 

Realizing that one person can like something for the exact same points that somebody else hates the thing for, is somewhat refreshing

 

Dirk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes I would give them a free hand.

 

i am a customer, not the owner and manager.

 

i expect they will also give me a free hand on my decision to buy it or not.

 

This is how it is supposed to work.

 

DBK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes I would give them a free hand.

i am a customer, not the owner and manager.

i expect they will also give me a free hand on my decision to buy it or not.

This is how it is supposed to work.

 

No disrespect meant, but this whole thread is a very interesting study in multi-national communication, as I think a lot of people read the statement "Would you give Leica a free hand in M9 design?" literally, instead of what the OP clarified as meaning: "Would you be willing to buy the camera if Leica decided on a radical change to the M-design?"

 

There's been a lot of heat and breast-beating and indignant puffing on this thread - but a lot of it is just a misunderstanding imho.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lct and plasticman:

 

Both of your posts remind me of a guy who a few years ago wrote on the Photonet Leica Forum that he would start to print digitally if only Leica made a scanner...

 

The Ricoh GRD2 is here and it's successful: the world is not waiting for a Leica scanner or a digital CL.

 

—Mitch/Bangkok

Flickr: Photos from Mitch Alland

 

I think that a digital Leica CL would be a whole different animal to the Ricoh GR series so I wouldn't worry about the comparison. It's not a pocket camera for one thing and would have manual focus vis a vis an optical rangefinder, and interchangeable lenses. A digital Leica CM might be a more apt comparison to a Ricoh. I still think Leica should take the p&s world by storm with their own unique designs and expertise, esp in the lens dept. Personally I've never been happy with any p&s but a digital CL might be real interesting, esp as a back-up to the M8/M9. Ultimately though Leica's R&D money is probably best spent on p&s (digital CM).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No disrespect meant, but this whole thread is a very interesting study in multi-national communication, as I think a lot of people read the statement "Would you give Leica a free hand in M9 design?" literally, instead of what the OP clarified as meaning: "Would you be willing to buy the camera if Leica decided on a radical change to the M-design?"

 

There's been a lot of heat and breast-beating and indignant puffing on this thread - but a lot of it is just a misunderstanding imho.

 

 

Agree 100%

 

Although I notice it is alot of the English guys that struggle with the language!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
{snipped}Finally I’m asking people’s view on backward compatibility of lenses. Leica might find that it could produce a full-frame rangefinder but one which would only perform at its best with a designated set of new lenses.

 

Regards,

Mark

 

Now that--of all the things mentioned on or off this forum--would trouble me the most.

 

One of the reasons I invested in Leica was the glass. It's brilliant. How could it be called an "M" system if I couldn't use my glass?

 

They could build another rangefinder, sure. They can tweak the shape or dimensions (better thumb purchase would be nice). But the shape and form of the M body, and the backwards compatilbility of (most if not all) of the lenses must be maintained or there is no more M system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...