Well thank god for Voigtlander and such...

[UliWer]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Certain photographers who themselves would not use this option felt that adding the feature would hurt Leica lens sales, complicate the firmware, etc. There were lengthy debates about this on the forum. Everyone has a point of view. Whether or not it that POV makes sense to you or I is another matter.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

 

Fearing economical competition can only be justified if you look at the issue shortsightedly. Without competition there will be lack of creativeness which is the biggest danger for any producer. Competition by Voigtländer and Zeiss lenses evidently led to Leica's Summarit-Series which does not seem to be a bad sign and it may soon lead to a bigger variety of Leica wide-angle lenses. To let lenses of different producers profit from the 6-bit-coding or offering an internal lens menue may cause Leica loosing some advantage over competitors. On the other hand it might stabilize the Digital-M, showing that even competitors look at it as a serious market option. Apple's Macs and IPods have a whole industry of co-producers besides them which led Apple out of its more or less "splendid" isolation.

[delander †]

Have Leica made the most of marketing their Summarits? They seem to have 'isolated' them from the regular lenses.

 

Jeff

[Advertisement]

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

[Amoment]

Have Leica made the most of marketing their Summarits? They seem to have 'isolated' them from the regular lenses.

 

Jeff

 

I have bought a 35 and a 90 Summarit, and also a CV 21, but buying CV was nothing to do with God, more to do with my budget.

 

Stuart

[ChrisC]

.... the likes of Voigtlander and Zeiss for providing affordable quality. If it was not for them I most likely would not be in the Leica/rangefinder system.......

 

Same here. In fact I was 'out' of the system with no lens and my M8 for sale. Currently I am trying to keep the camera and have bought a CV 28mm Colour Skopar; it is a fabulously discreet, affordable, and worthwhile lens. I am enjoying the camera more than I did previously. I love the fact that my camera, now in Ninja stealth mode, looks like a 'harmless' point and shoot.

 

Sean, you have done many of us a great service with your lens reviews, without access to them I would certainly have left Leica forever and I'm glad I haven't.

 

................. Chris

[gdi]

 

The fact that only Leica lenses are 6-bit coded has put me off buying Zeiss or CV alternatives. The other aspect of non-Leica lenses is the RF coupling and focusing. How does one sort out a problem of mismatch?

 

 

Jeff

 

The same way you sort out the problem with Leica glass - have it adjusted.

[ljclark]

I'm gonna echo some comments of others, but what the heck...

 

I doubt I would have an M8 if it wasn't for Cosina/Voigtlander.

 

I had a Leica IIIg years ago, but it wasn't anything I really enjoyed taking pictures with.

 

(Sands pass through the hourglass...Lots of years...Lots of different cameras...)

 

Cosina, and their funky Bessa-L and 15mm combination got me back into RF (even without a rangefinder). That "L" led me to a series of "R" bodies and eventually to a pair of M6s. For lenses I ended up with a pre-ASPH 50/1.4, a Zeiss 21, and a mess of C/V lenses. All Leica gear purchased used -- all Zeiss and C/V gear purchased new (though the M8 was purchased new). And Leica can't even bring themselves to code the older Summilux.

 

If it wasn't for C/V I wouldn't even be chatting on this subject and if all I had available for purchase was Leica-branded equipment, I likely wouldn't have an RF at all...And maybe Leica wouldn't be making RF bodies and lenses anymore.

 

Some touted the fact that a single element in a Leica lens cost more than all the other elements together. Wonderful. Photo-eroticism. (Why do I care?)

 

So Leica arrives late to the party with the Summarits...And how is this for faint damning praise from Leica's own literature (on the Summarit 75mm):

 

"Even at full aperture, the lens demonstrates excellent imaging capability with outstanding contrast over the entire image field. A slight reduction in quality can only be seen in the corners – which are not even captured by the slightly smaller format of the digital LEICA M8 – but this can be almost totally eliminated by stopping down to 5.6."

Kinda like saying "That's my slow kid...But he does O.K. most of the time." Geez!

 

Cosina and Zeiss forced a reality check on Leica, and it turns out that Leica can make lenses as good as Cosina and/or Zeiss for an almost-reasonable price. What a shocker!

 

So I am also very grateful for Cosina and Zeiss, independently and as a team. Leica should be grateful to them also, and for making the decision (so far) of not exploring a digital RF in the Zeiss RF body.

 

Enough grumbling...

[ljclark]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Have Leica made the most of marketing their Summarits? They seem to have 'isolated' them from the regular lenses.

 

Jeff

 

Of course not. They are still stinging from being forced to make excellent lenses instead of (or in addition to) stupendous-super-hyper-wonderful lenses. You wonder if there are some in the firm that consider them not to be "real" Leica lenses.

 

(Remember when the Dino came out? It was not labeled "Ferrari" because Enzo believed that a Ferrari had 12 cylinders. End of discussion.)

[terrycioni]

I was stunned to read that people on this forum are writing Leica and demanding they not put coding into firmware, I was stunned to hear Leica has listened. It is this very block-headed thinking that has got Leica where they are today, when they should be one of the top three OEM camera suppliers in the world.

 

This is not about SUMMARIT (arrive coded) or CV/Zeiss lenses which are good value. It is about an entire 50+ years of lenses that could be easily used on the M8 without extra cost, and extra hassle, it would be an acknowledgment on the part of Solms of the quality and longevity of the optics they have 'created' in their history and can still be used on a modern DRF.

 

As an aside; imagine my joy when I put my 58mm F1.2 NOCT Nikkor F1.2 ASPH on the D3 and dialed it in on the camera menu and shot with full confidence that everything would work as described. You can be critical of Nikon on my levels, but if you want to put old Nikkors on the D3/D300 they have made it possible without any concern about 'current' lens sales - in other words an open system.

 

Six bit coding is about MONEY - nothing more nothing less. It is not about some sort of lens strategy or the inability of the M8 firmware to handle in menu coding. It is also about arrogance and a company that has lost their way. It is sad news that closed thinking has won the day.

 

But in the end it is all still fun.

 

Best to all. Terry

[woodyspedden]

I just bought a mint 85 Summarex to go along with my 50 Lux pre asph and 75 lux. To me the magic of Leica lenses are found more in the beauties of the past than the uber lenses with all the aspheres etc where sharpness is the driving factor. I respect the technology in these modern lenses no doubt. I just don't find that the final images I get from them are as good as the drawing from the older lenses, albeit with higher distortion etc.

 

JMHO

 

Woody

[delander †]

 

… This is not about SUMMARIT (arrive coded) or CV/Zeiss lenses which are good value. It is about an entire 50+ years of lenses that could be easily used on the M8 without extra cost, and extra hassle, it would be an acknowledgment on the part of Solms of the quality and longevity of the optics they have 'created' in their history and can still be used on a modern DRF.

 

But in the end it is all still fun.

 

Best to all. Terry

 

That is a good point but it opens up a can of worms for Leica. I am not demanding that they keep 'dial in' lens coding out of the FW but I can see that this could well have a major negative impact on new lens sales. Perhaps after they have weighed up the pros and cons they will do it.

 

I dont favour closed systems anymore than everyone else but innovation has to be rewarded not given away FOC. Honestly if I could 'dial in' lens codes for Zeiss, I would probably have bought an 18mm Zeiss instead of the WATE and saved oodles of cash.

 

Jeff

[ljclark]

I don't favour closed systems anymore than everyone else but innovation has to be rewarded not given away FOC. Honestly if I could 'dial in' lens codes for Zeiss, I would probably have bought an 18mm Zeiss instead of the WATE and saved oodles of cash.

 

Jeff

 

This kinda begs the question: If Leica wanted to keep the system closed, why did they execute it half-fast? The dots are there for all to see. If I wanted to build a real closed system for lens identification, I'd mill out a slot where the dots are now, and epoxy in an RFID chip. You could store a lot more information that way, and really frustrate attempts to hack the code.

 

So was Leica arrogant, stupid, or playing a little game?

[delander †]

Sorry whats an RFID chip?

 

Jeff

[ljclark]

Sorry whats an RFID chip?

 

Jeff

 

Radio Frequency IDentification. RFID is used as a way of wirelessly interrogating an "object". Some airline baggage tags are RFID (the airlines have just about hit the efficiency wall with optical scans) -- pets can have chips slipped under the skin so, if found, the owner can be located -- shipping manifest information -- transit smart fare cards -- etc.

 

Humans can have RFID chips implanted so that the CIA, MI5, and the AARP can track our movements by recording every time we pass through portals (such as the gas station, the supermarket check out, the library, public restrooms, secret locations around town, etc.).

[sean_reid]

The fact that only Leica lenses are 6-bit coded has put me off buying Zeiss or CV alternatives. The other aspect of non-Leica lenses is the RF coupling and focusing. How does one sort out a problem of mismatch?

Jeff

 

As a rule of thumb there is no mismatch. CV and Zeiss lenses generally focus very well on Leica M8 bodies unless they are misadjusted or defective. Sometime they focus better than some Leica lenses.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[grober]

Of course I wish all the glass for my M8 were Leica . . . but it ain't so!

 

The CV lenses I use are the 28/1.9, 50/2.0 and 50/1.5. (Only the 28/1.9 has been hand-coded and it is used a lot.) As much as I lust after new 28 Summicron and 50 Summilux optics, I can't say that their CV equivalents have ever given me less than satisfactory results. The relative value of the CV alternatives is stunning and cannot be refuted by any reasonable evaluator.

 

(My Leica lenses are the following: 21 pre-ASPH, 35/2.0 ASPH, a very old and hazy but lovely 50/2.0 Summar, 75/2.0 ASPH and 90/2.8 "thin" T-E.)

 

Maybe in a next life . . .

 

-g

[sean_reid]

Frankly I believe that if the IR problems were really solved, maybe the "luxury" to keep the system closed with this 6bit-hat-trick could be somehow justified.

 

Long-time members of this forum have heard me say the following for a long time but, for those who are new, let me explain my perspective in a nutshell:

 

6-bit coding would be a bonus, rather than a necessity, if it weren't for the M8's IR problem. The IR problem creates the need for IR cut filters and those filters create cyan drift which is particularly noticeable with 35 mm and wider lenses. Those lenses (with filters) will create files that either need to be corrected in the M8 or via CornerFix. Some subjects may mask the cyan drift problem but it most certainly exists.

 

In short, the 6-bit code is part of a system that is now needed to correct a weakness in the M8's design. It isn't correcting for any weakness in a Zeiss or CV lens, per se, but rather for a weakness in the M8 itself. This is a very important distinction when one considers what might be "fair" for Leica to do (with respect to the lens menu). The code doesn't help the lenses, per se, it helps the camera. There are also Leica lenses that cannot be coded by Leica and photographers who cannot easily be without their lenses (while they're sent in for coding).

 

With 50 mm and longer lenses, one is often better off with no coding (or turning coding detection off).

 

In fact, coded lenses are more convenient than a lens selection menu would be and they'll always retain that advantage. I recommend that people buying CV lenses seek out LTM versions and use the LT-M8 adapters for durable hand-coding. For the M-mount CV lenses (and the Zeiss ZMs) having Milich mill the bayonets is an option many like.

 

I use the M8 professionally and would not use a lens selection menu myself. I use Leica, Zeiss and CV lenses - some factory coded, some hand-coded via a Milich milling or adapter. But many would find the menu useful.

 

I continue to believe that the menu option should be offered to M8 owners free of charge because it helps to remedy a problem inherent in the camera itself.

 

A forum search will yield many links to debates on this topic.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[sean_reid]

That was exactly my position when I bought an M8. I already owned an R8-DMR with 28-90 and 21-35 Leica zooms and couldn't have afforded both an M8 body and the Leica lenses for it - even buying secondhand. The existence of the excellent CV range made it possible for me to buy an M8. If CV lenses hadn't existed I'd have had to do without an M8, much as I prefer using a rangefinder camera for general work.

 

I've heard from many other photographers in the exact same position. I've explained that position to Leica many times but they did not adopt the lens menu.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[barjohn]

I believe that anyone that understands technology and that digital cameras are all about technological capabilities and software development has to be worried about Leica's latest move to entrust its software abilities to Jenoptiks. At least two things can be deduced from this move. First, Leica's own employees could not master the software development required and second, real future innovation becomes less likely. Anyone here that has ever run a company knows that you cannot afford to have your most vital technology development outsourced. You lose control of schedules, innovative direction, rapid response to problems, etc. It is one thing to buy a sensor and quite another to buy your software development where requirements are often fuzzy or misinterpreted and the feedback loop is lengthened between the customer and the development effort.

 

I don't think a modern digital camera company can survive on this basis. It would be as if Leica outsourced its lens design capability and only assembled the lenses. How innovative would the designs be when they were just creating designs to specifications that Leica gave them? Would lens design advance in the same way? I don't think so. Outsourced development is OK for mass produced me too consumer products but not for high end innovative products.

 

My two years of watching Leica management decisions with the M8 has led me to conclude this is a company whose culture is incapable of leveraging the past to move into the future. Stumble after stumble, rapidly rising prices beyond benefit and slow ability to respond to changing market conditions does not bode well for their long term survival as a camera manufacturer. I hope I am wrong but those are the sign post I see. This is why I have posted my M8 for sale where I will take a loss. In two years the only new products have been lenses (their real strength) and no new cameras. Maybe we will see a new camera at photokina, I hope so, and hopefully it will surprise me with its capabilities but somehow I don't think it will. A new DSLR likely could not compete with the D700 in capability or price. The M9, I suspect will be a disappointment because it will lack FF and the high ISO capabilities of Canon or Nikon, won't have an electronic viewfinder frame or focus assist. It will offer things like sapphire cover on the LCD, maybe a better resolution LCD, much quieter shutter with rewind separate from activation, slightly improved high ISO performance, 1/3 stop EV compensation with a separate button to control EV and ISO selection and a higher price tag. (These are, of course, all my guesses since I have no insider information at all.)

[hankg]

Hi Sean,

 

The fact that Leica has the DRF market all to themselves is not a good thing for Leica. With only one very expensive camera and a proprietary coding system it makes for a very narrow niche. Aspiring photographers don't take digital RF seriously. It seems like an esoteric club for dilettantes with more money then brains that exists well out of the mainstream of photography.

 

The broader the RF market and the more competition the better for Leica. A market is like an ecosystem it needs variety and competition to thrive. Without a growing stream of new users and competing ideas expanding and improving the breed it will die.

 

Very shortsighted on Leica's part. The entry of VC into the RF market did more to keep Leica alive through a tough period then Leica management did at the time.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[sean_reid]

I did not have the Epson but wasn't the sensor smaller than that in the Leica and don't the problems get worse as the sensor gets bigger and this is now a problem for a FF M digital camera?

 

I thought that Leica announced the 6-bit before they realised how bad the IR problem was?

 

Jeff

 

No, the problem does not necessarily get worse as the sensor size increases. See my first three M8 reviews. The issues involve a variety of factors.

 

Yes, Leica originally introduced 6-bit before they were aware of the IR problem (as per any and all of their statements on the topic). At that time, it was clearly said that a wide range of M lenses could be used on the M8 and that 6-bit coding, while it added useful features, was not needed for proper functioning of an M lens on the M8. That all changed with the IR thing.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean