Well thank god for Voigtlander and such...

[sean_reid]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

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.

I.E. (let me write an hypotetic sentence):

 

 

As you know, I agree.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[sean_reid]

Yes the Epson had a sensor with a crop factor of 1.6, and even at this reduced size vignetting was worse than with the M8.

 

Hi Steve,

 

1.5 for the Epson - 1.6 is for the Canons.

 

Cheers,

 

S

[Advertisement]

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

[sean_reid]

Hey Sean,

 

this reflects very well my history with the M8 & Leica. I got interested in the M8, got one, got a CV 2.5/35 to start with; I loved the process, the files and how the RF style suited my street photography; got a couple of Zeiss - 2.8/25, 2/35, 1.5/50 - and loved the results even better; then, getting more involved and acquainted with the RF system & shooting, I started trying Leica lenses and ended up with some: 1.4/50 ASPH, 2.8/24 ASPH; tried a 21 pre-ASPH and sold it; tried a 35 Lux but either I didn't got a good feel for it, or it wasn't a good copy so I didn't keep it; decided to start shooting film again thanks to the RF concept and got a M6; to make the story short, I now got 2 M8, 1 MP, 1 CV lens (15 mm), 24, 2/35 v. IV, 50 lux, nocti, 75 lux, 90 cron pre-ASPH. Definitely the CV 35 brought some good business to Leica IMHO

 

Exactly! And it was important to get you started as a customer for that all to happen.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[sean_reid]

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.

 

I think there's a lot to be said for that perspective.

 

BTW, for any new people here who don't know me, I should clarify that I love Leica lenses and think they're often worth owning when one can afford them. But I also try to be objective about the performance and value of the CV and Zeiss lenses. I'm not very impressed with the CV 35/1.4, for example, but the CV 35/2.5 is exceptional.

 

BTW, if anyone cares, CV is not VC. Cosina bought the rights to use the Voigtlander name, not vice-versa.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[vanhulsenbeek]

.....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. .....

 

When I read this I cannot help but remark that there may a serious disregard at work for cultural differences and of the the differences between the Anglo-Saxon corporate world and the Continental EU corporate world.

 

Allegiances and, indeed, friendships in doing business in the South German/Catholic of Europe may be totally different from how things move in the US. Leica's latest move to entrust its software abilities to Jenoptiks may just have been that: entrust!

 

Who knows, and we can only see what happens, but an open mind for the fact that things work differently in different parts of the world - indeed that there is a world outside the US - may help boost understanding.

[sean_reid]

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

 

Thank you. As you can guess, I also own that wonderful little 28/3.5.

 

A rule of thumb: If one gets a very good copy of a CV lens, never sell it. If you later change your mind, the new copy may be hard to find or be a poorer sample. It's not worth the relatively small amount of money involved to risk losing a great lens.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[sean_reid]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

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.

 

That effort seems to have peaked some time ago and I don't know that Leica is still getting letters (or overnighted letters translated to German <G>) about this. Leica makes their own decisions and we have no reason to believe that customer e-mails and letters against the lens selection menu were decisive in any way. But they sure didn't help.

 

I can't go into details but at one time, quite awhile ago, we might (um, theoretically) have had a lens selection menu and some improvements in the ISO/EV controls. But alas we don't. Things change.

 

I don't argue with Leica about this stuff right now but I did argue for it for a long time after the camera was first introduced.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[barjohn]

Sander,

 

I have some understanding of how things work in Europe as I was an executive of a company that had a wholly owned subsidiary in Germany at one time. It really has nothing to so with whether the companies are friends or not. Each company has its own bottom line to worry about and software development is one of those areas in which costs can quickly get out of control. Further, when it is your own team and they are on the verge of making a difficult technological breakthrough you may chose to ignore the bottom line. It is very hard to do that when it is an outside company that is cost overrunning their development contract. Further, to manage that outside contract requires resources and every change to the specification is a new contract modification and cost. Often in bleeding edge areas of technology the specifications are vague and in spiral development may often be very minimal. This isn't practical when an outside company is doing the development. We do a great deal of spiral development in my organization. We may develop exactly what a csutomer says he wants but when the customer sees it he changes his mind and says Oh!, I really wanted X when I told you Y. This is part of many modern development efforts and very hard to do when outsourced. It lets us get product to market much faster and for a lower overall cost because we are concerned about cost but we also recognize the need to satisfy the customer.

[sean_reid]

[quote name=terrycioni;598872

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' date=' 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.

[/quote]

 

Uh oh, that attitude will probably bring new Nikon lens sales to a grinding halt <G>. What were they thinking? <G><G> Seriously, though, Nikon and Pentax have taken the smart approach on this aspect, IMHO.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[sean_reid]

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

 

Hiya Woody,

 

Alas, some of those older lenses cannot be coded by Leica.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[sean_reid]

Perhaps after they have weighed up the pros and cons they will do it.

Jeff

 

They have. They didn't.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[sean_reid]

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?

 

When the 6-bit code was designed, Leica did not yet know it would be needed as part of a correction system for cyan drift. It was supposed to be a bonus feature, not a key component in a closed system. Fate changed its course.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[sean_reid]

I

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.

 

Hi John,

 

Its your call but why not keep the camera even if you're worried about Leica. I don't agree with every decision they've made but I do love that M8 (warts and all).

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[sean_reid]

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.

 

Hi Hank,

 

Yup...

 

Best,

 

Sean

[barjohn]

Hi John,

 

Its your call but why not keep the camera even if you're worried about Leica. I don't agree with every decision they've made but I do love that M8 (warts and all).

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

 

Sean,

 

I sold my Epson RD-1 and purchased the M8 because having a company behind the product was important to me. I really liked the RD-1 and I was satisfied with the files but wanted better high ISO capability. I see M8 sales rapidly declining. Cameras stay for sale for far too long and prices are dropping. I have decided that it is time to cut my losses. Further, the high ISO capability I want and need isn't there and I really don't think Leica will be able to offer it. I wish the D700 capability were available in a D60 size body but the combined weight of the D700 and 3 primes or one zoom is still less than I carry in my M8 kit to cover the range from 35MM to 120MM (28, 40, 50 and 90).

 

P.S. Sean, I really like and appreciate your reviews and I think your photographic talents are really excellent. I try but alas don't achieve your skill level or ability to see a scene.

[delander †]

You know I am quite uneasy about this view that Leica should open up the 6-bit coding.

 

I come from a background where we invented stuff and at considerable cost protected it with patents to gain a commercial advantage over our competition. This is normal business practice. The M8 has a characteristic which Leica resolved and presumably patented the method.

 

The only reason I could envisage for Leica to give that advantage away to its competitors FOC is if they thought it would increase Leica sales. And although many here would like to see that happen so that they can buy coded non-Leica glass at lower prices I dont think the arguments put forward here are convincing that it would be better for Leica.

 

For example Sigma makes AF lenses for Canon, do Canon help them along in that endeavour? I am sure they dont.

 

It is up to Leica to leverage their technology best they can - just as everyone else does.

 

Jeff

[jklotz]

In terms of the original content of the thread, I purchased an M8 and a few CV lenses initially. I don't think I could have mede the investment if my only options were Leica glass, as there would have been no way I could have afforded it. Let's face it, getting to know a camera and system takes quite a bit of time, and experementaion; therefore any new system I buy into is a bit of an experiment. I've bought so many lenses and accessories over the years that, after many frames, became obvious that, while maybe a good product for some, did not fit my "look", ergonomics or, for some other reason, did not end up being "keepers" for my kit. Turns out I like the M8 very much and will continue to buy lenses, Leica when I can afford them or feel the investment will make sense for me.

 

That being said, Leica is in the business of selling cameras and lenses. Anything that can further that goal can only be good for Leica. Why anybody would argue that the availabilty of CV or Zeiss glass is a bad thing, or that the M8 being a closed system is a good thing, is beyond me. For a great example, look at the outrage in the professional community when Hassy recently decided to make thier H system a closed one. Many die hard users, for the first time in years, began investiagting other systems because of this.

 

Add in the fact that this whole coding business is a direct result of the cyan drift caused by the necessity of the IR/UV cut filters and IR issues, and they have the making for the terrible press they have gotten.

 

If you ask me, Leica should give away the rights to code CV, Zeiss or any other manufacturer who wants to make products that support the M8. I just can't see anything comming from this that could, in any way, hurt Leica.

[sean_reid]

You know I am quite uneasy about this view that Leica should open up the 6-bit coding.

 

I come from a background where we invented stuff and at considerable cost protected it with patents to gain a commercial advantage over our competition. This is normal business practice. The M8 has a characteristic which Leica resolved and presumably patented the method.

 

The only reason I could envisage for Leica to give that advantage away to its competitors FOC is if they thought it would increase Leica sales. And although many here would like to see that happen so that they can buy coded non-Leica glass at lower prices I dont think the arguments put forward here are convincing that it would be better for Leica. A lens menu is not as convenient to use as a coded lens but it would give the M8 owner a means to help correct for cyan drift.

 

For example Sigma makes AF lenses for Canon, do Canon help them along in that endeavour? I am sure they dont.

 

It is up to Leica to leverage their technology best they can - just as everyone else does.

 

Jeff

 

I wouldn't suggest that they open up the 6-bit coding per se. All along, I've argued for a lens selection menu that would help photographers who own non-coded lenses (including Leica lenses that have not been coded or cannot be) to overcome the cyan drift problem which is inherent in the *M8* and not in the lenses. I hope that you understand why I draw that exact distinction.

 

In any case, we may not all agree on this topic and I respect your opinion. Had the M8 not had a problem with IR sensitivity, I would not be arguing against Leica retaining the 6-bit system as a special feature associated with its lenses (and not all of them).

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[vanhulsenbeek]

We may develop exactly what a csutomer says he wants but when the customer sees it he changes his mind and says Oh!, I really wanted X when I told you Y. This is part of many modern development efforts and very hard to do when outsourced. It lets us get product to market much faster and for a lower overall cost because we are concerned about cost but we also recognize the need to satisfy the customer.

 

Thanks for your appreciative and understanding reply. The problem, clearly, is that Leica lacks the (critical) mass to do firmware development it self and has no choice but to outsource.

 

I work in a 10 billion US/30000 people multinational environment, and even there many times outsourcing is the only choice. Fingers crossed you make the right choice. Same for Leica!

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[hankg]

 

For example Sigma makes AF lenses for Canon, do Canon help them along in that endeavour? I am sure they dont.

 

It is up to Leica to leverage their technology best they can - just as everyone else does.

 

Jeff

 

Leica has a problem that Canon does not. It's trying to defend an advantage in a market that may soon cease to exist. Sean and Maurizio have raised the issue of fairness and while they have a point I really don't give a crap about the fairness issue. I do care about the Leica viability going forward issue.

 

Leica does not seem to have the capability to provide the range of products with the price points and value propositions needed to support a viable growing DRF market. It needs the third party vendors. It won't matter if Leica owns 100% of the DRF market if it shrinks to a size that won't support a company.