Guest malland Posted March 10, 2009 Share #21 Posted March 10, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) Sure, full frame would be nice; but it's more important to get rid of the need for IR/UV filters to make the M8 a less flawed gem. —Mitch/Potomac, MD Wiang Pa Pao - a set on Flickr Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted March 10, 2009 Posted March 10, 2009 Hi Guest malland, Take a look here To Full Frame Or Not To Full Frame?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
guywalder Posted March 10, 2009 Share #22 Posted March 10, 2009 Do you really think that companies are unaware of customer's wishes, Guy? No Jaap I dont, and I didnt say that did I? so why bring it up? Just like I didnt say the only thing they should do is listen to their customers. Over the years Leica have been late getting on nearly every boat leaving the harbour, hence they went from market leaders to precarious niche player. Now they depend on a curious little group of 'enthusiast' customers, who bemoan the death of a product line that they have stayed away from in droves for several years! I'm glad I dont have to listen to them... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted March 10, 2009 Share #23 Posted March 10, 2009 No Jaap I dont, and I didnt say that did I? so why bring it up? Just like I didnt say the only thing they should do is listen to their customers. Over the years Leica have been late getting on nearly every boat leaving the harbour, hence they went from market leaders to precarious niche player. Now they depend on a curious little group of 'enthusiast' customers, who bemoan the death of a product line that they have stayed away from in droves for several years! I'm glad I dont have to listen to them... Well, Guy, it is an interpretation of your post. If errenous, my mistake.... I would say that a cameramaker that depends mainly on rangefinders and SLR cameras in the highest price range will neccesarily not be in the forefront of "newest is the best" There is something to be said for conservatism when being in that niche. Anyway, Nikon tried to catch the coattails of Canon as you mention, and in a technical sense even overtook them. but where has that got them? The next stop may well be bankrupcy court whilst Leica seem to be forging ahead (one hopes). They founded a new class of cameras in the S2, the succes of which we still have to see, but there is a fair chance the M8 has performed beyond expectation and is still the only DRF on the market. Let's wait and see what the R10 will be about before we put on our blacks for the R-line. Discontinuation of the analog range may well be a herald of the introduction of the digital morph. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest malland Posted March 10, 2009 Share #24 Posted March 10, 2009 Well, Guy, it is an interpretation of your post. If errenous, my mistake.... I would say that a cameramaker that depends mainly on rangefinders and SLR cameras in the highest price range will neccesarily not be in the forefront of "newest is the best" There is something to be said for conservatism when being in that niche. Anyway, Nikon tried to catch the coattails of Canon as you mention, and in a technical sense even overtook them. but where has that got them? The next stop may well be bankrupcy court whilst Leica seem to be forging ahead (one hopes). They founded a new class of cameras in the S2, the succes of which we still have to see, but there is a fair chance the M8 has performed beyond expectation and is still the only DRF on the market. Let's wait and see what the R10 will be about before we put on our blacks for the R-line. Discontinuation of the analog range may well be a herald of the introduction of the digital morph.Jaap: If Nikon goes bankrupt — do you have any information as to whether it is heading toward that? — it would be because of the change in the world economic situation rather then because of its recent strategy. On the other hand, it would be difficult to characterise the M8 as performing "beyond expectations" when it's annual sales are 10,000-12000, and perhaps substantially lower now. —Mitch/Potomac, MD Northern Thailand - a set on Flickr Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted March 10, 2009 Share #25 Posted March 10, 2009 Well, Mitch, if I were Leica, I would have projected sales in the order of or slightly over the sales of my film cameras before the introduction of the M8. 12.000 per year, and I think you agree that is a conservative estimate, would multiply the film M sale numbers. In the first year - guesses again, they must have sold between 20.000 and 30.000. Lenses is another story. Due to the M8, Leica has sold, and is selling, unprecedented numbers. At one point they had an order backlog on lenses of over 8000. Never in living memory had that happened. I think, if you were to ask Leica, and they are not telling, the answer would be: we are exceeding our expectations. This is a small,small company in a world of giants. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted March 10, 2009 Share #26 Posted March 10, 2009 On the other hand, it would be difficult to characterise the M8 as performing "beyond expectations" when it's annual sales are 10,000-12000, and perhaps substantially lower now Pedantic I know, but that does rather depend on what those expectations were. If you were only expecting to sell 8,000 they're rather good. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ahituna Posted March 10, 2009 Share #27 Posted March 10, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) full-frame or not, i want a better censor I'd like to second this. I'm not fixated on having a full-frame sensor in an M8 form factor (even though I've traded my Canon 20D for a 5D). I would just love to have a clean hi-ISO sensor with no IR problems. 12Mpix is plenty for me. A monochrome only model (M9m) would be interesting as well. If that means a 1.3x crop so be it. klc Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest malland Posted March 10, 2009 Share #28 Posted March 10, 2009 Pedantic I know, but that does rather depend on what those expectations were. If you were only expecting to sell 8,000 they're rather good.I would have thought, that with the funds invested for the M8, the expectations by the major shareholders would have had to have been substantially larger than anything in the 8,000-12,000 p.a. range. I don't know whether the M8 plans and investments were made in the Hermes era or after that, but I would expected that the controlling shareholder, or management, would have been looking to a transformation of the company on the path to significant growth in the expectation that a digital-M would open up a relatively large market for Leica. I also doubt that Kaufmann would be satisfied to stay with current level of the sales and profitability figures either from the M8 or the S2. —Mitch/Potomac, MD Northern Thailand - a set on Flickr Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
plasticman Posted March 10, 2009 Share #29 Posted March 10, 2009 I'd like to second this. I'm not fixated on having a full-frame sensor in an M8 form factor (even though I've traded my Canon 20D for a 5D). I would just love to have a clean hi-ISO sensor with no IR problems. 12Mpix is plenty for me. I think a lot of people feel like this. (I for one have given up hope of a full-frame M9 any time soon). However, I was surprised how few people felt motivated to share their thoughts on Chris Tribble's wishlist - that was at least a positive attempt to collate information about Leica user's priorities, and I expected at least a few hundred contributors. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted March 10, 2009 Share #30 Posted March 10, 2009 I would have thought, that with the funds invested for the M8, the expectations by the major shareholders would have had to have been substantially larger than anything in the 8,000-12,000 p.a. range Alas, I know neither the sum of the funds invested, or the sales figures for the M8. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RSL Posted March 10, 2009 Share #31 Posted March 10, 2009 full-frame or not, i want a better censor Censorship is a mistake, full-frame or otherwise. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stephen.s1 Posted March 10, 2009 Share #32 Posted March 10, 2009 I find it sensible to censor the M8 sensor. The only thing L got right was the size. ..sigh. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Roberts Posted March 10, 2009 Share #33 Posted March 10, 2009 Well, I'll be the dissatisfied / satisfied M8 user then. I want full frame for my lenses and I wanted it this year I guess I wasn't raised as carefully as Jaap (just a joke, guys! ) For me, the *first* priority is to get rid of all existing image artifacts--the green streak has got to go. I know I only see it in 1 in 10K frames the way I shoot, but I still want it gone. Next is full-frame. I can live with IR filters if I have to a little longer. M9.2 maybe? (though getting full-frame, so my 28 is a 28 again, and getting no artifacts, and getting no IR filters in an M9 package would be a triumph, IMO). Then I'd like a bigger buffer / faster throughput and true 16bpp output and finally--at the very bottom--higher ISO The worst part of my optimism is that I think Leica will deliver on all those things! I just don't know when (and maybe some of them only in the S2 ) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwelland Posted March 10, 2009 Share #34 Posted March 10, 2009 Given the niche that Leica RF's fill, I'm not sure that it would necessarily have been in Leica's best interest to have flooded the market with cameras anyway. There are plenty of examples out there of goods that are managed in a controlled manner so as not to either over-tax the manufacturers ability to deliver or erode their existing customer base. Think Porsche/Ferrari or even smaller stalwarts such as Morgan in the automotive arena. These are classic examples of manufacturers that manage the amount of product (yes, even Porsche) that is available each year to protect the long term viability of the brand through demand, the loyalty of their owners and the justification of premium pricing (and secondhand residuals). Many of these folks have found out the hard way that giving the market what it demands might benefit in the first year or two but long term has had disastrous effects due to poor execution and quality (here Leica have had their challenges even at the current levels). As regards the FF M - sure I'd like one but ONLY if the technical challenges have been fully solved - soft corners, colour shifts. vignetting and distortion of any kind just won't cut it. Ditto for half-baked software solutions to fix problems - it needs to be perfect. Now if they can manage that without costing $10k per camera, sure, I've got my CC here and ready to go. In the meantime I'll happily keep shooting with my sub-standard cheapo cropped frame, pebble glass M8's and put up with the terrible results I get from them. (better DR/high ISO noise and lack of UV/IR would be nice though ...) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SJP Posted March 10, 2009 Share #35 Posted March 10, 2009 I would have thought, that with the funds invested for the M8, the expectations by the major shareholders would have had to have been substantially larger than anything in the 8,000-12,000 p.a. range. I don't know whether the M8 plans and investments were made in the Hermes era or after that, but I would expected that the controlling shareholder, or management, would have been looking to a transformation of the company on the path to significant growth in the expectation that a digital-M would open up a relatively large market for Leica. I also doubt that Kaufmann would be satisfied to stay with current level of the sales and profitability figures either from the M8 or the S2. —Mitch/Potomac, MD Northern Thailand - a set on Flickr Do we actually know how much Leica sunk into the M8 R&D? Other point of view, if they ONLY had the M8 and on average sold one M8 and one lens per M8 customer (conservative guess) then their annual turnover of the M8 & trappings would be 10.000 x 6000 euro = 60.000.000 euro or 60.000 euro per employee. That is pretty good going considering they have a whole pile of other products as well. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saloti Posted March 10, 2009 Share #36 Posted March 10, 2009 First of all, I am convinced that it will be full-frame. I recently had a stop over in Solms while driving southwards. When asking in the factory shop whether it makes sense to buy now a second M8 body or better wait for a full frame M9 I got this answer: -------------, what means no answer, a very sensible and diplomatic way of telling me "if I was you I would wait....". I will wait, for these reasons: a) As said before, I paid for FF lenses, including WATE... I am convinced that with a M9 Leica will solve key issues such as ISO range and IR/UV filters However, I agree to all those who -rightly- state, that with the current M8 series excellent results can be obtained (available light photography is not an issue for me so far). I would expect Leica to present the M9 at photokina 2010. Apart from this: Leica´s announcements with regard to expected losses until 2010 and corresponding, announced capital increases clearly show, Kaufmann -fortunately for the company & the brand- has a long term agenda. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted March 10, 2009 Share #37 Posted March 10, 2009 I got this answer: -------------, Excuse me, but how do you pronounce that? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted March 10, 2009 Share #38 Posted March 10, 2009 I would have thought, that with the funds invested for the M8, the expectations by the major shareholders would have had to have been substantially larger than anything in the 8,000-12,000 p.a. range. I don't know whether the M8 plans and investments were made in the Hermes era or after that, but I would expected that the controlling shareholder, or management, would have been looking to a transformation of the company on the path to significant growth in the expectation that a digital-M would open up a relatively large market for Leica. I also doubt that Kaufmann would be satisfied to stay with current level of the sales and profitability figures either from the M8 or the S2. —Mitch/Potomac, MD Northern Thailand - a set on Flickr Well, Mitch, many European companies have a long term view and often it does not include significant growth in company size. Yes, in the end it will have to show a profit, but there are other considerations over here, like sustainability and employee relations. You only have to look at the history of the firm, which goes back to the middle 19th century, to notice that these values have been paramount at all times. Just a small tip on etiquette: In Germany to a certain extent and especially Austria it is considered rude to refer to somebody by his or her plain surname. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jager Posted March 10, 2009 Share #39 Posted March 10, 2009 To suggest that I don't care about a FF M9 would be a gross misstatement. I want one very much! I dearly love my M8 (currently in NJ being upgraded), but its low-light capability falls so woefully short of my D3 that it's not even in the same universe. That high-iso improvement is what I want out of FF, far more than a field-of-view equivalence to film. 12mp or thereabouts works just fine. I would hope that the supporting circuitry will be updated, as well, to dramatically improve buffer flushes. And I don't mind at all that we have to use the IR filters - any technological solution which eliminates that need will have a countervailing decrement in IQ. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest malland Posted March 11, 2009 Share #40 Posted March 11, 2009 ...Just a small tip on etiquette: In Germany to a certain extent and especially Austria it is considered rude to refer to somebody by his or her plain surname.Jaap, ich danke Dir für die Berichtigung, aber vielleict hast Du bemerkt dass ich nicht auf deutsch geschrieben habe. And if I was addressing him in English directly I would not call him by his surname unless I was trying to talk down to him; but writing about a known personality in English it's quite normal and not impolite to call him "Kaufmann". —Mitch/Potomac, MD Flickr: Mitch Alland's Photostream Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.