Nick Devlin review of 5DII has relevance to S2

[Photoskeptic]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The new review by Nick Devlin on Luminous Landscape should give reason for Leica fans to pump their fists in exhileration. Firstly he laments that R lens production has ceased for he feels the only way these new sensors (20+ mp) can be exploited to the fullest is with Leica glass! Secondly, the new S2 and it's already acclaimed glass could be the newest cat's meow in being one of the few large sensor cameras to be able to exploit this sensor advantage with very special lenses manufactured just for the sensor. Exciting times ahead!

[Marty]

I am sure that is no news to Leica fans. And why invest in Leica glass only to mount it on a cheap C DSLR? I believe the current crop of high-resolution DLSRs are still battling sensor quality more than lens quality i.e. the latter may not actually improve anything on this generation of full frame sensors. Would be nice to know how a S2 holds up in Antarctica though

[marknorton]

I certainly think it's a pity Leica could see no market for R glass beyond the R cameras and Digilux 3. Zeiss have done it for Nikon, Canon, Sony, so why not Leica?

[Guest Bernd Banken]

I certainly think it's a pity Leica could see no market for R glass beyond the R cameras and Digilux 3. Zeiss have done it for Nikon, Canon, Sony, so why not Leica?

 

Zeiss has Mr. Kobayashi, but who can help Leica?

[carstenw]

Kobayashi-San manufactures the lenses with his company. What Leica needs is simply the willingness to produce lenses in a non-Leica mount, nothing more. There is no need to reverse-engineer mounts like the EOS mount. If Canon doesn't want to assist in the matter, don't make the lenses in that mount.

[sean_reid]

I certainly think it's a pity Leica could see no market for R glass beyond the R cameras and Digilux 3. Zeiss have done it for Nikon, Canon, Sony, so why not Leica?

 

I think that one advantage Leica sees for the S2 is that it will be the only integrated DSLR system that is fully compatible with Leica SLR lenses (leaving aside 4/3).

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[sean_reid]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Kobayashi-San manufactures the lenses with his company. What Leica needs is simply the willingness to produce lenses in a non-Leica mount, nothing more. There is no need to reverse-engineer mounts like the EOS mount. If Canon doesn't want to assist in the matter, don't make the lenses in that mount.

 

Yes, and his company is carrying out production of certain Zeiss lenses. Zeiss itself does the lens designs and steers that ship.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[paulmoore]

I think that one advantage Leica sees for the S2 is that it will be the only integrated DSLR system that is fully compatible with Leica SLR lenses (leaving aside 4/3).

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

 

not really following your thought here.. the S2 is not compatible with the "Leica SLR" ( R )

lenses..it may willbe compatible with the future smaller Leica DSLR, R10 or whatever they call the FF DSLR, but there are no plans AFAIK to mount a R lens to the S2. but could be I am missing your point.

[stevelap]

I think the point is that if you put any Leica SLR lenses on any other DSLR body they are not fully compatible, i.e. stop down metering issues etc.

 

The S2, therefore, will be the only DSLR from any manufacturer that is fully compatible with Leica SLR lenses, in this case S lenses.

[dfarkas]

I think the point is that if you put any Leica SLR lenses on any other DSLR body they are not fully compatible, i.e. stop down metering issues etc.

 

The S2, therefore, will be the only DSLR from any manufacturer that is fully compatible with Leica SLR lenses, in this case S lenses.

 

Agreed. And, I might add that not all R lenses are compatible with Nikon and Canon bodies with respect to mirror clearance issues.

 

Also, how many N or C users are going to pay double, triple, or more the cost of their camera for a brand new Leica R lens in EOS or F mount? I just don't see someone buying a 5DmkII for $2700 and dropping $7K for a Leica zoom lens.

 

David

[wattsy]

Zeiss have done it for Nikon, Canon, Sony, so why not Leica?

 

I think it's at least partly because Leica has always wanted the company to be seen as a serious player in the camera body game as well as a manufacturer of superlative lenses - hence, the periodic efforts to spend lots of R&D money (which the company usually doesn't have) developing great (though arguably over-engineered) SLR bodies that tend to flop commercially. I doubt that Leica ever made a pfennig from the Leicaflex bodies and certainly lost a lot of money bringing the R8 to market at a time that AF systems had become the accepted norm. The S2 is clearly another attempt to prove that Leica can be more than just a great lens designer and manufacturer. Making lenses for other camera platforms would be a form of admission that Leica are not a serious player as a camera body design and manufacturer. With the S2 on the horizon, now is clearly not a good time to be seen to be throwing in the towel (even in the 35mm marketplace).

[AlanG]

Making lenses for other camera platforms would be a form of admission that Leica are not a serious player as a camera body design and manufacturer. With the S2 on the horizon, now is clearly not a good time to be seen to be throwing in the towel (even in the 35mm marketplace).

 

Zeiss had no problem selling lenses to many brands while still making their own cameras. I think it is just the opposite. If Leica can make money from selling lenses, they can invest some of that money in designing new bodies. And if they can increase their profits, they can afford to do more marketing to better establish the Leica "Brand." Heck you see Porsche designed hard drives that just adds a simple white plastic case to somebody's drive. Right now, it looks like they have thrown in the towel regarding 35mm SLR lenses and bodies.

 

As I suggested in another S2 thread - If they aren't going to make these lenses in house because they'd be too expensive to sell in volume, why not contract out their construction and be a player? Didn't they do that with Panasonic and 4/3rds lenses? Why not do it with 35mm lenses that could sell in a larger established market? They may have a window of opportunity right now. This won't be like re-branding Panasonic cameras, these will be Leica designs built to Leica imaging standards. Hopefully they'll have AF technology but need at least electronic coupling of manual focus lenses and focus confirmation.

 

Assuming the mass volume lenses would be made in Asia, should they get back in the 35mm DSLR camera market, they could produce "ultra premium" Leica German made lenses for it.

 

Before I'm criticized again for not supporting the German worker... In addition to having purchased a lot of German camera gear, we have a BMW, a Mercedes, and a US made Ford, so we've done our part supporting German workers. If you are concerned about the standard of living of workers, consider buying American made cars and other US made products too.

[georg]

"Zeiss had no problem selling lenses to many brands while still making their own cameras"

 

They never equipped a real competitor with their lenses, the markets of Hasselblad, Arri... were never the same of Zeiss Ikon / Contax (when they were still Zeiss).

 

They didn't want to invest much money into their last attempt for the consumer-market (Zeiss Ikon & ZM/ZF...-lenses) and most of these lenses are older or at least "classic" designs with nothing unique (like real Zeiss-lenses) to reduce the economic risks (low investments) and to be produced by cheaper OEMs (like Cosina).

That's a dangerous game they're playing. Many photographers actually think that these are real Zeiss-lenses while they're on a completely different standard (technology, build-quality...) than their professional lenses. But these Cosina-lenses represent how Zeiss is seen today by consumers. Nice lenses, but not too different from Nikon/Canon-Pro-glass. Just like Porsche introducing a SUV - tempting but risky for the whole company.

 

They're not cheaper because they're produced by Cosina, it isn't about wages but overall production efficency which is superb in Oberkochen. They're cheaper, because they're designed differently, because they're not selected as strictly...

 

It's pretty much the same with Leica, they already damaged their image with rebadged "entry-class"-cameras, many consumers still think they're basically Minolta with a red dot, many people thought the S2 is a Panasonic (because of AF) or even Fuji (because they read about the Fujitsu-processor)...

 

Producing lenses at Panasonic would reduce the efficiency of Solms (because they have to build less lenses), outsource Know-How to Panasonic and building lenses to Solms-standards would take several years and millions of investment. They've tried it with Canada. They wanted to make it cheap, in the end they needed decades, transfered lots of know-how and gained nothing but another competitor (if they really decide to go back into cine-lenses, which ELCAN also makes with Leitz-technology).

 

Many managers were tempted by low-wages, outsourcing, using the brand on a wider scale.., and they all lost in the end.

 

A role model for Leica? Patek Philippe! Were are Patek-plastic-watches made in China? Were are Patek-mid-class-watches with Eta-movements?

Not Märklin/Schiesser...! Buying other brands, outsourcing production, off-shoring to East Germany, then Hungary, then insolvency...

[AlanG]

Something I can't understand is how Leica has become so inefficient in making lenses. In 1971 a Nikon 85 f 1.8 and a Leica M 90f2 were both priced the same - $195 list. Now the Leica lens is priced 8 times higher. And Nikon has added AF and electronic aperture control. And in that time the cost of labor has probably increased proportionally at a faster rate in Japan than it did in Germany. Has the Leica lens gotten 8 times better? Has the Nikon lens gotten worse?

 

What do you think is the reason for today's disparity in price?

 

Can it simply come down to efficiency of scale? If so then Leica could increase the production volume and make the same quality lenses in Germany as they do now and sell them at a competitive price - if they can get them on enough cameras to have the required volume. Whether these be a Leica cameras that are sold in higher volume or lenses for Canon, Nikon, Sony and others. So it still comes down to management needing to find a way. The fact that cheaper entry level Nikon and Canon DSLRs and lenses exist doesn't seem to affect the overall image of the brand among pros or serious enthusiasts. And it supplies the resources to spend on possibly less profitable top of the line models that help keep the image high as well as satisfy the needs of pros. Just as Ferrari probably wouldn't exist without a lot of Fiats being sold. (Lamborghini and VWs too.)

 

And if Leica is not planning to make a 35mm DSLR any time soon, they don't have to worry about competing with themselves if the lens is sold in mounts for other bodies.

[AlanG]

A role model for Leica? Patek Philippe! Were are Patek-plastic-watches made in China? Were are Patek-mid-class-watches with Eta-movements?

Not Märklin/Schiesser...! Buying other brands, outsourcing production, off-shoring to East Germany, then Hungary, then insolvency...

 

I am not saying they should do this but it might come as a surprise to you to know that some high status luxury brands are having products made in China. These are high quality items not Patek-plastic watches. Do you think Germany has some kind of lock on quality?

 

Coach bags -

Your opinion on COACH producing in China now - Purse Forum

 

Read it and weep -

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/23/opinion/23thomas.html

 

As for insolvency, as far as I can see, the only reason the company still exists is because the owner has deep pockets and is willing to run the company at a loss for a while. Sales of the M system probably have helped substantially but the company is still losing money. So what are the alternatives that will make the brand profitable? Will the S2 do it? Do they have some things on the drawing boards that would be in conflict with selling lenses for other brands? Or does it come down to pride?

[markowich]

i totally agree with this assessment. if i was to buy an S2 i would start to get worried about getting it serviced/repaired once mr kauffmann decides enough is enough.

peter

 

 

I am not saying they should do this but it might come as a surprise to you to know that some high status luxury brands are having products made in China. These are high quality items not Patek-plastic watches. Do you think Germany has some kind of lock on quality?

 

Coach bags -

Your opinion on COACH producing in China now - Purse Forum

 

Read it and weep -

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/23/opinion/23thomas.html

 

As for insolvency, as far as I can see, the only reason the company still exists is because the owner has deep pockets and is willing to run the company at a loss for a while. Sales of the M system probably have helped substantially but the company is still losing money. So what are the alternatives that will make the brand profitable? Will the S2 do it? Do they have some things on the drawing boards that would be in conflict with selling lenses for other brands? Or does it come down to pride?

[Jamie Roberts]

{Snipped} The fact that cheaper entry level Nikon and Canon DSLRs and lenses exist doesn't seem to affect the overall image of the brand among pros or serious enthusiasts. And it supplies the resources to spend on possibly less profitable top of the line models that help keep the image high as well as satisfy the needs of pros.

 

The Summarits are quite reasonably priced given their optics and mechanics are pretty much on par with much of Canon's L glass (and better, if not faster, in some cases). And I've never had the front element of any Leitz or Leica made 50 come off with the hood in my hands while shooting, but for the Canon 50 1,2L it's apparently a pretty common manufacturing flaw.

 

Don't get me wrong please; I loved my 50 1.2L. But it's capacity for falling apart is indicative of the economic choices Canon has apparently made. Cheaper Canon lenses-50 1.4, for example--are not only optically terrible (they *are* terrible IMO) but they're are built even worse these days.

 

I paid no more for my used M glass than I did for my L glass new, and I paid substantially less for my R glass, which is superbly built as well. I know which lenses I like better, and which perform better, and which are better made.

 

So I don't think Leica is less efficient in any real sense than they've been in the past; for the quality of lenses they make, they are probably just as efficient as ever, and demand for special purpose glass has probably gone down... If they want to make things a bit more cheaply, they should re-open a plant in Canada, since our $ is way down again

[AlanG]

Don't get me wrong please; I loved my 50 1.2L. But it's capacity for falling apart is indicative of the economic choices Canon has apparently made. Cheaper Canon lenses-50 1.4, for example--are not only optically terrible (they *are* terrible IMO) but they're are built even worse these days.

 

 

The posts elsewhere on the forum do not seem to bear this out. There just was one by a person who got a new 18mm and it couldn't produce a sharp image. He also got a 50 that had a very sticky focusing mechanism. Both had to be replaced. There are numerous reports of lenses being delivered that are not adjusted properly and have various faults. And reports of quality control issues with the M8 are legion. Many have to be replaced or repaired repeatedly. In view of this, I wonder how many people are shooting with Leica lenses that are not up to company specs and they don't know it? Short of doing statistical analysis between Nikon, Canon, and Leica we won't know for sure.

 

But among professionals, Nikon and Canon certainly seem to have a reputation for dependability and ruggedness. This may have also been true about the film Ms at one time. But a friend of mine bought two M8s more than a year ago if I recall the timing. The lens preview lever fell off of one body soon after he got it. One body failed on the job. Because he is a high profile shooter with strong connections to Leica he got a replacement body quickly shipped to him on location. It didn't work right either. He got rid of the M8s but kept his film Ms and some lenses. Then this year, he got another M8 because he thought he could use it for a b/w project he had and he loves using Leica Ms and didn't want to shoot film on the project. A week ago, I spoke to him and he said he wasn't too happy with the M8 and rarely used it on any jobs. He uses his Canons. So this is the feedback I've been receiving about Leica from my best friend of 34 years. Do you see why I haven't bought one?

 

So if the Leica company is paying more for this type of construction and inspection, the management oversight and planning must really be lacking. Maybe the poor quality control is one of the factors that is driving the price up.

 

Separately, I used Nikon gear from 1968-2003 and Canon gear for the past 6 years all with very few problems. My gear is used quite heavily, subjected to vibration and jostled about in an SUV typically 50-100 miles each shoot and has traveled well on numerous plane trips. In the six years of use of 4 bodies and about 10 lenses, the only Canon item that failed was the USB connector that physically broke from my repeated, and probably heavy handed use. (I shoot tethered a lot and I think all USB connectors are about the same and are a real weak point.)

 

Which brings up fast service. Canon got the camera on a Wedneday, fixed it at a very reasonable price, cleaned the sensor, checked the focus and exposure, shipped it the next day, and got it back to me by Friday. The repair was perfect and it cost $162 including FedEx. They also replaced the CF card connector that they said had something wrong. Since Canon and Leica both have service stations in the US, presumably with similar overhead and similar pay for the workers. What could account for the different level of service and fees between the two companies?

 

As for gear failing, I once picked up my Hasselblad and the front element of the 150mm lens fell out onto the ground. I guess the vibration from driving loosened the retaining ring. The little metal flaps on the bottom of the camera always bent so the connection between the backs and camera would get loose. One new Hassleblad body had defects from the start. I probably had at least 20 things go wrong and need major repairs with Rollei gear - between 2 SLX bodies, two 6006 bodies, 4 backs, and 6 lenses. Numerous shutter repairs in the lenses, the gears that connect the backs to the motors in the camera, the motors themselves, and a lot of different problems with the backs. Eventually a lot of this stuff got sorted out (stronger gears, different electronic shutter in the lenses) and the camera became pretty reliable.

 

My point is that I have not found the most expensive gear to be better made - thus justifying the cost. Plus as my Rollei gear did finally get various modifications, I am at a loss to understand why after two+ years there are still reports of the M8 having all sorts of repeatable problems that haven't been resolved.

 

So from my experience the Canon and Nikon gear has been the best made and I am more than pleased with the image quality. Shooting wide open with fast lenses is not my forte, so if Leica lenses are better at f1.4, that is fairly irrelevant to my needs. I don't know if I ever shot my Rollei or Hasselblad wide open. I once did a comparison shot between the Zeiss 80 on the Rollei and the $39 Kiev 80mm lens on a Kiev 66. I only shot at f8 and both images looked as good - slight color variation. Heck Phase One is now asking thousands for a 45mm Kiev made tilt shift lens that Hartblei sold for about $700 a few years ago. What happened, did the Ukrainian workers get a huge pay increase? Did the quality go up? I don't think so since the Luminous Landscape review from a few years ago praised it.

 

Maybe this conclusion from the LL review is what did it, "Does it sound as if I'm enthusiastic about this lens? Yes, and with good reason. If the Super-Rotator cost $3,000 rather than $1,000, and if it had the Zeiss or Schneider name on it rather than Hartblei, no one would be surprised at such a positive review. But there will be those that say — no way! How can this (relatively) inexpensive lens from an unknown company in the Ukraine, of all places, be that good?"

 

So now it is priced at $3990 so everyone but those who pay for it can be happy.

 

See why I am suspicious of the reason some lenses are priced so high?

[marcusperkins]

Alan, I've got to agree with every word you wrote -

 

My experience of Canon over the past 18 years has been quite amazing in terms of reliability and quality. My current Canon 1Ds M2 was bought when it was first released and has travelled (along with a handful of L primes) to over 150 countries without any kind of incident with the camera or the lenses. All continue to produce incredible results.

 

The Leica on the other hand has been nothing but problems - the same problems everybody seems to have. The body's been back to Leica twice, and each of the new lenses I bought for use on the M8 have had some issues with one thing or another - loose screws, focussing etc. After returning three 28/2.8 Asph's because of focus issues on a body that was calibrated twice by Leica, I finally found one that works - except this one has excessive play in the focus ring, and clicks noticeably when changing direction. The M8 continues to lock up when pushed hard, and yes I have the cursed "hair line crack" in high ISO files.

 

The only reason I persevere with Leica is because my M6 and MP along with two old summicrons produced some incredibly memorable work in the days of film. However, I now hardly ever use the M8 because it's a liability on shoots. I shoot exclusively on Canon L primes (I think zooms are always a compromise) and I honestly think they produce a wow factor every bit as striking as Leica glass. Every lens, Leica/Canon/Nikon, has its strengths and weaknesses, once you learn what they are (and it takes some months hard use learning each lens), it's amazing what can be squeezed out of them.

 

When on holiday, I love shooting with a film M (feels like a double holiday ), but professionally I find Leica digital is no longer competitive because of the cost/quality equation and the all important reliability question.

 

The M8 debacle, and the problem with lenses not focussing properly is causing Leica great damage in terms of their reputation in the eyes of many professionals.

 

Reading Leica literature, you'd think every lens and body is lovingly checked before it is sent out. This is clearly not the case based on repeated negative personal experience.

 

Of course I'm not suggesting Canon does not have it's share of problems, and I don't doubt there are people out there who've had some real nightmares, but given the comparatively small number of units Leica manufactures, they seem to have more than their fare share of issues, when in theory they should have very few.

 

One frightening fact for professional photographers: In the two years since I bought the M8 and three new lenses, the collective down time for the four items equals about 3 months. Oddly enough the only totally reliable part of my not-much-used Leica M8 kit has been the Zeiss 18mm, which is a beautiful lens in every respect.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Jamie Roberts]

Marcus--

 

You clearly have had--and still have--defective Leica equipment. There is no dreaded "thin line" artifact in high ISO shots unless your sensor needs replacing. You need Solms to look at that, so I wouldn't judge a properly working M8 by a defective one, sorry. With all the trouble you've had, I'd demand a new one at this point: multiple trips is ridiculous and I agree with you.

 

I'm sorry you've had trouble finding good lenses for the M8. I think the heightened tolerances that the M8 uses has been a challenge for Solms with new lenses. But it's one I think they've finally fixed; my new Nocti was backfocusing quite a lot when I got it but Solms recently fixed that--and an under performing used 50 1.4 Lux ASPH--to the point of amazement on my part: even the focus shift on the Nocti is more than tolerable!

 

Used lenses too, suffer in the Leica world a lot more than Canon or Nikon, IMO--partially because only so many people put manual focus lenses on their new AF bodies, even if they can do it...

 

In any case it's really buyer beware for Leica used lenses: I've seen some outwardly good looking Leica lenses (from the 80s, from the 70s) that can't acheive infinity focus anymore, that need ring adjustments, etc... and when people put them on their M8--which is far more critical in terms of focus than any film M for a bunch of reasons--they blame the camera.

 

Then there is the photographer factor

 

But all that aside, there have been fits and starts with the M8 to be sure. And the service from Leica NJ still does leave a lot to be desired. I wouldn't argue that, since I've experienced some pretty ridiculous service. To me service is Leica's biggest problem, and I agree that down time of three months is ridiculous. That just about mirrors my own experience too, so I really am not arguing here.

 

And anecdotes are anecdotal; but I've had my share of junk with Canon too (haven't had the Nikon digital long enough to share yet).

 

Not so anecdotally, because it affected every camera for 8 months or so, when the 1ds2 first came out it dropped shots all the time and scrambled others. Do we need to mention that the current 1ds3 and 1d3 are *still* being fixed for focus issues?

 

My Canon 50 1.2L's front element came off, with the hood, while I focused, in front of a family group at a wedding, while I stood there not believing this could happen. It wasn't knocked around, it was less than 6 months old.

 

In another (private) forum I belong too, many--(more than 15--but it's a small forum)--people have had the exact same problem with the 50 1.2L. Canon charged me $300 to fix the lens (they're now fixing them quietly for free). Here in Canada, that's an $1800 lens, and stuff like that shouldn't happen.

 

I won't bore you with issues with my 85 1.2L (v1) or my 70-200 IS 2.8L or the three 50 1.4s I went through (all broke to the point of being replaced) and had to buy when Canon didn't produce a 50mm lens worthy of the 1ds2.

 

Note I'm not saying cheap equipment can't be good equipment, exactly. I have a Sigma G 50 1,4 ASPH that is superb (or at least a superb sample). I was blown away by how good that lens is relative to others in the price range (and indeed, to the 3x more expensive 50 1.2L).

 

My point is that I'll stand by what I said. I know Canon produces a lot of stuff. I know a lot of people have good experiences with it, and to be sure, they fixed my 50 1.2L in a matter of weeks; my Noctilux on a trip to Solms was a matter of months (though the Nocti was fixed, at least, for free).

 

I will say this too: on my new D3 system, all my Nikkor primes needed focus adjustment on the camera right out of the box to autofocus properly

 

Now, I'm glad I can fix that myself, and I commend Nikon and Canon for putting this "self-help" adjustment into their cameras (something I hope the M9 has in some way), but it does speak to problems pretty eloquently in my view.