ptomsu Posted May 21, 2009 Share #41 Posted May 21, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) Fully agree! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted May 21, 2009 Posted May 21, 2009 Hi ptomsu, Take a look here Lfi 4/2009. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
BJNY Posted May 21, 2009 Share #42 Posted May 21, 2009 http://us.leica-camera.com/assets/file/download.php?filename=file_4296.pdf Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SJP Posted May 21, 2009 Share #43 Posted May 21, 2009 They have to integrate AF into every SLR, if it makes sense or not...If it doesn't make sense then they don't. Leica cannot, will not and should not enter into the mass production DSLR game - it would be suicide. They have a unique selling point - the brand name, and the quality of their prime fixed focus lenses. It is about marketing after all - if they can get across that "Leicas are only for real photographers" (real men ) then they have a unique selling point. Hammer in the image of "No frills, no smile recognition, no auto-anything, and that they are for the connaiseur" then they have a chance. Whether it is true or not (it is not) is immaterial. If they market something which is a bit like a Canon or Nikon (etc.) FF-DSLR then they are dead meat. The S2 is a completely different beast and should be positioned as such. That they have got exactly right. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
R10dreamer Posted May 21, 2009 Share #44 Posted May 21, 2009 "I don't want or need AF even if it would focus more accurately" Some photographers need it, some don't and many think they need it... They've tried manual with the R8 - an excellent tool, a real leap forward for "slow", demaning 35mm-SLRs - and people hated it because of the looks and many ignored it because it had no AF. They have to integrate AF into every SLR, if it makes sense or not - as long is it doesn't compromise MF (mechanics/excuse for bad viewfinder), I'm fine with it. They have developed it already for the S-System, so the body-electronics won't be too expensive for the R10 anyway - I think the optics for a bright, large viewfinder are more expensive than AF-metering... It's propably the opposite, when they can spread S-technology over more products, they become cheaper because they can buy more sensors, motors... Who? What people? Where did you see this information? I love the way the R8's and R9's look. Broad brush statements like this really bother me. YOU may have hated it, then speak for yourself. A friend of yours may have hated it but then you can quote him. PEOPLE hated it is a rash generalization that is just too accepted these days. I love the looks of the R cameras. I love the look of the S2. But looks really don't mean much except the look of the image the camera is capable of taking. Not buying a camera because of it's looks gives the purchaser exactly what they deserve to get. GD Whalen Photography Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
georg Posted May 21, 2009 Share #45 Posted May 21, 2009 @R10dreamer I bought my (first Leica) R8 in 1997 after comparing all other SLRs (from F5 to AX). I didn't need the speed of a press-camera and I was surprised when I got the chance to hold the R8 for the first time. It felt organic, looked really cool, had a superior viewfinder, meter, ergonomics/controls, materials and it took only weeks to finally go for it - before that I only knew that Leicas are expensive cameras, didn't even knew the M! Leica risked everything for it, they basically sold the company (GmbH to AG), invested into 3D-CAD, started to design an entirely new camera instead of rebadging some japanese camera, different than any 35mm-SLR before. But what happened? They didn't sold many, most R-users I've spoke to hated the looks and stayed with their R3-7 and C/N-users (which didn't need 8fps and complained about lens-quality, controls) didn't even consider it because it was expensive while not as fast and hadn't as much matrix fields as their F5/Eos1 without even trying it once.. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephengilbert Posted May 21, 2009 Share #46 Posted May 21, 2009 I suspect that many people who owned or even admired the R cameras through the R6 or R6.2 thought the later versions to be ugly. I know I did. They may well have felt better, but I don't think they looked as good. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
carstenw Posted May 21, 2009 Share #47 Posted May 21, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) I didn't like the looks of the R8/R9 initially, but once I handled the camera with a 180/2 they really grew on me, and now I find them quite stunning. I can't really explain it, but whereas the older bodies made a lot of sense with the small lenses, the new body feels much better with larger lenses, to me at least. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted May 21, 2009 Share #48 Posted May 21, 2009 @R10dreamer .... Leica risked everything for it, they basically sold the company (GmbH to AG), invested into 3D-CAD, started to design an entirely new camera instead of rebadging some japanese camera, different than any 35mm-SLR before. .. OOT... btw they invested into the WRONG solution... (sorry, my business is selling 3D-CAD... ... I was horrified when knew which Software they bought....) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
georg Posted May 21, 2009 Share #49 Posted May 21, 2009 I don't know which solution they chose, ProE? What do they use know? But it was in the early 90s, when it wasn't the easiest thing to integrate 3D-CAD into your company, not for a quite small company far outside space/automotive industry. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted May 21, 2009 Share #50 Posted May 21, 2009 I don't know which solution they chose, ProE? What do they use know?But it was in the early 90s, when it wasn't the easiest thing to integrate 3D-CAD into your company, not for a quite small company far outside space/automotive industry. At the times it was the ill-fated Solid Designer from CoCreate (former HP Mech Design Div - and after bought by PTC...) haven't idea of the present tools. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.