Leica's future rides on M9 (and S2)

[markowich]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'm not so sure about that. In a video of the assembly of the M9 over at LL there is a section, around 14m 40s, that shows a tech getting ready to clean the sensor. When she first try to initiate the Clean Sensor mode, openning the shutter, the camera locks up and she has to pop out the battery, reinsert it then start the process over. On the second try the camera does work but this is the same thing that happens to every M8 ever made at one time or another. That tells me there isn't that much difference in the core electronics of the M9 over the M8. Yes some things have changed but not everything. In fact what Leica has said did change was the DSP chip and it seems they added memory and the circuit board on the back of the sensor. But they haven't said they changed everything.

Now the Leica M8 is only the second digital interchangeable lens cameras I've owned, the first being a Nikon D200, but I do not ever remember the Nikon D200 locking up when doing a sensor cleaning.

 

the japanese camera producers are lightyears infront of leica, jenoptics etc in the electronics sector. but leica's strength is elsewhere, namely in mechanical precision and optical excellence. while i can see that the M9 is a good business concept for them (which may or may not save them ultimately), i believe the S2 will be a big nail in their coffin.

peter

[Shootist]

Yes- with an adapter that effectively increases the thickness. Like it or not, if you want the thickness of an M film body, you will have to use an M film body for the forseeable future. And I might add, having had the pleasure of shooting my M3 over the weekend, it felt uncomfortably thin in my hands for quite a while before I got used to it again.

I cannot quite see the sense of your posts, John. Your opinions would be more valid if they came with less of a negative spin and charged words like "rushing to the market"etc.

 

 

Sorry but that is not true. The adapter does not increase the thickness of the body. It increases the distance from the back of the lens to the sensor plane. The body stay the same thickness.

I don't agree with BarJohn much, if at all (actually he is on my ignore list), but I too think the M9 was a slight rush job. Better then the M8 just because it does have some of the features that should of been included in the M8, ignoring sensor size. But then Leica has had 3 years of time and thousands of beta testers.

The M9 has been on the minds of Leica since the day after Steven Lee was escorted out of the building. But the goal was not to build a completely new camera, IMHO that would be foolish from a business and logistics point of view. The goal was to use as many parts, mechanical and electronical, from the M8 and only update what was needed to offer a FF and more feature rich camera.

 

We'll have to wait for Mark Norton to get antsy about just what has changed in the M9 from the M8.

[diogenis]

the japanese camera producers are lightyears infront of leica, jenoptics etc in the electronics sector. but leica's strength is elsewhere, namely in mechanical precision and optical excellence. while i can see that the M9 is a good business concept for them (which may or may not save them ultimately), i believe the S2 will be a big nail in their coffin.

peter

 

Provided you DO need the features the Japanese are trying to sell. But on the same time, they are also light years behind bulk, weight, complexity... So after the world complained, they introduced the micro 4/3. Only now they are light years behind IQ from their dSLRs or Ms...

 

The M9 is indeed a product that will secure their future. The X1 is the camera that worries me, with the lack of interchangeable lenses and a fixed lens.

[hoppyman]

I guess you haven't looked at the E-P1 of the upcoming GF1. While he sensors may not be as wide or tall, they have to be just as thick or thicker in the case of the E-P1 since it has IS. Yet both cameras are thinner than the M9. So it is both possible and it has been done and they can use M lenses to boot!

Those cameras are completely different They are simply not comparable (nor meant to be) with the M9.. . Not only are the sensors of a different type, their area is much smaller than that in the M9. In fact if you look at the illustrations of these cameras side by side with the M9 you will see just how efficient the packaging of the M9 is and why it is the smallest 24x36 sensor camera on the market.

 

The GF1 body and the E-P1 body are both 1 mm or less thinner than the M9 (DPReview figures).

Then you have to add an adaptor 8 mm thick to use Leica M lenses in almost 2x crop on a sensor about one quarter of the area of that in the M9 and not optimised for the M lens performance either.

[hoppyman]

Well, isn't that typical: The employees of Leica must cover,- by reduction in salary, the 'unspecified sum' of compensation to Stephen K. Lee.

Olsen, isn't that typical of what?

What is it that you are criticising with your remark?

[jaapv]

Sorry but that is not true. The adapter does not increase the thickness of the body. It increases the distance from the back of the lens to the sensor plane. The body stay the same thickness.

.

Of course not, it waqs not meant to be taken so litterally. I only pointed out that there is a (at present) unresolvable reason for the thickness. Another way to construct the body would be to make it thinner, but have the mount stick out in front. I have a strong suspicion that Leica did consider this, but found it to be a rather sorry looking camera with too crowded innards. It may come to happen when the electronics shrink in a next morph, but I would not hold my breath.

[wattsy]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Olsen, isn't that typical of what?

What is it that you are criticising with your remark?

 

Mismanagement I presume (and a fair criticism I might add).

[simon@]

Hi there,

 

I've been out from the leica community for few years, and hoping that the worst was behind Leica in 2009

Do you really think not?.

I'm planing to spend quite a lots of cash pretty soon in the Leica brand, it's a bit scary to heard this kind of things

 

PS: My English is basic, sorry if all this seems naive and stupid...

 

--

Simon

[Guest BigSplash]

I think in the above threads there are valid point about Leica probably rushing to get the M9 out, and taking short cuts to cheapen it (No glass monitor protection, No counter & battery screen etc) and not use Maestro chip set etc.

 

That said I believe that Leica has achieved something very notable with the M9:

> They seem to have a product that matches or betters in photo quality what the Canon 5DII and Nikon deliver today, albeit with a few less pixels.

> They have with the M9 a smaller, lighter, more discrete and beautifully classic camera that is causing apparently (we read here vand elsewhere) many DSLR users to buy Leica for these benefits and Leica glass.

 

If they can keep pervading the high end of the DSLR market this has to be great news for Leica. Furthermore if S2 does slowly build up a loyal following then I would believe this secures Leica's future as a revenue generator and more importantly as a technology proving ground.

 

I believe that Leica has secured a platform that they can use to go forward with and grow the business proftably.

 

My hope is that Leica now enjoys a positive balance sheet for 2009 and 2010 which they can use to now heavily invest in the M10 and S2 and hopefully introducing a S2 junior.

 

In my view they need in the future to diversify into various product areas which they are doing...and each of these product areas should deliver volume growth and profit contribution after R&D. Unfortunately in my experience companies either grow or die they cannot stay flat .....Leica has built I think a great platform for growth.

[jaapv]

Well said, Frank.

[georg]

"the japanese camera producers are lightyears infront of leica, jenoptics etc in the electronics sector"

 

Where do you see the difference besides the custom-made ASICs? Aren't the other ICs basically the same? Custom-made boards are used by both?

The S2 shows what they're current capable of and it didn't felt inferior to a D3X in any way... (although the S2 ASIC is Japanese).

I'm not an electronic specialist, but some friends work in this industry for professional solutions (automotive, aerospace...) and their electronics "Made in Germany" are top-notch. Starting with boards, switches, passive elements and ICs, placement systems, wafers, wafer steppers...

ARRI (although I believe the CMOS-sensors is US-made and only developed in Germany) just released a state-of-the-art CMOS-based-digital-film-camera years ahead of everything else (60fps uncompressed 16bit 2k @800ASA base-sensitivity).

 

It shouldn't be too difficult to use some of this technology and to have it available again in a consumer product. The thing is that we need a serious alternative. Not just Japanese consumer-electronics put into beautiful German mechanics and optics. I think the next Leica-System (EVIL, so it's most likely CMOS) will be crucial. It's not really about Germany vs. Japan or better and worse. It's about having a different choice, a different approach. When there wouldn't have been the MFDBs/Leicas we would still think a AA-filter is the only way. D3X, 1dsIII, A900 - they all have strengths and weaknesses but they share most of them as well as technology or their "mindset" (it's pretty obvious in their ergonomics), it would be great to have another option.

[tobey bilek]

I was trying out a D700 Nikon plus a new to me 105 2.5. My day picked up the camera and said it was a tank and it is.

 

Leica M cameras have it all over the Nikons for size and weight.

[sdai]

Next leica-system?

 

How many systems does Leica already have?

[Guest BigSplash]

"the japanese camera producers are lightyears infront of leica, jenoptics etc in the electronics sector"

 

Where do you see the difference besides the custom-made ASICs? Aren't the other ICs basically the same? Custom-made boards are used by both?

The S2 shows what they're current capable of and it didn't felt inferior to a D3X in any way... (although the S2 ASIC is Japanese).

I'm not an electronic specialist, but some friends work in this industry for professional solutions (automotive, aerospace...) and their electronics "Made in Germany" are top-notch. Starting with boards, switches, passive elements and ICs, placement systems, wafers, wafer steppers...

ARRI (although I believe the CMOS-sensors is US-made and only developed in Germany) just released a state-of-the-art CMOS-based-digital-film-camera years ahead of everything else (60fps uncompressed 16bit 2k @800ASA base-sensitivity).

 

It shouldn't be too difficult to use some of this technology and to have it available again in a consumer product. The thing is that we need a serious alternative. Not just Japanese consumer-electronics put into beautiful German mechanics and optics. I think the next Leica-System (EVIL, so it's most likely CMOS) will be crucial. It's not really about Germany vs. Japan or better and worse. It's about having a different choice, a different approach. When there wouldn't have been the MFDBs/Leicas we would still think a AA-filter is the only way. D3X, 1dsIII, A900 - they all have strengths and weaknesses but they share most of them as well as technology or their "mindset" (it's pretty obvious in their ergonomics), it would be great to have another option.

 

The making of integrated circuits has gone to a few wafer fabs these days....the customisation and the generic design of these circuits plus the micro coded software used by them (firmware ...in machine language) is where the real differentiators is.

 

It seems to me that the Leica engineers are well on top of this and are working with some good partners that have generic designs (such as Maestro- Fujitsu; Kodak-sensor and Jenoptic- Graphics) that Leica have successfully customised and deployed.

 

Bottom line however many companies could knock up a digital camera. What is impressive is the way Leica have an ability to package the piece parts so well into something that is a classic, is small and easy to handle compared to competing high end products. Once the quality of the photos are examined and critically compared then in my view Leica has a significant edge.....reading reports it would appear that many people agree and are moving from their chunky DSLR's.

 

It also appears that the price of a Leica is at £4800 NOT out of line with high end Canon's and Nikon's, and actually is cheaper.

 

That said I believe that Leica must look at ways to bring to market a lower price entry model that uses many of the M piece parts such as the sensor and graphics electronics, but is easier to assemble and can be produced in serious volumes. This could attract more converts towards Leica and RF, plus give better purchasing volumes for the key components.

[bill]

The lower price entry point for Leica has always been the secondhand market. The only exception to this was when the CL was introduced, which cannibalised new M sales at the time. I cannot see Leica making the same mistake again, in the same way that I cannot see Bentley, Aston Martin, IWC, etc [insert as per your tastes] introducing an entry model. The M8, evolutionary dead-end that it is, is the digital entry point model now, and long may it thrive on the secondhand market, although given it's compromises I suspect it will, as soon as the M9 starts to show up secondhand, languish unloved on dealers shelves.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[jaapv]

Still, the X1 suggests that Leica is moving away from the rebadging concept to their own design cameras, even in the P&S sector. Maybe a future Dlux5 will be developed by Leica themselves, even if such mass production could not be realized in-house.

[Guest BigSplash]

The lower price entry point for Leica has always been the secondhand market. The only exception to this was when the CL was introduced, which cannibalised new M sales at the time. I cannot see Leica making the same mistake again, in the same way that I cannot see Bentley, Aston Martin, IWC, etc [insert as per your tastes] introducing an entry model. The M8, evolutionary dead-end that it is, is the digital entry point model now, and long may it thrive on the secondhand market, although given it's compromises I suspect it will, as soon as the M9 starts to show up secondhand, languish unloved on dealers shelves.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

 

Bill, I see your point however Leica needs volume to be able to negotiate lower cost components and drive new entrants towards Leica..

 

I would comment:

1 You did not mention the Boxter from Porsche that uses many of the same parts (eg headlamps) as its much more expensive 911 cousin. Likewise Mercedes have their low entry cost "A" range and "SLK" sports car. These companies have successfully positioned a low entry price car. Aston Martin DB9 is also a much cheaper and less prestigious vehicle than the Virage, Volante etc hand built vehicles.

 

2 The M user seems to be buying the expensive lenses rather than the Summarit series. Surely that to some extent disputes the theory that a low cost digital CL would kill the higher priced M sales.

 

3 I would believe that very few Leica owners have just one lens. It seems to me that Leica have everything to gain by any strategy that helps sell more Leica glass. Surely a digital CL would help stimulate Summarit lens sales and that is good news for the bottom line?

 

4 A Digital CL user with a few lenses is going to be keen to buy the "M" I am sure as funds become available.

 

I do take your point about the secondhand market being the historic entry path to Leica.....I took that myself initially, and I never bought a Leica CL. Today I could imagine buying a Digital CL maybe with liveview that allowed me to go after macro photography.......perhaps the camera that the X1 should have been.

[NB23]

The CL example and Excuse is very old and so inaccurate.

 

I would like people to stop giving the CL example as a bad business model. Let's make it clear: No Leica M user in his right mind would substitute a M for a CM camera. The problem, back then, was the M5's ugliness and extreme oddness that made it a bad seller.

 

If the CL was such a good entry-level camera that it would cannibalize the M line, any good businessman would have nuked the regular M line for a bigger production of CLs and its itterations.

 

The problem was the M5 itself, not the CL. I hope it's clear once and for all.

[bill]

I wouldn't mention the cockster if you paid me; Porsche and Mercedes are volume manufacturers and not relevant to this discussion.

 

Users would spend money on the glass, and buy the cheaper body - M9 sales would be cannibalised. That is what happened with the CL.

 

Many would buy the cheaper body and not "upgrade" - it would be sufficient for their needs, and would probably exceed their talents.

 

The X1 target demographic does not leech sales from the M9 any more than the Minilux/CM leeched sales from the M6/M7. It is a smart move by Leica.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[bill]

The CL example and Excuse is very old and so inaccurate.

 

etc...

 

The problem was the M5 itself, not the CL. I hope it's clear once and for all.

 

It's clear that you have a subjective opinion. Well done. Some will agree with you, no doubt, others, including me, will disagree. Such is life. Fact is, the CL sold better than anyone expected and the consequences are a matter of history, not conjecture.

 

Regards,

 

Bill