Bo_Lorentzen Posted September 14, 2009 Share #41 Posted September 14, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) Just to revisit the "thickness of body" issue. Assuming the volume of the electronics permit, there is no good reason we can not have a M with a body the thickness of a M6. The sensor and display is clearly thicker than a sheet of film, this can be compensated for by making the lens-mount thicker, simply let the lens mount stick out of the camera body by another 4-5mm and we are left with a slender body. Again this is dictated by the volume required to house the content of the camera. I for one would opt for a second SD card slot for parallel recording before I put my M on a diet. (but I surely would not want to see it gain any size) . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted September 14, 2009 Posted September 14, 2009 Hi Bo_Lorentzen, Take a look here Leica's future rides on M9 (and S2). I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Guest BigSplash Posted September 14, 2009 Share #42 Posted September 14, 2009 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 Bill on the M9 you get several items that could be left off a digital CL that a serious photographer would want to see and would therefore buy the M. In that scenario would it really eat into M sales? I would suggest the following could be provided in a more restricted way: > White Balance could be Auto only on the CL......(No Manual setting, No Kelvin Temp. setting etc.) > Compression ( Raw and JPG basic only ........at one resolution setting) > ISO ( 160 to 640 only) > No user profile > EV ...(Maybe not provided at all) > Bracketing (Not available) > Manual lens selection (not available) Anyhow the camera would provide a great product for point & shoot with the full range of lenses available. Arguably I guess one could even leave off manual selection of shutter speed ...offering only Automatic. Frankly I could imagine buying such a camera for my wife for her estate agency business. A 35mm Summarit wide angle lens and she would be ready most likely taking better pictures than myself with the M8! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted September 14, 2009 Share #43 Posted September 14, 2009 Actually, that would not be a good idea, as such a camera would be stillborn. Micro 4/3rds cameras offer all of these features - and more.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BigSplash Posted September 14, 2009 Share #44 Posted September 14, 2009 Actually, that would not be a good idea, as such a camera would be stillborn. Micro 4/3rds cameras offer all of these features - and more.... Yes but do they have Leica M series lenses with a bayonnet mount to interchange them at will. The X1 is cute but you cannot get 21mm, or a Noctilux, or a 135mm etc etc......followed by an eventual upgrade to a M9. Jaapv I have no idea if my menu list is the correct one. My belief is that it should be possible to downgrade a Leica M functionality that differentiates the entry model. I also believe that the hardware could and should be the same with certain functions blocked off . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted September 14, 2009 Share #45 Posted September 14, 2009 Yes- they have a Leica M adapter. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
henning Posted September 14, 2009 Share #46 Posted September 14, 2009 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! Yes I have looked at them, apparently more closely than you. The whole sensor/LCD pack is quite thick, and the sensor plane is well to the front of the camera. The Leica's register would mean that to have a slim 'body' the lens mount would have to protrude quite a distance from the front face of the camera. Just measure what the flange to LCD distance is with the M adapter mounted! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
xand Posted September 14, 2009 Share #47 Posted September 14, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) Yes- they have a Leica M adapter. focussing with live view is a PITA. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted September 14, 2009 Share #48 Posted September 14, 2009 focussing with live view is a PITA. Doesn't seem to bother the users. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
xand Posted September 14, 2009 Share #49 Posted September 14, 2009 Doesn't seem to bother the users. Because they have autofocus. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BigSplash Posted September 14, 2009 Share #50 Posted September 14, 2009 Yes- they have a Leica M adapter. Are you referring to the panasonic GF1 camera with the announced M and R adapters. If so is there not a significant crop factor (2X?) to take into account when the lenses are fitted ( ie 35mm becomes 70mm) ...If this is the case then I guess that would be an issue, and render most lenses useless. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill Posted September 14, 2009 Share #51 Posted September 14, 2009 ...If this is the case then I guess that would be an issue, and render most lenses useless. "longer" does not equal "useless". Not all of us want lenses so wide that we can photograph both ears simultaneously. Bill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill Posted September 14, 2009 Share #52 Posted September 14, 2009 Actually, that would not be a good idea, as such a camera would be stillborn. Micro 4/3rds cameras offer all of these features - and more.... I agree. Actually, the average small-sensor slip-in-your pocket digicam is better specified. Daft idea. Regards, Bill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted September 14, 2009 Share #53 Posted September 14, 2009 Bill on the M9 you get several items that could be left off a digital CL that a serious photographer would want to see and would therefore buy the M. In that scenario would it really eat into M sales? I would suggest the following could be provided in a more restricted way: > White Balance could be Auto only on the CL......(No Manual setting, No Kelvin Temp. setting etc.) > Compression ( Raw and JPG basic only ........at one resolution setting) > ISO ( 160 to 640 only) > No user profile > EV ...(Maybe not provided at all) > Bracketing (Not available) > Manual lens selection (not available) None of the above would save Leica a sou. All the above are acheivable in firmware, so the actual camera would cost the same to make as a "proper" M9. So, Leica would be selling exactly the same hardware for less money. Let me go away into a darkened room with a wet flannel on my head and think about this one... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
diogenis Posted September 14, 2009 Share #54 Posted September 14, 2009 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. That one is indeed what I liked as well. However something was bugging me with the launch of X1 and this it: why didn't they implemented removable lenses? The X1 can easily beat u4/3 with the larger sensor and Leica qualities, except limits with sensors. Maybe the X2 will solve this, and create the real alternative for u4/3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BigSplash Posted September 14, 2009 Share #55 Posted September 14, 2009 None of the above would save Leica a sou. All the above are acheivable in firmware, so the actual camera would cost the same to make as a "proper" M9. So, Leica would be selling exactly the same hardware for less money. Let me go away into a darkened room with a wet flannel on my head and think about this one... Andy I recognise that. However manufacturers do make the same thing and sell it at different prices by blocking or allowing some functionality via a software enable function or internally by shorting appropriate pins. If I suggested that Leica make a digital CL with the same sensor etc as the M but sell it cheaper I guess you would have the same view as Jaapv and you would both be correct. ...why buy the M9? I believe that the cost to build is not very relevant ...price to market value for the functionality offered is what it is about. It will also be fascinating to see if Leica now offer the M9 firmware upgrades to M8 users as originally promised by S.Lee as you correctly identify it actually costs Leica nothing! I believe that the M8 users should get the new firmware since they have paid top dollar for the M8 and not the entry pricing level of a suggested Digital CL. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BigSplash Posted September 14, 2009 Share #56 Posted September 14, 2009 "longer" does not equal "useless". Not all of us want lenses so wide that we can photograph both ears simultaneously. Bill Is it correct that there is a 2x factor on M lenses when used with the 4/3rd system? If it is then 35mm would be good for portraits I guess...however the other lenses seem to push in the telphoto direction. I doubt that many users would invest in the expense of a 18mm either. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bo_Lorentzen Posted September 14, 2009 Share #57 Posted September 14, 2009 Can't imagine that there would not be a interesting firmware update in the future, somewhat m9 inspired.. EV by ring. lens menu maybe, direct ISO select from the "protect" botton, but that would have to be a selectable option from the menu to prevent confusing people who do not know about this. . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
zlatkob Posted September 14, 2009 Share #58 Posted September 14, 2009 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 I greatly admire Leica for what it has been able to accomplish, but I don't understand this strategy of making the secondhand market be the lower price entry point for the company's products. I was struck by Stefan Daniel's explanation of this point in the video interview recently posted. He said something to the effect that, "As with the Porsche 911, your first one is a use one". However, as far as I know, Porsche and other high end car companies offer models in a very broad price range. None of them are cheap, but they do offer models for diverse price points. Don't they fear that their lower priced Boxster will eat into sales of their higher priced 911? It is always possible that a buyer will choose the cheaper car; after all, each car has 4 wheels and an engine and can drive fast. But looking at the big picture, they may sell several Boxsters for every 911, and they make as much or more profit on the Boxsters than on the 911's. It seems to me that the fundamental problem with letting the secondhand market be the company's lower price entry point is that the company doesn't sell any of those secondhand cameras. And yet, those secondhand cameras continuously compete with new camera sales. If the problem is that a new lower priced camera (like a digital CL) would eat into new M sales, then you have to ask, how do the secondhand M's not eat into new M sales? Of course they do, as any photographer can choose between a used one and a new one, and will choose according to his/her needs & budget. It's the same with Summarit lenses -- don't they eat into sales of Summilux lenses? Not! More likely, they eat into sales of secondhand lenses, if anything. If the secondhand market eats into new M sales, why not sell a lower priced camera rather than let the second hand market fill that price point. Why not offer an attractive new $4K camera as an alternative to a used $2K M8 or used $4K M8.2? As things stand now, Leica offers nothing between the $2K X1 and the $7K M9. It seems to me there are one or two attractive price points between $2K and $7K that could be filled with new digital M-mount camera. If Leica feels that it can make a profit on a $2K camera like the X1, then why can't it also make a profit on $4K or $5K less-than-full-frame cameras that attract more buyers to the M system of lenses? If Leica is at all like other camera companies, then it makes more money on lens sales than camera body sales. And if that's the case, then it would make good business sense to offer a range of body prices as doorways to the profitable lens system. That would attract more and younger buyers who, once in the system, would become long-term upgraders and buyers of lenses over the course of their lives. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Pope Posted September 14, 2009 Share #59 Posted September 14, 2009 It seems to me that the fundamental problem with letting the secondhand market be the company's lower price entry point is that the company doesn't [itself] sell any of those secondhand cameras. And yet, those secondhand cameras continuously compete with new camera sales... But many of those liquidated M8 bodies will also provide the funds for the previous brand-loyal owners to trade up and acquire the higher margin M9 - in which case, Leica is after all generating revenue from the secondhand channel. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomasis7 Posted September 14, 2009 Share #60 Posted September 14, 2009 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 much agreed! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.