View Full Version : Is Leica hitting notes only a dog can hear?
Leica is evidently committed to producing the best lenses ever made for the 35mm format, cost be damned. Kudos to their engineering department for reaching that objective. It's one hell of a feat to engineer an entire range of lenses that are, in technical terms, nearly flawless.
But here's the rub: What's the point? The lenses are designed to be used on cameras using the M-mount, which are at their best, in the popular view, in handheld, available light use, which often means low shutter speeds, no tripod and other factors which contribute to a less than technically perfect image. Negating, to some degree, the hard-won advantage of these new lenses.
In looking back over Leica's history, absolute technical superiority isn't how they earned their reputation. The early Barnack cameras were, in many ways, the cell-phone cameras of their day, using what was considered a technically subpar film medium (35mm) to put cameras in places that they'd never gone before, and offering their users the advantage of stealth and portability, not lens perfection.
The M was mainly a greatly improved Barnack body, offering useable framelines and a viewfinder that must have seemed a miracle at its introduction. But the chief virtues of the camera remained portability and stealth, with image quality an important, but not dominant consideration.
Now, in the twilight of the film M bodies, and with the digital M concept still unproven, Leica offers a line of lenses that have no equal from a technical standpoint. Again, what's the point? Use the cameras as they're intended to be used and much of that advantage disappears. And, truthfully, in most cases the advantage, even when it's visible, contributes nothing essential to any given image.
Given the uncertain times in which the company now exists, shouldn't they put more of their energy and capital into the innovation that got the company its start rather than the quixotic quest for technical perfection?
I'm interested in any thoughts on the matter that don't include profanity. :D
They need to start producing excellent lenses in Canon and Nikon mounts. Lines that actually have a real future. This RF stuff is a niche at best and will remains so indefinitely. With the profit they'll making in the lens market, Leica can dedicate part of that to digital RF research. I feel the German camera manufactures have an elitist attitude when it comes to stuff they think they're good at. They need to realize that it's "okay" to be producing lenses for the big boys.
Some people are willing to pay a high price if they can feel confident that whatever they're buying is "the best" (whatever that means.)
They don't like that nagging worry of, "How much am I giving up because I didn't spend more and get the nicer one?" (of whatever it is.)
The fact that Leica lenses are hellaciously expensive is actually comforting to them; it reassures them that they really did get "the best."
"in handheld, available light use, which often means low shutter speeds, no tripod and other factors which contribute to a less than technically perfect image"
So? A less than technically perfect image isn't the point of this style of photography. Would you rather have less capable lenses for this style? If you feel the difference disappears under these conditions, I understand and agree that spending less is more than rational.
And the advantage IS there in other types of photography. According to my perusal of the galleries here and on many other sites, I see Leica images of landscapes, architecture, more formal portraits, product photography, etc., etc., etc.
"And, truthfully, in most cases the advantage, even when it's visible, contributes nothing essential to any given image."
This is an opinion. I don't know if I agree with it or not, but I'm willing to bet a good amount of cash that there will be lots of folks who won't.
"Given the uncertain times in which the company now exists, shouldn't they put more of their energy and capital into the innovation that got the company its start rather than the quixotic quest for technical perfection?"
Well, they seemed to have known the M8 was not technical perfection. I don't see that they are solely dedicated to tilting at windmills. They have a massive body of optical design and manufacturing expertise, so building on that with incrementally better products seems rational to me.
They're certainly not done in the digital arena; I'd say they've just started and the next steps will be interesting.
Earl
Not to mention the fact that if you want ultimate image quality in film, you can buy complete hassies or 4x5 cameras for half the price of a 50mm summilux. Yes, they are the ultimate in 35mm quality, but if you are looking for ultimate quality why would you be using 35mm?
xayraa33
01-03-2007, 15:20
Leica made the best gear in most of the years of its existence, of a type of camera & lenses it originated, that others emulated and sometimes even bettered.
a Leica cannot compete with say, a 8x10 Dearhoff with a Schneider lens in image quality, but in most cases , the Leica can be used were a large format camera cannot. it is all relative.
if the image the Leica produced was poor or not very good, it would not have been a success and worthy of competion.
Just think about the different way we view the world and events in history through magazines of the past and present like Life, Look, Picture Post, Paris Match, Oggi and Stern, all used photos by talented photographers ,with the look and prespective of the miniuture camera and its lenses.
nightfly
01-03-2007, 15:38
It's a really interesting question.
For my uses Leica could have gone out of business sometime in the 70's and it wouldn't make a bit of difference to any camera or lens I'm likely to own. I bought one because it was the perfect tool for what I wanted to do, street photography, and what I'm after isn't the optical quality so much as the size and feel of the camera and lenses. Nothing else really quite does it. The lenses for anything SLR are just too big or in the case of pancakes too difficult to use. Anything point and shoot doesn't offer enough control and Bessa's aren't really much of a bargain over a used Leica and the quality of Leica is better and the shutter sound less imposing.
I avoided Leica's for a long time till I found that they were really the only solution that totally works for me. But that being said I will probably never buy a piece of new Leica equipment and it's unlikely I will own ASPH anything because the improvement in image quality just isn't worth the cost to me. However show me something that matches the size, weight and ease of use of a pre-Asph 35mm Summicron. The CV 35/2.5 is a little too contasty and slow. The 1.7 is too big.
God bless all you guys with the cash for M8s, MPs and ASPH lenses for selling your old stuff and keeping the used market alive.
I can't really see how or why Leica does it anymore except when I read about how big Wall Street bonuses are and that money has to go somewhere. Might as be over engineered cameras, I guess.
Leica will survive the same way Porsche survives making cars that are far too well engineered to ever be of use on the street. People like having precise instruments even if they can't push them to the limits they are designed for. And they will make their real money licensing their name for use on point and shoot camera lenses. To keep up the market for the Leica brand, they have to sell a few of the "Pro" cameras, it's really sort of advertising for their real revenue center I suspect having never seen their balance sheets. I would wager the handful of M8's they sell pales in comparison to the number of Panasonics with the word Leica on the side of the retractable lens.
waileong
01-03-2007, 16:00
"What's the point? The lenses are designed to be used on cameras using the M-mount, which are at their best, in the popular view, in handheld, available light use, which often means low shutter speeds, no tripod and other factors which contribute to a less than technically perfect image. Negating, to some degree, the hard-won advantage of these new lenses."
Your interpretation of the popular view is misguided. Leica lenses are best at their optimum apertures and with minimal camera shake. Most of us shoot in broad daylight at least 50% of the time, where the optimum aperture and shutter speed can be chosen. However, if one has to shoot at 1/15 and at F1.0, then the lack of mirror slap, the ease of focusing in dim light, and the high performance of Leica lenses wide open, contribute to making the best of a bad situation. An SLR at 1/15 at F1.0 would not get you the same picture quality if you didn't have IS.
"In looking back over Leica's history, absolute technical superiority isn't how they earned their reputation."
Stephen Gandy has an opposite view, and I agree-- the M3 was leaps and bounds over any 35 mm camera of its day-- self-selecting, parallax corrected framelines, bayonet mount (as opposed to screw mounts), etc. The M5 was highly innovative in its metering system, etc.
"But the chief virtues of the camera remained portability and stealth, with image quality an important, but not dominant consideration."
Leica's advert tagline in the early days was big enlargements from small negatives. If they didn't believe image quality was important, they wouldn't have designed such good lenses.
"Use the cameras as they're intended to be used and much of that advantage disappears."
I shoot studio portraits, landscape pix on a tripod, etc. so I don't agree Leicas are only to be used at 1/15.
"And, truthfully, in most cases the advantage, even when it's visible, contributes nothing essential to any given image."
There is an objective component and a subjective component to the above.
Objectively, if the pix has less camera shake, or is in sharp focus (because you can focus better with an M3 in low light), then I'm pretty sure that the advantage will be obvious.
Subjectively, if there is no difference in focusing or camera shake (eg because an SLR with IS can take just as vibration-free a picture), then the differences are due to bokeh, contrast, glow, colour rendition, etc. which is then a matter of personal preference. But for the same shot, I'd rather use an M3 with my Noctilux than a Canon EOS 1v with a 50/1.0L, that's for sure.
"Given the uncertain times in which the company now exists, shouldn't they put more of their energy and capital into the innovation that got the company its start rather than the quixotic quest for technical perfection?"
It's really escaped most people that Leica are highly innovative. Eg, the DMR is highly innovative-- think of what it really means, a hybrid film/digital body in 35 mm format. Can Canon or Nikon boast such a thing? Did Canon/Nikon even care about preserving customers' investments in their film bodies?
6-bit encoding is highly innovative. Just when people thought Leica was stuck because there was no electronics to communicate the lens info to the camera.
Just two examples.
>I feel the German camera manufactures have an elitist attitude when it
>comes to stuff they think they're good at.
Based on my experience during a Leica factory tour in 2005, I can say categorically this is exactly what at least the old timers at Leica think. Elitist is nail right on the head.
I have related this story before. And I think that it is this attitude that led to the most un-M camera in the M lineage, the M8, since the M5. (And I'm not referring to a film vs. digital issue here.)
One hopes that the new owners and the partnership with Panasonic will open up some thinking in Solms and elsewhere.
Leica has to do something to attract younger, less affuent customers if they are going to be in it for the long haul.
Maybe Leica Camera AG should forget that deal with Sinar and buy out Mr. K's operation in Japan. That could be a great move for all us RF lovers.
But wait... then again, maybe not...
At the risk of sounding like I'm contradicting myself, I'd say that I don't believe the "Leica advantage" disappears when using slow, hand-held shutter speeds because the advantage is not all just all about sharpness or optical perfection. It isn't even all about the lenses. BUT I also agree with Kevin that the Leica advantage "contributes nothing essential to any given image." I use both Leica and another brand of camera for 35mm. I don't take better pictures with the Leica not did I suddenly become a better photographer when I bought my Leicas. I choose the camera based on the job, and sometimes I get the benefits of the Leica. I enjoy shooting with Leica, very likely because I've been using RF cameras since I was about 13 (I'm now 52) and they feel very natural to me. And I've been lucky enough to be able to afford them. But I readily acknowledge the benefits of AF and don't hesitate to use an AF camera when the situation calls. I'm much more worried about the future of b&w film than about the future of Leica. I'm sure b&w film will be around for a long time, but I'm not looking forward to paying "niche market" prices. As for color film...?? That's why they invented digital.... ;-)
That's my 2 cents , whether it makes any cents, err, sense I'm not sure.
While image quality does not matter to many photographers, it does to me. I cannot say I agree much with Kevin on the technical merits of his argument. How you shoot and how you print may make a difference to whether you agree with him or with me (or neither of us).
Sometimes I do put my M cameras on a tripod, but I think you can definitely tell the difference between different quality 35mm format lenses even in good handheld shots, given sufficient light for a high shutter speed. I'm basing this on my own optical 6X9" and 8.75X13" prints, not one-hour-photo 4x6" ones. Nikon lenses are good, but Leica and Zeiss M mount lenses are visibly better, especially the wideangles. If you start with a mediocre lens you will never get technically spectacular images, even at the lens' optimum aperture with a tripod mounted camera.
While the hoopla is all about digital today, Kodak and Fuji have quietly released new films that are better than anything made before. The new films are as different from the 35mm movie film of the early 20th century as a cell phone camera is from a 2006 vintage 39MP medium format digital back. The capture media of film cameras is far better now than it was in the beginning days of Leica, and the best Leica and Zeiss lenses can barely do justice to the resolution and color fidelity of the latest generation in 35mm professional print films.
The RF focusing system is much better for fast wide angle lenses too. Ever tried to focus a 24mm/2 lens on an SLR in low light? Surprisingly, it's very difficult. The AIS Nikkor 24mm/2 oozes in and out of focus even on an F3 or F4 body. In contrast, the Leica 28mm/2 is easy to focus correctly, almost every time, even in poor light. ASPH Leica and Zeiss ZM lenses are engineered to be at their best about two stops down from wide open. Nikon lenses are almost uniformly optimum at f/8, where diffraction begins to limit their resolution.
I think I am getting what I paid for in quality, because I can see differences in my prints, and so I prefer modern M mount lenses to Nikon SLR ones in terms of quality. However, SLRs are hard to beat for macro and telephoto work.
If you really want the ultimate in image quality 4X5" or 8X10" cameras are impossible to beat. But using them is a different discipline from 35mm, even tripod mounted 35mm. I've had a hard time finding a local lab that can do a decent job on C41 8X10" negatives.
"But for the same shot, I'd rather use an M3 with my Noctilux than a Canon EOS 1v with a 50/1.0L, that's for sure."
You might even be able to see a difference between like images made with these two pieces of equipment. But it's ideas and imagination that make pictures memorable. In the end, concept and skill count for much more than the subtle differences between two professonal quality pieces of equipment. Now, personal preference, THAT's another matter. I'd probably make the same choice as waileong, probaly for much the same reasons. But I'd still take the picture if I didn't have the Leica to take it with!. Before I had my Leicas I never thought about how my pictures would look if only I had a Leica.
btw...I care a great deal about image quality. But I care a lot more about content and narrative. Speaking for myself, when a photograph brings me to tears, I'm not thinking about whether it was made with a Leica or not.
It's really escaped most people that Leica are highly innovative. Eg, the DMR is highly innovative-- think of what it really means, a hybrid film/digital body in 35 mm format. Can Canon or Nikon boast such a thing? Did Canon/Nikon even care about preserving customers' investments in their film bodies?
Dude, Check this out. This is hybride film/digital camera technology from 13 years ago:
http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/htmls/models/htmls/slr9294.htm#DCS410420460
http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/Kodak/DCS-420frontview.jpg
6-bit encoding is highly innovative. Just when people thought Leica was stuck because there was no electronics to communicate the lens info to the camera.
It doesn't captuer aperature data which is a major factor of the lens' performance.
SDK: Excellent post; well done.
There is one additional thing at play here. Someone needs to set the bar high.
I've enjoyed reading the replies so far.
I'm not saying that what Leica is doing now is without merit, but I do wonder if they could get a better return on their investment (both literally and photographically) pursuing other options.
No one cares more tha I do about my photography because it's my living. I've been a full time Leica user for four decades but I'm not married to leica and I use a wide variety of cameras up to 8x10 and a variety of 35mm and digital equipemnt. I work for a variety of major corporations, Exxon, Phillips Electronics, Union Carbide, and many others plus having shot assignments for Esquire, Life, News Week, AP,UPI, Parade Magazine and many many more. My career has depended on the image quality and more important my creativity and ability to meet deadlines with the goods.
Sorry to burst some bubbles and I know some of you will think I'mm full of BS but Leica hasn't has any superiority since the mid 50's to early 60's. If any company really had a superiority tjhen every pro would use them. In the 50's when the Nikon SP came out Leica met their competition. When the Nikon F came out the competition kicked their a$$. There was such a mass exodous from leica they hardly knew what hit them. By the mid 70's Leica was only a small part of the pro kit. By the 80's Canon with the F1 and Nikon owned the market. The lenses Nikon and canon have and do make to this day are every bit as good and in some cases superior to Leica or Leicaflex glass. Every maker has particular lenses that excell and some that are dogs and leica is no exception. Even the Nikon glass for the old SP was on par or better in some cases than anything Leica made at the time. I know this form real world experience with these cameras and glass not something I read on someones website.
When I started I picked leica over Nikon S because it was more available and my mentor was a leica user. I picked M's because they wereeasier to focus under difficult lighting and there were faster wide angle lenses. Later I added Nikon F's and never felt there was any real difference in glass in general. I loved my 21 3.4 super angulon and 35 summilux v1. In the mid 70's I had a 1.2 Nictilux and liked it but I felt my 24 Nikkor 2.8, Micro 3.5 50, 85 1.8 and 105 2.5 were superior to Leicas lenses. I also loved the Nikkor 180 2.8 that walked all over my 200 tellyt and visoflex.
Now i still use 2 Leica MP's and M6 plus on rare moment I pull out my M2 and M3 but I still shoot my F2 and Nikkor glass. I also use some Canon EOS film equipment to take advantage of my Canon L glass that I use on my 1DsII bodies. In my estimation I would say if there is any sueriority in glass it would be Canon for the 24 1.4, 35 1.4, 85 1.2, 135 2, 200 1.8, 400 2.8 and 600 4 lenses not to mention the three TSE lenses, 24, 45 and 90.
Now let's add in the current Zeiss glass. I own two of the new ZM lenses, 25 and 35,and feel the 35 ZM is the finest M 35 that I've ever used and feel the 25 is without question the finest 24/25 on the market. I would also add to the mix the CV glass that gives both Leica and Zeiss a real run for much less money.
The choices of equipment have'nt bee casual decisions. It's been based on real use and discussions with other respected professioanls not based on what i read in a review from the internet or any place else. The loss is too great it I don't deliver the work to make my please my clients. Clients like I work for can hire anyone in the world so I have to deliver the work that is as good or better than the others. My clients don't care what I shoot with and I have never lost a job because i didn't use one brand or another. No one cares in the real world and if there was a true superiority they would certainly dictate what each of us use.
I know some of you will disagree and I respect that and hope you'll respect my opinion based on experience.
Leica is evidently committed to producing the best lenses ever made for the 35mm format, cost be damned. Kudos to their engineering department for reaching that objective. It's one hell of a feat to engineer an entire range of lenses that are, in technical terms, nearly flawless.
But here's the rub: What's the point? The lenses are designed to be used on cameras using the M-mount, which are at their best, in the popular view, in handheld, available light use, which often means low shutter speeds, no tripod and other factors which contribute to a less than technically perfect image. Negating, to some degree, the hard-won advantage of these new lenses.
In looking back over Leica's history, absolute technical superiority isn't how they earned their reputation. The early Barnack cameras were, in many ways, the cell-phone cameras of their day, using what was considered a technically subpar film medium (35mm) to put cameras in places that they'd never gone before, and offering their users the advantage of stealth and portability, not lens perfection.
The M was mainly a greatly improved Barnack body, offering useable framelines and a viewfinder that must have seemed a miracle at its introduction. But the chief virtues of the camera remained portability and stealth, with image quality an important, but not dominant consideration.
Now, in the twilight of the film M bodies, and with the digital M concept still unproven, Leica offers a line of lenses that have no equal from a technical standpoint. Again, what's the point? Use the cameras as they're intended to be used and much of that advantage disappears. And, truthfully, in most cases the advantage, even when it's visible, contributes nothing essential to any given image.
Given the uncertain times in which the company now exists, shouldn't they put more of their energy and capital into the innovation that got the company its start rather than the quixotic quest for technical perfection?
I'm interested in any thoughts on the matter that don't include profanity. :D
If you look back into the history of Leitz (the LEI portion of Leica) you will find that they never held themselves out as a camera manufacturer. They always were an optical manufacturer. They first started manufacturing cameras as way to sell their optics.
I have to admit I am hazey about the development Leitz's camera manufacturing from that point and the eventual formation of Leica. Maybe someone who has done some studying on this can complete the history.
Bob
David Murphy
01-03-2007, 17:58
Some people are willing to pay a high price if they can feel confident that whatever they're buying is "the best" (whatever that means.)
They don't like that nagging worry of, "How much am I giving up because I didn't spend more and get the nicer one?" (of whatever it is.)
The fact that Leica lenses are hellaciously expensive is actually comforting to them; it reassures them that they really did get "the best."
You really hit the nail on the head with this comment.
My clients don't care what I shoot with and I have never lost a job because i didn't use one brand or another. No one cares in the real world and if there was a true superiority they would certainly dictate what each of us use.
X-actly, x-ray! My livelyhood depends on photography too. No client ever told me they'd hire me as long as I used a certain camera. No one ever told my dealer they wanted to buy one of my prints because I had used such-and-such brand of camera to shoot it. These folks hire you, they buy your prints because of your brain, your imagination, your vision.
Todd.Hanz
01-03-2007, 18:05
Leica is evidently committed to producing the best lenses ever made for the 35mm format, cost be damned. Kudos to their engineering department for reaching that objective. It's one hell of a feat to engineer an entire range of lenses that are, in technical terms, nearly flawless.
But here's the rub: What's the point? The lenses are designed to be used on cameras using the M-mount, which are at their best, in the popular view, in handheld, available light use, which often means low shutter speeds, no tripod and other factors which contribute to a less than technically perfect image. Negating, to some degree, the hard-won advantage of these new lenses.
Get a better technique, learn to handhold down to 1/8 or 1/4 second and realize the difference. Elbows in, aim/compose, focus, breath, stop, squeeze.
Now, in the twilight of the film M bodies, and with the digital M concept still unproven, Leica offers a line of lenses that have no equal from a technical standpoint. Again, what's the point? Use the cameras as they're intended to be used and much of that advantage disappears. And, truthfully, in most cases the advantage, even when it's visible, contributes nothing essential to any given image.
Twilight of film M bodies, says who? I haven't heard of the demise of the MP or MP3 yet, it's possible though. Someone has to set the bar for quality lenses be it Leica, Zeiss, CV, etc. Each Leica "series" summitar, summicron, summilux, asph. etc gives the photog a choice in character to choose from. New lenses are always more expensive than the last no matter the manufacturer, esp the newer asph. lenses, if you don't like the footprint or the price you do have choices.
With the inclusion of the M8 digital, the recent asph. lenses are shining, maybe even more so than with film :eek:
Todd
waileong
01-03-2007, 18:24
Sorry to burst some bubbles and I know some of you will think I'mm full of BS but Leica hasn't has any superiority since the mid 50's to early 60's. If any company really had a superiority tjhen every pro would use them. In the 50's when the Nikon SP came out Leica met their competition. When the Nikon F came out the competition kicked their a$$. There was such a mass exodous from leica they hardly knew what hit them. By the mid 70's Leica was only a small part of the pro kit. By the 80's Canon with the F1 and Nikon owned the market.
I respect your views because they come from experience, but I would like to point out that
a. Clients do not insist on Nikon or Canon or Pentax or Olympus, any more than they would insist on Leica.
Why?
Because for them, it's the composition, concept, creative direction, decisive moment, etc. that matters.
If they have to deliver a car brochure, they need someone who knows how to shoot cars. Whether he uses Nikon or Canon, who cares? That's the photographers' problem-- the client just wants the pictures.
So this is not a point which should be used to disparage Leica (or Nikon or Canon or Pentax or Olympus for that matter)
b. Why did pros choose Nikon and Canon?
It's obvious isn't it? Nikon and Canon got it. Leica didn't. SLR's I mean. Once SLR's became practical, incorporated autofocus, zoom lenses, motor drives, multipoint metering, weather sealing, etc. it just made them the best all-around tools for professional work.
Of course, one could argue that for street photography, theatre photography, etc. Leica was the better tool. But if you have only one camera bag, how many cameras can you carry?
35 mm SLR, regardless of brand, was the tool of choice for the pro photographer.
Again, this does not mean Leica was worse than Nikon or Canon from a quality perspective. But certainly 35 mm SLR was better than 35 mm RF from a general usability perspective.
While we can use this to disparage Leica as a camera manufacturer, I think it would be unfair, as no other non-Japanese manufacturer (Contax, etc.) could match Nikon or Canon or Pentax or Olympus for SLR's.
c. As for whether Leica lenses are better than Canon/Nikon lenses, I think the objective thing to do would be to run tests on an optical bench and see for yourself. However, what is true is that lab results may not equate real-world results, camera shake is the great leveller.
But if shooting wide-open is important to you, I would suggest that the Leica lenses are potentially better, simply because the lenses are better corrected and the lack of mirror slap lab may result in less fuzzy shots esp at low speeds. However, if you're not enlarging to 20x30", if the picture is to be printed in a newspaper, then it probably doesn't matter.
d. I agree one should not choose lenses based on Internet reviews. Neither should one choose lenses based on photodo ratings. But if one cannot test lenses over an extended period of time before buying, then the next best thing is to learn to read the MTF curves, understand the optical design to see where the compromises, understand what is important (not just resolution, but also size, weight, build quality, ease of use), try to examine factors such as flare, vignetting, distortion, bokeh, etc. from other peoples' shots.
As Dante Stella says, most lenses are better than most photographers. Frankly, for most shots up to 8x10, almost any lens designed after the 70s will produce a decent printable picture. But we always want more than that, if possible.
saxshooter
01-03-2007, 18:29
Dude, Check this out. This is hybride film/digital camera technology from 13 years ago:
http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/htmls/models/htmls/slr9294.htm#DCS410420460 (http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/htmls/models/htmls/slr9294.htm#DCS410420460)
http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/Kodak/DCS-420frontview.jpg
True these were made from Nikon (and later Canon) film bodies, but they only worked as digital cameras -- not hybrid in use. These were not user modifications, rather, they were cameras produced and sold as such. I used one, a Nikon/Kodak NC2000e, for a couple of years. 1.3 megapixels! Woo hoo!
So many leica lenses are not the sharpest nor the best lenses on earth. Only a marketing victim will believe Leica is commited to "producing the best lenses in the world".
http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/htmls/models/htmls/slr9294.htm#DCS410420460 (http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/htmls/models/htmls/slr9294.htm#DCS410420460)
http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/Kodak/DCS-420frontview.jpg
True these were made from Nikon (and later Canon) film bodies, but they only worked as digital cameras -- not hybrid in use. These were not user modifications, rather, they were cameras produced and sold as such. I used one, a Nikon/Kodak NC2000e, for a couple of years. 1.3 megapixels! Woo hoo!
To be fair, the DMR is no more "hybrid in use" than the Nikon/Kodak cameras. The Nikon versions were apparently just film cameras with a digital back mounted via a single screw. The focusing screen was specific to the digital back, but otherwise, the bodies were unmodified film bodies. The fact that Kodak apparently only sold their backs attached to a camera doesn't really change the fact that the DMR is an existing Kodak product refined and adapted to Leica bodies, hardly a "Leica innovation." A Kodak innovation sold to Leica is more accurate.
For the record, I recently purchased a Leica body because nothing else did the job the way I wanted it done. I'm sure Leica lenses will follow, so I am *not* trying to bash Leica here.
So many leica lenses are not the sharpest nor the best lenses on earth. Only a marketing victim will believe Leica is commited to "producing the best lenses in the world".
Are you suggesting the O.P's main point is null and void :)
I'd say that from my perspective as an amateur photographer, the better the lens, the better the photo, *all else being equal.* For example, if I take two photos of a local church, I really prefer the one showing the details on the front doors over the one that has a muddy mess where there should be two angels entwined. It really doesn't matter whether the details are muddy because of the poor lens or camera shake or poor exposure. If I can rule out one or more factors, I do. Good lenses help do this.
Obviously, there is more to an image than sharpness, and there is also more to good lenses than sharpness. Speed, build quality, ease of use, durability, size, weight, all these are factors people use in lens buying decisions, in addition to image quality. There's lots of room to improve lenses besides image quality, but why not improve that factor while you are improving everything else? It adds value to the lens, which adds to the price the buyer is willing to pay, which makes more money for the seller. Who wants to buy a brand new lens when it isn't optically any better than a 50-75 year old version? Who would pat Leica on the back for that? I personally see the need outweighing the cost in the near term, but a day will surely come when I replace a 50 year old lens with a newer one for easily justifyable reasons. I know if I had a fogged and streaked Leitz 50, I would be looking at new lenses with more attention.
x-ray and pablito have made excellent points, and I don't think anyone would dispute that the "technical quality" (however one assesses that) of a lens is the determining factor making a good photo; in some cases it may be of no importance, e.g. when a great photo is made with a pinhole camera.
But the question in the original post was about why Leica seems to be expending so many resources on optics, wouldn't they be better off broadening their product range, getting into the "mainstream" of digital photography, etc.
While I think it's a question of interest, I don't think it's really that important. From a branding standpoint, it's something that Leica feels is necessary. I happen to agree with that. I may differ over the degree of importance, but as Leica doesn't have size and market share on their side, their brand is one of their chief assets.
There really are very few secrets in still camera optical manufacturing. If Leica fades into obscurity, crushed by the financial/marketing muscle of the bigger boys, then so be it. It will be a real loss, but there will be many great photos made with other gear.
I personally believe Leica will be very active in broadening their portfolio. That's just a feeling, I'll wait with everyone else to see what unfolds.
I suspect that how Leica plans to "broaden its base" to reach less affluent photographers is not to introduce lower-priced cameras itself (much as we'd like that)... but rather to license its highly-prestigious brand name to other manufacturers, as it already is doing to some extent.
To keep that brand name prestigious, though, Leica needs to maintain a presence in the exclusive best-of-the-best realm.
You could almost think of its whole investment in the development of superlative equipment as being simply a marketing expenditure for its brand-licensing program -- which, if handled properly, could yield greater returns than the photo manufacturing business.
If that guess is right, it's good news for photographers in meaning that Leica would have an incentive to keep manufacturing its most distinctive product line -- M cameras and lenses -- even if that line itself weren't especially profitable.
The bad news is that this wouldn't provide much incentive for Leica to make its products more affordable. If anything, the reverse might be true -- the owners might see the cachet of the Leica brand as being enhanced by its exclusive status as something so good that most people can't afford it.
I see 2 problems: Leica spending so much effort on optical quality for a camera that takes 135 film when image quality is much greater with a larger format film camera, and Leica getting into digital with it's 18 month or so product cycle when Leica's strength is in its long-lived camera products: 70 year old Leica IIIa's are still perfectly functional. On digital, I think that Leica should design/engineer for upgradibility of the digital sensor to be really successful in this area, otherwise the super high quality, long-lived body doesn't make so much sense. I think.
amateriat
01-03-2007, 20:17
I (largely) abandoned SLRs for RFs several years back for one reason: I felt the former setup was actually holding me back from the images I wished to make. This wasn't about a quest for Excalibur; I had simply reached the point where the gestalt of the SLR experience wasn't doing it for me where it counted. Did the switch in gear improve my photography? In a way, it has, but it has little to do with MTF charts and such. And it has little to do with brand names (I chose Konica over Leica for the most pragmatic of reasons, besides really liking the Hexar overall: I could put together a two-body, three-lens system for about $600 more than the cost of a new M7 body at the time). It's simply about how I like to work with a camera, how I visualize things, and how much I'm willing to carry. And, to make all this matter, I have to bring something of my own to the party, as it were: the ability to get at least decent results with most any camera, whether I love it or loathe it.
The quest for the best hasn't exclusively been a "Leica thing"; Konica, along with most of the usual suspects, has proven its mettle over time, although not as consistently perhaps as Leitz/Leica or Zeiss. But it's the M-body gestalt (almost regardless of who made the particular M body) that I now truly "get". I've also "gotten" the idea of lenses that can wring the most out of a frame of 35mm film, and since I can generally handhold a rangefinder steady at lower shutter speeds than most any SLR not equipped with a stabilization system that would make a BMW jealous, high lens performance, without making a fetish of it, does mean something to me. The fect that I can now get better-than-SLR-lens performance in a smaller and lighter package simply clinches it. And, yes, MF gives you a "cubic inches" advantage over 35mm, but it's like comparing a Hemi 'Cuda and a Lotus Elise: one excels in the quarter mile, while the other rules the backroads. (And yet another cross-reference gets gratuitously tossed out...)
So a Leica isn't a silver bullet (and even if it was, it won't help much if you're a terrible shot...apologies for yet another firearms reference). Most of us here do, or should, grok that much. But the camera/lens combination, the "form-factor," works in a way that makes a noticable difference in how a photograph is worked out in the mind's eye. Whether this works for good or ill depends on the person picking up the camera. You get out of it what you put in.
- Barrett
OK, I'll bite: I am pretty much in the same boat you are, high end clients, big assignments and all that, full time. But..I am 39 so you have some years on me.
I had never put a single roll through and only held a Leica a few times up until a few months ago. But in discussing my Kodachrome project with David Alan Harvey a few months ago, he advised that if I truly wanted to do the film justice, I might want to try a Leica and the best glass I could afford. So I caved and got an M6, 28/2 aspheric and 50 1.4 aspheric lenses. A few hundred rolls later, these lenses pretty much wipe the floor with 90% of anything out there. This is not years old information, this is as of a few weeks ago. I have a good selection of Nikon's best glass and most of Canon's best L glass for my digital system. The look of the these two Leica aspherics are in another league.
I still use my 28mm 2.8 AIS for lower contrast and landscape types of shooting as I use the 45 2.8 that is permanently mounted on one of two FM3A cameras, but the M6 goes everywhere, and I mean *everywhere* with me. It is small, light and looks like a point and shoot to most people, but jeeeeesus...the glass is insane. I see critical detail with that 28mm Summicron at F2 right to the corners, I have never seen that with any other wide lens, I knew this lens was good, but not *that* good, it blows my mind.
So what does that give me?
Confidence to embrace any shooting situation that I may encounter with no regard to pushing the limits of the lens and compromising the image quality. I often walk the streets with the M6, the other lens in my coat pocket, a small light meter on the inside one and even a tiny bogen table top tripod and a cable release in the other.
Of course I can not use the Leica on everything, but for what I got it for, it has no equal...especially optically.
No one cares more tha I do about my photography because it's my living. I've been a full time Leica user for four decades but I'm not married to leica and I use a wide variety of cameras up to 8x10 and a variety of 35mm and digital equipemnt. I work for a variety of major corporations, Exxon, Phillips Electronics, Union Carbide, and many others plus having shot assignments for Esquire, Life, News Week, AP,UPI, Parade Magazine and many many more. My career has depended on the image quality and more important my creativity and ability to meet deadlines with the goods.
Sorry to burst some bubbles and I know some of you will think I'mm full of BS but Leica hasn't has any superiority since the mid 50's to early 60's. If any company really had a superiority tjhen every pro would use them. In the 50's when the Nikon SP came out Leica met their competition. When the Nikon F came out the competition kicked their a$$. There was such a mass exodous from leica they hardly knew what hit them. By the mid 70's Leica was only a small part of the pro kit. By the 80's Canon with the F1 and Nikon owned the market. The lenses Nikon and canon have and do make to this day are every bit as good and in some cases superior to Leica or Leicaflex glass. Every maker has particular lenses that excell and some that are dogs and leica is no exception. Even the Nikon glass for the old SP was on par or better in some cases than anything Leica made at the time. I know this form real world experience with these cameras and glass not something I read on someones website.
When I started I picked leica over Nikon S because it was more available and my mentor was a leica user. I picked M's because they wereeasier to focus under difficult lighting and there were faster wide angle lenses. Later I added Nikon F's and never felt there was any real difference in glass in general. I loved my 21 3.4 super angulon and 35 summilux v1. In the mid 70's I had a 1.2 Nictilux and liked it but I felt my 24 Nikkor 2.8, Micro 3.5 50, 85 1.8 and 105 2.5 were superior to Leicas lenses. I also loved the Nikkor 180 2.8 that walked all over my 200 tellyt and visoflex.
Now i still use 2 Leica MP's and M6 plus on rare moment I pull out my M2 and M3 but I still shoot my F2 and Nikkor glass. I also use some Canon EOS film equipment to take advantage of my Canon L glass that I use on my 1DsII bodies. In my estimation I would say if there is any sueriority in glass it would be Canon for the 24 1.4, 35 1.4, 85 1.2, 135 2, 200 1.8, 400 2.8 and 600 4 lenses not to mention the three TSE lenses, 24, 45 and 90.
Now let's add in the current Zeiss glass. I own two of the new ZM lenses, 25 and 35,and feel the 35 ZM is the finest M 35 that I've ever used and feel the 25 is without question the finest 24/25 on the market. I would also add to the mix the CV glass that gives both Leica and Zeiss a real run for much less money.
The choices of equipment have'nt bee casual decisions. It's been based on real use and discussions with other respected professioanls not based on what i read in a review from the internet or any place else. The loss is too great it I don't deliver the work to make my please my clients. Clients like I work for can hire anyone in the world so I have to deliver the work that is as good or better than the others. My clients don't care what I shoot with and I have never lost a job because i didn't use one brand or another. No one cares in the real world and if there was a true superiority they would certainly dictate what each of us use.
I know some of you will disagree and I respect that and hope you'll respect my opinion based on experience.
waileong
01-03-2007, 22:13
"But the question in the original post was about why Leica seems to be expending so many resources on optics, wouldn't they be better off broadening their product range, getting into the "mainstream" of digital photography, etc."
Leica cannot fight in the mainstream. Not enough $$ to take on Canon.
On the other hand, don't you consider the new releases of digital compacts, 4/3 cameras and ZLR's to be mainstream cameras?
David Murphy
01-03-2007, 23:01
I am hardly one to tell such a successful operation like Leica how to do business, but I think in many ways they have it right. Their niche is essentially the highest-end of the photo business. This is what makes them what they are.
They never really had a huge part of the "professional" market. That was dominated by 4X5 press cameras like Crown Graphic and Rollei's in the Leica screw mount era, and Nikon F's in the Leica M era (and occasionally Spotmatics as well as Canon SLR's later, etc.). "Miniature" cameras like Leica's had some following among the magazine writers that had to travel and do their own photography and by necessity needed something simpler and more portable than a press camera. Most of them probably would have prefered to have a professional along with a press camera. (I've known these folks personally -- family members!)
So the Leica was a high-end enthusiast camera, with a strong appeal to the arty crowd as well. It was, without doubt, a superior photographic tool in the 35mm format from the late 20's to the early 50's with few peers (Zeiss Contax being the main counterbalance). Leica chose to stay on this path even in the fortunate era we live in now where one can buy a capable camera on a working man's wage.
A fatal marketing mistake made by many companies is harming golden brand names by down marketing them. There are whole books written on this subject for business school types, but the point is that Leica has expertly preserved their brand-name precisely by not going high tech and focusing supremely on quality, even quality that exceeds reasonable expectation. Yes they are damn good at what they do, they may even be better than they need to be, but that is what their customers like.
I cannot afford a modern Leica, but if I could I would not want a dumbed down "Voigtlander" like camera made by Leica. If I had a new Leica, I would want something like an MP and a Summilux! If I had the kind of wealth that made such a purchase a casual expense I would not hesitate to buy one -- why would I fiddle with anything else! My point is that a downscale Leica would have little appeal to a consumer base -- it is not special, it destroys the brand name, and subjects the company to intense competition.
All other things being equal photographers would prefer a higher resolving lens to a lesser one. The question is how much more would you pay for a lens that is say 10% better - 10% more, 100% more, 1000% more? If price where no object every manufacturer would produce lens far superior to what is now available but who would purchase a $10,000. lens -or for that matter a $2400.+ 50mm prime? What is the magic optimum number for $/performance for a top tier lens line?
Canon is reaching the point with digital where the chips will exceed the lens lines performance parameters. The Canon wide range is already not up to the task. So maybe there is a future for Leica level quality in "35mm" digital but probably at a lower price point. 35mm format 22MP or 30MP cameras may become affordable, but what will a lens cost that can resolve that number of lines in a 24 x 36mm or smaller area? I think the lens will cost more then the camera because it's still an opto-mechanical device not governed by Moore's law.
Leica needed to bring the M into the digital realm to survive but it still faces big challenges in creating a viable niche for itself going forward. Leica has an impressive product line but I think one of it's biggest challenges is controlling costs. Maybe a Chinese manufacturing source -Zeiss is producing ZM lens which are competitive with Leica on quality at a much lower albeit still lofty price point. The super high res chips of tomorrow will require Leica level lens quality but the market will demand it at Canon L level prices (which have been escalating as well).
RObert Budding
01-04-2007, 01:38
I am hardly one to tell such a successful operation like Leica how to do business, but I think in many ways they have it right. Their niche is essentially the highest-end of the photo business. This is what makes them what they are.
Successful? How many people on this forum purchase new Leicas? A company has to sell new gear to survive. The Leica niche is now the high end of the 35mm film market (the M8 hasn't garnered a huge market share). Not exactly a large and growing segment.
Innovative? Maybe in the 1950's. But now they are painfully behind in the core technologies that are needed to compete in the photo market.
I still use 35mm film gear. But I generally reach for my medium or large format cameras when I really want high quality.
What to do? Leica doesn't have the resources and expertise to become a real player in digital photography. And the Leica brand is losing cachet in the photo market. So perhaps they should leverage their expertise in optics and sell lenses in Canon and Nikon mounts. It's a much larger niche and they actually might be able to make some money.
Post deleted by posters request
I don't think that leica can just start making nikon and eos lenses - they have to get a licence and pay a fee first. I can't see canon granting leica a licence to produce Eos lenses that potentially could blow theirs out of the water, properly compatible R series lenses on a 1DS mkII could be a killer combination for some work. But I also couldn't see Leica coming up with a fast AF system that would give them the in to the wider DSLR market, especially as they like heavyweight construction and fast AF depends on light weight plastic components within the lens.
The question is how much more would you pay for a lens that is say 10% better - 10% more, 100% more, 1000% more?
Excellent point. At some point, price DOES matter, no matter what your income. A new 35mm Aspherical Summilux costs about $3,400; a new Voigtlander 40mm Nokton about $400. I think it's fair to say that there is not a $3,000 gap in their performance.
Post deleted by posters request
Post deleted by posters request
This started out as a reasonable discussion of the reasonable proposition that some of the expensive excellence designed into Leica lenses gets lost in the noise inherent in real-world photography. Fine.
It now seems to be devolving into "I can't see a difference because I'm more practical and sensible than you" vs. "I can see a difference because my taste is more exquisitely refined than yours."
Pff.
Post deleted by posters request
nightfly
01-04-2007, 05:55
Probably stating the obvious here but if you paid $3000 for a lens that was not demonstrably better than a $400 lens, I'd assume you'd be loathe to admit it and would be inclined to impart some magical qualities that others were not seeing and attribute it not to financial imprudence but to more refined tastes.
After all people pay big money for speaker wire that cannot be proven to sound any better than stuff you can get at home depot for 10 cents a foot. Monster cable has built a whole business on this.
I don't think this is entirely the case with Leica glass, the advantages are that many of the Summicrons at least are really quite a bit smaller than other brands at the same aperture and they are optimized for shooting wide open which often isn't the case with other brands. And the build quality is superior to almost any mass produced product that I can think of. But the cost differential is simply outrageous. Fortunately they are built so well that when people tire of them or something better comes out , bottom feeders like myself can take advantage of the old stuff at prices only 2-3x of other brands instead of 5-10x.
RObert Budding
01-04-2007, 06:38
I don't think that leica can just start making nikon and eos lenses - they have to get a licence and pay a fee first. I can't see canon granting leica a licence to produce Eos lenses that potentially could blow theirs out of the water, properly compatible R series lenses on a 1DS mkII could be a killer combination for some work. But I also couldn't see Leica coming up with a fast AF system that would give them the in to the wider DSLR market, especially as they like heavyweight construction and fast AF depends on light weight plastic components within the lens.
Zeiss is making Nikon F-mount lenses. And Tamron, Tokina, and Sigma make lenses in various mounts. So why not Leica? They need to sell something to survive. But there is the price problem. There is probably a market for a better lens at a reasonable premium.
Not to mention the fact that if you want ultimate image quality in film, you can buy complete hassies or 4x5 cameras for half the price of a 50mm summilux. Yes, they are the ultimate in 35mm quality, but if you are looking for ultimate quality why would you be using 35mm?
...because you cannot use a hassie like a Leica (or any 35mm RF). Your shooting circumstances and objective determine which format is appropriate and so it is a case of 'best quality given the format'. This is a point that repeatedly comes up and seems to result in comaprisons as appropriate as comparing tractors and track cars. There are plenty of circumstances where a hassie is a totally inappropriate tool and would mean not getting the shot. Under such circumstances I would happily use a smaller format and would naturally try to get the best from it, which could mean 35mm RF or SLR. I will happily use a 35mm SLR where a 35mm RF is not the best choice and while I do not get the same image quality from Canon zooms, I get the shot.
Leica, CV lenses, Zeiss RF lenses are about getting super quality from 35mm where 35mm is the best option and an RF appropriate! Lets stop comparing apples and oranges. If I can carry LF I do, but there are plenty of circumstances where I cannot.
I agree in part with the posters sentiments in that Leica ASPH lenses are now way out on their own in terms of price. This is whay so many people feel that Ziess have hit a home run with the new ZM lenses as their price-performance ratio is so good and IMO far better than Leica i this regard. This is why I bought mainly ziess lenses for my Leica M kit,but that is a personal choice.
Probably stating the obvious here but if you paid $3000 for a lens that was not demonstrably better than a $400 lens, I'd assume you'd be loathe to admit it and would be inclined to impart some magical qualities that others were not seeing and attribute it not to financial imprudence but to more refined tastes.
After all people pay big money for speaker wire that cannot be proven to sound any better than stuff you can get at home depot for 10 cents a foot. Monster cable has built a whole business on this.
I don't think this is entirely the case with Leica glass, the advantages are that many of the Summicrons at least are really quite a bit smaller than other brands at the same aperture and they are optimized for shooting wide open which often isn't the case with other brands. And the build quality is superior to almost any mass produced product that I can think of. But the cost differential is simply outrageous. Fortunately they are built so well that when people tire of them or something better comes out , bottom feeders like myself can take advantage of the old stuff at prices only 2-3x of other brands instead of 5-10x.
I paid a lot for a 50 Lux which is on the way and I will eventually see how it compares to my 50 ZM planar (I got the 50 lux as part of an MP3 kit). I freely admit that the lux will not make shots magically better, but it is a stop faster and should allow for greater differential focus at teh same time as top performance even wide open. I could have lived without it, sure, but I wanted it as part of teh MP3 kit as something special and lasting. I will feel no particular need to defend it and will let people know once I get to make prints how it really affects a final image. I would like to think that my photos do the talking rather than my gear.
Just a point to add to the initial posting:
Fine lenses tend to deliver better contrast, esp wide open and can help.
With fast aperture lenses and no filters, it is not uncommon to be shooting at 1/250 at f2.8 or faster even in soft light with 100 speed film. At such speeds a tripod offers little benefit with a 35 or 50mm lens and would will get pretty well the best the lens offers. With a 90 or 135, of course a tripodcomes into its own unless you have even higher handheld speeds.
While some complain about Zeiss lenses being made by CV, I am glad of it. This is why their price-performance ration is so good. QC has had the odd glitch with dust specks or so, but nothing excessive it seems. Leica has trhe same issues.
I am so glad Zeiss came along a
...because you cannot use a hassie like a Leica (or any 35mm RF). Your shooting circumstances and objective determine which format is appropriate and so it is a case of 'best quality given the format'. This is a point that repeatedly comes up and seems to result in comaprisons as appropriate as comparing tractors and track cars. There are plenty of circumstances where a hassie is a totally inappropriate tool and would mean not getting the shot. Under such circumstances I would happily use a smaller format and would naturally try to get the best from it, which could mean 35mm RF or SLR. I will happily use a 35mm SLR where a 35mm RF is not the best choice and while I do not get the same image quality from Canon zooms, I get the shot.
Leica, CV lenses, Zeiss RF lenses are about getting super quality from 35mm where 35mm is the best option and an RF appropriate! Lets stop comparing apples and oranges. If I can carry LF I do, but there are plenty of circumstances where I cannot.
I agree in part with the posters sentiments in that Leica ASPH lenses are now way out on their own in terms of price. This is whay so many people feel that Ziess have hit a home run with the new ZM lenses as their price-performance ratio is so good and IMO far better than Leica i this regard. This is why I bought mainly ziess lenses for my Leica M kit,but that is a personal choice.
But for £1500 (summilux 50 new) you could buy a hassie and a ZM prime and have the best of both worlds - and surely that's the point, you can buy an extra camera with the current price differentials, and not exactly a crappy one.
David Murphy
01-04-2007, 07:28
Successful? How many people on this forum purchase new Leicas? A company has to sell new gear to survive. The Leica niche is now the high end of the 35mm film market (the M8 hasn't garnered a huge market share). Not exactly a large and growing segment.
Innovative? Maybe in the 1950's. But now they are painfully behind in the core technologies that are needed to compete in the photo market.
I still use 35mm film gear. But I generally reach for my medium or large format cameras when I really want high quality.
What to do? Leica doesn't have the resources and expertise to become a real player in digital photography. And the Leica brand is losing cachet in the photo market. So perhaps they should leverage their expertise in optics and sell lenses in Canon and Nikon mounts. It's a much larger niche and they actually might be able to make some money.
Yes, successful. The company is 158 years old. I'd say that's successful.
How many people would buy a $3,000+ f1.4 50mm Leica lens for their Nikon or Canon DSLRs? I don't think very many. Probably not even very many dual RF/DSLR owners who frequent this site. For that kind of lens, wouldn't you rather be using a RF anyway?
Also, I doubt that Leica would have a problem getting any licenses they need from the DSLR manufacturers. If Sigma and Tamron, who compete very effectively at the low end with Nikon and Canon, have no problems, why would Nikon and Canon give a hoot for the miniscule revenue they would loose to someone who makes that pricey a lens? Besides, it would just make their shooting platform more attractive with that kind of quality lens available for the few truly discriminating users.
Zeiss can go after this market because its lenses are not ridiculously priced. Leica would have to go down market to do that, which may or may not be a good idea as discussed here. But staying upmarket with a Leica quality and Leica priced DSLR lens would seem to promise few sales.
/Ira
I cannot afford a modern Leica, but if I could I would not want a dumbed down "Voigtlander" like camera made by Leica.
Yeah,
Look how badly the whole M2 fiasco turned out. The M2 was a dumbed down version of the M3 priced to make it affordable to a broader market. Suprise, suprise....the M2 turned out to be one of their highest selling models and is still a highly sought camera some 50 years later.
By the way....the original MP, when first released, was available only to professionals....the ones not carrying Graphics or that could not afford a photographer to travel with them.
Bob
RObert Budding
01-04-2007, 08:01
Yes, successful. The company is 158 years old. I'd say that's successful.
I don't think investors will define success by how long a company has existed.
On the other hand, don't you consider the new releases of digital compacts, 4/3 cameras and ZLR's to be mainstream cameras?
Yes I do. It is just beginning, for the most part, so I am waiting to see how it works out. 4/3 is the wild card; I truly don't know what to think.
But for £1500 (summilux 50 new) you could buy a hassie and a ZM prime and have the best of both worlds - and surely that's the point, you can buy an extra camera with the current price differentials, and not exactly a crappy one.
But here we go comparing apples & oranges again. Hell, for that money I could buy a gazillion disposable Kodaks or Fujis. But I'd have no interest in doing that. When I need/want to use my 4x5, I use it. It really isn't suited to the type of shooting I do with an RF, nor for the type of work I might do with an OM and a 300mm tele. The point was he wanted an MP.
All of this has been said about Apple computer. A niche market is a niche market and cost is cost. There is no advantage in Leica making lenses for Canon or Nikon products, and don't forget that rangefinders by design have advantages at making better performing lenses over SLRs.
Post deleted by posters request
Yes I do. It is just beginning, for the most part, so I am waiting to see how it works out. 4/3 is the wild card; I truly don't know what to think.
But here we go comparing apples & oranges again. Hell, for that money I could buy a gazillion disposable Kodaks or Fujis. But I'd have no interest in doing that. When I need/want to use my 4x5, I use it. It really isn't suited to the type of shooting I do with an RF, nor for the type of work I might do with an OM and a 300mm tele. The point was he wanted an MP.
Please read what I said: For the price of a 50 summilux you could buy an excellent ZM 50 AND a hasselblad.
KoNickon
01-04-2007, 11:25
The original poster asked what the inherently better aspect of Leica lenses was that merited their high prices. It's my understanding that Leica lenses are generally thought to outperform other lenses at wide apertures. That, if anything, is what you get with a Leica lens that you can't get elsewhere. Assuming that to be true, the question is: if you're handholding and using fast film in those situations (I'm guessing this is the case probably 95+% of the time, based on comments on RFF), how can you see this better quality?
Furthermore, it's generally true that all 35mm format lenses, Leica or otherwise, perform best at f5.6-f8 or thereabouts, and differences among lenses at those apertures are very small to nonexistent. Lens test after lens test demonstrates this. Photographers know this, and I'll bet the vast majority of pictures, when circumstances permit, are taken at those "sweet spot" apertures (narrow DOF being of minor importance except in limited situations).
So, then, how to justify buying a Leica lens, when its demonstrated superiority is only in certain rare photo situations? I think it has to come down to the perception of Leica quality rather than actual demonstrated better results, and the idea of owning "the best" rather than actual need for it. It's the same as owning a Porsche and never driving it at anywhere near its capabilities. "Need" = "want."
The original poster asked what the inherently better aspect of Leica lenses was that merited their high prices. It's my understanding that Leica lenses are generally thought to outperform other lenses at wide apertures. That, if anything, is what you get with a Leica lens that you can't get elsewhere. Assuming that to be true, the question is: if you're handholding and using fast film in those situations (I'm guessing this is the case probably 95+% of the time, based on comments on RFF), how can you see this better quality?
Furthermore, it's generally true that all 35mm format lenses, Leica or otherwise, perform best at f5.6-f8 or thereabouts, and differences among lenses at those apertures are very small to nonexistent. Lens test after lens test demonstrates this. Photographers know this, and I'll bet the vast majority of pictures, when circumstances permit, are taken at those "sweet spot" apertures (narrow DOF being of minor importance except in limited situations).
So, then, how to justify buying a Leica lens, when its demonstrated superiority is only in certain rare photo situations? I think it has to come down to the perception of Leica quality rather than actual demonstrated better results, and the idea of owning "the best" rather than actual need for it. It's the same as owning a Porsche and never driving it at anywhere near its capabilities. "Need" = "want."
I shoot available light mostly. I would say 50%-75% of my photos are wide open, and I can never get enough aperture. I think your remarks are truer of snap shooters than serious photographers. (not disparaging snap shooters - it's just a different style.)
/Ira
I don't think that leica can just start making nikon and eos lenses - they have to get a licence and pay a fee first. I can't see canon granting leica a licence to produce Eos lenses that potentially could blow theirs out of the water, properly compatible R series lenses on a 1DS mkII could be a killer combination for some work. But I also couldn't see Leica coming up with a fast AF system that would give them the in to the wider DSLR market, especially as they like heavyweight construction and fast AF depends on light weight plastic components within the lens.
I think the pattens have run out on the Nikon mount and that's why Zeiss is making lenses but WHY? Nikon glass is excellent. As to Canon the only lens that canon could gain from is a 19mm to replace the 20 that they have allready. the canon 20 is nothing to write home about but the 24 1.4 and 35 1.4 are superb. All the longer Canon L glass is the best money can buy.
The fact that wide open available light pictures don't represent the majority of a photographers work doesn't mean that a lens that excels at that can not be justified. Ultra-wides and macro and shift lenses are specialty lenses but many photographers would not be without them as they are vital for certain types of work, even if its not the bulk of their work.
I know several Photo journalists whose bread and butter kit is Canon/Nikon digital but who still would not be without a RF loaded with B+W film for some types of work. I think the RF market is a well established niche market, not the dominant player it once was but a viable market non the less which has attracted some new vendors like Zeiss and Cosina. The problem in an era when China is manufacturer to the world and there is tremendous downward pressure on manufactured goods pricing is getting the performance/price ratio right. I think Zeiss and Canon L are at the high end of pricing. Leica is trying to carve out a niche quite a bit above that -I'm not so sure there is enough oxygen at that altitude.
It's my understanding that Leica lenses are generally thought to outperform other lenses at wide apertures. That, if anything, is what you get with a Leica lens that you can't get elsewhere.
Thought is the key word. leicas reputation is based on leading edge technology from the 30's to the 60's. At that point virtually all the major makers of cameras and glass had caught up or surpassed them. Still leica is great but the mythology surrounding Leica is unbelievable. Leica is absolute proof that advertising works.
Don't get me wrong because i still like and use my leicas and will continue too but as you mature in your art you soon realise how Leica is no better than any of the other makers of cameras and glass. The M is esentially a camera that's been around since 1954 with only minor chances with the exceptiopn of the M7 and M8. Lenses are another thing. While Leica has improved lens performance so has everyone else and even to a greater degree.
My answer to whether Leica glass is worth the difference in cost from other makers, NO in most cases. In looling back through 40 years of shooting negs and closely evaluating the B&W negs I can not tell which negs were Leica and which are Nikon, Canon, Rollei, Minolta or Pentax. There are only a few shots that show any difference and those were shot with the old FD 20mm Canon and 18mm super takumar of which both were serious dogs. Other than that I only can tell because I remember what I was using at the time I shot the images.
After having three of my M lenses develope focusing mount / helix problems I would say the construction since the late 70's has been less than what I expect for the price. I've had more issues with a smaller number of lenses from Leica than I have from all other makers lenses over my 40 years of shooting profesionally. My M bodies have been virtually trouble free with only minor issues like a couple of RF alignments, self timer spring and that's about all. Lenses have been another thing. Also my Nikons over nearly 40 years have only had very minor things like a gear in a F2 motor wore out and a couple of meter calibrartins in my old F4's. A latch key broke on the F4 battery compartment and one 35mm F2 auto aperture failed. Considering I shot about 2,000 rolls a year through these for about twelve years I would say that's not too bad.
the 24 1.4 and 35 1.4 are superb. All the longer Canon L glass is the best money can buy.
They better be, they are the largest primes in their class for 35mm. I have those two primes, they are exceptional indeed.
RObert Budding
01-04-2007, 12:22
I think the pattens have run out on the Nikon mount and that's why Zeiss is making lenses but WHY? Nikon glass is excellent. As to Canon the only lens that canon could gain from is a 19mm to replace the 20 that they have allready. the canon 20 is nothing to write home about but the 24 1.4 and 35 1.4 are superb. All the longer Canon L glass is the best money can buy.
Several manufactures make lenses in multiple mounts. It can be done.
amateriat
01-04-2007, 12:23
I think Leica has already been striking alliances that will better their chances for survival while (mostly) allowing them to do what they do best, as well as respond more quickly to conditions in the photogaphic market. The thing is, this can lead to unfortunate glitches (the M8's premature release - in my opinion, anyway - being one example). Solms obviously needs to calibrate their new product and business models, but I'm pretty confident they can and will.
But, for practical reasons, the closest I'll get to Leica stuff is a used M6, hopefully within the next year and a half.
- Barrett
All of this has been said about Apple computer.
Apple products don't cost eight to ten times the price of a comparable Dell, do they? And anyone who's used, say, an iPod knows that Apple delivers loads of functionality and style for its price premium. Of which Leica product can that be said?
I think Leica has already been striking alliances that will better their chances for survival ...
Credit where credit is due, I think Leica's collaboration with Panasoniic is producing some really nifty compact digital cameras. I went to the store expecting to walk out with a Fuji F30 and left with the Lumix FX-01 instead. (If they could stuff Fuji's excellent sensor in a Lumix body...man, would that be sweet!)
Please read what I said: For the price of a 50 summilux you could buy an excellent ZM 50 AND a hasselblad.
Yeah, Toby, I read that. No animosity, I just didn't see how it was relevant. He wasn't in the market for a Hasselblad. I don't think. ;)
If you compare the Leica 50mm ASPH to any other lens for resolution, micro contrast and freedom from various types of errors and aberations the Leica will prove "best". The performance is not hype or brand snobbery (at least in the case of this lens). The problem is the law of diminishing returns. Once you reach a certain level of performance small improvements in quality result in geometric increases in cost. So to get 90% of the performance and be a little worse in the corners or wide open -you can cut the price of the lens by a factor of 4 or 5.
There are other issues. Some of the look that many find attractive in a lens signature are caused by errors and aberation. Correcting out those errors removes the look. Looking at the current line up if I were buying today (and I may be in the not to distant future) I think I would match the M8 up to a Zeiss 50 1.5 and 21 4.5. I prefer the smoother transitions and softer blur of the Zeiss lenses (Reid reviews had some useful comparisons, he prefered the Leica look). Resolution wise they are in the same league as Leica and price wise I think the 50 Sonnar is 1/3rd the cost. If its a close call the huge price differential really favors the Zeiss (which is not exactly cheap for a prime). If I were looking for a 35mm I'd go with the 4th gen Leica -trade a bit of performance for the sort of lens signature that makes images with the look that I prefer. So in summary I'd have to say that I think Leica's lens line has gotten above what the market, even the more rarified RF market can bear. They need to tune that price/performance equation.
nightfly
01-04-2007, 12:47
I wish the Apple comparison were apt. I would gladly pay slightly more for Leica glass the same way I'll pay more an Apple which has more functionality I can use, is made better and is more elegantly designed than a competing PC. However if my Powerbook cost say 5x more I'd make do with a PC.
If you figure you can buy a loaded Dell Laptop for $1500 and a nice MacBook Pro would cost you say $2500 (loaded with extra RAM etc) that's less than 2x. Take a CV 28/1.9 at $500 vs a 28mm Summicron at $3000 that's 6x. Sure the Summicron is a better lens in every regard and smaller but probably 2x better not 6x. At $1000 I'd buy one in a heartbeat.
But of course the expense of Apple's has always been overstated. People ususally compare a barebones PC to an Apple with a better video card, firewire, etc to point out how overpriced they are when if you spec'd up a PC to really compete the price differential isn't that great but of course that's another discsussion group jihad.
But for £1500 (summilux 50 new) you could buy a hassie and a ZM prime and have the best of both worlds - and surely that's the point, you can buy an extra camera with the current price differentials, and not exactly a crappy one.
Its a fair point, but for those that want the best out of 35mm have only the 35mm route to go down. I would, and have taken the approach you speak of as it offer me what I want. I shoot a number of different formats, but if I needed the best (wide to std) fast primes that were the best wide open, you have little choice but Leica. Who else makes a 35 1.4 that is really sharp wide open and a 50 f1.0? Where like for likes appear, such as the 35 summicron and the 35 biogon, i get the distinct impression that the Leica is still sharper wide open at least on centre. I find the Leicaphiles who would rather obsess over their 35mm primes for lanscape work than learn to use a cheap 5x4 quite amusing as I know what I would use. One factor which has been mentioned here is that Leica can no longer claim to have the best build quality. There are a number of lenses which seem to be as well made if not better made. Its a real shame that this are has slipped leading some to get LHSA lenses in their retro mounts to avoid sticky stiff focus. This is nuts considering the price.
KoNickon
01-04-2007, 13:13
I shoot available light mostly. I would say 50%-75% of my photos are wide open, and I can never get enough aperture. I think your remarks are truer of snap shooters than serious photographers. (not disparaging snap shooters - it's just a different style.)
/Ira
You don't take pictures outdoors?
You don't take pictures outdoors?
Sure, at night. Who needs sunlight? :bang:
/Ira
P.S. I said 50%-75% available light, which still leaves alot of room for sun.
I think I would be happy enough using CV lenses. With normal hand held photos on HP5 I don't think I would notice any difference.
I think these Leica lenses would come into their own with the M8, tripod and large A3 and A3+ prints.
Leica...performance is not hype or brand snobbery ...The problem is the law of diminishing returns. Once you reach a certain level of performance small improvements in quality result in geometric increases in cost. So to get 90% of the performance and be a little worse in the corners or wide open -you can cut the price of the lens by a factor of 4 or 5.
Hank, I've found the same thing. The 35mm Aspherical Summilux is better than the VC 40 Nokton. But only a little bit, and, for my purposes, only below f2.0. Not worth an 8X premium in my book. That's why mine is for sale.
The problem with the quest for lens 'perfection,' I think, is that it's simply a waste of time in most cases. Composition, lighting and subject matter are what make a photograph, and unless your lens is screwing something up (as in the case of Xray's Summilux flare example) then you're better off ignoring the whole subject.
It also bears mentioning that this 'quest for perfection,' no matter what the object of affection, is largely a malady that affects only us middle-aged guys with a bit of disposable income to spare. When I was in my twenties, my Canonet was good enough for me, and I was happy just to afford a fresh bulk roll of Tri-X.
Yes, a little spare cash works a wicked spell. :eek:
/Ira
The problem with the quest for lens 'perfection,' I think, is that it's simply a waste of time in most cases. Composition, lighting and subject matter are what make a photograph, and unless your lens is screwing something up (as in the case of Xray's Summilux flare example) then you're better off ignoring the whole subject.
I agree with that, although different lenses (and different samples of the same lens) can have either small or large variation in the way they render. Which, I suppose, is why we all have a favourite lens or two - these are the lenses that tend to give us results which are more often than not close to what we want to achieve. The problem for Leica is that for many people older, secondhand Leica lenses give them exactly the result they want, and are easily serviceable, so shrinking the potential market for new, very expensive, lenses.
Having said that, Leica does have a great reputation for making quality lenses, and doing so for Canon and Nikon mounts would be a smart move, I reckon.
I'm very happy with a mixture of new and secondhand CV and Canon LTM lenses for now, the CV lenses especially are consistently excellent, although one day I would like to play with a Leica 35mm.
Ian
Andrew3511
01-04-2007, 14:09
OK, so a camera at the end of the day is a light-tight box with light-sensitive material behind a shutter, and a lens is a device for focussing an image onto that light-sensitive material. I'm purely an amateur and have only ever taken photographs for my own (and sometimes other people's ) pleasure. For me the Leica camera is like many other similar tools and gadgets. You know as a user when you have the definitive tool for the job in your hand whether that is a screwdriver or a violin bow. The optics deliver the goods reliably and are robust in heavy use, they inspire confidence. The cameras (including the M8, according to the reviews - I'm not fortunate enough to have handled let alone owned one) have the neccesary controls, properly placed and designed for use by photographers, with nothing extraneous or gimmicky. There is no better tool for taking photographs of people. If I wanted to take the definitive picture of the interior of a building I would use a large format camera with full movements. If I wanted to take pictures of motor sport I would use an autofocus SLR with a long lens. It does what it does better than anything else - if I had the money I would definitely buy the M8.
FWIW
KoNickon
01-04-2007, 15:12
I was partly teasing. Still, that's a high indoors percentage.
Nachkebia
01-04-2007, 15:40
50 summilux with 35 summilux and 75 summicron is what leica is all about today, everything else is a personal thing, which is not bad :D I mean who cares why you like leica? if you like it you like it, it is like religion, god is one, you have to have faith, to whom and why nobody asks you :D
p.s I love how radically stupid I can be sometimes :D
We love that too, Vlad! :D
David Murphy
01-04-2007, 16:27
I don't think investors will define success by how long a company has existed.
I don't know what some suit on Wall Street might think, but 158 years of making money is successful by my standards. They don't hang around that long by being in the red consistently.
waileong
01-04-2007, 17:30
The original poster asked what the inherently better aspect of Leica lenses was that merited their high prices. It's my understanding that Leica lenses are generally thought to outperform other lenses at wide apertures. That, if anything, is what you get with a Leica lens that you can't get elsewhere. Assuming that to be true, the question is: if you're handholding and using fast film in those situations (I'm guessing this is the case probably 95+% of the time, based on comments on RFF), how can you see this better quality?
Furthermore, it's generally true that all 35mm format lenses, Leica or otherwise, perform best at f5.6-f8 or thereabouts, and differences among lenses at those apertures are very small to nonexistent. Lens test after lens test demonstrates this. Photographers know this, and I'll bet the vast majority of pictures, when circumstances permit, are taken at those "sweet spot" apertures (narrow DOF being of minor importance except in limited situations).
So, then, how to justify buying a Leica lens, when its demonstrated superiority is only in certain rare photo situations? I think it has to come down to the perception of Leica quality rather than actual demonstrated better results, and the idea of owning "the best" rather than actual need for it. It's the same as owning a Porsche and never driving it at anywhere near its capabilities. "Need" = "want."
There's no justification necessary. Its your money. If you want to buy it, buy it. Don't try to convince others why they should or should not buy it. That is the start of endless arguments.
What we can do here is, as much as possible, let people know what they are getting for their money. Whether they want to buy it or not is their call. Trying to defend a viewpoint of "its' worth it" or "it's not worth it" just creates animosity.
Hey ... to all you lucky dogs out there with your Noctiluxes ... Tri Elmars etc:
WOOF WOOF ... WOOF WOOF!
(translation .. 'I've spent all my money on bodies and can't afford decent lenses!') ;-)
waileong
01-04-2007, 17:41
Could I summarise this way?
a. Good pictures can be taken by any camera and any lens, because the most important elements are the creativity and capability of the photographer. In other words, it's the Indian, not the arrow. However, a really good photographer will be able to make the most out of his equipment and can take an excellent cameras to its limits. In other words, a good Indian will really know how to make use of his arrows and take even better pictures.
b. Putting the Indian aside and just concentrating on the arrow, for the same photographer in the same situation using a Leica and Brand X camera/lens at the same settings, the Leica camera/lens may take better pictures (in terms of contrast, flare resistance, vignetting, corner sharpness, bokeh, etc), esp if a tripod is used and the camera is focused correctly and film is exposed and developed correctly.
c. Leica lenses/cameras can perform better under certain situations, and the difference can be seen. (Eg easier to focus in low light, less camera shake at low shutter speeds leading to sharper available darkness pictures). However, the quality improvement may not be very large, compared to a modern SLR with IS lenses. Nevertheless, there are other advantages to Leica, eg. size, weight, build quality, etc.
d. Leica lenses are hellishly expensive by general standards. However, quality has a price, and performance improvement does not come cheap. Whether paying 300% more for the last 3% of performance is worth it is something for each buyer to decide.
waileong says it the best !
"Good pictures can be taken by any camera and any lens, because the most important elements are the creativity and capability of the photographer"
Olympus Stylus Epic, or a F3HP/85/F1.4, whatever......you get my drift.
It is what you can do with any camera, and make it work!
I think Leica are going after the super rich market, those you have Ferrari's and Rolls Royces living in Dubai, flying on Emirates in first class with endless cash on cash! :cool:
Cheers
Mark
Quito, EC
I was partly teasing. Still, that's a high indoors percentage.
Maybe I was a bit over sensitive. :) In any case, I do take lots of pictures indoors at night since that's when I seem to have the most free time.
/ira
KoNickon
01-05-2007, 05:23
I hear you! But I look around the house and I don't seem to have much of anything worth photographing (my wife, the obvious candidate, rather firmly discourages candid nighttime portraits!).
Leica would do well to develop (with Japanese or Chinese manufacturing help), several much lower priced digital M rangefinder bodies, like they did with the Minolta CLE.
A digital Leica M-rangefinder around $1000 or so would sell like hotcakes to a huge new market of students, hobbyists, people with less money. It would not have to be top, top, quality.
They could even try a lower priced digital full frame camera, even if there WERE technical problems or the image was not optimum on the edges due to light fall-off, people would buy them anyway and live with it.
Keep the flagship line, but sell more cameras. Come out with something daring, like an AF rangefinder with a moveable focal plane.
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums//forums/images/afterdark/buttons/edit.gif (http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/editpost.php?do=editpost&p=455904)
Exactly.
An AFFORDABLE digital rangefinder would be revolutionary, and would give Leica a market penetration it will never have otherwise. It's quest for the holy grail of perfection is becoming a crippling obsession.
How many cheapo consumer zooms do you suppose Canon sells for every L lens?
Post deleted by posters request
markinlondon
01-05-2007, 06:02
Exactly.
An AFFORDABLE digital rangefinder would be revolutionary, and would give Leica a market penetration it will never have otherwise. It's quest for the holy grail of perfection is becoming a crippling obsession.
How many cheapo consumer zooms do you suppose Canon sells for every L lens?
Or indeed how many P&S cameras per dSLR? What's affordable, Kevin? Most holiday snappers were only convinced to spend more than 50 quid on a camera by the change over to digital. I don't see the mass market giving up its "features" and automation for a camera with 1950's handling.
I think we're stuck with expensive RF's in the new market as there aren't many of us that enjoy using them.
You're misjudging the market. Millions of buyers are getting entry level DSLR's because they have an interest in "something better" and want to try photography with something other than a point and shoot.
There would be a huge dormant market for a quality rangefinder with lenses that didn't cost as much as a car to assemble a shooting kit.
People don't buy because they don't have the alternative.
...they're getting entry level dslr's because they are as easy to use as as point and shoot but supposedly take "better" photos or are perceived as more "serious". But take away the zoom lenses and the AF and (as in RF cameras) and I wonder how many folks would be willing to pay $1,000.......or even $600.
Hey ... to all you lucky dogs out there with your Noctiluxes ... Tri Elmars etc:
WOOF WOOF ... WOOF WOOF!
(translation .. 'I've spent all my money on bodies and can't afford decent lenses!') ;-)
Keith, the lens in your avatar is pretty much as good as it gets ! :)
There would be a huge dormant market for a quality rangefinder with lenses that didn't cost as much as a car to assemble a shooting kit.
People don't buy because they don't have the alternative.
I don't know about that. The Ricoh GR-D isn't any threat to it's mainstream competition. A good optical rangefinder mechanism is expensive. P&S cameras don't even have viewfinders as they add to much to the cost.
A Digital version of the old Zeiss Hologon (not the lens -the fixed lens camera) with a single aperture ultra wide (f/5.6 ?- depending on chip size) fixed focus designed for digital lens, aps-c sized or 4/3 chip and a high quality built in viewfinder with spirit level -assembled in Asia to keep costs down might find an audience. Depth of field at that chip size would have everything in focus and correcting for a single aperture and fixed distance would greatly reduce the cost of producing a superior optic. Throw in anti-shake to open up the possibilty of evrything sharp available light images. Ultra-wides are the achilles heel of DSLR systems so this might find a market if the camera cost was less then high end ultra wide lenses (sub $2000).
...they're getting entry level dslr's because they are as easy to use as as point and shoot but supposedly take "better" photos or are perceived as more "serious". But take away the zoom lenses and the AF and (as in RF cameras) and I wonder how many folks would be willing to pay $1,000.......or even $600.
Don't underestimate what people want.
When I go out with my R-D1, I get questions all the time. There are lots and lots of photography students, hobbyists, etc.
It won't be a HUGE mass market like for the Canon Rebel DSLR, but it would be a very respectable niche. It would get bigger as more found out about the camera.
Many are memerized by mass marketing and just don't know any better.
markinlondon
01-05-2007, 06:46
Don't underestimate what people want.
When I go out with my R-D1, I get questions all the time. There are lots and lots of photography students, hobbyists, etc.
It won't be a HUGE mass market like for the Canon Rebel DSLR, but it would be a very respectable niche. It would get bigger as more found out about the camera.
Many are memerized by mass marketing and just don't know any better.
I get questions about my M2 but I doubt Jessop's are getting beseiged with requests for them :)
As for your last statement, well that just explains the upsurge in dSLR sales as indeed it did for SLR sales in the '70s and '80s. Many people who bought Pentax K1000's would really have been better off with a Canonet but that prism head was just sooo irresistible. Maybe they'd all seen Blowup too many times :).
It's all marketing when you come down to it.
I get questions about my M2 but I doubt Jessop's are getting beseiged with requests for them
Apples and oranges. An M2 is an out of production film camera that is still relatively expensive.
If there was a new AFFORDABLE digital rangefinder product (and digital is what the public wants), my bet is that it would be a hit.
Of course, this is all speculation.
However, you can't judge accurately from sales of a $3000 (£1500) Epson R-D1 or a $5000 (£2500) Leica M8, with NO lens.
Those prices are just too dizzy for most potential buyers.
The nuts on these forums might think it's worth it (me included), but honestly, we're far from typical.
Keith, the lens in your avatar is pretty much as good as it gets ! :)
Indeed Roland ... sensational for the price, large though! :p
xayraa33
01-05-2007, 07:06
I get questions about my M2 but I doubt Jessop's are getting beseiged with requests for them :)
As for your last statement, well that just explains the upsurge in dSLR sales as indeed it did for SLR sales in the '70s and '80s. Many people who bought Pentax K1000's would really have been better off with a Canonet but that prism head was just sooo irresistible. Maybe they'd all seen Blowup too many times :).
It's all marketing when you come down to it.
the viewers of Blowup bought a lot of the Yardbirds LP's also.
...and I wonder how many folks would be willing to pay $1,000.......or even $600.
Me. I'd say that up to $3k is a price I'd be willing to pay for a cropped sensor rangefinder. I thought long and hard about the M8. Had it been 100% successful, I would have found a way to scrape up the funds. But that didn't happen, and the bulk of my rangefinder gear (the expensive, Leica stuff) is going to be sold to buy, in all likelihood, a Canon 5D and some L glass, and I'll keep one rangefinder body and a couple of lenses to shoot B&W film.
A handful of determined hobbyists isn't enough to keep the company a going concern, I fear. Leica DESPERATELY needs something between the P&S Digilux line and the M8 to be relevant.
The only way to resolve this short of the expensive route of actually bringing out such a camera is to commission a focus group or market study analysis. No tremendous expense and something surely within the grasp of a Leica/Zeiss/Cosina. I wonder if any of them have done that or if they just sit around and have speculative discussions like this all day?
/Ira
markinlondon
01-05-2007, 07:31
The only way to resolve this short of the expensive route of actually bringing out such a camera is to commission a focus group or market study analysis. No tremendous expense and something surely within the grasp of a Leica/Zeiss/Cosina. I wonder if any of them have done that or if they just sit around and have speculative discussions like this all day?
/Ira
Probably the latter, Ira. I think the problem with market studies is that the question is not "what do you want?" but "how can we make you buy what we've already got?". The answer is usually "make it cheaper", hence the rise of the entry level dSLR.
Probably the latter, Ira. I think the problem with market studies is that the question is not "what do you want?" but "how can we make you buy what we've already got?". The answer is usually "make it cheaper", hence the rise of the entry level dSLR.
I remember when SUVs were just starting to be all the rage, and I got a questionaire in the mail from Mercedes asking all kinds of things about a hypotehtical Mercedes SUV. I was really surprised back then, since I had always thought of SUVs as utilitarian truck-like things until then. Behold - a few years after that we had Mercedes (and other top line) SUVs. BTW, I did fill out the questionaire. Why? They included a dollar bill with it and asked me if I would pretty-please help them out. Where there's a will there's a way.
/Ira
markinlondon
01-05-2007, 07:40
I'll usually fill them in just for the free biro :D
How about a free rangefinder! :D:D
If there was a new AFFORDABLE digital rangefinder product (and digital is what the public wants), my bet is that it would be a hit.
Of course, this is all speculation.
However, you can't judge accurately from sales of a $3000 (£1500) Epson R-D1 or a $5000 (£2500) Leica M8, with NO lens.
Those prices are just too dizzy for most potential buyers.
No doubt there would be a large market for an affordable digital M compatible RF. I don't think any of the manufacturers doubt that and if it was technically possible Cosina would have jumped on it already.
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.