Is Leica hitting notes only a dog can hear?

[kevin m]

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.

[ywenz]

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.

[jlw]

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."

[Trius]

"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

[Toby]

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]

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]

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]

"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.

[AusDLK]

>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...

[Pablito]

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.

[SDK]

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.

[Pablito]

"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.

[Pablito]

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.

[ywenz]

Originally Posted by waileong

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...m#DCS410420460

Originally Posted by waileong

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.

[Trius]

SDK: Excellent post; well done.

There is one additional thing at play here. Someone needs to set the bar high.

[kevin m]

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.

[x-ray]

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.

[rpsawin]

Originally Posted by kevin m

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.

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]

Originally Posted by jlw

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.

[Pablito]

Originally Posted by x-ray

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]

Originally Posted by kevin m

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.

Originally Posted by kevin m

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

Todd

[waileong]

Originally Posted by x-ray

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]

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



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!

[NB23]

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".

[40oz]

Originally Posted by saxshooter

http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/htmls/models/htmls/slr9294.htm#DCS410420460



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.