Thom Hogan, a very wise man

[Jamie123]

I can't be bothered reading all the posts in this thread so maybe this has been said before.

IMO, there are two groups of people who buy the M9. There are those who want to use a digital M rangefinder and then there are those who want to use Leica lenses. The people over at LL seem to belong to the latter group. They weren't really using M cameras for a long time prior to the digital M (because film sucks, right?) and the only reason they're using the M9 now is because apparently German lenses are sprinkled with fairy dust. It is quite logical, then, that they are not exactly crazy about the whole rangefinder experience.

[photogdave]

Originally Posted by Jamie123

I can't be bothered reading all the posts in this thread so maybe this has been said before.

Always a good motive for contributing to an ongoing discussion...

[biggambi]

Originally Posted by Jamie123

I can't be bothered reading all the posts in this thread so maybe this has been said before.

IMO, there are two groups of people who buy the M9. There are those who want to use a digital M rangefinder and then there are those who want to use Leica lenses. The people over at LL seem to belong to the latter group. They weren't really using M cameras for a long time prior to the digital M (because film sucks, right?) and the only reason they're using the M9 now is because apparently German lenses are sprinkled with fairy dust. It is quite logical, then, that they are not exactly crazy about the whole rangefinder experience.

Good to see that you have read those articles and the others on LL as well as you have read this thread.

[biggambi]

Originally Posted by wgerrard

I agree with the substance of your comment, but not with those two points. Leica certainly has no need to distinguish itself from the "pack". The return on investment prospects for a b&w-only digital Leica have to be very sketchy.

While it is certainly possible for that Leica, someday, may introduce another line of cameras, they have no reason to compete with themselves by selling camera that use M-mount lenses but are cheaper than M-mount Leicas. If Leica decides to bring out a new line of cameras, I'd expect them to roll out a new lens mount, too. (But, I don't really expect that to happen. The digital field is a much more level field in which Leica's traditional selling points count for less than they do in RF-world.)

I don't think that Leica is the type of company that does not like setting new standards. They have a history of setting themselves above and beyond the pack. They are a proud company, and rightfully so. Others have failed to establish a high quality B&W camera outside of the scientific community. Leica has two things going for them, they have a unique clientele, and they have the perfect system to take advantage of a B&W sensor. The economics may work themselves out, time will tell if this ever happens.

As for the Leica M mount being used. As I have tried to state, I do not know what the camera would look like, but it would not be a competitor with the M9. Those who look to a rangefinder, would not look to this as a substitute. It needs to be quite competitive with the dslr market, and be something that the M is not. I would personally have no interest in it. But, it would seem to appeal to many others who do not like the M9. The M lenses are incredible optical achievements. I think they can be used with a new automated system, and once the time comes a foveon sensor that could exploit the optical qualities of lenses. I think there are people that want M lenses but not the rangefinder. Otherwise, there would not be this discontent for a product that has been hardly available to the general public.

The M9 is the camera for those who have been shooting film rangefinders and wanted a digital alternative. It is not, and I am sure was not intended to be a dslr competitor. Rather, it is an alternative method of capturing photographs, that speaks quite profoundly to some of us. I do not pretend this is something that Leica wants to build or does not want to build. I have no idea. I do believe they built the digital M that they wanted to build. I do not know how many people have been involved in designing and building systems. But, I can tell you that you don't go through all of that work and not produce as close as possible the system that you wanted.

You may very well still disagree with these points. That is the way of life. But, I hope this has made them clearer.

Kindest Regards.

[Trius]

Dave: He has a point.

[biggambi]

Originally Posted by Trius

Dave: He has a point.

I'm not so sure about this statement or his. It is only valid if the point of a thread is to give answers to the OP. It is not a valid point if the point of the thread is to engage in a discourse. Opinions without the consideration of others ideas, are of little interest in a discussion forum. Do you really think that Bill's motive is to have a bunch of people throw ideas at him, or does he wish to spark a discussion. I guess we would have to ask him, but I think he seems more interested in an intellectual discourse among the community. This sometimes creates something greater than "i think this - end of story."

[Ranchu]

Hokay, some discussion. The main problem with Leicas shtick at this point is that with digital, the bodies are disposable, technology changes too fast. The next evolution of digital is not 4/3s, it's raw processing. We are converting our raws with 1d lookup tables, unless you shoot fuji's and convert with hyperutility. The difference between 1d and 3d look up tables is that with 3d the hue and saturation of a pixel can be defined independently of it's brightness, and independently of other pixels. It allows much more precise control of color by the manufacturer. I don't know if you guys have seen those full rez downloads of the S2 shots, stunning resolution - jaw dropping. But the model was yellow, very yellow, shot under a standard one light studio setup with correct settings in capture one. Her lip color was spot on but her skin was yellow and her blonde hair was incandescent. If leica cant get skin tone right with a $30,000 camera sans lens under these conditions, why would I buy this over a canon, nikon or phase one?

[Jamie123]

Originally Posted by biggambi

I'm not so sure about this statement or his. It is only valid if the point of a thread is to give answers to the OP. It is not a valid point if the point of the thread is to engage in a discourse. Opinions without the consideration of others ideas, are of little interest in a discussion forum. Do you really think that Bill's motive is to have a bunch of people throw ideas at him, or does he wish to spark a discussion. I guess we would have to ask him, but I think he seems more interested in an intellectual discourse among the community. This sometimes creates something greater than "i think this - end of story."

Sure, you're right, it is about the discourse. And I'm happy to start a discourse with anyone who has to say anything about my comment.

[wgerrard]

Leica has been making fine cameras for almost a century, and M-bodies for more than 50 years. They've certainly set a standard for reliability and quality. But, I doubt even their most ardent fans would argue that Leica has a contemporary track record for technological innovations and standards, other than the 35mm RF early in the last century. After all, the M9 is most closely related to the M3.

Leica faces strong market pressure not to alter the basic design of its M line. (Consider the M5's fate: A camera with technological innovations was rejected by Leica's market because it did not look like a traditional M camera.) Buyers look to Leica to improve the tech and the overall quality of the M line, not to innovate it beyond recognition. For Leica, that's both a blessing and a curse.

If Leica brings out a b&w M9, it would, of course, be an M9. However, if Leica chooses to bring out a new line of cameras, using some of the technologies sketched by Hogan, they surely would not want to allow that line to be branded as the newer, cheaper, more capable version of the M camera. They would be foolish to compete with themselves. The surest way to prevent that competition is to use a different lens mount.

Now, admittedly, I think there is a slim chance of that happening, assuming Leica has the in-house production capacity. If, for example, the M4/3 format really takes off, it is conceivable (in the sense that no one really has any idea) that Leica might decide money could be made by rolling out a line of jeweler grade M4/3 cameras.

However, working against that supposition is the fact that the digital market is a different market than the traditional camera market. The digital and electronic parts in all digital cameras are of much the same quality, from the same sources, so Leica's reputation for hand-built quality can't play there. Most consumers expect to replace a digital product long before it actually wears out, in order to take advantage of improved technologies. That may not apply to many of today's M9 buyers, but I think it would to any new line of less costly Leica digitals. That means Leica's reputation for long-term reliability becomes less important. Finally, Leica's reputation for outstanding lens quality might transfer to a new line with new lenses, if Leica could deliver both quality and price.

[goodtimes]

If one wants to (occasionally) use a longer than 90mm or 135mm on its M8 or M9 then liveview would be the easiest and most precise solution, as viewed by me, but keeping the valuable optical VF.
I would not buy an RF vith a flip-up EVF in the optical VF and further less if it is limited to only B&W.

[wgerrard]

Originally Posted by nikonhswebmaster

Well sort of.

It all depends on how you define "Leica," and the company in general. Each new owner redefines what Leica is, and certainly the current incarnation is no exception, the company has been reinvented in ways no one would have imagined 20 years ago.

True. I was thinking in terms of how long Leicas have been available.

I wouldn't be unhappy to see Leica roll out a new camera that is as innovative as were their first releases or the M line. But, that would require innovation in digital tech, which seems to come from elsewhere.

I'd be more interested in seeing what Apple might do if they started thinking about what a digital camera should be.

[sig]

"Leica Camera AG lays the foundations for future sales and profit growth with
innovative products and restructuring programme – Restrained outlook for results of
the current fiscal year 2009/2010"

At least they want to have a sales and profit growth.

[biggambi]

wgerrard: I would argue that they have continued to be innovative in technological advances. Their optical designs continue to be some of the finest in the world. Now if we are going to only look at technological advances in electronics. I would agree that they alone have not achieved major advances. But, the M9 with a full frame sensor is a major achievement. It may not be everything that everyone wanted, but it certainly meets the needs of some. Now, I certainly would concede that other companies are making extensive progress with CMOS sensor technology. But, Leica is using a CCD sensor, to which I must confess a preference.

This brings us to the idea of a secondary offering in the Leica M series, for camera bodies utilizing CMOS-Foveon sensor. I think that there is strong historical evidence that supports offering two options with the high end for camera bodies. Leica has done so with the R system, Nikon & Canon certainly have done so within their respective systems. I do not believe that there would be a cannibalization of Leica's base, but rather a broadening of its base. It would meet the needs of a larger market, and allow Leica to sell many more lenses. This is where they make most of their money, not the camera body. If they wish to grow, then why spend the large amounts of money, just to re-invent lenses. They do not appear to be concerned about large sales numbers with the digital M at this point; but, if they should desire to advance their market share. They need look no further, than an electronically advanced CMOS system. That excepts an M lens. Many voices have expressed a need or desire for such a system. I am not one of them. I am very happy with the digital M line. But, I understand there is a market for it.

As for the price, if it is cutting edge and it is low production numbers. It is going to be expensive. There is no getting around it. So, as I have stated before, this could very well be a shock to those who are asking for it. I would suspect it would be substantially more than the M9.

As for a B&W version of the M9, the key part of this is that everything is there for it to exist. There is minimal changes that need to take place, and the sensor needs to altered. Obviously, this is a simplification of the task but it is correct in substance. Will it appeal to an even small market, yes. But, so do many highly specialized products. It does not make them not worthy of production. Leica has a strong history of producing small batches of specialized versions within the M system.

By the way, teaming up with apple, interesting idea.

Kindest Regards,

[wgerrard]

I don't agree that manufacturing high quality lenses is a technological innovation, any more than making handcrafted jewelry or furniture are technologically innovative. We know how to make high quality lenses, just as we know how to make high quality jewelry or furniture. Whether we do or not depends on business decisions.

The full-frame sensor in the M9 can be credited to Kodak. I tend to consider increases in sensor size as inevitable as, and no more innovative than, increases in hard drive capacities. Inventing the digital sensor was innovative. Making bigger sensors is not.

Neither of us has anything other than conjecture to make a case for or against a b&w-only M9. I don't see the point of making it.

[biggambi]

Technological advancements is the application of scientific knowledge in industrial applications. The designing of the modern optics that Leica produce require the development of highly sophisticated and progressively refined algorithms through engineering based on the application of physics and mathematics. The glass formulas and coatings require the use of advanced chemical analysis. It is the very definition of the term.

All technological advancements, even technological breakthroughs, are based on the application of science in industrial applications. The CMOS sensor was developed in 1963, and the CCD in 1969. There is no new news there. The advancement in the quality and the advancement in new uses is news. It is these technological advances that society speaks of when talking about technological advancements.

My statement was Leica continues "to be innovative in technological advancements." To innovate is to apply things in a new manner. Thus, to apply technological advancements in a new manner. The application of a full size sensor in a rangefinder camera meats the very definition of these terms. If you disagree, I would point you to the Oxford English Dictionary. Your desire to simplify the achievement does not change the facts. It was not Kodak and Leica saying, lets make a bigger sensor and stick it in the camera. It involved very significant engineering, as it required overcoming some very difficult optical problems. It required the development of more advanced algorithms by Leica. Leica just as every other manufacturer does not design and make everything in house. A more specific example, Apple does not make processors, hard drives, or advancements in circuit board technology. But, they do make technological advancements by engineering new products.

If Leica made no technological advancements, as you assert, there would be no new models. Do not confuse technological advancements or the innovative application of them, with breakthroughs. This is a layman's mistake. The discoveries of Bose and Braun in the 1900's using semiconductor material's was a breakthrough that would change the world.

Kindest Regards

[wgerrard]

i have no real interest in continuing this pointless exercise, but ...

Originally Posted by biggambi

Technological advancements is the application of scientific knowledge in industrial applications. The designing of the modern optics that Leica produce require the development of highly sophisticated and progressively refined algorithms through engineering based on the application of physics and mathematics. The glass formulas and coatings require the use of advanced chemical analysis. It is the very definition of the term.

Have there been any breakthroughs in optical science in, say, the last 5 years, that Leica has leveraged to produce lenses? My point is that optical science and the engineering of camera lenses appear to be stable enterprises and that the quality of the final product is determined by the resources and skill applied to its manufacture, resources and skills that can be bought by anyone willing to pay the price.

It is these technological advances that society speaks of when talking about technological advancements.

What society speaks of is largely irrelevant. Quality and size increases in existing products, e.g., sensors, are to be expected.

If Leica made no technological advancements, as you assert, there would be no new models Do not confuse technological advancements or the innovative application of them, with breakthroughs. This is a layman's mistake.

That's a mischaracterization of my statements. And, there is no need to be condescending.

As for technological advancements being a prerequisite for releasing a new model, I suspect the marketing department might have a thing or two to say. The differences in technology in the M3, M2, M4, M6 and the MP are subtle, at best. The M5 used technology that was new to Leica, but conservative Leica fans shot it down. Rolling out in-camera metering in some cameras, long after the rest of the industry did it, hardly qualifies as an advancement. Ditto the M7's use of AE. Leica deserves credit for figuring out how to put a 35mm-sized sensor in an M camera, but, again, they arrived late to the party.

Leica can be credited with advancing the use of technology in Leica cameras, but it has been a very long time since the industry adopted Leica tech.

[biggambi]

Originally Posted by wgerrard

Leica has been making fine cameras for almost a century, and M-bodies for more than 50 years. They've certainly set a standard for reliability and quality. But, I doubt even their most ardent fans would argue that Leica has a contemporary track record for technological innovations and standards, other than the 35mm RF early in the last century. After all, the M9 is most closely related to the M3....

L

[quote=wgerrard;1249887]
...Have there been any breakthroughs in optical science in, say, the last 5 years, that Leica has leveraged to produce lenses? My point is that optical science and the engineering of camera lenses appear to be stable enterprises and that the quality of the final product is determined by the resources and skill applied to its manufacture, resources and skills that can be bought by anyone willing to pay the price.[/QOUTE]

You have now redefined your timeline to 5 years. This is a considerable shift in your argument. With your example and acknowledgement of lens technology having been developed in recent times. We have nothing to disagree on in this area. I do not know what went into the new Noctilux. But we will set that aside, as to me 5 years vs 1 year is of little significance in this field.

Originally Posted by wgerrard

I don't agree that manufacturing high quality lenses is a technological innovation, any more than making handcrafted jewelry or furniture are technologically innovative. We know how to make high quality lenses, just as we know how to make high quality jewelry or furniture. Whether we do or not depends on business decisions.

This and the prior quote are the direct comments to which my last post is applied. How is it a mischaracterization on my part. I have given supporting arguments that show otherwise. You are simply misusing the term "technological advancements" in a manner that is common among layman and not scientists. In order to have a meaningful conversation, we must agree on the definition of words, as I am sure you would agree. It is not meant to be derogatory, it simply is a statement of facts. I think nothing of it beyond a factual statement.

Originally Posted by wgerrard

The full-frame sensor in the M9 can be credited to Kodak. I tend to consider increases in sensor size as inevitable as, and no more innovative than, increases in hard drive capacities. Inventing the digital sensor was innovative. Making bigger sensors is not.

Again this was a simplification of a highly technological application of science in an innovative manner. This application of a sensor was not possible when the M8 came out, but it is possible now. It constitutes a technological advancement.

The point of this whole post and the prior post is a discussion of your narrow and exclusionary application of "innovative" and "technological advancement," towards Leica. I have given support to the claim that they have made technological achievements. Just as I had asserted this in the beginning, with a simple statement. It is you who chose to assert otherwise, in the manner of debate, and apply a narrow definition that fit your argument. I do not agree on a redefinition of the words, as acknowledged by "the general society", and the "the scientific community" within it. A very simple stand really.

As for a B&W M9, it has seemed to me that we both agree that it is a more limited market. If you are familiar with my prior posts on the topic, I have asserted that this will all be decided by Leica, and what they see fit for their greater good. Hence, I have simply pointed out that everything is already established with the M9 to make it happen. It would simply need to be altered, in ways that are not significant. I agree neither of us knows what they will do in this area. But, that is not the point that I made. So, I really do not understand why you would chose to attack this in the first place.

I will let the record stand and others can decide for themselves, on this topic. There is no malice on my part.

Kindest Regards,

[Ranchu]

Continuing my leica bitching, they really don't seem to be innovating much these days, rather playing catch up. For instance, Why a bayer RGGB sensor? Trying to integrate that oversensitve green channel with the less sensitive red and blue and come out with accurate color is an exercise in futility. The standard reason for the bayer RGGB is to 'match the spectral sensitvity of the eye'. BFD, I already have eyes that do that for me. Compare the spectral dye response of a color film with the digital camera filter responses at dxomark.com .Why not omit one green pixel? Conversion would be a lot more sane, Leica might even get their little toe wet instead of fobbing the job off on phase and adobe.