Why the next digital M will not cost $10,000 USD

[eleskin]

I made the choice to use rangefinders based on how they shoot and lens quality. The rangefinder way of shooting is a creative choice to many, and should not be reserved for the "rich" only but to those who use it in the way artists only use certain oil paints and brushes.

Clearly, it is absurd and too bad to exclude many who have talent the option of using a digital rangefinder camera for their creativity. At times, I get mad at Leica when I see special editions (Titanium M9). It gives the impression they only cater to the rich. Many of the great photographers in history were not rich and used rangefinders.

I must say the new Fuji will change alot. For $800-$1000 USD, the rangefinder experience will be accessable to many who cannot afford an M9 or a used M8. This is great for those who really love rangefinder photography and want people of all economic levels to have the choice to experience using a high quality direct viewfinder camera. Let us say I am for rangefinders for the masses, digital and film!!!!!!! I have seen M9 photos that are terrible from people who are bad photographers and superior M8 (M9 too) photos in the hands of great photographers. Great photographers come in all colors, races, religions and economic levels. That is what Leica, Canon, and everyone else must realize!!!

[Roger Hicks]

Originally Posted by eleskin

I made the choice to use rangefinders based on how they shoot and lens quality. The rangefinder way of shooting is a creative choice to many, and should not be reserved for the "rich" only but to those who use it in the way artists only use certain oil paints and brushes.

Clearly, it is absurd and too bad to exclude many who have talent the option of using a digital rangefinder camera for their creativity. At times, I get mad at Leica when I see special editions (Titanium M9). It gives the impression they only cater to the rich. Many of the great photographers in history were not rich and used rangefinders.

I must say the new Fuji will change alot. For $800-$1000 USD, the rangefinder experience will be accessable to many who cannot afford an M9 or a used M8. This is great for those who really love rangefinder photography and want people of all economic levels to have the choice to experience using a high quality direct viewfinder camera. Let us say I am for rangefinders for the masses, digital and film!!!!!!! If the rich want their diamond studded editions, fine, but lets see the photos they will take! I have seen M9 photos that are terrible from people who are bad photographers and superior M8 (M9 too) photos in the hands of great photographers. Great photographers come in all colors, races, religions and economic levels. That is what Leica, Canon, and everyone else must realize!!!

Even more clearly, it is absolutely meaningless to tell Leica (or anyone else) what they 'ought' to charge. IT'S A BUSINESS. They're in business to stay in business, not to cater to the fantasies of those who want Rolls Royces at Ford prices. Great drivers come in all colors, races, religions and economic levels too -- and Ferrari and Ford both realize that.

Cheers,

R.

[jaapv]

Originally Posted by eleskin

Clearly, it is absurd and too bad to exclude many who have talent the option of using a digital rangefinder camera for their creativity. At times, I get mad at Leica when I see special editions (Titanium M9). It gives the impression they only cater to the rich. Many of the great photographers in history were not rich and used rangefinders.

Ummm- I would say the money Leica made out of the M9Ti will help to keep the price down on more mundane products like the M9 and S2. And although photographers like Ansel Adams and HCB were more than well off by any standard, most Leica buyers are normal people with normal jobs prepared to make a sacrifice to shoot the camera they want.
And M8s are certainly in the affordable range by now. Effectively cutting off any idea anybody might have of producing/buying lower priced gear. If faced with the choice between the much-touted but unproven Fuji X100 and an M8 with a used CV lens at comparable, albeit still double- prices - well, I know what I would choose... Especially since the Fuji will not be a rangefinder camera, but more like a point-and shoot with an optical viewfinder with RF simulation.

[Jamie123]

Prediction:
Just like Mc Donalds in Germany, Leica will change the color of their logo from red to green in order to take advantage of the environmentalism trend.

[bob338]

Originally Posted by eleskin

I must say the new Fuji will change alot. For $800-$1000 USD, the rangefinder experience will be accessable to many who cannot afford an M9 or a used M8. This is great for those who really love rangefinder photography and want people of all economic levels to have the choice to experience using a high quality direct viewfinder camera.

Please don't think I'm picking at you but I would point to the RD1 as an example of a $1k rangefinder for the less fortunate photographers out there. And if I remember correctly Epson stopped making it because no one bought it!
This mythical Fuji will be another dressed up elph or lumix or whatever they're called these days. It's no different to me than buying an Electro or Lynx or Canonet in 1966 because it looks enough like the Leica i can't afford.

Bob

[bwcolor]

Forget that you are talking about a digital camera. Don't expect Nikon, Canon, Leica, or anyone else to hold their price in dollars. The premise underlying the OPs optimism is completely flawed.

That said, it is a competition between the cost savings of improved technology vs. the above. The M-10 might not yet reach 10K, but it is doubtful that it will go down in price.

[Harry Lime]

Originally Posted by ebino

I can only think of ISO performance, other than that I don't see anything that needs improving and worth upgrading from M9.

- Greater dynamic range. 10-12 stops would be good.
- Less high iso noise
- Weathersealing!

[Benjamin Marks]

This is a tautology, but I'll offer it anyway: Leica will charge $10K for a digital M when the market will bear that cost.

Ben Marks

[Benjamin Marks]

Originally Posted by Harry Lime

- Greater dynamic range. 10-12 stops would be good.
- Less high iso noise
- Weathersealing!

Let me add: EVF and TTL focusing. I know we love the RF, but there are so many little issues solved by this approach. I often think that my little EP-2 is an M 9/2 (nine divided by two) -- it's just such a slick little lozenge of a camera. Flame away if you must, but I think EVF would significantly improve the M's handling. No more RF adjustments, no more back- focusing lenses, the ability to use extension tubes and lenses as long as you'd like. Hell, you could even get image stabilization in there . . . Olympus did.

OK. Done hallucinating.

Ben

[Leigh Youdale]

Mike: This thread is predicated on a level of generalization and economic prayer bead use -
Roger: You need to make an awful lot of cameras to get prices down to RFF fantasy levels, and the demand ain't that big.

Yea, verily.

Think back to the excited anticipation and then the howls of outrage when the Bessa III came out. A lot of people just can't fathom the economic realities.

[Brian Sweeney]

The Confederate Dollar has been stable for a long time.

Leica will charge what they need to charge to stay in business, people will spend the money if they want a Leica. I have the M8 and two EP2's. I can focus faster with the M8. I could think of some things to improve the EP2- such as a center focus patch that allows magnified view while the rest of the finder remains 1x. Frame and Focus in one step- much like a rangefinder. But- it does not work that way, and the Leica does.

[Roger Hicks]

Originally Posted by Benjamin Marks

Let me add: EVF and TTL focusing. I know we love the RF, but there are so many little issues solved by this approach. I often think that my little EP-2 is an M 9/2 (nine divided by two) -- it's just such a slick little lozenge of a camera. Flame away if you must, but I think EVF would significantly improve the M's handling. No more RF adjustments, no more back- focusing lenses, the ability to use extension tubes and lenses as long as you'd like. Hell, you could even get image stabilization in there . . . Olympus did.

OK. Done hallucinating.

Ben

Dear Ben,

Well, you invited it, so, flame, flame, flame. I've yet to see an EVF worth using (and I tried all the latest stuff at photokina), and besides, I like being able to focus my cameras.

While you're putting in the EVF, why not make it micro 4/3 at the same time? In fact, why not take away everything else that makes it a Leica M at the same time?

And where's the full-frame, image-stabilized Olympus RF?

Cheers,

R.

[Benjamin Marks]

Originally Posted by Roger Hicks

Dear Ben,
Well, you invited it, so, flame, flame, flame. R.

[Donning fully articulated asbestos head-gear and matching undies]. Roger, I thought I would feel the same way as you do about the Olympus's EVF, and I have gotten along with it tolerably well. Key to this is being able to toggle into "magnification mode" for critical focusing in certain situations. But for me, that EVF is adequate. As for the "where is it?" well, in the vapor/ether along with a lot of other gear hypothesized here on RFF. I am carrying around an M8 and the EP-2 these days and for my picture making they complement each other nicely. I just catch myself wishing that the one camera had certain features of the other and vice versa with some frequency.

Ben

[Edit: Roger - for me the quintessential thing that makes a Leica M an M is its ability to take M-lenses. If I could jerry-rig an adapter to fit them to a D3, I'd do it, but there are too many problems to solve. Love those big chips. . . m 4/3? Nice, but still too small for me. I want light-sensitive real estate, and lots of it! For what it's worth, I'm no more convinced that Olympus will come up with a full frame option for using these lenses than you are, but Leica at least has a motive.]

[And another thing: I only use the Oly EP-2 for manual focus lenses -- I'm with you on this one, I like being able to focus my lenses too.]

[Roger Hicks]

Originally Posted by Benjamin Marks

[Donning fully articulated asbestos head-gear and matching undies]. Roger, I thought I would feel the same way as you do about the Olympus's EVF, and I have gotten along with it tolerably well. Key to this is being able to toggle into "magnification mode" for critical focusing in certain situations. But for me, that EVF is adequate. As for the "where is it?" well, in the vapor/ether along with a lot of other gear hypothesized here on RFF. I am carrying around an M8 and the EP-2 these days and for my picture making they complement each other nicely. I just catch myself wishing that the one camera had certain features of the other and vice versa with some frequency.

Ben

Dear Ben,

Well, I tried it at photokina. It's certainly the least worst yet. The guy behind the counter agreed with me that in 2-3 years, or maybe 5-10 if things didn't work out, EVFs would equal optical. But not yet. And although you can do a EVF 'rangefinder', it's an absurd work-around, like a steam-driven machine-gun.

Cheers,

R.

[Benjamin Marks]

Originally Posted by Roger Hicks

Dear Ben,

Well, I tried it at photokina. It's certainly the least worst yet. The guy behind the counter agreed with me that in 2-3 years, or maybe 5-10 if things didn't work out, EVFs would equal optical. But not yet. And although you can do a EVF 'rangefinder', it's an absurd work-around, like a steam-driven machine-gun.

Cheers,

R.

Well, if I could mount my Leica glass on a steam-driven full frame camera, I'd give it a whirl. I (although admittedly never at photokina) have watched with interest the development of viewfinders since my first appalling experience with Canon's digi-Rebel. Yuck. Tried Pentax's K-100 and 10K at B&H. Yuck. Olympus's E-1. Double yuck. Nikon's D100. Yuck. I liked the Canon 5D, and really like Nikon's D3 viewfinder, which I routinely use with manual focus lenses. I only recite this to place the Oly EVF in context. Is it "equal" to a Leica M or R? Nope. But it is adequate for my needs, and surprisingly it is much more usable than the first and second generation optical viewfinders in the "enthusiast" grade cameras listed above. Hey! my pictures are even in focus.

I think you have to view these things (no pun intended) evolutionarily and once you get past "adequate," the rest is just a question of refinement. I get from your prior posts that you don't think Oly is there yet. OK. But in the 2-3 (or 5) year time frame you mentioned above, I think we could be justified in looking around for an M-10, based on past Leica product cycles. For me: if it fits in the form factor and takes the lenses, but has something other than a traditional RF, I think you'll see the traditionalists rend their clothes and apply ashes with righteous fury. But then everyone will settle down and start making nice pictures and all will be well with the world.

Ben

[tom.w.bn]

Originally Posted by eleskin

I

I must say the new Fuji will change alot. For $800-$1000 USD, the rangefinder experience will be accessable to many who cannot afford an M9 or a used M8. This is great for those who really love rangefinder photography and want people of all economic levels to have the choice to experience using a high quality direct viewfinder camera.

From what we have seen so far, the X100 is not a real rangefinder.

[tom.w.bn]

Originally Posted by Benjamin Marks

Let me add: EVF and TTL focusing. I know we love the RF, but there are so many little issues solved by this approach. I often think that my little EP-2 is an M 9/2 (nine divided by two) -- it's just such a slick little lozenge of a camera. Flame away if you must, but I think EVF would significantly improve the M's handling. No more RF adjustments, no more back- focusing lenses, the ability to use extension tubes and lenses as long as you'd like. Hell, you could even get image stabilization in there . . . Olympus did.

OK. Done hallucinating.

Ben

Been there, done that All the EVF that are around right now suck. They don't come near a FF DSLR finder or a real rangefinder.

[Benjamin Marks]

Originally Posted by tom.w.bn

Been there, done that All the EVF that are around right now suck. They don't come near a FF DSLR finder or a real rangefinder.

Yeah. You have a point, but my pictures are in focus. This may sound trivial, but for me it's the whole ball-game. So while it is apparently a near certainty that I will grow hair on my palms and rapidly lose IQ points from looking through a sucky EVF, I am limping along OK. Wait! I think I just lost a hat-size. Damn, I may have spoken too soon.

BTW, my pictures were not always in focus when using the truly sucky digi-Rebel optical postage-stamp-at-the-bottom-of-a-drain-pipe view finder. So I guess the amount of suction is relative, so to speak.

[tom.w.bn]

Originally Posted by Benjamin Marks

BTW, my pictures were not always in focus when using the truly sucky digi-Rebel optical postage-stamp-at-the-bottom-of-a-drain-pipe view finder. So I guess the amount of suction is relative, so to speak.

If you compare an EVF with the lower quality half then the EVF might look surprisingly good. It's all relative.
I like rangefinders because they have a rangefinder. I didn't like manual focussing with an SLR but I enjoy using the focussing mechanism of a rangefinder. An M10 with an EVF wouldn't be tempting for me.

[jsrockit]

Originally Posted by Pickett Wilson

Repeat after me. There is no viable market for a lower cost digital RF.

Why? Please explain.

[rxmd]

Originally Posted by jsrockit

Why? Please explain.

- Too expensive to make, more so with the features people seem to expect (see the common "Full frame M-mount Bessa 5D for < $2K" discussions)

- Discussion dominated by wishful thinking

- Too few buyers overall, economics of scale don't work out

- Market highly fragmented with contradictory requirements on basic questions (display or no display, advance lever or no advance lever etc.)

Philipp

[JeffNYC]

Is it possible that Leica might change their philosophy and use a CMOS sensor in the M10.
It seems to be working well for them (cleaner high ISO) in the X1.
Maybe cutting ties with Kodak.. It could be a cheaper option.

[tlitody]

is this really a question of "Should I buy the M9 now for M9 prices or do I risk waiting for the 9.2/M10 which might cost a lot more?".
Methinks no one here knows. There is no telling what Leica might do to stay in business but I'd guess they will count on their clients(the faithful) being loaded and willing to pay whatever is asked.

[noimmunity]

I think eleskin is right (i.e., there will be a market alternative RF body), although I have no greater cause for substantiation than intuition. Just wanted to voice my whisper-thin vote.

Some people in this thread seem to confuse fantasy as a mode of prediction and fantasy as an irreplaceable marketing tool.

[jaapv]

Maybe there should be - but I wonder who is to take the risk of near-certain heavy losses..