MR's open letter to Leica re M10

I didn't read the whole thing as I'm not that interested in the matter but I glanced over it.

Firstly, what's with his use of the word "gestalt"?? In english this is a psychological term related to Gestalt psychology. It's got nothing to do with cameras. And even in german you wouldn't use this term to speak about the form of a camera.

Secondly, I don't think he's right at all about the M line being in need of a redesign. Of course the design of the M9 is unreasonable. So is the price. The whole reason why people actually pay the price of the M9 is that they get something from it which they can't get from a Canon or Nikon. And it's not just the lenses because you can get Zeiss lenses for Canon or Nikon, too. It's also not just the size because you can get a Canon 500D which is not that much bigger and costs a fraction of the M9.
Without the design and "retro" look of the M which people can fetishize over Leica wouldn't sell even half of what they sell now at this price.
 
Jamie123 said:
Firstly, what's with his use of the word "gestalt"?? In english this is a psychological term related to Gestalt psychology. It's got nothing to do with cameras. And even in german you wouldn't use this term to speak about the form of a camera.
Click to expand...

This I don't quite understand either. "We" use plenty of English words, of course, but Germans tend to speak English. The other way around it sometimes feels like the author is trying hard to patronize his audience.

That letter is ridiculous by the way, all of this could have been said in a couple of sentences.

martin
 
Gee whiz, if I'd known in advance that this screed was on its way, I would have held off selling my Digilux 2 to a fellow RFF member and instead would offered it to MR. I bought the Digi 2 shortly after it came out because it was the closest thing to a digital M... in words, the only thing it had to do with an actual M was that it was badged a Leica and had a nice Summicron lens. That and Leica's marketing of it back then as "The Digital M." I knew it wasn't so, but I liked the camera. It was no rangefinder and essentially was no M. I enjoyed it and made lots of pleasing images with it.

What MR is suggesting, live view, etc... really has nothing to do with the M experience whatsoever. I Leica were to have the financial wherewithal and R&D capacity to create a new line of cameras to suit MR's wishes, more power to them. Since they don't, I wouldn't expect any of this happen. In case case, the fundamental concept of LTMs and Ms is in their simplicity. To screw around with that beyond the bare minimum of features would be an utter mistake. I'll stick with my M8/M2 combo until one of you nice M9 owners decides to sell of your camera to fund your M10 purchase. Perhaps what MR really needs is an adapter so he can graft an M lens onto a a great big, heavy pro DSLR. I cherish the ability to stick a small 35 on my Ms and to stuff them in a pocket to go out shooting. Try that with an S2, Nikon or Canon.

Next, MR will be suggesting that Porsche redesign the 911 series with four doors and a water-cooled engine up front. Oops! The Panamera. It may be a Porsche, but it's NOT a 911.

If you add focus aids beyond rangefinder to an M2, it ceases to be an M.
 
But that's the issue, Rob. What does Leica do to an M10 that will entice a buyer to pony up what will then probably be $8,000 or $9,000 to move up from his M9 (the people most likely to buy the new camera). More pixels and less noise isn't likely to do that, and that's about all left for Leica to change. I see it more an an economic problem for Leica than a design problem.
 
Pickett Wilson said:
What does Leica do to an M10 that will entice a buyer to pony up what will then probably be $8,000 or $9,000 to move up from his M9 (the people most likely to buy the new camera). More pixels and less noise isn't likely to do that.
Click to expand...

From what I've observed historically, I have to disagree. I believe there is a segment of Leica's market that would move up if (and I apologize because this is going to sound harsh) the only change was in engraving from "9" to "10". Leica has even had success selling cameras with less features for more money (to wit, the MP lost the TTL flash capability of its lower-priced predecessor). And if the M10 manages to improve upon the M9 in any measurable way at all, I think it's safe to say there will be a waiting list for it.

As to Mr. Reichmann's preferences, I think a camera with his specifications might be very nice, perhaps as an alternative to the rangefinder M. But not as a replacement.
 
agreed. and, I don't have an answer for what they do next. my last leica purchase as a 50-year old camera. my next leica purchase is far more likely to be a used camera or lens than a new one. so, their economic vs design/features problem is self-evident.

the one good thing for leica is that their most dedicated and loyal supporters own more than one.
Pickett Wilson said:
But that's the issue, Rob. What does Leica do to an M10 that will entice a buyer to pony up what will then probably be $8,000 or $9,000 to move up from his M9 (the people most likely to buy the new camera). More pixels and less noise isn't likely to do that, and that's about all left for Leica to change. I see it more an an economic problem for Leica than a design problem.
Click to expand...
 
Provocating to be beaten up here I can only second Mr. Reichmann and wouldt like to have the EVF with the view of the lens FL responding frame, like the frame lines in the traditional VF.
This said, I own and regularily use two Leica M (M2 and M3) two Minolta CLE one RD1, two Rolleiflexes, one Fuji GW690 and several 6x9-Folders from the 50ties. I would expect the features Mr. Reichmann suggests from a camera priced with US$ 7000.
I use to shoot in very low light situations without flash, the traditional Leica VF is useless there (no contrast) and hyperfocal does not work at f 1,4.
O.K. Now beat me up.
George
 
I'd serious consider MR's camera should one be produced. Live-View with a pop-up shade is an idea I have also considered valuable particularly with lenses >90mm.

However, an EVF won't cut it for me. A major reason I use an RF is being able to see outside the lines while framing. A bright-line finder with the usual frame-lines involving focus confirmation from the center of the frame might be workable though if it's spot-on.

Freed from the prism rangefinder, there's no reason there couldn't be separate finder components, one for say 15-28mm, another for 28-90mm, and yeah okay, maybe an EVF for folks who don't mind the view from inside of the box.

I'm kind of hoping that an outfit other than Leica is considering these things so that another digital M-mount would be available sooner rather than later. I worry that the M9 will be it for a while as far as Leica is concerned unless some competition forces them forward with the M-system.
 
Pickett Wilson said:
But that's the issue, Rob. What does Leica do to an M10 that will entice a buyer to pony up what will then probably be $8,000 or $9,000 to move up from his M9 (the people most likely to buy the new camera). More pixels and less noise isn't likely to do that, and that's about all left for Leica to change. I see it more an an economic problem for Leica than a design problem.
Click to expand...

I think more pixels and higher ISO/less noise would be enough to entice most buyers of the M9 to move up to the M10. Maybe add LiveView, better battery life and some minor software improvements. Who knows, maybe they'll also manage to reduce the size and weight a little.

Remember that someone who will 'move up' to the M10 will not just upgrade, he will also be replacing his 'old' M9 with a new, camera. And don't forget the people whose M9 has broken after warranty. They'll figure "I can pay a small fortune to have this repaired or I can just go ahead and buy a new one for a slightly bigger fortune".
 
Well, I don't know if many of the statements in that letter are very true. Many of them are based on speculation. I can refute that point about rangefinders becoming dinosaurs almost immediately: I'm 21, I've never even held a rangefinder in my life (much less a Leica) and I am now an owner of an M8. Every single friend of mine that I show it to (also in their early 20s) is considering getting rid of their huge SLRs and buying a rangefinder. Rangefinders have their own niche, the one that they've filled for the last 60 years. That niche, as far as I can tell, isn't going anywhere. If you want proof, search flickr for "street photgraphy".

EVF screens? Why? People have been capturing monumental photographs with manual focus, optical viewfinders for years! Why does an EVF need to be added to something that's already, for its use, pretty exceptional? I can understand that it could make framing more accurate, allow more information on the screen. However, this seems to come with too many compromises; then the idea of shooting a simplistic, minimal camera evaporates, which is one of the most pleasing aspects of using M8 and M9. Even being a child of the digital age, I don't believe an EVF is 'necessary'. There's something much different between looking at a screen and an actual scene through a lens. He covers his argument pretty well though by allowing that it should be optional and detachable. That, in my opinion, is a very good solution for both camps.

I respect that Michael wishes to help Leica improve their cameras. After all, without innovation, how could I be typing this message? So indeed, maybe some changes are in store for Leica, but maybe not such drastic ones. I like his comments on ergonomics *nudge nudge*.
-H
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom