Thom Hogan, a very wise man

Putting aside the mystique of the things, most Leica users site simplicity, reliability, and build quality as reasons for the camera's appeal. Now, there's no reason why another manufacturer can't roll out cameras that are as simple and reliable as Leicas, and built well enough to last one lifetime, not two.

Those cameras do not need to be rangefinders. If the market for the kind of camera Hogan sketches turns out to exist, eventually, someone will fill it.

E.g., if someone rolls out an M-mount capable camera the size of an Oly EP-2, with an FF sensor, and an acceptable EVF, and priced between $1000 and $2000, how many would really worry that it didn't have the mirrors and prisms needed to qualify as a rangefinder? That price point may seem very optimistic, but the history of digital products tells us that, at some point in time, it will happen.

On the other hand, the total global population of M-mount folks looking for a digital home for their lenses may be so small that no one other than Leica can make a profit selling such a thing.
 
Last edited:
I think it's a pretty neat idea, actually. I wouldn't care for the B&W version, but the superimposed evf sounds pretty great. As does the zooming finder mentioned by Mark Dubovy (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/leica-different-view.shtml). Combining both... well that might be even better. The rf system is by far my favorite way of using a camera. Making it better and more flexible would be a great step.

I wonder if Hogan's evf option would allow for a user selectable rf patch location...

Anyway, if Leica did this, it would be very easy for them to offer an M10, same vf style as the earlier M's, and an "MD": same sensor, just different viewing options. The R&D would be for the new camera: vf, sensor, software, and the old-style would just inherit the sensor R&D.
 
42mm fov f2.8 fixed lens, focusing tab like elmar. Aps-c, 10 mpx. Simple finder with patch, no framelines for simplicity, durability and brightness. No motors, knobs for exposure, recessed front element. A proprietary raw convertor with 3D look up tables so that color can be done properly. 800 dollars. Quit screwing around, just gimme a camera. Won't be a leica, but Kodak could save their ass if they made it..
 
Last edited:
degruyl said:
By the way, has anyone asked why it is a good idea to hold a camera at arms length when taking a picture? (this specifically refers to those cameras with the rear LCD acting as a viewfinder).
Click to expand...

Only old people suffering from hyperopia should have to do this... anyone else can hold the LCD 5 -7 inches from their face and hold the camera in an almost traditional manner.
 
I had a very, very, very bad day, so I probably shouldn't speak my mind now.

But I'm SICK and TIRED of the naysayers about any change to the Leica M concept. No matter how much you like it, for 99.99% of photographers it is an obsolete and obscenely overhyped and overpriced camera.

Sometimes I think that what the purists really want is to turn back the clock 55 years or so, when the M3 was new, revolutionary and without question the best small camera in the world. I hate to break it to you boys, but others have caught up... at about the end of the fifties already I believe.

Leica was once the camera company others followed. I think the modern SLRs and even the M9 have their merits. But both SLRs and RFs are a dead end. I really believe that, no matter how many old analogue cams I have (17 at the last count, all functional and being used). It would be wonderful if Leica would make the next revolution, but I'm not holding my breath. Rant over.
 
I would hazard an uninformed guess that a hybrid EVF/ rangefinder viewing system would cost more to manufacture at current production volumes than the existing mechanical/optical rangefinder. And would require more space in the camera body to implement. And would consume more battery capacity.

If the M9 body were currently being offered for $3000, I wonder how much of this speculation would be ongoing. Obviously, the reasons for these speculations have to do with the cost of the system, not the particulars of the mechanics and electronics, at least for the enthusiast amateur. I'm more than certain that these would fly off the shelves if the cost were more in line with what an enthusiast photographer could afford.

Ironically, professional photographers, those who make a living at it and can hence write off their equipment expenses (and thus are in a position to afford M9's), are not running in droves to the M9 (at least, not yet). Perhaps this has more to do with the capabilities of the M9 as compared to the high-end DSLR commonly in use.

Leica seems to be manufacturing cameras that neither the professional nor the enthusiast amateur can afford or want. What's left are narrow niche markets. This is the fundamental problem with their business model. The X1 is a good first step to breaking out of this paradigm, but it may be too little, too late.

Aside from their legacy camera designs, the essence of what a Leica camera could become has to be differentiated from what the Japanese makers can do. Otherwise Leica are redundant to the marketplace. I think this would involve mechanically elegant, diminutively sized, optically excellent camera and lens designs that follow on from where their legacy has brought them, a tool one uses between the hand, eye and heart. That's their legacy.

Unfortunately, the new systems like u4/3 are getting there faster than Leica seems to be (or even apparently wants to be). One only has to look at the demise of the luxury car brands to see where the future of camera technology will go. Manufacturing efficiency, controlled labor costs, these are all factors. Leica doesn't seem to be able to remain globally competitive when they're making cameras in low volume like Rolles used to make luxury cars. And cobbling less than first rate electronics into legacy form factors seems like the wrong way to go about it. I think the Leica/Kodak alignment will remain critical to Leica's success. They lack the resources or knowledge base to build their own chip fabs and manufacture their own sensors and circuit boards. It's an extremely capital-intensive niche business that relies on high profit margins and high volume production to remain profitable and enable equipment retooling refresh cycles. If Kodak can't make sensors that outperform the Japanese at an affordable price, then perhaps a Chinese foundary should be considered.

But all of these changes would alienate the core customer base of the highly narrow, niche-market. They're in a tight spot. Reducing prices should be their number one job, along with making design changes that pro's could appreciate. Perhaps along the lines of a pro line of camera, optimized for their needs, and a secondary consumer line. And perhaps more affordable lenses for the consumer line, using software correction to eliminate one set of optical elements in the design, like Panasonic.
 
Ronald_H said:
I had a very, very, very bad day, so I probably shouldn't speak my mind now.

But I'm SICK and TIRED of the naysayers about any change to the Leica M concept. No matter how much you like it, for 99.99% of photographers it is an obsolete and obscenely overhyped and overpriced camera.

Sometimes I think that what the purists really want is to turn back the clock 55 years or so, when the M3 was new, revolutionary and without question the best small camera in the world. I hate to break it to you boys, but others have caught up... at about the end of the fifties already I believe.

Leica was once the camera company others followed. I think the modern SLRs and even the M9 have their merits. But both SLRs and RFs are a dead end. I really believe that, no matter how many old analogue cams I have (17 at the last count, all functional and being used). It would be wonderful if Leica would make the next revolution, but I'm not holding my breath. Rant over.
Click to expand...
Dear Ronald,

Well, I'll respond in the same vein.

Quite honestly, I don't give a flying f*** about what 99.9% of 10,000,000 hypothetical photographers want, because the remaining 0.1% see a camera with unique features which costs what it costs. That's still 10,000 photographers, who (if they can find the money) can keep Leica in business.

Actually, I suspect that anyone who can think clearly will not see Leicas as 'obscenely overpriced' (because Leica couldn't make it the same way and sell it for a lot less), and that anyone who likes taking pictures with Leicas doesn't see them as 'overhyped' either, because Leicas do what they want, the way they want to do it.

If you don't like 'em, don't buy 'em. But why do you feel the need to attack them? In my book, buying a Ferrari is crazy -- but I don't want to close Ferrari down because I just don't feel affected by Ferraris. Why do you feel affected by Leicas? Are you afraid that they might actually be as good for some people as those people say?

For that matter, I can't see how anyone who isn't mentally defective could be interested in football, but as I know some people who are not mentally defective and who are interested in football, there is probably a fault in my premise. There may be a fault in your premise about Leicas too.

I hope you have a better day tomorrow.

Cheers,

R.
 
Last edited:
The thing I agree with Thom the most, is why Nikon, Canon, or some other manufacturer hasn't stepped in, in producing an affordable digital rangefinder? Please, no talk about the RD-1!
 
kbg32 said:
The thing I agree with Thom the most, is why Nikon, Canon, or some other manufacturer hasn't stepped in, in producing an affordable digital rangefinder? Please, no talk about the RD-1!
Click to expand...

Possiby because (a) the market is too small for them to bother and (b) they lack any expertise in producing rangefinder cameras, apart from a few commemorative models, in the last half century or so.

Instead of wishing Leica broke (no, you weren't, but some seem to be), why don't we consider the possibility of being grateful for the existence of a camera that no-one else wants to make?

Cheers,

R.
 
Roger Hicks said:
... because Leica couldn't make it the same way and sell it for a lot less...
Click to expand...

Roger, I grant you that, but I don't think that means someone else couldn't make cameras of similar quality and lower prices using a different method.

On digital RF's: Once EVF's deliver images at least as good as their optical counterparts, what's the reason for a manufacturer to add in all the actual RF glass and hardware? If someone built a digital the size of an EP-2 that could use m-mount lenses and had that kind of an EVF, wouldn't it sell to a lot of us, regardless of sensor size?
 
wgerrard said:
Roger, I grant you that, but I don't think that means someone else couldn't make cameras of similar quality and lower prices using a different method.

On digital RF's: Once EVF's deliver images at least as good as their optical counterparts, what's the reason for a manufacturer to add in all the actual RF glass and hardware? If someone built a digital the size of an EP-2 that could use m-mount lenses and had that kind of an EVF, wouldn't it sell to a lot of us, regardless of sensor size?
Click to expand...

Dear Bill,

Sure. When it happens.

Cheers,

R.
 
Here we go again.

My two cents.

- Yes, I would like to see an M9 monochrome.

- Yes, I would like to see live-view in the M-series. It's an unobtrusive option in the menu. If you don't want it, don't turn it on. If you don't turn it on, you'll never know it is there. But there are many very good uses for LV. There were several gadgets back in the LTM days that essentially gave you an analog implementation of live-view, so it's really nothing to Leicas.

- Yes, I would like to see a better sensor and more accurate metering system, as long as it's implementation was transparent.

- Yes, on focus confirmation via a LED in the viewfinder, as long as it can be turned off. I don't need it, but if it will stop those without 20/20 vision from wanting to turn the camera in to an AF wonder, I'll tolerate it.

- Otherwise leave the M-series alone. There will always be 10,000-25,000 people out of 9 BILLION willing to buy one, unless it is a total piece of junk.

- If Leica was smart they would want to increase sales and revenue, so their entire fortune doesn't hinge on one product. The solution would be to introduce a digital CL. The camera that many people want, but Solms is unwilling to build for god knows what reason. The X1 is not this camera, but a P&S with a very big sensor. Nothing more and nothing less.

I probably know roughly 8 people who would buy an M9 tomorrow, if they could afford one. So, the issue isn't that the camera doesn't appeal to customers under 50 etc. Interestingly all of these 8 people are attracted to the M9, because it is a straight forward, unobtrusive photographic tool, unlike most DSLR.

I'm willing to bet money that for every person who actually bought an M9, there are probably 2 - 3 others who would buy one if they could afford it. That's a lot of sales. I understand that the M9 can't really be made at a lower cost. Labour costs in Germany are high, it is assembled by hand and in small quantities, so they do not enjoy the advantages of economy of scale. Fair enough, but you're better off selling them a CL-D and a few lenses, than no camera at all. Imagine a APS-C or APS-H based CL-D of lower build quality clocking in around $2800 - 3500. Just like the analog CL was positioned to the M-series. Just like every other camera company on the planet has a tiered product line. (and no, a CL-D would not kill the M9, just like the D300 hasn't killed the D3-series)

- A new product line. Start with a clean slate and do all the things people like Hogan and Reichmann talk about. Make that full frame GF-1 with the EVF etc. Use the R-mount. The market will decide if it will sell.
 
Last edited:
Roger Hicks said:
Possiby because (a) the market is too small for them to bother and (b) they lack any expertise in producing rangefinder cameras, apart from a few commemorative models, in the last half century or so.

Instead of wishing Leica broke (no, you weren't, but some seem to be), why don't we consider the possibility of being grateful for the existence of a camera that no-one else wants to make?

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...


I think they could produce one with their eyes closed. Especially Panasonic, who has had a history with Leica. Market being too small, is probably the uppermost reason.
 
Roger Hicks said:
Dear Ronald,

Well, I'll respond in the same vein.

Quite honestly, I don't give a flying f*** about what 99.9% of 10,000,000 hypothetical photographers want, because the remaining 0.1% see a camera with unique features which costs what it costs...
Click to expand...

Now that's funny, blunt, and too the point all in one. Bravo Roger. I think that this all comes down to sour grapes: I want a Leica M9, it is a very expensive camera system, and I can't have it without great sacrifice.

Well, I am not wealthy, but I will find a way to attain it in time. Why, because it is the camera I have been waiting for Leica to make, and it is important to me. I scraped together the money for an M8, and I will sell it to help make this purchase. Is the amount difficult to pull together, yes. But, one thing I do not expect is to be disappointed.

Pickett Wilson said:
I seriously doubt, with its limited production capacity, that Leica will ever produce more than one M mount camera at a time.
Click to expand...

First, I wold never assume what Leica's production capabilities are or could be. You may have intimate knowledge in this area, I do not. Now, Leica may or may not have an interest in diversifying it's camera range for the M lenses. They will do, as they will do. But, I would think if they did, they could very well do this in a co-operative effort with someone like Panasonic. I know that sounds crazy, but oh that's right, they have done that before. Or, as they have done with the M9 & S2 they may work with Kodak and do the rest in house.

So, it would be very difficult to rule out Leica's ability to produce a camera that would appeal to another group of users. If there is a strong enough buyers market for such a camera, as suggested by the OP it may be in their interest to do so. Again, Leica will do as the see fit. But, this thread is hardly about what Leica sees fit. It is about what prospective users, and users see fit. I do not take offense to these suppositions as others do, for I place them in the context of people who want Leica to survive.

I just am not quick to claim I can foresee Leica's eminent demise if they do not make these additions or changes. There are far to many examples of companies with small production of expensive goods that are doing just fine. This whole thing is a bit of a sticky wicket, as I hope they continue to be prosperous, and I hope they continue to produce wonderful examples of photographic instruments. But, as always there path will be for them to decide, not their critics. So, I take comfort in knowing that they have done a fine job for quite some time, and I have no reason to believe they will not continue to do so in the future.

Kindest regards to both of you,
 
For some reason the constant questioning of the M9's values and where Leica should be going with it reminded me of this infamous Monty Python clip. (What have the romans ever done for us?)

Substitute 'Leica' for 'Romans' and any other words or phrases that may be appropriate and suddenly it all makes sense ... well to me at least! 😛

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExWfh6sGyso
 
biggambi said:
(1) But, one thing I do not expect is to be disappointed.
(2) Or, as they have done with the M9 & S2 they may work with Kodak and do the rest in house.
Click to expand...

(1) You probably won't be. As you can tell from the review, I wasn't.

(2) At the factory, they told me that their intention is to do as much as possible in house, so that they are the ones who call the shots, not their suppliers/partners.

And Fred's point about boats is unanswerable. Remember the famous Uffa Fox quote about yacht racing, "It's like standing under a cold shower tearing up five-pound notes." With inflation adjustment that's at least 100€ notes.

The point is that Leicas are within the reach of far more people than boats, and that among those people there are therefore far more people suffering from sour grapes; with no idea about camera design; with no idea how busnesses work... They don't whinge about the price of yachts, because they haven't got a hope in hell of being able to afford one, but they can almost afford a Leica (or could easily afford a Leica if they went without a new fitted kitchen or a new car) and therefore they feel entitled to whine and snivel about the price of what is, after all, a luxury for anyone except a professional photographer with a particular way of seeing.

Finally, even those things that are luxuries and leisure activities are, for a few people, a means of earning a living. Pro golf, anyone?

Cheers,

R.
 
Last edited:
Roger Hicks said:
The point is that Leicas are within the reach of far more people than boats
Click to expand...


And being a photographer is well within the reach of far more people than the suffering souls who actually think they need a Leica to be such, if they could just see past that delusion. 🙂
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom