kevin m
Veteran
Hi Ben, it's backup. The camera writes the same file to both cards.
If they could price it for under a grand I'd buy it.
Here's a direct quote from a well-respected wedding shooter on another forum regarding the M8:
Last edited:
georgef
Well-known
Roger Hicks said:
Roger, I was not suggestin to make the M8 cheaper, but make a seperate DRF for less money. In the same way that HEXAR, COSINA, CANON and NIKON made RFs less expensive than the Ms.
Like a sigma DP1 with the M mount!? I am reaching here, but cant see at this time and age why one cannot make, say a CANON G9 with a larger sensor and an M mount! For less than 3,000K...yes, I know an RF mechanism needs to be inserted
My post was geared more toward the "direction" the company should consider to survive, not the fabrication methods.
ferider
Veteran
Roger Hicks said:
Dear Roger,
1) if they keep the M8 sensor and put it into the DCL it will get much cheaper over time. That's a fact in micro-electronics.
2) no new R&D required, software, electronics and shutter stay the same
3) reduce the margin.
If the DCL sells for 3k or more, they really have to save only around 2-2.5k. And can price the new flagship (upgraded M8 or M9) much higher.
Roland.
PS: even if the sensor specs were similar to other sensors when the M8 came out, due to limited production run, it must have been quite expensive. I would guess US 1k or more, only for the part.
Last edited:
georgef
Well-known
nightfly said:
I hate to sound pesimistic, but this may be the M system at this point! I personaly love the RF way, and have not shot a single image on my DSLRs since I got my RD1, but it may be mute at this day and age
I am still sending good karma toward ZEISS for a Dikon (he he yeah, I know, but still..
)
GoodPhotos
Carpe lumen!
I'd actually prefer that to an M9 (which I'd likely never be able to justify even being able to write it off as a business expense.)georgef said:
Depending on how well the DP1 turns out when they eventually (finally!) hit the streets, this may prove that a 24X36 sensor is possible in a small RF sized body for about $1k. It would be genius of Sigma to also create their body with an M mount and to join Cosina in getting into the LTM game (which I'd prefer over M mount lenses because they are more versitile.)
Granted the M/LTM mount lens market is small, but Sigma makes 4:3 lenses...they are used to tailoring their offerings to small markets as well as service the other more popular DSLR markets.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Kevin,kevin m said:You also asked how they could "compete" and I gave my answer.
As to how they could make a cheaper M, as I said before, a camera similar to the R-D1 with it's smaller rangefinder would be fine. Any decent sensor in the 8-10MP range would work, too. An M mount, and manual controls, brother!
You seem to be satisfied with the current situation, Roger, with the M8 as an interesting digital rangefinder with limited practical use. The demographics of Leica's customer base show that to be a strategy that's literally dying off.
Para 1: yes, and I apologized for misunderstanding you.
Para 2: not a Leica (extreme durability, hand-lapped focus mounts, etc.). Yes, Leica could work with someone else, and might make money out of it, but equally, they might not. Posts elsewhere on the CL provide a good argument that lending their name to a relative cheapie (neo-CL) might be good or bad.
Para 3: How do the demographics show they're dying off? No, young people mostly don't buy new Leicas, but they buy second-hand, and eventually they get old. I may be misunderstanding you but I doubt it. I doubt many young people buy new Rolls Royces either. Or Porsches.
I could counter 'You seem to be satisfied...' with 'You indulge in idle fantasies without knowing much about the market', and both statements would be about equally accurate.
I'm just more inclined to believe that Leica knows slightly more about the market than I do. Or you do. If there were easy, sure-fire solutions, they'd have been adopted long ago.
Cheers,
Roger
Last edited:
Ben Z
Veteran
kevin m said:Hi Ben, it's backup. The camera writes the same file to both cards.
Interesting design concept. I hope it doesn't become part of the one-upmanship routine like megapixels, or we could eventually see cameras sprouting more memory slots than a chicken's got feathers
I've shot a few weddings as the "unofficial photographer" and used my Leica, but there was a "pro" there too. If I was going to shoot a wedding by myself I wouldn't use a Leica, at least, not exclusively. However, for me it isn't normally about weddings, it's about what I want to carry on my person for 8-10 hours walking around someplace like Paris or Rome, and in that case the no-brainer is an M8 and 2 or 3 lenses in my pockets, as opposed to a bulky SLR and a couple of bazooka zooms in a bag over my shoulder big enough to hold it all. And in the 6 months I've had my M8, it hasn't messed up any images, although I wish I could say the same for me
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Ben,Ben Z said:
This has long struck me. A surprising number of Leica owners are professionals who buy a Leica for relaxation. At least, I've known a lot. I recently did a piece on this very subject, though it hasn't appeared yet (as far as I know).
Cheers,
R.
kevin m
Veteran
It's no "idle fantasy" to report direct observations from working professionals who refuse to rely solely on the M8 for their work, is it? That's the market I'm familiar with.
Dual card slots. Weather sealing. "No excuses" functionality. That's what's expected from a pro-level camera. If Leica wants to remain a valid choice for working pros in the digital age, that's the ante. If they want to stake their future on the discretionary spending of well-heeled amateurs, then they're all set.
And how is it an "idle fantasy" to speculate about the feature one would like to see in a camera, anyway? Seems to be about %75 of the traffic here on the RFF!
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Kevin,kevin m said:
Re-read what I said. 'Both statements would be about equally accurate'. In other words, I don't accept your snap diagnosis that I am happy with the status quo, and I don't expect you to accept my diagnosis about idle fantasy. I apologize for not making this clearer.
This could easily turn nasty, so I think I'll try to leave it here -- though I can never guarantee I will succeed!
Cheers,
Roger
Last edited:
photogdave
Shops local
kevin m said:
Who says Leica wants to sell to the pro market? They don't.
jwhitley
Established
Leica at least has more data about their current market, but it's even less clear to those of us outside of any company whether they really know their market. Understanding, defining, and even creating markets is a key function of a successful business. Many companies have lost their way due to losing "vision" regarding their market and/or their market shifting out from under them.Roger Hicks said:
To illustrate, I'll pull an example from the computing industry of a company, Silicon Graphics (SGI), that utterly owned a high-end market but rapidly fell from that grace during the 1990's. In their heyday, SGI was the dominating force in high-end computer graphics, whether for scientific vizualization, movie-making, and more. Their products ranged from professional graphics workstations up to top supercomputers. Their technological prowess and uniqueness was such that they enjoyed margins unheard of by other computer makers.
Unfortunately, SGI failed to foresee how the rise of the personal computer would affect them. Their high-profit core market was about to be commoditized, eroded from the bottom up. Professional graphics cards began to be offered by competitors on cheap, widely available PC-based hardware. Early on, this wasn't much of a threat: PCs with even the best graphics cards still paled in comparison to SGI's lowliest system. Over time, some of the bright folks from SGI saw the writing on the wall, were unable to change company direction, and left to form NVidia (now a major player in their own right in current graphics hardware). SGI faded to a shadow of its former self, and is essentially no longer a major player in computing.
I consider the sentiment I've heard here and elsewhere that Leica should remain isolated as a "luxury" brand to be a risky mindset in light of examples like the above. It is exceedingly difficult to maintain a purely luxury-based status in a market which isn't commoditized. Digital photography's coming of age has caused a disruption in the status quo enjoyed during the past decades of film photography. This will bring vigorous competition to Leica's doorstep from multiple different directions. That could be the obvious competition in the form of a digital rangefinder, or even a substantial variation on traditional camera design (RF or SLR) enabled by new digital technologies. The digital point and shoot camera is already one such variation, achieving framing via the back panel LCD.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Yes, but is it more risky than the alternative of becoming a 'designer label' and writing 'Leica' on 'me-too' cameras?jwhitley said:
I'm not pretending I could turn Leica around. Nor are you. But some here do seem to be saying this.
I'd disagree completely with the second statement; surely it's a lot harder to maintain a luxury brand in a commoditized market. Or are we using different definitions of 'commodity'? Bread is a commodity; motor-cars (and cameras)aren't. Some bread is better than others, but commodities are seldom branded.
Cheers,
Roger
Last edited: