AP review of Digital Modul R

[ywenz]

In so many of your posts (not only in this thread, but others) you have been taking a very negative postion on many subjects. In addition, you seem to be pointing fingers at other equipments shortcomings and the individual. Maybe you should look at yourself. I suspect that this may come from lack of experience or age. Try to be more objective.

I don't call out people until I am being called out first, as I was in Stuart's post.

ok im done posting on this thread, twas fun.

 

[naturephoto1]

I have a bit of a problem in finding the time to read such a long thread, you say that several people have dumped their Canon for the DMR, are they more than the people that decided to stick with Canon? 😉

I mean when you go someplace where you can expect to find pro photographers, have you counted the Canon and Nikon SLRs, and have you counted the Leicas?
This should tell you something...

I take pictures with my M4-P and my RD-1 because I am an amateur, should I have to earn my living with photography the money from the Leica and the Epson would probably have gone in a Canon DSLR pro body, and the money from my RF-lenses in some Canon L glass.

Francesco,

I can not disagree regarding the number of pros using Canon and Nikon equipment. All that I am saying (and reiterated by Mancuso and others) the preponderance of ones work determines the selection of equipment needed. Most photographers that we see seem to want or require autofocus and most that we seem to see are employed for news, sports, paparazzi, weddings, etc.

Additionally, there is no question that photographers buy (and emulate) what other photographers are doing and using. On top of this, at least for many of the bigger names in photography, Canon and Nikon give equipment to the photographer so their equipment is visable and as a means of advertising their products. That is not the case with Leica. At best, all a Leica professional photgrapher can expect is the loan of equipment when available and a possible professional discount.

Additionally, many Pros will not even consider a Leica because of price, lack of features (particularly autofocus and digital), and they are just unaware of the product. Certainly the name Leica has an air to it, and would you believe there are pros that do not know the name?

I can not comment about how many are keeping or "dumping" equipment. People certainly do have loyalty to equipment and manufacturer. In addition, purchasing these astronomically expensive professional digital cameras and lenses puts a crimp in ones budget. So without question, many are reluctant to change system.

As to the Leica DMR certainly for those heavily invested in the Leica R system this may be the way to go. If additionally, as the thread that I have mentioned is correct and people want to get the best possible digital files, do not need the autofocus or speed of the camera this should be a consideration. Certainly if the discussion proves to be correct, I can see where the DMR would have application in the studio, portraiture, architecture, landscape, nature and general photographic applications as well.

The DMR seems to be catering to the phtotographer that is looking for the very best performance possible. If this does in-fact prove true, it continues the goal of Leica to produce (though of limited numbers) the finest mechanical cameras and lenses made for rangefinder and SLR 35mm format sized cameras.

 

[jaapv]

The deal with the reds seems to be that AP used old firmware The latest update is said to cure any problems it may have had. About the number of Leica's/Canons seen around footballfields etc: Leica's are not camera's that are meant to be used by the rabid reporter...

 

[Hektor]

It is possible that the DMR is the most serious mistake Leica ever made in all it's history so far.

Their reflex camera system is a second string concept kept alive for those who want an excellent manual focus reflex camera. The DMR serves to extend that concept and probably does an excellent job. But it cannot save the company.

Leica is 35mm rangefinder as conceived 75 years ago and still revered, and irreplaceable today.

They should have put all their effort into a digital M as soon as it was obvious that the public at large wanted digital cameras in abundance.

The 35mm Leica Model 1 saved the company in 1924 and the digital M will do it in 2006.

The DMR is just an accessory for an old manual focus SLR system loved by the remaining devotees, because nobody else makes cameras like that anymore.

 

[naturephoto1]

It is possible that the DMR is the most serious mistake Leica ever made in all it's history so far.

Their reflex camera system is a second string concept kept alive for those who want an excellent manual focus reflex camera. The DMR serves to extend that concept and probably does an excellent job. But it cannot save the company.

Leica is 35mm rangefinder as conceived 75 years ago and still revered, and irreplaceable today.

They should have put all their effort into a digital M as soon as it was obvious that the public at large wanted digital cameras in abundance.

The 35mm Leica Model 1 saved the company in 1924 and the digital M will do it in 2006.

The DMR is just an accessory for an old manual focus SLR system loved by the remaining devotees, because nobody else makes cameras like that anymore.

First, I would have to disagree with you regarding the Leica R Series as a second string concept. The R series has been in production for over 40 years. Though the camera bodies have changed dramatically over the years, the lens mount is the same. There are but a few lenses ever offered by Leica that do not fit the Current R9 or the previous R8 without modification. The only lens that comes to mind that will not fit the current camera without some concern regarding potential damage is the f 3.4 21 mm Super Angulon.

Leica sells far more R series cameras and lenses than they do M series cameras. The DMR may appear to you as an after thought, but is almost a ground-up design like the digital backs for medium format cameras. No other maker of 35 mm cameras has ever attempted or probably ever conceived of such an offering.

With so many R series cameras, lenses, and users out there the DMR is a logical step forward for a company that is relatively slow at bringing change to an otherwise superbly designed and manufactured manual focus system (both R and M). I see the DMR as a possible salvation for the company. When used on an R8 or R9 camera, the digital R8 or R9 is smaller and lighter than the professional Canon 1DSMKII camera. In addition, though manually focused, the camera screen is much brighter and it easier to focus lenses in manual than the Canon due to the finder and the manual focusing of the lenses themselves. For the right photo application, the DMR is probably the right choice for a digital SLR.

The success of the DMR and the research that has gone into its design are undoubtedly of great value in the design and the success of the upcoming digital module M. I beleive that both modules- the R and the M will breath new life into the company.

 

[jaapv]

First, I would have to disagree with you regarding the Leica R Series as a second string concept. The R series has been in production for over 40 years. Though the camera bodies have changed dramatically over the years, the lens mount is the same. There are but a few lenses ever offered by Leica that do not fit the Current R9 or the previous R8 without modification. The only lens that comes to mind that will not fit the current camera without some concern regarding potential damage is the f 3.4 21 mm Super Angulon.

Leica sells far more R series cameras and lenses than they do M series cameras. The DMR may appear to you as an after thought, but is almost a ground-up design like the digital backs for medium format cameras. No other maker of 35 mm cameras has ever attempted or probably ever conceived of such an offering.

With so many R series cameras, lenses, and users out there the DMR is a logical step forward for a company that is relatively slow at bringing change to an otherwise superbly designed and manufactured manual focus system (both R and M). I see the DMR as a possible salvation for the company. When used on an R8 or R9 camera, the digital R8 or R9 is smaller and lighter than the professional Canon 1DSMKII camera. In addition, though manually focused, the camera screen is much brighter and it easier to focus lenses in manual than the Canon due to the finder and the manual focusing of the lenses themselves. For the right photo application, the DMR is probably the right choice for a digital SLR.

The sucess of the DMR and the research that has gone into its design are undoubtedly of great value in the design and the success of the upcoming digital module M. I beleive that both modules- the R and the M will breath new life into the company.

Amen :angel:



What we shouldn't forget is that Leica nearly perished in the past through marketing mistakes before. One for instance being the discontinuing of the M4 in favor of the M5. Each and every time their loyal customer base, that being in Germany, not the USA (Sorry my friends) pulled them through. Although the USA is a vital market for them, they will always look to Germany for their basic concepts.
That may seem a weakness, but is in fact their strength as they are the only camera-company left in that position. At the same time it means that they will always remain in their niche and never become a Canon-like mammoth.

 

[Hektor]

The R series was introduced in 1976, not 40 yrs ago, and it was a desparate attempt to stay alive. The R3 was largely a re-badged Minolta as all the R series have been upto the R8.

The whole reflex program was a late, desparate attempt to save the company, started in response to cameras like the Nikon F, which captured much of the market in the '60s

People were trading in their M2's and M3' and lenses in their droves to buy things like Pentax's.

Some would say it's a tough choice between a Nikon F and an M3, but I never did go for Nikons.

I don't accept that Leica sell more R cameras than M's, but perhaps it's different here in Europe but I doubt it.

We shall see................

 

[jaap]

The problem for leica is that the the "prof"dmr can't even compete with a semi prof eos 5d

 

[Hektor]

I agree Jaap,

If you want a sports, and paparazzi, "prof" camera it's Canon or Nikon, no contest.

If you want to do low-light, reportage, then they are a heap of junk, it's an MP and a Noctilux.

Leica reflex cameras are beautiful to own and use, but they're just not where it's at anymore.

 

[jaapv]

Aren't they lucky that the people that matter i.e. their customers disagree with you.Agreed, if you are a paperazzi, one needs a Canon 1D, but if one is, for instance, a corporate photographer, an R9 with DMR is the no1 camera. And if one is a street photographer, one needs a M8......

 

[naturephoto1]

The R series was introduced in 1976, not 40 yrs ago, and it was a desparate attempt to stay alive. The R3 was largely a re-badged Minolta as all the R series have been upto the R8.

The whole reflex program was a late, desparate attempt to save the company, started in response to cameras like the Nikon F, which captured much of the market in the '60s

People were trading in their M2's and M3' and lenses in their droves to buy things like Pentax's.

Some would say it's a tough choice between a Nikon F and an M3, but I never did go for Nikons.

I don't accept that Leica sell more R cameras than M's, but perhaps it's different here in Europe but I doubt it.

We shall see................

Perhaps, I should have said the reflex (R type mount- of course R refers to Reflex) which was introduced as the Leicaflex in 1964. So as far as the mount is concerned the mount and the associated lenses do infact go back over 40 years. The first actual "R" camera, the R3 was introduced as you say in 1976. Additionally, the R3 and subsequent R4 through R7 were much more than rebadged Minolta camera bodies. They were from the same original chasis casting perhaps, but they were heavily modified including their mirrors, top and bottom plates, and shutters.

As to the sale of R versus M, that information I believe was supplied to me by both Leica USA some years ago and very possibly from my friend Jim Lager, author of the many books on Leica cameras and equipment. I too was surprised to hear this but that is what I was told.

 

[jaap]

thanks hektor 😀

 

[jaap]

by the way i like the discussion ! 🙂

 

[Hektor]

Broadly speaking, "professionals" have never used Leica cameras,

Doesn't it go something like, Speed-graphic, Rolleiflex TLR, Nikon F, Hasselblad, Canon EOS.

Although, all the "professionals" I have ever met and spoken to, have a Leica M which they regard as "personal equipment".

None of them ever said they had an R camera.

 

[jaapv]

Hector, the Leica reflex camera's started with the Leicaflexes, not the R's which indeed were a company-saving manoeuver to save the company, the problem being then similar to now, the SL2 being too expensive to make. Without doubt the R series did save the company by vastly outselling the M series. They, especially from the R4 onwards were certainly not rebadged Minolta's but totally different camera's sharing a frame and some components. You only need to handle them side by side to understand that. Maybe this parts-sharing is regrettable but it is common and inevitable in all technical manufacture nowadays, from cars to toasters. It helps keeping the prices from being really astronomical (well, for Leica within the solar system). Did you really think Canon our Nikon don't outsource parts? In the end, rereading this thread, we all seem to hope that Oscar Barnack's child will make it, we only differ on the assesment of the means. Am I glad none of us is Leica's CEO 😀

 

[naturephoto1]

Broadly speaking, "professionals" have never used Leica cameras,

Doesn't it go something like, Speed-graphic, Rolleiflex TLR, Nikon F, Hasselblad, Canon EOS.

Although, all the "professionals" I have ever met and spoken to, have a Leica M which they regard as "personal equipment".

None of them ever said they had an R camera.

There was a time between the Rolleiflex TLR and the Nikon F where many professional photographers used M series Leicas for reportage as during war and for such publications as Life Magazine. Photographers of note using M series cameras were Cartier-Bresson and Alfred Eisenstadt - who are both largely responsible for the look of reportage photographs today.

 

[Hektor]

All OK Jaap, yeah I know the story, I was there....!

I just thought it was worth throwing the last 50 years or so of Leica buying into a bit of "spotlight contrast" so as to clarify and simplify the issues.

Leica never would have bothered with a reflex camera if they hadn't been going out of business.

Stopping making the M4 nearly put 'em out of business and they had to reverse the decision.

Continuing the R cameras and making the DMR has all but, put them out of business.

Only the digital M can save them. This is the third time at least they didn't see the light soon enough.

We've all got to buy as much new Leica stuff as possible if they are to survive.

Just buy whatever you fancy, it'l all do the job.

 

[naturephoto1]

Amen :angel:



What we shouldn't forget is that Leica nearly perished in the past through marketing mistakes before. One for instance being the discontinuing of the M4 in favor of the M5. Each and every time their loyal customer base, that being in Germany, not the USA (Sorry my friends) pulled them through. Although the USA is a vital market for them, they will always look to Germany for their basic concepts.
That may seem a weakness, but is in fact their strength as they are the only camera-company left in that position. At the same time it means that they will always remain in their niche and never become a Canon-like mammoth.

Though you are probably correct as to Germany being their largest stronghold, the USA is quite probably in the top 3 in the world.

I do not believe that Leica due the nature of the company, mindset, and products would ever want to be the size of a company like Canon. They would not have the ability to maintain the quality of their products or QC if they were.

 

[Hektor]

Naturephoto1, well I did say "broadly speaking", and the examples you quote are exceptions to some extent, but some of those guys used Contax's and Nikon copies of contaxes.

For the broad range of commercial work, 35mm negs were rejected as being "too small"

 

[Hektor]

I think you can sum up the last 75 years of Leica history by saying,

1. they had to make "Barnack's camera" to save the company.

2. they have to keep making "Barnack's camera" in revised models to keep saving the company every time !