RichC
Well-known
I'm a pro - well, photography is one service my company offers - and I guarantee that if the M9 features were stripped down much more, let alone losing the LCD, I'd walk away.
In fact, MORE pros would be attracted to the digital M if it had more features whilst retaining its core features (top-end image quality at normal ISOs from a compact optical rangefinder with manual controls): pros want convenience not nostalgia - cf the well thought out controls of the Leica S2 (which concentrates on traditional still image capture and thus lacks extras like face capture, video, blah, blah).
That said, Leica only has the resources for one digital M at a time and it can either concentrate on its traditional users (and thus we have the minimalist M9 - and it is minimalist compared with every other digital camera) or create a digital M with the aforementioned core features that appeals to photographers who are used to or want the convenience of a modern camera (I'm not talking about making a competitor to a dSLR but a tool that's a usable alternative or companion camera).
Leica is, probably wisely, concentrating at present on those who want a traditional M fitted with a digital sensor, but as old-fashioned film cameras with their minimalist and anachronistic technology disappear into landfills and display cabinets, and people become increasingly used to modern digital cameras, they will want a camera that works more like the mainstream.
I took up photography a handful of years ago, and have never used film in my life,* and although I use a Leica M8, I have a love-hate relationship with it because I find it too basic since I'm used to Japanese cameras with their automation. I'm not alone, and most photographers I know consider my camera so basic as to be unusable: I belong to the local camera society, which has about 150 members (including quite a few pros) - three members have Leica Ms (one M7 + two M8s), only about a dozen still use film and only two still shoot film exclusively (and they're in their 70s). And the society's membership is pretty representative of photographers as a whole.
Leica stuck to its (traditional) guns for its manual focus SLR series, the Leica R, and even went as far as developing a digital module for it. I've heard that both the camera and module excel (though the latter's somewhat dated now). But look where tradition got it: dwindling sales. The Leica R series is now dead.
The Leica M will go the same way unless Leica gives people what they want rather than what it thinks they want. That means a Leica M with more features, not fewer.
In short, an LCD-less "Leica M9P" is a truly ridiculous idea...
[* I confess I developed an interest in film for a short time, and bought a couple of film cameras, but lost interest and haven't used them. I doubt I will ever use film in my life.]
Last edited:
chris00nj
Young Luddite
ISO could be a dial on the back on the camera. White balance could be changed in post processing. Memory is cheap, no need to resize until after post processing.
Civility and courtesy must also make your list of daft ideas.
Last edited:
nightfly
Well-known
It's called film and a scanner.
payasam
a.k.a. Mukul Dube
A no-frills full-frame digital camera is an excellent idea, regardless of its lens mount and regardless of whether it is a RFDR or an SLR. In these times, though, camera makers aim for more and more frills.
nobbylon
Veteran
Why would Leica do it when some are willing to pay the daft price for a camera that yes is small (ish) but is still not up to speed with the best in Japan and probably never will be. Somebody said "specialist tool', as in how? what will this wonder of Leica technology do that something else can do better, cheaper and more reliabily. I haven't to be honest seen any pics out of an M8 or 9 that I've actually said 'wow' now I get it. On the other hand I frequently did and do with the film M's. The glass is what makes the difference along with some nice high iso capability if indeed you need to go there. Stick some high end glass on anything with a decent sensor, add in reliability, solid value for money, good factory back up and i'm sorry if people don't like hearing the truth but the answer isn't Leica. I'm sure there are pro's of which a few are here on the forum that use Leica M digital but I'd bet they also have a Canon or Nikon high end somewhere in that bag for when they really need THE shot. I think a better description is that this M9 is a niche tool for those who can either afford it and not depend on it or for a pro user to take along on a job along with his REAL specialist tools. My friend who yes is a pro and I must say a very good one (fashion mainly) falls into this camp. Takes his M6 everywhere but uses high end Japanese Digital for his real work.
I really don't think Leica aimed this M at the pro user anyway. I think it's just a lot of marketing hype to sell very expensive cameras to some well healed photographers and non photographers. Now I get it, they are just a small company who need to survive by making as much as possible out of every sale and upgrade program and if the product actually has certain shortfalls we can forgive with our wallets for the great glass they produce. Jeez, rant over, so fed up of Leica M digital pricing. NO out of all the manufacturers that could, THEY WONT, because they survive by NOT is I believe the answer to the original posted question. I'm off to the pub with my NIKON.
I really don't think Leica aimed this M at the pro user anyway. I think it's just a lot of marketing hype to sell very expensive cameras to some well healed photographers and non photographers. Now I get it, they are just a small company who need to survive by making as much as possible out of every sale and upgrade program and if the product actually has certain shortfalls we can forgive with our wallets for the great glass they produce. Jeez, rant over, so fed up of Leica M digital pricing. NO out of all the manufacturers that could, THEY WONT, because they survive by NOT is I believe the answer to the original posted question. I'm off to the pub with my NIKON.
Frankie
Speaking Frankly
chris00nj,
You might want to check out this "old" post and the whole thread.
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1227983&postcount=135
I have stopped posting since...couldn't be bothered wasting my time arguing with the Thought Police lurking around RFF :bang:[many had also posted here, you know who you are]...and had started doing things instead.
Elsewhere, another thread had started debating whether Kodak will die in 2010... If becoming true, then all those stranded M2/3/4/6/7 owners will beat a path to my door.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Interesting to hear the great expert holding forth - as Zeiss with all the weight of Sony behind them officially said they were not able to undercut M9 prices...
But what do they know....
ampguy
Veteran
I think there should be a variation on this, the M9 "Press Version"
This model will encrypt the image contents and have no LCD review except for menu setup. The memory cards will have to be sent to Leica who are the only ones who can decrypt the images and process scans that are guaranteed to not be photo shopped or have other non-documentary artifacts in them.
Folks wanting authentic coverage of their news and documentaries will demand and only bother reading/watching media productions that are used with the Press Version camera.
This model will encrypt the image contents and have no LCD review except for menu setup. The memory cards will have to be sent to Leica who are the only ones who can decrypt the images and process scans that are guaranteed to not be photo shopped or have other non-documentary artifacts in them.
Folks wanting authentic coverage of their news and documentaries will demand and only bother reading/watching media productions that are used with the Press Version camera.
nobbylon
Veteran
Interesting to hear the great expert holding forth - as Zeiss with all the weight of Sony behind them officially said they were not able to undercut M9 prices...
I wondered how long it would take you Jaap
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Some years ago I talked to Leica about a stripped-down camera. Their argument was that the reduction in price wouldn't be enough to encourage anyone to buy it instead of the standard model. This is almost certainly the case here too -- though this never discourages the fantasists who know more about camera design than the camera designers, and stamp their feet and walk away when anyone argues with them.
As for those who don't like the M9, or find it too expensive, there's an easy answer. Go and buy one of the dozens of other, cheaper, better full-frame RF cameras on the market. Do you draw any conclusions from the fact that there aren't any? Possibly because no-one can see a market for one, except the fantasists? Or because no-one can actually make one?
Cheers,
R.
As for those who don't like the M9, or find it too expensive, there's an easy answer. Go and buy one of the dozens of other, cheaper, better full-frame RF cameras on the market. Do you draw any conclusions from the fact that there aren't any? Possibly because no-one can see a market for one, except the fantasists? Or because no-one can actually make one?
Cheers,
R.
batterytypehah!
Lord of the Dings
Amen to that, but only as long as film (color mostly, for me) will be around. Then what do I do? Hang a friggin' computer around my neck? Never.
So, I find the question valid, but also the tenor of the answers so far: Leica won't do this, and nobody else is currently in a position to do so.
I can still hope that Panasonic, Olympus, Cosina, you-name-it will find the "digital 135 cartridge" a viable product, a few years of sensor chip improvements from now. Preferably before Kodak goes belly-up and the sky comes falling down, at the same precise moment.
nightfly
Well-known
I wouldn't hold your breath on the full frame thing.
The most viable options are a used 5D with some small manual lenses or give up on fulll frame and get a micro 4/3. That market niche seems to be the one most closely aligned with the rangefinder ideal. The color out of the Olympus Pen actually looks like it has some character.
If film goes away, we're just going to have to move on and embrace digital in one way or another and it's going to come with all the bells and whistles, the way everything digital does. Just hope you can turn off or ignore all the "features" you don't want or need.
The most viable options are a used 5D with some small manual lenses or give up on fulll frame and get a micro 4/3. That market niche seems to be the one most closely aligned with the rangefinder ideal. The color out of the Olympus Pen actually looks like it has some character.
If film goes away, we're just going to have to move on and embrace digital in one way or another and it's going to come with all the bells and whistles, the way everything digital does. Just hope you can turn off or ignore all the "features" you don't want or need.
In a few years, full frame will be normal ... so you can just wait a few years while making do with "lowly u 4/3" as nightfly said.
gnuyork
Well-known
I'd go for a RAW only shooter. I never shoot jpg with Digital anyway. I prefer to do mu own processing in photoshop. I would like an LCD however.
Andy Kibber
Well-known
These kinds of comments make me smile. They remind me of this old lady in church when I was young. She sang in the choir, but complained at length about any change, no matter how insignificant: new hymnal, different gowns, different seats, fewer hymns in the service, etc. Eventually she quit singing in the choir. My conclusion? She must not have really enjoyed singing that much in the first place.
batterytypehah!
Lord of the Dings
^ I'm not complaining, nor is it an insignificant change we're talking about.
I spend all of my work day and way too much of my free time with computers. The day I'm forced to carry a computer with me for the simple act of recording an image I'll stop recording images, and devote more time to my other hobbies. Simple as that.
I spend all of my work day and way too much of my free time with computers. The day I'm forced to carry a computer with me for the simple act of recording an image I'll stop recording images, and devote more time to my other hobbies. Simple as that.
chris00nj
Young Luddite
chris00nj,
You might want to check out this "old" post and the whole thread.
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1227983&postcount=135
I have stopped posting since...couldn't be bothered wasting my time arguing with the Thought Police lurking around RFF :bang:[many had also posted here, you know who you are]...and had started doing things instead.
Elsewhere, another thread had started debating whether Kodak will die in 2010... If becoming true, then all those stranded M2/3/4/6/7 owners will beat a path to my door.
I recall the DIY rangefinder thread, but I wasn't considering doing it myself.
Sometimes add-ons are suprisingly expensive. Many car companies add some luxury items, rebrand it and sell it for a lot more. A basic Ford Edge goes for $25,000 but a "loaded" Lincoln MKX will be close to $40,000. They are the same basic car and frame, with the same same engine, but the Lincoln will have leather seats, a moon roof, rear camera, wood paneling, etc. All for only 60% more.
drewbarb
picnic like it's 1999
We talk about this all the time. A small, simple, well built camera that shoots FF with RAW capability, uses a proven older lens mount (Leica M, Nikon F, Oly OM, etc.- and while we're dreaming, wouldn't interchangeable lens mounts be cool?), and features manual controls over the basic camera functions and little else is basically the holy grail of digital cameras for many of us.
But it's probably never gonna happen. No matter how many PHOTOGRAPHERS there out there who would undoubtedly love such a camera, and have been calling for one for years, we are no more than a drop in the bucket of the camera buying market. The manufacturers will never build a camera with this kind of limited appeal. They want to cram in all the newest features to appeal to more potential customers; they build it big to look "professional", or small and full auto for mass market appeal and ease of use for non-photographers. Besides this, they want to sell us new lenses, so they won't build a new platform for the old lenses.
So every week or so we can talk about how much we want this camera, and enumerate it's benefits and the features we want (and don't want), and this is probably as far as it will go. Sigh.
But it's probably never gonna happen. No matter how many PHOTOGRAPHERS there out there who would undoubtedly love such a camera, and have been calling for one for years, we are no more than a drop in the bucket of the camera buying market. The manufacturers will never build a camera with this kind of limited appeal. They want to cram in all the newest features to appeal to more potential customers; they build it big to look "professional", or small and full auto for mass market appeal and ease of use for non-photographers. Besides this, they want to sell us new lenses, so they won't build a new platform for the old lenses.
So every week or so we can talk about how much we want this camera, and enumerate it's benefits and the features we want (and don't want), and this is probably as far as it will go. Sigh.
Last edited:
chris00nj
Young Luddite
It would come down to whether there was much of a reduction in price. A stripped down M9 at $6,500 isn't going to sell. I just have little idea of what the components cost. There is a lot of data that Leica marketers (or Japanese camera marketers) get to look at that we don't.
Right now, film users must take a roll, and then develop it before seeing results. A camera without LCD or processing would not provide the instant gratification that digital LCD screen, but it would be quicker than film. If the potential buyer is a current film Leica user, would the lack of an LCD and instant gratification be such a loss? I think the body would look classier, but that's just me.
Ronald M
Veteran
They left off the chrome plate and that did not reduce cost much. Maybe they should leave off the Red Dot and eliminate the fancy box.