Can we expect an M8 competitor anytime soon?

[niblue]

If CV don't do it then I can't see who will.

I've yet to see an M8 in use and I can't recall the last time I saw a film Leica (or any other rangefinder other than my own) being used. I used to see them reasonably frequently back when I lived in Hong Kong however mostly they seemed to be used as a rich-man's point and shoot rather than for anything serious.

 

[Tuolumne]

I think Zeiss is a likely candidate but they will wait until the technology is readily available. I'd say you won't see one for at least another two years.

/T

 

[Tuolumne]

Never say never. I think Zeiss will come out with one. You could say the same thing about film rangefinders, too. Or for that matter, why even bother with film anymore at all? Certainly none of the "majors" are making film cameras anymore.

/T

 

[Tuolumne]

Well, Leica can sell the M8 as fast as they make it, and at a ridiculous price, too! So that's at least some indication that there is a market. Also, I seem to see more and more lurking digital RF users here. Just a random idea occurred to me - someone should dust off the old R-D1 and look at putting a better sensor in it. (Although, I think this would just be a sop to marketing. The original sensor if fine and takes wonderful pix.) When it first came out I think $3K was more than most users were willing to bite off. The market was also still in its infancy. Now that Leica has proven and established it, $3K starts to look like a bargain for a digital RF. Also, Epson could only keep them in stock for a few hours when they started selling refurbs at $1500. Since all/most of the R&D has already been done on the R-D1, the only remaining issue for it would be better final assembly and Q&A, where Epson really fell down.

/T

 

[jaapv]

Well, Leica can sell the M8 as fast as they make it, and at a ridiculous price, too!

That is a self-contradictory statement if I ever saw one. Buyers vote with their wallet; the camera is , in Leica's small way, a runaway succes. How can it be a ridiculous price if it sells like hot cross buns on Easter? If anything, they seem to have made the mistake of offering it too cheaply. As it is, I strongly suspect that the margin they they make on it is reasonable, not more than that.

 

[Tuolumne]

$100/barrel oil is ridiculous, too.

/T

 

[jaapv]

$100/barrel oil is ridiculous, too.

/T

Agreed, 65 Euros sounds a lot better...😛

 

[jaapv]

Never say never. I think Zeiss will come out with one. You could say the same thing about film rangefinders, too. Or for that matter, why even bother with film anymore at all? Certainly none of the "majors" are making film cameras anymore.

/T

Hmm.... Canon has seven film camera's listed on its website.... Nikon indeed just one.

 

[-kk-]

I think Leica could price the the M8 at $10,000 or $15,000 and still sell all they can make. Many consumers who buy new Leicas are not cost sensitive. For the most part, they want what they want and will pay whatever it takes to get it.

and that, in a nutshell, is the problem for the rest of us.

 

[ashapiro]

Can we expect an M8 competitor anytime soon?

I just read the entire thread but saw no mention of an exchange a few months ago discussing the development of a digital back for most film M Leicas. If, in fact, such a digital back is developed, it seems to me that would be the M8 competitor a significant number of people are looking for.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Well, Leica can sell the M8 as fast as they make it, and at a ridiculous price, too! So that's at least some indication that there is a market. Also, I seem to see more and more lurking digital RF users here. Just a random idea occurred to me - someone should dust off the old R-D1 and look at putting a better sensor in it. (Although, I think this would just be a sop to marketing. The original sensor if fine and takes wonderful pix.) When it first came out I think $3K was more than most users were willing to bite off. The market was also still in its infancy. Now that Leica has proven and established it, $3K starts to look like a bargain for a digital RF. Also, Epson could only keep them in stock for a few hours when they started selling refurbs at $1500. Since all/most of the R&D has already been done on the R-D1, the only remaining issue for it would be better final assembly and Q&A, where Epson really fell down.

/T

Um...

No, to almost everything.

As mentioned elsewhere, the fact that Leica are selling all they can make shows that it's not a ridiculous price.

A new RD-1 would need nore megapixels (for the market, not necessarily for the image quality) so the R&D isn't all done.

'Better final assembly and QA' is one of the reasons a Leica costs a lot more. This is THE most expensive part of building anything, especially where any hand assembly is required.

And talked to Zeiss when I was at Oberkochen and they're not convinced the market is big enough for either a Zeiss Ikon II (new film model) or a Zeiss Ikon Digital -- though of course they might change their minds.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Prosaic]

The market is just too small for such a large bet. In Leica's case, a digital rangefinder was their only hope of surviving. But Zeiss, another company with significant investments in rangefinder cameras, has many other larger ventures. The camera world has long since moved past the relatively short-lived rangefinder camera design. Nostalgia is a short-term strategy.

Do you really think Zeiss sells more analog Zeiss Ikon bodies than they would with a digital ZI? I dont believe it. I dont know what holds them from doing it though.

 

[sonwolf]

A new digital rangefinder might depend on the economic viability of film rangefinders. If Cosina and Zeiss saw their film cameras rapidly loosing sales, they might for economic necessity create a digital model. Considering that rangefinder users tend to be less worshipful of technology and defenders of tradition, both companies camera brands are probably economically secure for the moment. Though, Leica’s serious economic troubles, and the importance of the M8 in the company’s continuing financial viability, demonstrates even the ultimate cult camera company feels the digital squeeze.

The Nikon D1 was released less than ten years ago as a very expensive alternative to the traditional film SLR. Now the film SLR could be added to the endangered species list if it were an animal. The rangefinder world might move at a glacial pace but even glaciers ultimately change. If someone would have predicted that a company like Epson would team with Cosina to produce a high end digital rangefinder, they probably would have been ridiculed in this forum.

 

[Roger Hicks]

... Leica’s serious economic troubles....

Nothing like a serious as they were. I wouldn't worry if I were you.

And the Epson was an 'enthusiast' product, initially designed in their spare time by Epson and Cosina staff who disagreed with Kobayashi-san about preferring film.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Tuolumne]

Hmm.... Canon has seven film camera's listed on its website.... Nikon indeed just one.

They are all old stock from the last manufacturing run. None of the majors is manufacturing film cameras any more. And it just goes to show you how slowly the film cameras sell, because they have pretty much all been in stock for a LONG time now.

/T

 

[Tuolumne]

But how many rangefinder shooters would buy digital versions? Most RF shooters I see posting seem to dislike digital.

SM,
I wouldn't take anything you read here as representing a "norm". People here are...well...shall we say "different". 🙂

/T

 

[Tuolumne]

I think Leica could price the the M8 at $10,000 or $15,000 and still sell all they can make. Many consumers who buy new Leicas are not cost sensitive. For the most part, they want what they want and will pay whatever it takes to get it.

Please- don't say that so loudly around here. Leica might hear you!

/T

 

[Tuolumne]

Um...

No, to almost everything.

As mentioned elsewhere, the fact that Leica are selling all they can make shows that it's not a ridiculous price.

A new RD-1 would need nore megapixels (for the market, not necessarily for the image quality) so the R&D isn't all done.

'Better final assembly and QA' is one of the reasons a Leica costs a lot more. This is THE most expensive part of building anything, especially where any hand assembly is required.

And talked to Zeiss when I was at Oberkochen and they're not convinced the market is big enough for either a Zeiss Ikon II (new film model) or a Zeiss Ikon Digital -- though of course they might change their minds.

Cheers,

R.

Guys,
Just because someone or even lots of people will pay a price for something doesn't mean the price isn't ridiculous. Just ask the market about $100/barrel gasoline. It seems to think it is more than ridiculous - it will be catastrophic.

ridiculous /= someone will pay the price

/T

 

[Tuolumne]

Nothing like a serious as they were. I wouldn't worry if I were you.

And the Epson was an 'enthusiast' product, initially designed in their spare time by Epson and Cosina staff who disagreed with Kobayashi-san about preferring film.

Cheers,

R.

And it's amazing how right they got it. Beautiful all analogue controls and read-outs, still really nice image quality after all these years, excellent ergonomics. Almost the perfect digital rangefinder, except it said "Epson" instead of "Leica" on it. In fact, it's the one camera that may have made me believe you don't have to run down the digital upgrade path. I have no desire to replace mine with an M8. 🙂

/T