rxmd
May contain traces of nut
No, you've just proven that some Leica users can be rather touchy in defending their gear. In some cases not even in their gear, but in the gear that the company that made some of their gear will eventually produce but which a large share of them will not even buy. Flat-out amazing.glasgowdave said:
This discussion has been around over and over, and we'll continue to see it for a long time. Some people will defend Leica as a company and as a product maker to no end. They will claim that Leica designs its lenses for bokeh, when there is no indication that Leica has ever done so, maybe until very recently. They will defend mechanical Leicas against electronic cameras with the battery supply argument, while all they would have to do is carry two or three spare batteries along with the thirty rolls of film they are carrying anyway on any expedition beyond the edge of civilization. They defend it with the reliability argument, while sending their M6s off to mandatory factory service every couple of years (as Dante Stella has put it). They argue in favour of it with the Leica style of photography argument, then sell of their brand-new M7 Titaniums and Summiluxes after one roll of film when they discover that "the M7 is not for them". And now with the M8, we see that in the digital age we need a new argument, so similarly they will now defend the M8 against the quite evident threat of obsolescence with the as of now quite optimistic claim that "excellence" (whatever that is) somehow trumps the shortened product cycles in the digital age. (I would like to see it do so, but OTOH I see hardly anyone still using the quite excellent Kodak digital SLRs or Canon D60's.)
I think what we can see illustrated here is that some Leica aficionados are emotionally invested in their gear to an amazing extent. I don't think that's a bad thing, it's only not always entirely rational in its expression and its results.
Philipp
Last edited:
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Well, Dave, as a military man you will undoubtedly be familiar with the effect on the other side if one rushes in with guns blazing! Anyway, I'm sure we'll be in agreement on many other subjects in the future, so let's just start off the way most of us did: welcome to the forum! 
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
Hi Jaap,
It would be sense to have a modular design here, but then they apparently don't make this part of the camera themselves. Building modular cameras doesn't have much of a tradition at Leica; they have been becoming better at this with products such as the the DMR and the use of the R shutter in the M8, let's hope for them that they can keep this up.
Philipp
Well, you may be right about the megapixel part (and even that is debatable), but the race in sensor technology is certainly not over. There are many other fields of development here, addressing factors such as dynamic range, sensitivity, noise, light fall-off, corner sharpness with wideangles, colour reproduction and last not least size and cost, that will make today's sensors obsolete in comparison with tomorrow's. Leica will be affected by this just as any other camera maker will. If they want to remain competitive, they will have to continue putting new sensors in their cameras. The race isn't over, just the track might be different. In sports terminology, it's like triathlon; just because you're done swimming doesn't mean you've finished it.jaapv said:
It would be sense to have a modular design here, but then they apparently don't make this part of the camera themselves. Building modular cameras doesn't have much of a tradition at Leica; they have been becoming better at this with products such as the the DMR and the use of the R shutter in the M8, let's hope for them that they can keep this up.
Philipp
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
I don't doubt that technical advances are taking place,you are 100% right about that, but what about practical significance? If we take Canon's D60 to 30D series as an example we have a timespan of about ten years. The major updates have been in the photographical part of the camera: ergonomics, size, handling,viewfinder, most imporantly autofocus. Yes, the megapixels have grown from 6 to 8, but that is rather insignificant, yes, colour balance has improved, but I use RAW anyway, yes, noise at high ISO is better, but it was not bad on the D60 and how often do we use 3200 ? In the end it boils down to: the camera has improved, especially if one puts the first beside the last, but not so dramatically that there is a significant difference in the printed results. I would hope the M8 will do better than that so I think a technical life span of 15 years is not unrealistic, unless current evolution is replaced by some shattering revolution in sensor or electronic design. Who knows? But then, most RF affectionados are not the type that fall for a newest and bestest hype. And in the end, what is very good today will not suddenly turn into worthless junk in the future.
To remain with your Triathlon example: swimming is a lot slower than cycling!I think we have just started the swimming part now.
To remain with your Triathlon example: swimming is a lot slower than cycling!I think we have just started the swimming part now.
Last edited:
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
Kinda short years you have in the Netherlands - the D60 was presented in 2002, which I think relativises the rest of your argument somewhat!jaapv said:
If you talk ten years, you can compare today's Canon 30D to the six-megapixel, $12.000 Kodak DCS460 (link at www.mir.com.my) instead. Or the Kodak/Canon EOS DCS-1 at $30.000. I'm not saying that was a bad camera. Actually for its time it was outright amazing, with a price to match. It's not as obsolete as the eleven years since then would suggest, especially since they probably sell for about $300 now, and in the $300 league it's quite competitive. But it's obsolete anyway - eight seconds between two-image picture bursts, size, sensitivity, available storage size, ergonomics (where is that display?); it's obvious digital photography has come a long way since then, the "race" has been quite heated and intense, and no digital camera manufacturer could have afforded to rest on his laurels the way Leica did for a long time.
Philipp
Last edited:
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
You're right, I'm a bit in the fast track, your example is better. The most striking thing is the way prices have come down, which certainly won't happen with Leica..... Time will tell, and I will probablyenjoy my M8 for many years.
VinceC
Veteran
I'm not a Leica person, but I've been happily taking lots of photographs with a 50-year-old obsolete all-but-abandoned photo system (and have published hundreds of photos with these orphaned Nikon RFs).
I think digital is mature enough now that a 10 MP Leica will be useful for a long time to come. Yes, new models might come out with improved sensors, but the M8 will remain useful.
The Barnack Leicas went through several cycles of rapid development. From the Ur-Leica to the I and II and III, then up the alphabet from "a" to "g," and the quality of lenses improved considerably over the years. Still, I could go out with a Leica Ia (if there is such a thing ... I'm not a Leica junky) with a late-'20s-early-1930s lens and take perfectly fine photos. A IIIg will do the job more effectively with more features and with a much better mid-1950s lens. A brand-new M-7 will operate much more smoothly, with more accurate framing, using a lens immune from flare and optimized from 80 years of optical research. So it will generally do a better job. But the 1930 Leica will do just fine ... Just as the M8 a few decades from now will probably still do okay alongside an M12 or whatever.
Also, it's not that difficult for cottage industries to reverse engineer some electronic components. Think of the micro-circuit technology inside a typical $10 kids' toy. In many ways, it's less complex than the watchmaker skills needed to custom-make camera parts. I think, if digital Leicas develop some kind of long-term problem, there will be financial incentive to come up with a reasonably affordable solution (in the range of several hundred dollars)... neither the original owners nor the secondary market would consider these a throwaway product after a couple of years. Unlike the digital SLRs of the past decade, which pioneered the switch to digital, a Leica M digital will be mature enough that people will be wililng to pay some money to fix them rather than replace tham with a very pricey newer model.
I think digital is mature enough now that a 10 MP Leica will be useful for a long time to come. Yes, new models might come out with improved sensors, but the M8 will remain useful.
The Barnack Leicas went through several cycles of rapid development. From the Ur-Leica to the I and II and III, then up the alphabet from "a" to "g," and the quality of lenses improved considerably over the years. Still, I could go out with a Leica Ia (if there is such a thing ... I'm not a Leica junky) with a late-'20s-early-1930s lens and take perfectly fine photos. A IIIg will do the job more effectively with more features and with a much better mid-1950s lens. A brand-new M-7 will operate much more smoothly, with more accurate framing, using a lens immune from flare and optimized from 80 years of optical research. So it will generally do a better job. But the 1930 Leica will do just fine ... Just as the M8 a few decades from now will probably still do okay alongside an M12 or whatever.
Also, it's not that difficult for cottage industries to reverse engineer some electronic components. Think of the micro-circuit technology inside a typical $10 kids' toy. In many ways, it's less complex than the watchmaker skills needed to custom-make camera parts. I think, if digital Leicas develop some kind of long-term problem, there will be financial incentive to come up with a reasonably affordable solution (in the range of several hundred dollars)... neither the original owners nor the secondary market would consider these a throwaway product after a couple of years. Unlike the digital SLRs of the past decade, which pioneered the switch to digital, a Leica M digital will be mature enough that people will be wililng to pay some money to fix them rather than replace tham with a very pricey newer model.
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
IMHO that's a question of availability rather than maturity. This whole maturity argument is based on the assumption that with digital cameras, progress must end somewhere and that that is where Leica can hop on the bandwagon, saving themselves as a camera company. But people will now replace their four-year-old D60 by a 30D, as opposed to having it repaired, because the 30D is available. People will do that with Leica too and replace their M8's by M10's, if the M10 is available. If there is no M10, people will stick to their M8's instead, regardless of how mature the M8 is in comparison with other digital cameras.VinceC said:
Paradoxically enough, Leica can thus create the impression of repairability and longevity as design features of the M8, simply by not innovating beyond it.
Then again, maybe this has been Leica's business model all the time since the M5 tanked.
Philipp
V
varjag
Guest
At least in software industry, upgrade sales to existing users are a viable source of income. It is yet unknown if M8 can be factory-upgdaded, but I wouldn't be surprised if it turns out so. I would imagine a lot of M8 users will be reluctant to shell out another 5k for M9 in two years, while an upgrade (even for $1000-1500, cost of mid-level DLSR body) would be seen feasible to many.
KoNickon
Nick Merritt
Phillipp's comments in his two posts make a lot of sense. Indeed it does seem like a lot of people rushed to squelch the original poster's opinion, for the simple reason that he was commenting negatively on the M8. There may have been some inaccuracies or overstatements in his note, but the basic premise was valid: What makes the M8 "better" than a lot of other digital cameras already on the market? We'll have to see -- I don't think we can assume that, just because it's a Leica, it will be better.
The world of digital cameras is (obviously) an electronic one, and new players -- computer and electronics manufacturers -- are in the field. Leica's forte over the decades has been top-notch mechanical construction and superb optics. I'm not sure that either is that important anymore -- digital cameras have become much more limited lifespan items, much as cellphones are, and software goes a long way toward eliminating optical flaws. If, as Philipp mentions, Leica comes up with a way to make the M8's electronics easily upgradable or replaceable, then maybe having an M8 that lasts decades makes sense.
The world of digital cameras is (obviously) an electronic one, and new players -- computer and electronics manufacturers -- are in the field. Leica's forte over the decades has been top-notch mechanical construction and superb optics. I'm not sure that either is that important anymore -- digital cameras have become much more limited lifespan items, much as cellphones are, and software goes a long way toward eliminating optical flaws. If, as Philipp mentions, Leica comes up with a way to make the M8's electronics easily upgradable or replaceable, then maybe having an M8 that lasts decades makes sense.
VinceC
Veteran
>>People will do that with Leica too and replace their M8's by M10's, if the M10 is available.<<
Then there will be plenty of secondary-market buyers for that traded-in camera. That's no different than Leicas today.
>>the basic premise was valid: What makes the M8 "better" than a lot of other digital cameras already on the market?<<
What made the Leica M4 or M6 "better" than their SLR competition at the time? Since the 1960s, Leicas have been a pricey specialty item and, since the 1970s, the only manufacturer of professional-grade full-featured rangefinder cameras.
Then there will be plenty of secondary-market buyers for that traded-in camera. That's no different than Leicas today.
>>the basic premise was valid: What makes the M8 "better" than a lot of other digital cameras already on the market?<<
What made the Leica M4 or M6 "better" than their SLR competition at the time? Since the 1960s, Leicas have been a pricey specialty item and, since the 1970s, the only manufacturer of professional-grade full-featured rangefinder cameras.
glasgowdave
Newbie
JAAPV, indeed I am - it serves well to keep their heads down while you establish a stronger position!
Thanks for the welcome. For the record I'm actually a DSLR shooter with a gigantic desire to go all film in the near future...I'm a design snob I suppose and value quality, workmanship, and detail are what matters most to me. DM's description of the camera as a "toothbrush" is apt, I just wish my D200 was as easy to conceal! I've applied for a small business grant to get my freelance work off the ground and am sorely tempted to steer away from the use of digital at any weddings I do...even though I'm aware of the workflow hit this imposes. Anyone here use M series for weddings?
Thanks for the welcome. For the record I'm actually a DSLR shooter with a gigantic desire to go all film in the near future...I'm a design snob I suppose and value quality, workmanship, and detail are what matters most to me. DM's description of the camera as a "toothbrush" is apt, I just wish my D200 was as easy to conceal! I've applied for a small business grant to get my freelance work off the ground and am sorely tempted to steer away from the use of digital at any weddings I do...even though I'm aware of the workflow hit this imposes. Anyone here use M series for weddings?
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
You're right, of course. Actually used Leica bodies are probably Leica's biggest competition. For example, since they managed to convince everybody with the M4-2 that light meters aren't really necessary, I guess a number of users will have bought M6's only quite late.VinceC said:
However, this kind of development that you are alluding to used to take place very slowly. The pace of evolution and obsolescence with rangefinders was very slow, roughly one Leica M model every ten years on average and sometimes extremely little innovation between them. Incidentally, these very slow product cycles are an easy thing to achieve when you're the only company in the market, especially when the buyers are largely traditionalists. Development happened in the 1950s to early 60s, when Canon and Nikon where there; then in the 70s, when there was the threat of SLRs with internal metering and of compact cameras; and then, after that, only very gradually. The big innovation in the entire 1980s was, lo and behold, an internal light meter, and in the 1990s aperture priority AE when the Hexar RF demonstrated that it could be done and actually presented a formidable competitor. Snail's pace since 1965 or so. In this kind of market, of course, as a user you can swap the M
for the M(n+1) every ten or fifteen years and be happy. This kind of customer behaviour in a slowly-evolving market can be quite deadly for a camera company, because you make a living out of only those users that buy your newest product, while a lot of people will buy older, obsoleted products from the early adopters. In such a situation companies are likely to start making money off services, such as CLAs, repairs and so on, which is what Leica did, and the whole image (however justified) of the Leica M as the camera that can be repaired even after a hundred years has to be seen in this context: because it allows Leica to make money from these repairs.Digital cameras have a completely different kind product cycle; effectively they're a completely different product. Developing digital cameras is much more costly, takes skills that evolve more rapidly and has to take place faster. All Leica can hope to do is to slide into a position where they can do development at a slower pace. In order to achieve this, Leica is taking a big bet on a number of factors here that, as they hope, somehow discern their buyers from other digital camera buyers:
- Leica is hoping that Leica M body buyers are enough traditionalist in their mindset that Leica won't have to innovate at the pace Canon does. The best buyers for the M8, apart from professionals with existing large amounts of M lenses, are users that are suspicious of the pace of innovation elsewhere, yet want to have a good digital camera, too. For these users, it's OK if the camera is good now; if it becomes better too quickly, it is somehow disturbing and discourages from buying anyway. After all, nobody buys today's $5000 product if tomorrow's can be expected to be better.
- Leica is hoping that Leica M body buyers regard the difference between a digital rangefinder and the world of DSLRs as big enough that they create their own separate market, the way they did with Leica M bodies. Since the 70s Leica hasn't competed with anyone in their own niche in the camera arena until recently, because the rangefinder as a photographic tool was a market in itself, sufficiently different from SLRs. There are good indications that this is the case in the digital world, too, but it is still an assumption.
- Leica is probably hoping that development in the digital camera world will slow down at some point, so even if they develop at a slower pace the divergence won't become too great eventually - this is the argument about jumping late on a slowing bandwagon.
That's just my own set of assumptions about Leica's rationale behind development and product placement of the M8, but I think it has some merit. I wish them success.
Philipp
Last edited:
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
I am one of those troublesome buggers that shoots back I can emphasise with your photographic moves. I went from Leica SLR to Canon DSLR and got very weary with it. Luckily I hung on to my M camera all the time and now the Canon gathers dust. But I like digital, so for me the M8 is a godsend. I even use a Digilux2 as a stopgap camera. Now THAT is a point-and shoot, albeit a rather nice one. Film-digital is 50/50 with me.
I can emphasise with your photographic moves. I went from Leica SLR to Canon DSLR and got very weary with it. Luckily I hung on to my M camera all the time and now the Canon gathers dust. But I like digital, so for me the M8 is a godsend. I even use a Digilux2 as a stopgap camera. Now THAT is a point-and shoot, albeit a rather nice one. Film-digital is 50/50 with me.glasgowdave said:
VinceC
Veteran
>>That's just my own set of assumptions about Leica's rationale ... I wish them success.<<
I think they have no choice but to create top-quality digital camera and convince the world that digital technology is mature enough to handle Leica's image of longlasting European craftsmanship.
One thing to keep in mind. Even if the company fails or pulls out of the camera business altogether in a couple of years, there are going to be many thousands of digital M cameras floating around the marketplace for the forseeable future, which I would argue is the rest of our lives.
In reference to a post above, here's a link to some Delorians currently for sale in the United States ... some remanufactured, some low-miles originals.
http://www.delorean.com/preowned.asp
I love their motto: "Always in Style."
I think they have no choice but to create top-quality digital camera and convince the world that digital technology is mature enough to handle Leica's image of longlasting European craftsmanship.
One thing to keep in mind. Even if the company fails or pulls out of the camera business altogether in a couple of years, there are going to be many thousands of digital M cameras floating around the marketplace for the forseeable future, which I would argue is the rest of our lives.
In reference to a post above, here's a link to some Delorians currently for sale in the United States ... some remanufactured, some low-miles originals.
http://www.delorean.com/preowned.asp
I love their motto: "Always in Style."
humanized_form
Established
upgrades?
upgrades?
i think a lot of the recent "upgrades" to digital cameras are simply laughable, as the majority of these upgrades seem to have very little to do with image quality improvements and much more to do with the packaging and repackaging of "features".
the newest in new model may give you a better viewfinder (wow.. i can actually use manual focus now!) but maybe lowers the flash sync or removes the spot meter or whatever, it's just playing games with features, setting up the sell for the next model. i guess that's one of the few ways manufacturers can differentiate between models when the majority are still basically using the same aps sensors (albeit crammed with more megapixels and "improved image processing").
i'm not concerned with how many frames per second can be sprayed with the press of a button or how many auto focus points i can choose from, etc... i just really don't care about that stuff. it just gets in the way.
i see no need to upgrade from the M8 until it simply stops working.
upgrades?
i think a lot of the recent "upgrades" to digital cameras are simply laughable, as the majority of these upgrades seem to have very little to do with image quality improvements and much more to do with the packaging and repackaging of "features".
the newest in new model may give you a better viewfinder (wow.. i can actually use manual focus now!) but maybe lowers the flash sync or removes the spot meter or whatever, it's just playing games with features, setting up the sell for the next model. i guess that's one of the few ways manufacturers can differentiate between models when the majority are still basically using the same aps sensors (albeit crammed with more megapixels and "improved image processing").
i'm not concerned with how many frames per second can be sprayed with the press of a button or how many auto focus points i can choose from, etc... i just really don't care about that stuff. it just gets in the way.
i see no need to upgrade from the M8 until it simply stops working.
VinceC
Veteran
Matthew
Established
KoNickon said:
For me, there are three things that make the Leica M8 better for my needs than other quite capable digital cameras. 1) It is a rangefinder. Since the first time picking one up I have preferred rangefinder focusing to SLR for most uses. I would have bought the Epson RD-1 except for the fact that I could only use the equivalent of a 42mm lens without an accessory viewfinder. The M8 will be my only option. 2) The size and quality of Leica lenses. It's not that there aren't other capable lenses on the market, but I prefer the feel, the quality and the small size of Leica's offerings. 3) The size of the camera. I may be able to get a smaller P&S, but to get the level of control over all the parameters that go into taking a photo that I want I would need to use a DSLR. Which brings me back to the first reason above.
Avotius
Some guy
hm....the camera will be obsolete aparently because someone will want more and more.....my 8 mp canon 20D produces 30 inch prints that are very nice looking, the 1dsmark2 does it better but I dont really care, mine is good enough, in a film vs. digital thing I think film still is better looking at that size but its too close to call for the most part....how will the dm be obsolete in a year? After a year it shoots 2 megapixle shots instead of 10?
AndyPiper
Established
GlasgowDave: I apologize for the "laddie" - although I think if you re-read your original post there was a certain - curmudgeonliness - in your own phrasing. "outrageously cynical wastes of money...totally obsolete ... makes a mockery" are rather combative and over-the-top word choices (IMHO, of course).
We've probably thrashed "obsolete" to death - or at least into obsolescence.
As to what the competition has to offer - what competition? Which Canon or Nikon digital RANGEFINDER are we talking about? The P&S thingies, with telephoto apertures of f/5.6, and 'viewfinders' that drive most users to view with the LCD instead?
Any Canon or Nikon digital SLR has more in common with an MF camera + digital back - they are all big, heavy, and have a mirror flopping around inside - than it does with a Leica M.
If all I needed was 10 Mpixels - I could have gotten that (and more) 4 years ago with a Canon 1Ds. But - it - was - not - a - rangefinder!
IF Nikon or Canon or Hassy or ANYBODY introduces a digital rangefinder camera - on the physical scale of a Leica M with nice f/1.4- f/2- f/2.8 lenses covering close to the range of the M lenses - at any price, at any number of pixels - THEN we can get into price vs. performance questions.
Until then, there is the M8, there is the R-D1(s), and there are various film rangefinders. And that's the only universe in which reasonable comparisons can be made.
We've probably thrashed "obsolete" to death - or at least into obsolescence.
As to what the competition has to offer - what competition? Which Canon or Nikon digital RANGEFINDER are we talking about? The P&S thingies, with telephoto apertures of f/5.6, and 'viewfinders' that drive most users to view with the LCD instead?
Any Canon or Nikon digital SLR has more in common with an MF camera + digital back - they are all big, heavy, and have a mirror flopping around inside - than it does with a Leica M.
If all I needed was 10 Mpixels - I could have gotten that (and more) 4 years ago with a Canon 1Ds. But - it - was - not - a - rangefinder!
IF Nikon or Canon or Hassy or ANYBODY introduces a digital rangefinder camera - on the physical scale of a Leica M with nice f/1.4- f/2- f/2.8 lenses covering close to the range of the M lenses - at any price, at any number of pixels - THEN we can get into price vs. performance questions.
Until then, there is the M8, there is the R-D1(s), and there are various film rangefinders. And that's the only universe in which reasonable comparisons can be made.