Range-rover
Veteran
I've read awhile back that Nikon Filed a patent on a Digital back for a certain film
camera which one I don't know, but would be interesting if they did.
Range
camera which one I don't know, but would be interesting if they did.
Range
Emile de Leon
Well-known
Just a matter of time..before someone comes out with a cheaper rangefinder..just a matter of time..
Leica..just plain too expensive..as well as other probs...
But with people with money to burn...
Why not..
Leica..just plain too expensive..as well as other probs...
But with people with money to burn...
Why not..
Duane Pandorf
Well-known
Leica is a niche company and does not have the financial resources like Sony has to continuously spend on research and development. Plus the rangefinder me mechanism is what sells the M along with the camera's simple controls.
Of course the new M has steered a little bit from simplicity with the new CMOS sensor (movies) and desire to placate R lens owners. It seems they're not having any problems selling at their current pricing unlike others that end up relying on discounts to move their inventory as Sony is already doing with their A7 series.
This argument sounds a lot like the pricing many complained about why Apple's products were way more expensive than the plain Jane PCs that run the Windows OS. Look where Apple is today compared to any name brand PC manufacturer.
Leica is doing what it has to do.
Of course the new M has steered a little bit from simplicity with the new CMOS sensor (movies) and desire to placate R lens owners. It seems they're not having any problems selling at their current pricing unlike others that end up relying on discounts to move their inventory as Sony is already doing with their A7 series.
This argument sounds a lot like the pricing many complained about why Apple's products were way more expensive than the plain Jane PCs that run the Windows OS. Look where Apple is today compared to any name brand PC manufacturer.
Leica is doing what it has to do.
YYV_146
Well-known
I'll just make a few points...
1. It is almost certainly technologically feasible to develop a replaceable digital module for the M system. The GXR is basically an M camera minus the RF mechanism, and it is both smaller than the typical finder-less film body (Ikon SW) and produces perfectly fine pictures. Leica may not be able to do it, but Leica as an electronics company has always lagged behind the Japanese firms...I don't have a single doubt that if Nikon or Sony really wanted to make a module RF happen, they can build one.
2. Leica makes more money by offering cameras as-is, and forcing users to upgrade with their cycles. You are not a good Leica user (in Leica's view) if you didn't ditch your M8 for an M9 and then ditch it for an M240 when it came out in 2012. Obviously there are plenty of people that can both afford and want to do this, so Leica, sad as I am to say it, can choose to not care about the rest.
3. Just getting this out of the system, but Leica service is mediocre at best. Turnarounds are usually much longer than regular Canon or Nikon services if you live in the US, and service is downright lousy in most parts of Asia. The Leica official retailer in Beijing wouldn't even send a lens to Solmes on my behalf, and insisted that I mail it myself to Germany. Yes they support lenses long after ceasing production, but I really, really, really wish Leica could provide speedy repairs for its current products.
So yes, Leica and Digital RFs are an expensive and occasionally frustrating hobby. I would try to complain very loudly and see if Leica will provide a discount or fix it for free. In the long run it's probably best to stick with third-party serviceable lenses and cheap Japanese prosumer bodies...for the price of upgrading Leica digitals you can literally throw a used A7 into the trash can every year
1. It is almost certainly technologically feasible to develop a replaceable digital module for the M system. The GXR is basically an M camera minus the RF mechanism, and it is both smaller than the typical finder-less film body (Ikon SW) and produces perfectly fine pictures. Leica may not be able to do it, but Leica as an electronics company has always lagged behind the Japanese firms...I don't have a single doubt that if Nikon or Sony really wanted to make a module RF happen, they can build one.
2. Leica makes more money by offering cameras as-is, and forcing users to upgrade with their cycles. You are not a good Leica user (in Leica's view) if you didn't ditch your M8 for an M9 and then ditch it for an M240 when it came out in 2012. Obviously there are plenty of people that can both afford and want to do this, so Leica, sad as I am to say it, can choose to not care about the rest.
3. Just getting this out of the system, but Leica service is mediocre at best. Turnarounds are usually much longer than regular Canon or Nikon services if you live in the US, and service is downright lousy in most parts of Asia. The Leica official retailer in Beijing wouldn't even send a lens to Solmes on my behalf, and insisted that I mail it myself to Germany. Yes they support lenses long after ceasing production, but I really, really, really wish Leica could provide speedy repairs for its current products.
So yes, Leica and Digital RFs are an expensive and occasionally frustrating hobby. I would try to complain very loudly and see if Leica will provide a discount or fix it for free. In the long run it's probably best to stick with third-party serviceable lenses and cheap Japanese prosumer bodies...for the price of upgrading Leica digitals you can literally throw a used A7 into the trash can every year
Rangefinderfreak
Well-known
I'll just make a few points...
..for the price of upgrading Leica digitals you can literally throw a used A7 into the trash can every year
Why don`t you do it with a leica M 8 ???
back alley
IMAGES
i think it's funny how some people think that leica is part of the family and should be giving away big discounts!
semordnilap
Well-known
I think the big Japanese makers plan their 'discounts' well in advance, and price high to profit off the early adopter crowd and build an extra cushion in case of problems, then discount to extend the saleable lifespan of their cameras. I think this strategy also helps them by devaluing the cameras once they're already purchased, which drives this feeling that we need to upgrade, newer model=better whizbangboom!!!
Leica is clearly different and can sell as many cameras as it makes at the prices they charge. They being the only manufacturer of digital rangefinders makes it difficult for those of us who love rangefinders yet don't have many thousands to spend on bodies every few years.
My M8 actually takes *better* pictures now than it did when I bought it, what, seven years ago now, because the RAW conversion software has improved.
But it's funny, because while some may want a cheaper full-frame DRF, I for one would gladly buy an upgraded M8 with the same size (1.33 crop) sensor, but with improved electronics, principally better high ISOs (no banding). I'd buy it over a used M9, and I'd pay $4-5k for it. In a heartbeat. (Oh, and a quieter shutter, too)
YYV_146
Well-known
The M8, for all its technological advantages at the time of release, is a dinosaur of a camera now.
The A7, IQ wise, is the equivalent of the M type 240 in most regards. I won't go into debates about low pass filter and resolution, but my experience is that the A7 at least is cleaner above iso 1600 and offers greater dynamic range at base iso. The AWB on the A7 goes to the yellow side, the M240 trends blue after the firmware update and yellow before. In either way the difference is marginal, both have updated, modern FF sensors capable of handling complex light and produce both versatile raw files and decent Jpegs.
The M8 does not. The CCD on the M8 simply cannot deliver the same level of quality as larger modern sensors, and the camera is incredibly slow and unresponsive by 2014 standards. My takeaway is that it is even slower than a film body, since with film there is no file write time and no startup lag. I don't doubt that in the right hands it can produce amazing images, but personally (as I believe many if not most users on this forum) I see a camera that can only reliably go up to iso 640, require UV/IR filters for every lens when shooting in strong light and can only buffer around 7-8 raw files as being too limited for day-to-day work.
This and the fact that used M8s are still considerably more expensive than new A7s as of now...a good conditioned used M8 is upwards of $1800 these days, you can find plenty of used A7s around the $1200-1300 mark. Throw in the set of IR filters and the price of M8 accessories and the difference may be much greater.
YYV_146
Well-known
All cameras do. Adobe tweaks existing conversion algorithms in large ACR updates. I made an overexposed picture of my girlfriend a few years ago with a Canon 550d and decided that it was unfixable in post. Early this year I tried to open it with the latest version of camera raw and found that I could recover quite a bit more highlight space. In fact with some difficulty I was able to more or less save the photo and print it to 4*6.
But it's funny, because while some may want a cheaper full-frame DRF, I for one would gladly buy an upgraded M8 with the same size (1.33 crop) sensor, but with improved electronics, principally better high ISOs (no banding). I'd buy it over a used M9, and I'd pay $4-5k for it. In a heartbeat. (Oh, and a quieter shutter, too)
It's not the sensor size that matters, but the fabrication process. APS-H is pretty much dead now, unless Leica goes to the trouble of designing a brand new sensor, it's either going to be FF or the 1.5x APS-C. Not that APS-C sensors will always have worse high iso than FF, though, just look at what the Fuji X cameras can do...
rfaspen
[insert pithy phrase here]
I tried to love the M8 (I did get to try one out). I think it all came down to the crop factor.
At the time I tried the M8, I was experiencing frustration (of yet another kind) with my micro 4/3 system and its crop factor (a huge 2x). You see, my wife had just surprised me with a new Olympus EP3 because she knew I wanted a digital that would accept my small collection of M and LTM lenses.
Never look a gift horse in the mouth: I still have that Olympus. She couldn't understand why I was always taking Pete's M8 out with me when I had my own new digital. I didn't have the heart to tell her I hated crop factors. Turned out I didn't like it on the M8 either. The UV/IR cut thing never became an issue, but if I owned one...
Now that time has passed, and I clearly need a [native] M mount digital rangefinder, I sometimes catch myself considering one. Doh! I do remember the M8 had the more solid feel that I associate with my film Leicas. The EP3 is surprisingly solid, but still not quite the same somehow...
BTW, I should make clear that my dream camera (basically an M6TTL with FF digital sensor) doesn't have to be made by Leica. It would be wonderful, but not necessary. As mentioned earlier, Leica seem to have a different business strategy now than they did some decades ago when they were "the photographers camera" and less into the luxury market.
At the time I tried the M8, I was experiencing frustration (of yet another kind) with my micro 4/3 system and its crop factor (a huge 2x). You see, my wife had just surprised me with a new Olympus EP3 because she knew I wanted a digital that would accept my small collection of M and LTM lenses.
Never look a gift horse in the mouth: I still have that Olympus. She couldn't understand why I was always taking Pete's M8 out with me when I had my own new digital. I didn't have the heart to tell her I hated crop factors. Turned out I didn't like it on the M8 either. The UV/IR cut thing never became an issue, but if I owned one...
Now that time has passed, and I clearly need a [native] M mount digital rangefinder, I sometimes catch myself considering one. Doh! I do remember the M8 had the more solid feel that I associate with my film Leicas. The EP3 is surprisingly solid, but still not quite the same somehow...
BTW, I should make clear that my dream camera (basically an M6TTL with FF digital sensor) doesn't have to be made by Leica. It would be wonderful, but not necessary. As mentioned earlier, Leica seem to have a different business strategy now than they did some decades ago when they were "the photographers camera" and less into the luxury market.
icebear
Veteran
:bang: I guess at this point any attempt to have a reasonable discussion with the OP is a waste of time. I had the impression already at post #1 but now the proof it out .
btgc
Veteran
I just wrote to major car manufacturers to ask why they have abandoned crank start....all this ignition keys tend to slip out of pocket and get lost, and I still have crank from my grandpas car.
Rangefinderfreak
Well-known
Well, for me it is the M finder ( Mess sucher-measuring finder, not " M finder is a mess")
as long it records images at the level it does, I don`t worry about anything else . For me the Fuji X finder is still "terrible"... I can keep the body in my hand, move the lever to the right distance without even looking thru the finder, guesstimate the right exposure. Then when everything fits in it`s place, push the button...The distance is the same with all the lenses, just the angle is a little different and also there is a possibility to look at the image. Sometimes this possibility just distracts the shooting situation. Who wants to be photographed when the person who is responsible of the outcome of the shoot, all the time looks at his camera and not the subject...?
as long it records images at the level it does, I don`t worry about anything else . For me the Fuji X finder is still "terrible"... I can keep the body in my hand, move the lever to the right distance without even looking thru the finder, guesstimate the right exposure. Then when everything fits in it`s place, push the button...The distance is the same with all the lenses, just the angle is a little different and also there is a possibility to look at the image. Sometimes this possibility just distracts the shooting situation. Who wants to be photographed when the person who is responsible of the outcome of the shoot, all the time looks at his camera and not the subject...?
Of course Voigtlander has looked into producing a digital rangefinder. I'm told Mr. Kobayashi does not think he would get his investment back due to the short life cycles of digital sensors.
If anyone has $5,000,000 US burning a hole in their pocket to fund the project, knowing they probably have no chance of getting their investment back ...
Stephen
If anyone has $5,000,000 US burning a hole in their pocket to fund the project, knowing they probably have no chance of getting their investment back ...
Stephen
rfaspen
[insert pithy phrase here]
I don't get the car key analogy. Does that imply previous M and LTM lenses are like cranks? Or car keys? Maybe a reference to film?
I agree, demand and technology make for a new market.
I agree, demand and technology make for a new market.
YYV_146
Well-known
Maybe if we could get 2,000 RFFer's to each pledge $2.5k?
or 5,000 to each throw down a grand...Seriously, though, this sounds like something that could very well go on Kickstarter or any of the other major crownfunding websites...
GaryLH
Veteran
Sadly Ricoh got out of the gxr and the m module.. There was a time everyone was hoping for an A16 version of the m module.. I own a gxr setup and would have loved to see them continue.
Gary
rfaspen
[insert pithy phrase here]
Stephen,
Well, I think you're getting at the root of the issue. Market viability. I don't doubt it would be slim, but I can't help but think its possible. There are quite a few people out there just like me, but there does need to be a lot of us.
Interesting how the digital sensor itself that gets the blame for the tenuous economics. I suppose the remainder of the system is already pretty well worked out.
Again, I see this same discussion about a FF digital M-mount camera come up so often. ....and I'm one of the people who just fall short of willing to up the $$ for the Leica. Its really too bad, and I feel the frustration of those others like me.
Well, I think you're getting at the root of the issue. Market viability. I don't doubt it would be slim, but I can't help but think its possible. There are quite a few people out there just like me, but there does need to be a lot of us.
Interesting how the digital sensor itself that gets the blame for the tenuous economics. I suppose the remainder of the system is already pretty well worked out.
Again, I see this same discussion about a FF digital M-mount camera come up so often. ....and I'm one of the people who just fall short of willing to up the $$ for the Leica. Its really too bad, and I feel the frustration of those others like me.
rfaspen
[insert pithy phrase here]
YYV,
I have enough interest in FF digital M-mount at $2500, so I guess I'm game.
I certainly would like to see the remaining folks who want this make the seriousness of their desires known. Putting numbers on the situation might help. At least it reduces the ambiguous "too expensive" to something more of a price point/threshold. I try to be clear about the levels of my willingness to spend, which varies with current budget, other expenses, camera features, so on.
I have enough interest in FF digital M-mount at $2500, so I guess I'm game.
I certainly would like to see the remaining folks who want this make the seriousness of their desires known. Putting numbers on the situation might help. At least it reduces the ambiguous "too expensive" to something more of a price point/threshold. I try to be clear about the levels of my willingness to spend, which varies with current budget, other expenses, camera features, so on.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Highlight 1: Most of them hopelessly ill-informed.I'll just make a few points...
1. It is almost certainly technologically feasible to develop a replaceable digital module for the M system. The GXR is basically an M camera minus the RF mechanism, and it is both smaller than the typical finder-less film body (Ikon SW) and produces perfectly fine pictures. Leica may not be able to do it, but Leica as an electronics company has always lagged behind the Japanese firms...I don't have a single doubt that if Nikon or Sony really wanted to make a module RF happen, they can build one.
2. Leica makes more money by offering cameras as-is, and forcing users to upgrade with their cycles. You are not a good Leica user (in Leica's view) if you didn't ditch your M8 for an M9 and then ditch it for an M240 when it came out in 2012. Obviously there are plenty of people that can both afford and want to do this, so Leica, sad as I am to say it, can choose to not care about the rest.
3. Just getting this out of the system, but Leica service is mediocre at best. Turnarounds are usually much longer than regular Canon or Nikon services if you live in the US, and service is downright lousy in most parts of Asia. The Leica official retailer in Beijing wouldn't even send a lens to Solmes on my behalf, and insisted that I mail it myself to Germany. Yes they support lenses long after ceasing production, but I really, really, really wish Leica could provide speedy repairs for its current products.
So yes, Leica and Digital RFs are an expensive and occasionally frustrating hobby. I would try to complain very loudly and see if Leica will provide a discount or fix it for free. In the long run it's probably best to stick with third-party serviceable lenses and cheap Japanese prosumer bodies...for the price of upgrading Leica digitals you can literally throw a used A7 into the trash can every year
Highlight 2: See above.
Highlight 3: Which, if you want a rangefinder camera, is the only place for them.
Not mentioned in your list of fantasies: compatibility with 80+ years of earlier lenses; patents.
Why do you THINK no-one else has made a fully Leica-compatible 24x36 digital body? Spite? Or might it be more likely that they cannot do it at a price the fantasists want?
Cheers,
R.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.