Robert Price
I missed what?
As for the M8 making RF cameras more popular, well I would have to disagree. I think the aspect of of popularity would be due to people not wanting to buy DSLR's. As we will see in the future, I would hazzard a guess that RF photography, film, and digital, will get smaller not larger. RF cameras are only important to us who enjoy them. The sheep don't really care about the wonder of RF cameras.
I hate to say it but RF cameras are a dying breed. Jus look at the demise of the Contax G1, and G2, great cameras indeed.....but where are they now? Gone into the machine called progress that is where. Look at the RD1, not profitable enough. Only Leica is really still around, making a stand. Even thoes at Leica know the days are numbered that is why we have the M8. Most if not all Pro Photogs are going or have gone digital. Leica is following suit, finally joining the Digital age.
I do hope RF cameras in one form or another rize in popularity for my own sake....but I think the sad reality will be not in our favor.
I hate to say it but RF cameras are a dying breed. Jus look at the demise of the Contax G1, and G2, great cameras indeed.....but where are they now? Gone into the machine called progress that is where. Look at the RD1, not profitable enough. Only Leica is really still around, making a stand. Even thoes at Leica know the days are numbered that is why we have the M8. Most if not all Pro Photogs are going or have gone digital. Leica is following suit, finally joining the Digital age.
I do hope RF cameras in one form or another rize in popularity for my own sake....but I think the sad reality will be not in our favor.
rvaubel
Well-known
Folks,
There are more than one reason for the popularity of the M8.
*The ergometrics, size and weight of the camera make it a defacto digital point n' shoot with the file quality of a 5D. This is the most important quility for me. No other camera has ever been with me at all times.
*The superb mechanical qualities satisfy the equipment lust component in qeqr acqusition. The long history of the M and LTM lens mount brings out the collector instinct in most of us. Lets be honest and admit that the snob appeal of owning "the best" plays at least some role too.
*The M8 provides the only transition path for the traditional Leica users to the digital age
*It introduces, in a practical way, a whole new generation of proffesional users to the Leica brand. These are the pros who have only heard of Leica and need some practical reason to try the rangefinder format. Cost IS important for these folks and the Leica represents a luxory approach which needs to be justified if only for their personal camera. Digital is frankly a must.
The synthesis of many of these elements has resulted in the unexpected popularity of the M8. It really serves a unique nitche that no other camera or format occupies.
Oh yah, in a sort of perverse way, all the problems with filters, vignetting,etc has just served as a challenge to be overcome by the hobbiest/nerd faction. I certainly consider myself in this group. It seems to me that the rewards of overcoming the teething pains of the beta M8, are well worth it and only Leica could have servived such an inaspecious birth.
Well thats my theory anyway
Rex
There are more than one reason for the popularity of the M8.
*The ergometrics, size and weight of the camera make it a defacto digital point n' shoot with the file quality of a 5D. This is the most important quility for me. No other camera has ever been with me at all times.
*The superb mechanical qualities satisfy the equipment lust component in qeqr acqusition. The long history of the M and LTM lens mount brings out the collector instinct in most of us. Lets be honest and admit that the snob appeal of owning "the best" plays at least some role too.
*The M8 provides the only transition path for the traditional Leica users to the digital age
*It introduces, in a practical way, a whole new generation of proffesional users to the Leica brand. These are the pros who have only heard of Leica and need some practical reason to try the rangefinder format. Cost IS important for these folks and the Leica represents a luxory approach which needs to be justified if only for their personal camera. Digital is frankly a must.
The synthesis of many of these elements has resulted in the unexpected popularity of the M8. It really serves a unique nitche that no other camera or format occupies.
Oh yah, in a sort of perverse way, all the problems with filters, vignetting,etc has just served as a challenge to be overcome by the hobbiest/nerd faction. I certainly consider myself in this group. It seems to me that the rewards of overcoming the teething pains of the beta M8, are well worth it and only Leica could have servived such an inaspecious birth.
Well thats my theory anyway
Rex
rvaubel
Well-known
Folks,
There are more than one reason for the popularity of the M8.
*The ergometrics, size and weight of the camera make it a defacto digital point n' shoot with the file quality of a 5D. This is the most important quility for me. No other camera has ever been with me at all times.
*The superb mechanical qualities satisfy the equipment lust component in qeqr acqusition. The long history of the M and LTM lens mount brings out the collector instinct in most of us. Lets be honest and admit that the snob appeal of owning "the best" plays at least some role too.
*The M8 provides the only transition path for the traditional Leica users to the digital age
*It introduces, in a practical way, a whole new generation of proffesional users to the Leica brand. These are the pros who have only heard of Leica and need some practical reason to try the rangefinder format. Cost IS important for these folks and the Leica represents a luxory approach which needs to be justified if only for their personal camera. Digital is frankly a must.
The synthesis of many of these elements has resulted in the unexpected popularity of the M8. It really serves a unique nitche that no other camera or format occupies.
Oh yah, in a sort of perverse way, all the problems with filters, vignetting,etc has just served as a challenge to be overcome by the hobbiest/nerd faction. I certainly consider myself in this group. It seems to me that the rewards of overcoming the teething pains of the beta M8, are well worth it and only Leica could have servived such an inaspecious birth.
Well thats my theory anyway
Rex
There are more than one reason for the popularity of the M8.
*The ergometrics, size and weight of the camera make it a defacto digital point n' shoot with the file quality of a 5D. This is the most important quility for me. No other camera has ever been with me at all times.
*The superb mechanical qualities satisfy the equipment lust component in qeqr acqusition. The long history of the M and LTM lens mount brings out the collector instinct in most of us. Lets be honest and admit that the snob appeal of owning "the best" plays at least some role too.
*The M8 provides the only transition path for the traditional Leica users to the digital age
*It introduces, in a practical way, a whole new generation of proffesional users to the Leica brand. These are the pros who have only heard of Leica and need some practical reason to try the rangefinder format. Cost IS important for these folks and the Leica represents a luxory approach which needs to be justified if only for their personal camera. Digital is frankly a must.
The synthesis of many of these elements has resulted in the unexpected popularity of the M8. It really serves a unique nitche that no other camera or format occupies.
Oh yah, in a sort of perverse way, all the problems with filters, vignetting,etc has just served as a challenge to be overcome by the hobbiest/nerd faction. I certainly consider myself in this group. It seems to me that the rewards of overcoming the teething pains of the beta M8, are well worth it and only Leica could have servived such an inaspecious birth.
Well thats my theory anyway
Rex
eric.schmiedl
Member
ZeissFan said:
I never would have heard of rangefinders if not for whisperings of the Leica M8 on other forums. I heard about the "new nutso expensive gorgeous digital camera with the uber-elite Leica name" started doing some research.
I didn't 'get into' rangefinder work until I tried one. (a friend's Yashica Electro GSN)
jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
I don't know what it's doing to RF photography, but it's definitely making infrared-cutoff filters more popular >
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Robert Price said:
What you missed
:A surprising number of digital pros adding RF photography to their arsenal....
ywenz
Veteran
making it more popular in the sense that it is visible as a $5000 p&s-looking camera to the mainstream? Yeah, sure - it's being regarded as some obscure piece of joke.
making it more popular in the sense that many more ppl are jumping onto the RF bandwagon? Nah..
making it more popular in the sense that many more ppl are jumping onto the RF bandwagon? Nah..
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
ywenz said:
Strange- Leica are selling more M cameras than the last three years put together - ZI have an upswing - Bessas are selling better....Must be caused by cosmic rays...
ywenz
Veteran
jaapv: where do you get these data? And are these brand new M owners or people like you who ditched their film Ms for the digital M?
HAnkg
Well-known
ywenz said:
Leica publishes financial results.
There are many photographers who have been all digital for a while and have'nt used an RF in years. The M8 has brought many of them back to RF photography. If not as their main camera then as a specialist add on to their DSLR kit.
For some younger photographers who have never used film a digital M has now made RF an option.
The M8 has also gotten a few film RF users to finally make the jump to digital. There really isn't any reason to buy a new film M with so many used M's on the market. Digital on the other hand pretty much guarantees users will be looking to upgrade every 3 - 5 years.
Then there are the Leica brand fans -but these are a minority of purchasers and many of the Leica cultists don't consider the M8 a 'true' Leica anyway. Real Leica's don't use batteries and can be handed down to the grand kids like a family heirloom. A digital camera will never qualify.
No one would have believed a year ago that Leica would be selling everything it could make and prices on used Leica gear would be going through the roof.
So Leica has gone from a company with an aging and shrinking market barely surviving and hemmoraging cash to a profitable growing company in a niche that is now growing. If they can repeat the success of the M8 with the R10 they will be truley transformed sales and proifitability wise.
mhv
Registered User
HAnkg said:
Er... The iPhone HAS a camera. All hell will now break loose!
ywenz
Veteran
HAnkg said:
You're right. I stand corrected then! But how much of those sales are RF newbies?
K
Ken Tanaka
Guest
Leica's FY 2006/2007 financial overview (downloadable from their site: http://www.leica-corporate.com/home/ ] does show a significant M8 impact. But Leica is far from being in good shape as a going concern. They will have to find a way to convert the M8 fad as an ongoing wave for quite some time to reach a point of true health and sustainable growth.
As a customer, like many others here, I certainly wish them well but admit to having very weak faith in their long-term prospects as an independent company.
As a customer, like many others here, I certainly wish them well but admit to having very weak faith in their long-term prospects as an independent company.
Carolyn-IL
Member
I think cost of the M8 is just so incredibly prohibative to most people that I cannot fathom sales going up or it really "taking hold." The reason DSLRs, e.g., Canon, are so popular, is because they are decent, flexible and affordable.
I would LOVE to have and M8 and play for years with it, just cannot afford it right now ~ maybe ever. I do think RFs going digital is important and it's sad the Epson RD-1 was not improved on and is now discontinued. At least more people at least got to give digital RF a try. I don't know how else to bring digitial RFs to a wider artistic audience (not to mention students of the craft) without at least cutting that sticker price in half. $5000 is still a LOT of money to many people ... as someone mentioned, it's for the crowd (and God bless em') who don't mind buying a $300 bottle of Bordeaux.
Carolyn
I would LOVE to have and M8 and play for years with it, just cannot afford it right now ~ maybe ever. I do think RFs going digital is important and it's sad the Epson RD-1 was not improved on and is now discontinued. At least more people at least got to give digital RF a try. I don't know how else to bring digitial RFs to a wider artistic audience (not to mention students of the craft) without at least cutting that sticker price in half. $5000 is still a LOT of money to many people ... as someone mentioned, it's for the crowd (and God bless em') who don't mind buying a $300 bottle of Bordeaux.
Carolyn
Xmas
Veteran
Lots of M users have bought RD1s, lots of Canon, FSU, etc. rgfdr camera users have bought CV lenses. The M8 may not be a significant perturbation, yet, if ever.
Noel
Noel
Carolyn-IL
Member
I think cost of the M8 is just so incredibly prohibitive to most people that I cannot fathom sales going up or it really "taking hold." The reason DSLRs, e.g., Canon, are so popular, is because they are decent, flexible artistically and affordable.
I would LOVE to have an M8 and play for years with it, just cannot afford it right now ~ maybe ever. If I'm going to make back any of that $$, have to also factor in printing costs, computer stuff, etc. I do think RFs going digital is important and it's sad the Epson RD-1 was not improved on and is now discontinued. At least more people at least got to give digital RF a try ~ the slowing down, contemplation and Zen of RF in a digital world. I don't know how else to bring digitial RFs to a wider artistic audience (not to mention students of the craft) without at least cutting that sticker price in half. $5000 is still a LOT of money to many people ... as someone mentioned, it's for the crowd (and God bless em') who don't mind buying a $300 bottle of Bordeaux.
I saw a cool website from this 17 year old kid, Joey Lawrence and his photographs were better than anything I've seen of late. Some were done with a 1MP camera! I think things will slow down and get more to the roots of basic photography w/digital, but I'm guessing something like the 5D will get most of us there - just because it's the best option for what a middle-income person can afford.
Carolyn
I would LOVE to have an M8 and play for years with it, just cannot afford it right now ~ maybe ever. If I'm going to make back any of that $$, have to also factor in printing costs, computer stuff, etc. I do think RFs going digital is important and it's sad the Epson RD-1 was not improved on and is now discontinued. At least more people at least got to give digital RF a try ~ the slowing down, contemplation and Zen of RF in a digital world. I don't know how else to bring digitial RFs to a wider artistic audience (not to mention students of the craft) without at least cutting that sticker price in half. $5000 is still a LOT of money to many people ... as someone mentioned, it's for the crowd (and God bless em') who don't mind buying a $300 bottle of Bordeaux.
I saw a cool website from this 17 year old kid, Joey Lawrence and his photographs were better than anything I've seen of late. Some were done with a 1MP camera! I think things will slow down and get more to the roots of basic photography w/digital, but I'm guessing something like the 5D will get most of us there - just because it's the best option for what a middle-income person can afford.
Carolyn
gdi
Veteran
Carolyn-IL said:
In a world of $650 10mp Rebel XTis, the M8 does look very expensive. However, if you look at the world of $4500 1DMkIII's it should change the perspective. Add the low production numbers and the much smaller RF market it plays in and the M8 doesn't seem that wildly overpriced. As for that pricing being prohibitive - check out how the Canon users have lined up for the MkIII, they are chomping at the bit to pay that $4500. Also, I see that a 1DMKII now sells as low as $2200, will a 3 year old M8 be selling that low? I can't be sure, but I think it will hold the value better than that - especially since Leica will probably not replace it that soon.
Of course some will say it has no AF, no dual Flash interface, no weathersealing, or 10FPS, etc, and that is true. So to make a more logical comparison, compare the top end of each range in film (1v for Canon and M7 for Leica) and you'll that the 1.33 crop, 10MP digital siblings of each demand respective premium of $2500 and $1300.
I am just trying to show that the price is not as other-worldly as people may think - you cannot compare the Canon to the Leica body for body, they are different products and markets.
In the end you really need to know and want a digital RF camera - if not, I don't think it makes sense to start with an expensive digital. Go buy a Bessa and use it for several months with film and then decide. Or if you really need to go digital, try a good R-D1 -as I know you have been considering, Carolyn.
As for the original question - did the M8 cause a resurgence in RF popularity? I think that the resurgence was underway but the M8 accelerated it, and has given it the possibilty of a viable digital future.
HAnkg
Well-known
Carolyn-IL said:
I do drink wine regularly but don't make my living drinking it so I never spend more then $15 on a bottle. For a collector/dealer $300 might make sense but for a drinker it's absurd even if you can afford it.
I do however make my living with camera's and the M8 is on the low end of cost of the sort of gear I would consider for my work -from the $7,000. Canon 1Ds MKII or $4500 Nikon D2x to medium format cameras and backs that are well north of $20,000. Yes the M8 doesn't have auto-focus and has less features and is only 10MP. But I prefer the ergonomics of the M8, the lack of features, unique RF finder and size being an advantage. That's the reason I use it. There are a whole range of cameras that have great IQ the M8 is not unique in that respect but the M8's image quality is stunning for anything up to a 2 page spread ad -easily matching the quality on the actual printed page (rather then 1:1 pixel comparisons on computer monitors) of anything out there.
erikhaugsby
killer of threads
I am not of the opinion that RF photography is becoming more popular as much as it has created more awareness. Film RFs (layman speaking) went the way of the dodo when digital entered the scene, but with the arrival of a digital RF comes public recognition of the camera because, after all, it is now a "serious" (read: digital) camera, and not an old film clunker.
This doesn't mean people will buy it, however...
This doesn't mean people will buy it, however...
Hartlén
Newbie
I think I'm a living proof that they are, I just bought my first RF and can't wait to try it out. (I never considered a RF until the M8 hit the market, somehow the transition seems easier).
/Patrik
/Patrik