Leica's Future Plans (not speculation)

See, for me, after reading the posts about how loud the M8 is, I remember being nervous. I remember taking the first shot. It was in the shore. I put some cotton in my ear, braced myself, and tripped the shutter.

For a moment I was dazed. I wiped the sweat from my forehead and breathed out. None of the boxes fell down off of the shelves from shutter blast. That was odd, but a relief. I looked around carefully. Nobody even seemed to have jumped. Hmmm.

That was my first suspicion that the expectations are kind of high here. In fact .... and don't call me crazy .... I kind of find the M8's shutter to be about the quietest of all the cams I've ever used. SLR's, sure .... but it is a marvelous experience with the humble M8, just the same.

I'm sure that even more quiet can't hurt, but from my experience, I don't think the M8 sound can neither. 🙂
 
JoeV said:
Lens perspective also doesn't scale with different format sizes; it's a property of the absolute focal length. So that a 90mm "portrait" lens on a 35mm format camera will have different perspective than a 45mm lens on a 4/3 or u4/3 2x crop format camera. That 45mm lens on the 2X crop camera will display the "big nose" problem of using short focal length lenses for portraits.

~Joe
Click to expand...

This is categorically and demonstrably not the case. If this were true, there would be no acceptable compact digicams on the market (and we can debate whether there are, just not on this point). Take the Canon G10 for example: with a full telephoto of 30.5mm, portrait shots should look "big nosey," but they instead look much more like the 140mm that the 35mm equivalent angle of view calculation would imply. And on the wide end, 6.1mm would make the camera entirely useless for anything, certainly for relatively close-in group shots, but those appear to exhibit about as much distortion as the wide end of any cheaply-made 28mm-x zoom.

And while I'm getting uppity, depth of field does change on these smaller formats. Depth of field is calculated empirically based on focal length, aperture, subject distance, and circle of confusion. While focal length doesn't change on smaller formats, circle of confusion probably does. If you take a shot with a 50mm C Sonnar on an m7 and print that at 8x12, then take the same shot (without matching angle of view) on an m8 and print it at 6x9, then you'll have the same results (assuming your film and the m8 both deliver roughly the same degree of sharpness in capture, and printing is likewise equaled). But print that m8 file at 8x12, and things that were apparently sharp in the smaller print no longer are. The difference isn't going to be massive when you're talking about an additional magnification ratio of 1.33, but it will be present. And if you step back with the m8 to correct for angle of view, you'll increase depth of field, perhaps back to where it was, but you'll also change perspective.
 
If anyone takes this as anything other than a complete failure on Leica's part, they are deluding themselves.

What, at Leica's inception, was a Leica? It was a small, hand-holdable, miniature format, fast-operating camera that, through good engineering and good lenses, produced images that were of a greater quality than miniature-format cameras were known to produce, at a lower price point than their main competitor, Contax.

Even though the original Leicas were hugely innovative, by 1960, their innovation days were over. Since then, Leica has been ten to thirty years behind the true innovators in the photographic field. Yes, they have continued to produce glass that was comparable to the best glass in the world, but other great lenses were significantly cheaper. How long did it take for Leica to put a light meter in its cameras? How long would it have taken without Minolta's help? How long did it take for aperture priority? How long did it take for them to deliver quality at a lower price than their main competitors, like they were able to do against the Contax initially? OH WAIT, they haven't been able to do that for at least 50 years!

The only reason Leica has survived this long is because of nostalgia and collectibility. Leica cameras do not produce the world's best digital images, and they don't even produce the world's best 35mm film camera images. They are close to the most expensive cameras, and the m8.2 is nowhere near as fast to operate as even the cheap Nikon D40 is. Fifty years ago, Leicas were blazingly fast to operate, but by today's standards,they are ponderously slow. Nikon's F mount isn't significantly younger than the M mount, but it has autofocus capability today. The M mount doesn't. The Pentax K mount has autofocus today, but the M mount doesn't. Plenty of manufacturers that started out with fully manual systems were able to figure out how to do Program modes, but the best Leica has today is Aperture Priority, which was new in the Seventies.

Everything listed here in the 'future plans' for Leica is, in one sense or another, bad news, either from a quality perspective, a cost perspective, a compatibility perspective, a technological perspective (every other relavent company has either committed to making their SLR line digitally compatible, or has bit the bullet and pressed the compatibility reset button, Leica has just left R customers hanging), or a price perspective (20 grand for a camera whose nearest competitor is the 8 grand D3x??). These are not the statements of a company who I expect to be active in another five to ten years in any meaningful or relevant sense. In a lot of ways, Leica stopped being relevant decades ago. They have just been surviving on collectability, nostalgia, and fun, not on serious cutting-edge image making at a competitive price.
 
I agree Merkin,Im seriously thinking of leaving leica simply because I dont want to be connected to the "twilight zone" where they now exist.
 
hmm, and i thought leica was doing pretty well. an r10 would have been disastrous, and the project was wisely snuffed. the s2 defines a new digital format and seems poised to hit a sweet spot in the high end pro segment. they're committed to producing a full frame m9, no small task.

so what if they aren't going to make a m4/3 camera? they said they might make lenses for it, which is a very sensible thing to do. let panasonic and olympus do what they do well.
 
I'm with aizan here. Almost no one would use an m8 if it weren't an M body. It is a fine camera, it gets great images, and it has a sensor that certainly has its own (unique) advantages, true. But the selling point is surely that it is pretty much the only digital RF in town. The R system lost most of its user base prior to digital's arrival. Supporting it, even with a great camera, would likely have not returned on investment simply based on the R user base. Add in the fact that there are plenty of great digital SLRs out there operating on a level of electronics that Leica likely couldn't match and you get an easy decision to pull the plug.

Meanwhile, the S2 looks to me like a great camera. It delivers plenty of pixels, a larger sensor, and a compact (relatively speaking) body. All indications are that it won't need to be used in the sort of tripod-bound manner that most MF digital backs demand, and so Leica is actually adding something new to the market. If the lenses are as good as we should expect, and the camera performs speedily in terms of shot-to-shot times, it'll have no difficulty building a loyal fanbase. In the film days, you had medium format shooters that were tripod-bound with their RB67s, but you also had Pentax 645 shooters, running around with a beefy SLR, operating handheld. That sort of user doesn't have a medium format option right now, and the S2 looks like a great candidate.

As for m4/3, I think Leica will and should make lenses, and I think that if Panasonic is smart they'll consult with Leica on the design of an m-esque body or at the very least set their own design team to that very task. In reality, I'm not so attached to a Leica-built m4/3 camera, as I think Panasonic'll make a better performer. Leica-inspired Panasonic body with Leica glass seems like a great compromise.
 
"Leica As Lens Supplier for Other Camera Systems
Patents needed are only swapped inside of the Japanese camera industry
Zeiss lenses are manufactured by Cosina who are seen as Japanese company
That way Zeiss receives the patents, Leica as German company does not
Leica's attempts to come to an agreement failed until now
Reverse engineering is legally too risky.."

- Which confirms my speculations here earlier, regarding Leica's inability to use any of the Japanese digital camera sensors. They are, along with a long range of other patents, developed with the help of Japanese tax payers. These patents are not to be shared with companies from foreign countries.
 
Olsen said:
"Leica As Lens Supplier for Other Camera Systems
Patents needed are only swapped inside of the Japanese camera industry
Zeiss lenses are manufactured by Cosina who are seen as Japanese company
That way Zeiss receives the patents, Leica as German company does not
Leica's attempts to come to an agreement failed until now
Reverse engineering is legally too risky.."

- Which confirms my speculations here earlier, regarding Leica's inability to use any of the Japanese digital camera sensors. They are, along with a long range of other patents, developed with the help of Japanese tax payers. These patents are not to be shared with companies from foreign countries.
Click to expand...

Different issue, I think. Leica could use Japanese sensors, they just don't like them. If they opted to, they'd be paying for them. The sensors may be patented and developed with Japanese tax funding, but Leica would simply be buying a part, not receiving any part of that patent. The case detailed above explains that they're unable to build lenses for other (patented) mounts because Japanese companies don't want (or legally can't) to offer their mount details to any company that will be manufacturing competing products in another country.

Zeiss' exception in this regard isn't terribly noteworthy, by the way. Sure, the lenses are made in Japan, but the lenses were initially available only in Nikon F, Pentax K, and m42 mounts, and the patents on all of those have expired (just like the M mount). That Canon is licensing the EF mount seems surprising at first (it is far from expiring), but from Canon's point of view, Nikon now has a number of very viable full frame cameras. If a user is set on buying Zeiss lenses, why allow a situation to persist where a Nikon body is their best/only option for those Zeiss lenses?

If Leica is going to start building some of the better R lenses in other mounts, they could follow Zeiss' lead and begin with mounts in the public domain. If they intend to make AF lenses, then the mounts are still patented and Leica's making a tactically interesting move against Zeiss.
 
TJV said:
Actually, this is exactly what I imagine they'll do if they can't "solve the full frame problem" fast enough to keep the line alive.

I can live with the 1.3x crop as long as other small bugs are fixed and the high ISO performance is considerably improved - why else pay more for a newer product?

Please, Leica, weather seal the body! I know the lenses aren't sealed but the body needs to be. Fix the edge of frame point light source banding. Keep the M8.2 body and shutter. Improve the buffer and perhaps frame rate, get 1250 ISO looking like the current 640 or better, and I'll buy another M digital regardless of 1.3 or full frame.
Click to expand...

Agree.

Full Frame is not 'issue no. 1'. That is high ISO noice level, as you mention, sensor dust removal etc.
 
Wiyum said:
Different issue, I think. Leica could use Japanese sensors, they just don't like them. If they opted to, they'd be paying for them. The sensors may be patented and developed with Japanese tax funding, but Leica would simply be buying a part, not receiving any part of that patent. The case detailed above explains that they're unable to build lenses for other (patented) mounts because Japanese companies don't want (or legally can't) to offer their mount details to any company that will be manufacturing competing products in another country.

Zeiss' exception in this regard isn't terribly noteworthy, by the way. Sure, the lenses are made in Japan, but the lenses were initially available only in Nikon F, Pentax K, and m42 mounts, and the patents on all of those have expired (just like the M mount). That Canon is licensing the EF mount seems surprising at first (it is far from expiring), but from Canon's point of view, Nikon now has a number of very viable full frame cameras. If a user is set on buying Zeiss lenses, why allow a situation to persist where a Nikon body is their best/only option for those Zeiss lenses?

If Leica is going to start building some of the better R lenses in other mounts, they could follow Zeiss' lead and begin with mounts in the public domain. If they intend to make AF lenses, then the mounts are still patented and Leica's making a tactically interesting move against Zeiss.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but I don't agree with you. Japanese camera industry is heavily subsidized (like US weapons industry, German car industry etc.). Few would know the details of the agreements that Nikon, Sony and Canon have with the Japanese government, - certainly I don't. But I am absolutely certain that the same patent limitations hindering Leica to supply Leica lenses for, say, Canon, is the same patent limitations that hinders Leica buying (to a reasonable price) Japanese sensors.

That said; none of the known Japanese sensors are suited for a M9. Even the Canon 1Ds III sensor produces vignetting/light fall off in the region of 3 - 4 aparture stops with certain lenses. - Iknow, I have one. It would not work at all on a rangefinder camera. Thus; the cooperation with Kodak is a good thing. What a digital Full Frame with excellent high ISO properties is going to cost is my worry...
 
For me, the only really significant problem with the M8 is the noise at higher sensitivities. My personal cut-off for acceptable quality is at ISO2500 under yellow indoor light.
I offset this against small form factor, excellent ergonomics, retro look, outstanding glass, and very very good IQ at the lower ISOs.
If one were ever to come available, I would immediately buy a sensor or other hardware upgrade providing 2 stops better high ISO noise performance (even if it had the same 1.3x "crop factor"). I don't think I'm alone in this opinion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom