Leica's M9 and Mini M plan

ACM Projektentwicklung is owned by Michael and Andreas Kaufmann. Their wealth was supposed to be about 1.1 billion euros in 2004 . Both Michael and Andreas Kaufmann have been members of the Leica board since 2004.
That does not sound like a venture capital company but more like a family investment company. You or I might buy an M8 camera to play out our interest in Leica. They bought the factory....😉
 
Jaapv,

"You or I might buy an M8 camera to play out our interest in Leica. They bought the factory"

So what happens if they get bored?

I'm only speculating and I want my M8 to get stable support for years to come but good businessmen don't usually get rich by letting their heart rule their head.

ACM will know what the price is. Let's just hope they don't get the call!

Regards

SR
 
Well, let's quote a forum post of Dr Kaufmann:

Sehr geehrte Herren,

Ich darf kurz auf Ihre Fragen eingehen. Die Firma ACM Projektentwicklung, deren Geschäftsführer ich bin, wurde im Jahr 2002 gegründet. Sie ist an mehreren Firmen der optischen Industrie - bspw. Zulieferer, aber auch eine ehemalige Leica-Tocherfirma namens ViaOptic - mehrheitlich beteiligt. Auf der Website der Firma ViaOptic (ViaOptic GmbH | Optic Design | Formenbau |Â*Spritzgusstechnik | Messtechnik | Montage) sehen Sie, wie diese Firma sich entwickelt hat, seit wir Sie 2003 von Leica übernahmen. Unser Ziel ist es, in der Wetzlarer Gegend nachhaltige Produktion der optischen Industrie langfristig zu sichern und auszubauen.
Click to expand...


To summarize: The intent is to secure and expand optical industry in the Wetzlar region long-term.

ACM has already started working on the Leica Business Park. Leica will move there and the intention is to attract other high-tech optical industries in order to attain a concentration of know-how. A kind of optical mini- SiliconValley, in a way.
 
Annual report...

Annual report...

I think the 2007/08 Annual report is an interesting read (really!). It's available from the Leica website. Particularly interesting, apart from the company showing small amounts of positive income for the last two financial years, is that there are hints on page 20 as to what is to come.

In summary it says that they aim to introduce new digital systems cameras (a la M8), because they are profitable. They expect a loss this financial year, because the digital products have been "delayed". And go on to say that their new products will cost more in R&D, marketing, etc, so the following financial year looks like they will break even. Of course, this is all due to "reorienting" the product portfolio...

This is probably nothing that Andreas Kaufmann hasn't said publicly, but interesting to read in an "official" document. As if we didn't already know, it looks like Photokina '08 will be very interesting...
 
It's no surprise, really, that Leica is having trouble transitioning from a film camera company to a digital camera company. They waited much to long to start the transition, and are faced with throwing more money than they make at R&D. The critical question is whether there is sufficient market for a high end DRF to support the R&D, or if they are going to aim new product development at mid-range cameras to compete with the Canon G9, for example.

I would guess the "digital products have been delayed" because Leica is having a hard time figuring out how they are going to fit into the digital world, the relative disposable nature of digital cameras not fitting in with their traditional products.
 
I would guess the "digital products have been delayed" because Leica is having a hard time figuring out how they are going to fit into the digital world, the relative disposable nature of digital cameras not fitting in with their traditional products.
Click to expand...

...which is exactly why an upgrade program is so important! I would even not care if the price for getting a new and better sensor in my M8 in a year or two. As I have said before it could well be the same size and pixel-count, but really good at 3200-6400 ISO.

If they are able to pull off a FF or a M8-2 which is so much better that it deserves the name, I would still hope that it would be possible to upgrade M8s.

I use Leica mainly because I like the RF, handling, and colour rendering. For me build quality is a bonus, and somehow upgrading feels right. It makes away with the (relatively new) idea that a camera should be semi-disposable, and for me that is an value of its own.

Leica has been going against the grain ever since the mid seventies, and has made money on having an image of quality. I somehow also feel that M stands for Myth, and having an upgradeable camera with a metal casing in 2008 - which gives wonderful pictures of course - is contributing to that aura I am sure!

This is the first time I have actually felt compelled to get accredited to Photokina... ;-)
 
Of course, if you want an DRF, then upgrading the M8 might be the only option (unless you are satisfied, as many are, with the current M8's sensor and see no reason to upgrade). There is, of course, the cost of the upgrade compared to a new, full frame Nikon. But, that's not a rangefinder, so doesn't enter into many people's calculation.
 
I'm always puzzled by the sentiment that digital technology is "disposable". If you mean that the rate of change in digital camera technology is fast (better sensors, image processing, features) then yes, that's true - but it doesn't make the earlier cameras fit only to be disposed. I'm sure many digital cameras by the big companies will last quite a long time.

I don't think anyone's going to be able to buy a digital camera and expect it to be the 'best' in its class for more than a year. But that's OK, isn't it?
 
Roger Hicks said:
What 'special coatings' are you talking about? I'm not arguing: I just had not heard this before.

As for 'new design considerations', the only factor of which I am aware is that the lenses be more telecentric, which in turn makes it more difficult to correct them for colour.
R.
Click to expand...

Roger:
Part of what I am talking about is addressed on Erwin Puts site in his newest article comparing the Zeiss and Leica 35mm lenses. He specifically refers to BOTH internal and external coatings and explains it far better than I could. Again, I'm no scientist but as best I can recall, the reason coatings are needed involves the MIRRORS used in digital sensors and the amount of light bouncing around BEHIND the lens inside the camera between the back of the lens and the sensor array. Just an FYI!
Rob
 
Ray Nalley said:
I've read all that stuff, but my impression is that "digital" coatings are marketing hype, more than anything special.
Click to expand...

I can't say for sure about the coatings, but a pro friend of mine who is an editor for Black and White magazine and others insists that there is a visually noticeable difference between film and "digitally designed" lenses on his various cameras, which include a Canon 1DS MkIII, Nikon D3, Pentax K20D and Leica M8, plus a good number of RF, MF and VF film cameras. Given that he has been a professional shooter, editor and teacher for over 35 years, I defer to his superior opinion. (And he prefers film) 8o)
Rob
 
What "digitally designed" lens would he be using on an M8 for comparison?

The main advantage of dedicated lenses for digital cameras is the more telecentric design, as the more parallel the light strikes the sensor, the better it can handle it. The effect of coating is marginal I think. Most lenses are pretty well multicoated on the rear element (all elements are coated in fact) anyway.
For cropped cameras an added advantage is the smaller size as the circle of coverage and focal length can be smaller, making them unsuitable, btw, for larger formats.
 
Last edited:
Digital Lens Coatings

Digital Lens Coatings

jaapv said:
What "digitally designed" lens would he be using on an M8 for comparison?

The main advantage of dedicated lenses for digital cameras is the more telecentric design, as the more parallel the light strikes the sensor, the better it can handle it. The effect of coating is marginal I think. Most lenses are pretty well multicoated on the rear element (all elements are coated in fact) anyway.
For cropped cameras an added advantage is the smaller size as the circle of coverage and focal length can be smaller, making them unsuitable, btw, for larger formats.
Click to expand...


Diving in to the deep end without looking, would I be out of line to suggest a series of tests, certainly enough lenses are out there that fit the M8 to test all kinds of coatings, and even lack of coatings, in a less than subjective manner.

It is my understanding that in theory, images will be formed differently on digital medium than film.

Roger certainly put a variety of different glass on his M8 for his Shutterbug article, and as this is certainly not a new model camera, I would have thought the tech savvy group would have followed the theories with specific testing of some of the vast population of lenses that will mount to the M8 by now. Roger's article spurred me to start looking for an M8.

I was disappointed that some of the Galileo glass evidentially could not be borrowed for that article, and you are so close to Pisa Roger. ;-)

And I would be surprised if this group would not be aware of extant data on any such test.

If I have over looked published tech reports of such a test, I apologize now, and claim immunity for my lack of knowledge, and will bow to superior awareness.

Plus, as sensors seem to be changing rapidly, will the new specs hold, or will there be a coating of the month, or do somehow digital sensors conform technically? I have heard talk of larger and smaller pixels on sensors and hope others can make more of the data than can I.

I would have been happier if my M8 arrived with a clean sensor, I mean, high tech coatings do not seem to overcome dirt on the sensor.

Sorry for the digression, just everyone I have talked to seem to find the most important part of the manual is how to clean the sensor.

Regards, and Roger, how about some cheese photos, there are probably as many cheeses where you live as Leica lenses, yet you post wine photos, and a rose as well, rose is the digital wine, convenient, but yet not Margeaux ;-)

I also do not care for the prices charged by Leica for the upgrades now available, I did pay cash for the camera, if I knew there was going to be a continuing tax on it, I may have invested in even more film for my M7.

As to the reflection earlier in the thread that used sales do not benefit Leica, certainly high resale seems to benefit new sales, if indirectly. If an M9 is on the nearer horizon, I hope to be able to benefit Leica by recouping sufficient of my investment to justify the price of the M9.

John
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom