Lloyd wrote a letter to Leica AG...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Almost entirely disagree. I don't agree with the usability complaints, and I don't want more smarts in the camera that try to think for me, or a better chimping screen, or an EVF, or much of what I left behind after owning several dSLRs and switching to an M8 and then M9.

A better price would be nice, but sure, we all want a pony. Sometimes, you don't get a pony.
 
Stuff wrong: Leica shouldn't be in the MF market with S2; M9 et seq should cost $4000, hell the M7 costs that much;

Stuff I'm neutral: EVF; a digital camera should have this capacity; just like the Leica I needed a rangefinder. But it's not something I ever use at all on my Nikon D300 so what do I care....

Stuff I agree: framelines (digital can solve this problem) better sensor (c'mon boys check out what the Nikon D700 or D7000 or D3s can do in low light); as currently constituted the M9 is a toy for people with lots of money, while the S2 is actually for professionals or people who want to work at a high level. For $7K the Nikon D3s/x are both vastly superior cameras for which one cannot alas get Leica lenses.
 
I really don't understand this guy. If the M9 is so imperfect, use something else. And he wants BOTH tons of new features AND a 50% price cut.

Dream on, dude, just use your Nikon (with its really inferior Nikkor optics, plueeeeeze), and quit your whining.
 
BobYIL said:
Would you agree?
Click to expand...
Short answer: No.

A little bit longer answer: There are known issues and compromises with the digital M cameras and rangefinder cameras in general. I am all for improvements as long as they do not create further compromises regarding what is good about these cameras and what sets them apart from the competition. And obviously, I would not like such changes to hike up the price point.
 
I enjoy how he is complaining about the sensor, recommending a 28 or 36 megapixel variant. Neither of which were available when the camera was released, let alone when development began. It is STATE OF THE ART for CCD sensors. If you think current state of the art 24x36mm CMOS sensors can work in a rangefinder then you do not understand the technology sufficiently to comment on it.

I'm sure Leica are quaking in their boots at his words of warning at how well the X100 or Nex-3 work. I agree with many of his points, but he does seem to have a bit of a gripe with Leica in general and the faithful rangefinder users who have supported them for so long - "..the usual trolls who make a camera a personal ego trip".

Oh well, we'll see what they come up with in the M10, hopefully they satisfy everyone, the photographic purists and the gadget kiddies.
 
I think when someone starts a review/letter/whatevs by telling leica what they need to do to "grow" and "make money" and what he "invests in", he has kind of missed the plot. Leica is not about making money, it is about making a specific kind of camera that they like. If it was about making money they would be listed, and they would have a bunch of bean counters representing a bunch of banks, investors and shareholders, telling them to move production to Asia, reduce quality and associated costs and stop servicing ancient cameras that are cannibalising their current production.
 
I dont agree with half of his comments, but I will say this: It has made me feel lukewarm in my quest to soon buy a new M9.

Is high ISO really that bad?
 
Spyro said:
If it was about making money they would be listed, and they would have a bunch of bean counters representing a bunch of banks, investors and shareholders, telling them to move production to Asia, reduce quality and associated costs and stop servicing ancient cameras that are cannibalising their current production.
Click to expand...

The bean counters are a consequence of being listed, not because you have the goal to make money. And you have all those bean counters because the analysts drive you to all that decisions from outside.
There are tons of privately owned mid tier companies who are not listed and make a lot of money what makes owners and employees very happy.
 
Read the article now. What a stupid rant. If I would write this, no one would notice it. When you have a big blog then you can write stupid stuff and it gets discussed. :(
 
tom.w.bn said:
There are tons of privately owned mid tier companies who are not listed and make a lot of money what makes owners and employees very happy.
Click to expand...

Tom this is true, especially in Germany. It is not a model that I criticise, quite the opposite. As it turns out Germany was very wise to keep so much production and jobs at home rather than jump on the "outsource everything overseas" bandwagon. With an international brand name like Leica it would be easy to do if they decided to put short term money first and treat the company like a cash cow. And triple production while they're at it, and keep b&h stocked up and Lloyd Chambers happy.

I get the feeling that they didn't, and I'm glad this is the case.
 
Obviously the guy wants a DSLR but messed up and bought a rangefinder, and now wants Leica to build him a DSLR so he doesn't have to sell his lenses. He sounds like he doesn't like anything about the rangefinder system, so why did he buy the M9? Wo is this guy anyway?

Edit: basically, what goes wrong here is the common misconception that if brand X would just make a camera just the way you like it, it would be A. A great camera, B. You would buy it, C. Everyone else would also like it and want one, D. Brand X will make a lot of money. None of these things are certain.

Spyro, I wouldn't say Leica isn't about making money, they better be. Leica is not a charity. However, they're aiming for a particular piece of the market. They can't just stop doing that and build DSLR's or whatever else is popular just like all the other brands. They'd probably fail, it isn't in their DNA to be competitive in that scene and it's very hard to make money doing what everyone else is doing.
I just hope Leica understands their place in the market well enough to make the niche work for them, and really, I hope they make a ****load of cash doing so.
 
Last edited:
load of rubbish, I just bought an M9 last week couldn't be happier I didn't want a camera with lots of features like a DSLR for that I've got a DSLR!
 
I don't understand why the M9 keeps getting measured against a camera like the X100 ... they are worlds apart and the fact that the Fuji is comfortable at ISO 3200 and the Leica is not matters little to someone who buys the M9. No one buys the M9 expecting stellar high ISO performance ... why complain about it? A bit like buying a car with a five speed transmission and slamming it because it's not six speed.

I'll never own an M9 for financial reasons ... but in a perfect world I'd definitely be an owner because I don't see too many shortcomings in the camera itself, just a few limitations in the design.
 
Rant or not, there is a warning to Leica, it seems to me, not in the blog piece, but in the response here on RFF. About the only thing Leica could do with an M10, and keep the posters here happy with the camera, is replace the sensor with a CCD sensor with high ISO capability. Would that be sufficient to get current M9 owners to dump their cameras and buy an M10? I dunno. Or convince folks that don't own a digital RF to buy one?

The technical features of the X100 that folks love is the gorilla in the room for Leica. How does Leica evolve the digital M technically without alienating their current fans?

What would be a deal breaker for you if Leica incorporated it into the M10?
 
Regarding the quality of the M9 sensor, I´m thinking this:
How difficult would it have been to make it possible to exchange the sensor/processor module with an upgraded one, when the possibility for Leica to develop or buy into better technology came along?
I assume that it would not be impossible, had it been the idea from start of design. Leica has a history of upgrade solutions that you could build into previous models (motor film transport, better viewfinder etc.). In that light it would make a lot of sense for Leica to offer this solution to those of their customers who don´t buy into all of mr. Chambers´complaints. I sense from this thread that there are quite a few who would happily still use traditional RF technology combined with a state-of-the-art digital sensor.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Pickett Wilson said:
.....
What would be a deal breaker for you if Leica incorporated it into the M10?
Click to expand...

These would make me consider it:
As I hint above: the chance to always have a state-of-the-art sensor/processor in the camera. Upgradeable sensor/processor module, that is.
Some sort of focus assist, maybe, if that can be achieved without removing the mechanical rangefinder.

This would make me go away:
EVF.
 
zerobuttons said:
These would make me consider it:
As I hint above: the chance to always have a state-of-the-art sensor/processor in the camera. Upgradeable sensor/processor module, that is.
Some sort of focus assist, maybe, if that can be achieved without removing the mechanical rangefinder.

This would make me go away:
EVF.
Click to expand...



The EVF is one of the things I don't like too much about the X100 ... having never experienced one before I wasn't sure what to expect.

They have a long way to go yet IMO ... I don't mind the image in the finder itself but the way it judders when moving the camera isn't exactly inspiring!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom