M8 (and RD1) niche untouched

noimmunity said:
......

Fast forward to today and I'm not talking about a FF replacement, but rather an update to a crop-factor model that would basically bring better high-ISO, user-definable lens-code menu, perhaps a better battery and LCD screen, and the framelines of the M8.2 into a new APS-H or APS-C M8.3 model.
Click to expand...

How much thicker than the current M8 body would you tolerate for improved sensor performance?
 
There is a black paint, black dot m8.2 on craigslist right now that I would do unforgivable things for. Even sell my film gear...
 
Having realised that my M6 had become my go-to camera over several digitals, i've just found myself in a position where they've been sold and an M8 purchased.

If the Xpro had been Full Frame, i would have considered it more, but in the end all i wanted was exactly what i had with my M6 (with regards to the shooting experience) but digital.

If Leica had introduced something similar in spec to the M8 on May 10th, for a similar price to the used market, i would have been all over it (i delayed my purchase so i could wait and see) but as was pointed out before, Leica have their Compacts, their X range and their premium M range - they have no reason to offer a cut-price M9. Buy an X2 or save up.
 
Some very valid points in this thread.

I do agree that to get the 'digital rangefinder experience', yes the R-D1, M8, M9 and M-M and future M10 are the only ticket.

The Fuji cannot replace that experience completely, but for some of us who have experienced this "roulette" or aforementioned digital mechanical rangefinders, I think the Fuji does a good job of 'faking the funk' as it will that a mechanical RF offers. I say this, in the sense of having aperture control at the ring of the lens, shutter speed dial on top, and an Optical viewfinder. No rangefinder patch and mechanical framelines that move about.

It's just in my experience, the costly nature of repair for the aging digital rangefinders is too rich for my blood (right now); as is the dedication to spend that much up front for it anyways. I understand the "Pay to Play" aspect of owning those cameras. Maybe in the future when the M9 is within the few thousand, range it may become viable again, as an image producing machine to take out and have fun. I tried using my M8 for work photography and it did work, I racked up 8k actuations in a matter of a few months before the sensor decided to have a dead pixel and a $250-300 dollar remapping.

If you love it that much and wish to pay, then by all means there is no replacement. (I thought this way for a long time too, Noise performance, PAH, ~640 ISO hand-hold that shot) For some of us, the film M's are good 'enough' for that experience.

Sidenote, it's kinda neat being able to do 'Macro' with a OVF camera ! Like JSrockit mentioned about some of the advantages.

I'd get another M8 for fun, but as a main digital, probably not.
 
I bought an M8 a couple of months ago as my M2 and 50 summicon has been stored unused for years when I went EOS digital.

Since getting the M8, and then a 28 summicron, I have used the M2 more in 2 months than in the last 10 years. Getting the M8 was a win-win.

28 - 50 is a good pair for me on the M8.
 
I had an R-D1, sold it for a GXR, then sold the GXR for another R-D1. Roller coaster. The R-D1 was one of the most enjoyable digital photographic experiences, from ergonomics to image quality. Just loved the camera. Didn't love the lack of versatility to do different kinds of shooting (OMD does that for me) and didn't love the spectacularly poor battery life. But otherwise, it was great. Looking at the X100, it can't be more expensive to manufacture a mechanical rangefinder than that hybrid viewfinder, can it? And there's little to no R&D for a mechanical rangefinder. Anyway, an update of the R-D1 would be fantastic...enable it for live view shooting for those who like it (at times) and give it better high-ISO capability with the 16mp Sony wonderchip. Maybe lose the quaint shutter cocking lever? Soften the shutter noise. Bang. Win.
 
Despite not enjoying shooting with it, I retained the NEX3 with adaptor for 3 reasons

1. It shoots video
2. It's tiny
3. It was $150, so what's the point in selling it?

I sold the 60D because

1. i didn't want to invest in 2 separate lines of quality glass
2. it didn't feel like shooting with a Leica did

Technically it can be argued both are "better value" than the M8. It could also be said that at 14mp and 18mp, both are "better specced" cameras.

None of that made any difference when i picked up the M8 and it was everything i love in my M6 and nothing that i hated about my NEX or 60D.

You pay the money for a Leica, because anything else feels wrong.

Ps. the M8 is the most money i've spent on any single item since my car - i saved a long time and didn't make the purchase lightly, so i'm certainly not speaking from a position of "get a better job, plebs"
 
I've had this discussion w/Dave Burnett & others, & while I agree there is certainly a market for a "discount" full-frame digital w/traditional optical RF/VF, it's still a niche market & I don't think we would see one for less than the $3K range. Even if Nikon, for example, were to dust off & upgrade their resurrected SP 2005 assembly line to make a DSP, I can't see them selling it for much less than Leica-like prices. A crop-factor body would probably be easier to make & cost less, but it's possibly an even smaller niche (though I could be wrong given all the folks using RF glass on their mirrorless bodies).

damien.murphy said:
The naysayers who say this can't be done (and for a reasonable price), seem to be many, and as naysayers go, all sound reasonable, but when is the last time the voice of moderation or reason was the fuel for advancement. To say there is no market for a more reasonably priced full frame digital rangefinder is ridiculous. I'm not sure how many film rangefinder shooters are out there, perhaps Leica M & Bessa production numbers would give us a good idea, but it easily numbers in the tens, if not hundreds of thousands, and to say that is not a market is simply ridiculous.

Something like that, could be the making of Leica, but to be honest they don't seem to have that much vision. I think they could do quite well with a digital CL/CLE serving as an entry level body, and a full M as their flagship. Less people might buy M9's, but that would be more than made up for by combined sales CL/CLE's & M's, as well as the fact Leica would now own an enlarged digital rangefinder market effectively, and put Leica on quite a stable footing simply through camera volume sales.
Click to expand...
 
Count me among those who would really like to see an M8.3 with updated sensor, no filters, etc. I think it could sell if it was priced well and had the same sensor size as the M8. I also like the 28-50 combo on the M8, but not as much on a 1.5 crop camera. I think the only logical introduction would be alongside the M10.

Anyway, count me as one of those totally enamored of the mechanical rf, past and present... I just don't really care for af.

I wonder, though, if one of the micro 4/3 manufacturers might go after this market. Could use the same tech in their current cameras and add an optical rf on the top. 2x crop isn't so useful for leica glass, but there's a good range of m4/3 lenses out already. I guess the big question is: are leicas selling because they're rfs, or only because they're leicas? Obviously the latter is important, but how well is the Ricoh M module selling? Until another manufacturer can determine that rfs are selling because they're rfs, they'll be hesitant to put one out there. But I for one would buy into the m4/3 system if that camera was done well, absolutely.
 
furcafe said:
I've had this discussion w/Dave Burnett & others, & while I agree there is certainly a market for a "discount" full-frame digital w/traditional optical RF/VF, it's still a niche market & I don't think we would see one for less than the $3K range. Even if Nikon, for example, were to dust off & upgrade their resurrected SP 2005 assembly line to make a DSP, I can't see them selling it for much less than Leica-like prices. A crop-factor body would probably be easier to make & cost less, but it's possibly an even smaller niche (though I could be wrong given all the folks using RF glass on their mirrorless bodies).
Click to expand...

In the $3000-$4000 range I'd still be satisfied (and that's assuming I agree that the M9-P couldn't be any cheaper than it was when released and still profitable).

I think there are more people willing to deal with a cropped sensor than we all might think... just like you said, look at all the people using M-glass on cropped sensors from other non-leica cameras. I know I'd live with the 1.3x the M8 currently has to be able to upgrade to something with better ISO and a little higher resolution.

The alternative is that me and a lot of other people like me will now be watching what Fuji does instead, because I'll likely never be able to justify a camera body above $5000. It was a stretch to justify it the first time around with the M8... but now even that cost seems reasonable by comparison.

Fuji cannot replace the rangefinder experience at all, but what other choice is there? (rhetorical)
 
furcafe said:
Even if Nikon, for example, were to dust off & upgrade their resurrected SP 2005 assembly line to make a DSP, I can't see them selling it for much less than Leica-like prices.
Click to expand...

Perhaps. I fear the likes of Canon and Nikon are far too entrenched in their feature-rich philosophies towards camera design, to produce the back to basics, no nonsense camera that pull people towards a Leica.

An M is minimalist perfection, and would love to see a digital camera made in the same mould. Just the basics of controls, and a gorgeous optical viewfinder. Would not even ask for an lcd, just give me a streamlined body with a gorgeous viewfinder, and controls for aperture, shutter speed, iso, and perhaps the ability to switch between colour and b&w. Weather sealed, and perhaps the contentious luxury of a zoomable viewfinder. No need to fiddle with other settings, let people set those by connecting their camera to their computer, or perhaps let them configure banks of settings that could easily be switched between on the body via a dial.

I'm a simple man 🙂
 
lam said:
Some very valid points in this thread.

I do agree that to get the 'digital rangefinder experience', yes the R-D1, M8, M9 and M-M and future M10 are the only ticket.

The Fuji cannot replace that experience completely, but for some of us who have experienced this "roulette" or aforementioned digital mechanical rangefinders, I think the Fuji does a good job of 'faking the funk' as it will that a mechanical RF offers. I say this, in the sense of having aperture control at the ring of the lens, shutter speed dial on top, and an Optical viewfinder. No rangefinder patch and mechanical framelines that move about.

It's just in my experience, the costly nature of repair for the aging digital rangefinders is too rich for my blood (right now); as is the dedication to spend that much up front for it anyways. I understand the "Pay to Play" aspect of owning those cameras. Maybe in the future when the M9 is within the few thousand, range it may become viable again, as an image producing machine to take out and have fun. I tried using my M8 for work photography and it did work, I racked up 8k actuations in a matter of a few months before the sensor decided to have a dead pixel and a $250-300 dollar remapping.

If you love it that much and wish to pay, then by all means there is no replacement. (I thought this way for a long time too, Noise performance, PAH, ~640 ISO hand-hold that shot) For some of us, the film M's are good 'enough' for that experience.

Sidenote, it's kinda neat being able to do 'Macro' with a OVF camera ! Like JSrockit mentioned about some of the advantages.

I'd get another M8 for fun, but as a main digital, probably not.
Click to expand...

Precisely: "If you love it that much and wish to pay, then by all means there is no replacement."

The point here, to address the OP, is that there is a niche being carved out, in terms of price point, by the $8000 M9/MM and the $1700 X-Pro 1. The sweet spot, for $2500-3000 could be a dedicated M-mount RF-type camera. With a built-in EVF, live view, and improved ISO, etc, and a 1.5 crop factor. That would provide enough differentiation to the M10 that the M10 could still exist as the flagship with its "little brother", as it were, as the cheaper option from Leica. This would get people buying M lenses, and though surely most of them would be used or CV lenses, Leica would be opening itself to a younger demographic that would eventually graduate into full-fledged M-ownership in time. It makes sense to me, economically and from a brand standpoint, in both the short- and long-term. I also understand that Nikon, Epson, and the rest stand to gain very little by introducing such a thing; manufacturers make most of their money on lenses and accessories, so building a camera that consumers would mount other lenses on makes no sense. But Leica, it seems, stands to gain a lot.

So why hasn't this happened?

Honestly, I have no idea. As a luxury brand, Leica seems happy with a very small market share and moderate profits (yes, I know they are very profitable in percentages, but their overall amount of profits is not enormous). A venture like this would surely increase that, and their association with Panasonic can only help.
 
I also prefer simple cameras, but we have yet to see Canon or Nikon put out a barebones dSLR & I share your fear that they never will. Despite calls for something like a digital FM, for example, Nikon continues to move forward in their competition w/Canon; the G series lenses don't even have aperture rings.

damien.murphy said:
Perhaps. I fear the likes of Canon and Nikon are far too entrenched in their feature-rich philosophies towards camera design, to produce the back to basics, no nonsense camera that pull people towards a Leica.

An M is minimalist perfection, and would love to see a digital camera made in the same mould. Just the basics of controls, and a gorgeous optical viewfinder. Would not even ask for an lcd, just give me a streamlined body with a gorgeous viewfinder, and controls for aperture, shutter speed, iso, and perhaps the ability to switch between colour and b&w. Weather sealed, and perhaps the contentious luxury of a zoomable viewfinder. No need to fiddle with other settings, let people set those by connecting their camera to their computer, or perhaps let them configure banks of settings that could easily be switched between on the body via a dial.

I'm a simple man 🙂
Click to expand...
 
boomguy57 said:
So why hasn't this happened?
Honestly, I have no idea. As a luxury brand, Leica seems happy with a very small market share and moderate profits (yes, I know they are very profitable in percentages, but their overall amount of profits is not enormous). A venture like this would surely increase that, and their association with Panasonic can only help.
Click to expand...

My attempt to guess at the answer is a mixed bag of Leica not wanting to do it, and not being capable of doing it.

Is it that they aren't big enough (compared to Canon/Nikon) to produce cheaper alternatives? Possibly yes, combined with the lack of desire to do it. They don't want to cannibalize their M9/M10 sales with a cheaper alternative.

I recently read that their overall profit margin as a company is 15% (much higher than Canon or Nikon, as frame of reference). Is it possible for them to run at less and still be successful. What is the profit margin on their M-cameras specifically? Does it really cost so much to make an M9 or MM that the price just can't be lower?

I'm of the feeling that if they offered a cropped version (1.3 or 1.5), there would still be enough of a "wants the best" market to buy the M9-P, MM and M10. Maybe I'm wrong.

I also wonder if they could not partner with the likes of Fuji, Ricoh or someone to be able to "mass produce" and keep the cost down... Hand-Assembled inside Germany isn't going to do it. Again, those that want the best, top-of-the-line Leica would still get it, but there's now be a less-expensive product line.

I think there's a big enough market for it, but maybe not?
 
Porsche is successful because they only build expensive cars. For some people there are already too many "cheap" Porsche Boxster on the street.
 
noimmunity said:
I would prefer it not to be any thicker. What are the choices involved?
Click to expand...

When the M8 first came out I remember a lot of discussion about how difficult it was to accommodate the physical requirements for the lens-sensor distance and the feel and aesthetics of a M7 film camera body. If memory serves, at the time many people felt the lack of an in-camera IR filter was well worth keeping the M8 body as thin as possible. The M9, I believe, uses a more recent IR filter technology to provide acceptable filtering with a thin device.

If I am not mis-remembering the above, it seems a mechanical M-mount digital body would require much less engineering and readily available components if the body was thicker than the M8/9 bodies. I have no idea how much thicker the body would have to be to lower costs and provide competitive performance.

On the other hand, it is possible I am delirious and the sensor-body thickness dilemma was just part of a really bad dream.
 
dreilly said:
I had an R-D1, sold it for a GXR, then sold the GXR for another R-D1. Roller coaster. The R-D1 was one of the most enjoyable digital photographic experiences, from ergonomics to image quality. Just loved the camera. Didn't love the lack of versatility to do different kinds of shooting (OMD does that for me) and didn't love the spectacularly poor battery life. But otherwise, it was great. Looking at the X100, it can't be more expensive to manufacture a mechanical rangefinder than that hybrid viewfinder, can it? And there's little to no R&D for a mechanical rangefinder. Anyway, an update of the R-D1 would be fantastic...enable it for live view shooting for those who like it (at times) and give it better high-ISO capability with the 16mp Sony wonderchip. Maybe lose the quaint shutter cocking lever? Soften the shutter noise. Bang. Win.
Click to expand...



Good opinions about the Epson here. The battery life is pretty ordinary and surely as you say the Sony wonderchip would revitalise the camera's existence and give it a good position in the market place.

Not so sure about losing the shutter cocking lever as I feel this really sets it apart from the norm though you may be right. As for the shutter sound ... after owning an M8 for three years the Epson's shutter is a mouse fart by comparison. I hated the noise that Leica made and IMO the comparison to a staple gun was being a little harsh on the staple gun! 😛
 
willie_901 said:
When the M8 first came out I remember a lot of discussion about how difficult it was to accommodate the physical requirements for the lens-sensor distance and the feel and aesthetics of a M7 film camera body. If memory serves, at the time many people felt the lack of an in-camera IR filter was well worth keeping the M8 body as thin as possible. The M9, I believe, uses a more recent IR filter technology to provide acceptable filtering with a thin device.

If I am not mis-remembering the above, it seems a mechanical M-mount digital body would require much less engineering and readily available components if the body was thicker than the M8/9 bodies. I have no idea how much thicker the body would have to be to lower costs and provide competitive performance.

On the other hand, it is possible I am delirious and the sensor-body thickness dilemma was just part of a really bad dream.
Click to expand...

Doesn't sound like a dream, because I recall hearing those arguments, too.

Thicker would probably be unacceptable to a large percentage of users.

It may be that the problems faced by design and component size six or seven years ago have become less relevant today.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom