sig
Well-known
There are some rules about what is needed in a camera. Sorry it is only 1 rule, if it is not a feature in the current M it is not a feature you need, hence dust removal is not something you need.
N
Nikon Bob
Guest
Jaap
Just remeber that an expert opinion, in any field of endevour, is just thst, an opinion. Many experts have been proven wrong from time to time by what you consider a nobody. Just remember how impossible it would be to produce a digital M was, in the opinion of a few experts, until the M8 appeared. Then yet again, when people wanted a FF DRF, some expert opinions were that it was either impossible or unlikely, until the M9 appeared. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, expert or not. You just don't blindly follow expert opinion, sometimes people can think for themselves and not be afraid to come to a differing conclusion. Only time will tell who was right if it really matters.
Bob
Just remeber that an expert opinion, in any field of endevour, is just thst, an opinion. Many experts have been proven wrong from time to time by what you consider a nobody. Just remember how impossible it would be to produce a digital M was, in the opinion of a few experts, until the M8 appeared. Then yet again, when people wanted a FF DRF, some expert opinions were that it was either impossible or unlikely, until the M9 appeared. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, expert or not. You just don't blindly follow expert opinion, sometimes people can think for themselves and not be afraid to come to a differing conclusion. Only time will tell who was right if it really matters.
Bob
ZlatkoBatistich
Established
Remember when ALL video cameras where really gigantic. Now they can be quite tiny. Over time, things can be made smaller. I'm not sure how big a dust reduction system is today, but perhaps that too can one day be made smaller than it is now. And even without a dust reduction system, it is possible that a future M may indeed be less chubby than the M8/M9. We simply don't know what technology will offer in 1, 5, 10 or 20 years. That is my expert opinion, anyway ... 
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Bob,
Indeed.
But from the instant the M8 appeared, Leica maintained that it was only a matter of time until they managed FF, and that they would do it as soon as possible -- which they did.
You are absolutely right that blindly following 'expert opinion' is foolish, but equally, if you talk to the people at Leica -- which I spent quite a bit of time doing at photokina -- then you do get at the least something of a feeling about why they do things the way they do, and if you ask outright, you'll often get an outright answer.
I never thought to ask about dust reduction, so of course I could be wrong. But so could those who have never spent any time talking to the people who actually make the things. And, of course, 'original thinking' can be anything from a brilliant insight through to pure fantasy based on solid ignorance. As you say, time will tell.
Cheers,
R.
Last edited by a moderator:
N
Nikon Bob
Guest
I could not agree more, but an educated guess is still a guess. At times trying to determine what direction a company is heading, from talking to them, is akin to trying to determine what is going on with a political party by talking to it's politicians. The crystal ball is always murky when gazing into it, a flash of brilliant insight not withstanding.
Bob
Last edited by a moderator:
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Bob,
We are of one mind on this. It's also perfectly possible that somene else in the company has had a brilliant idea, rendering obsolete even the educated guesses of those within the company.
As I say on my site, "Never trust anyone whose vocabulary does not include the words, "I could be wrong."
Cheers,
R.
Ben Z
Veteran
Bob, at the risk of jinxing myself, the only QC issue I have experienced with my M9 thus far is the improperly-adjusted rangefinder. Other problems people have experienced, such as the cracking sensors and a few cases of fizzled electronics, I would not characterize as QC issues, because these problems cropped-up after some use. There is no way QC can spot, and therefore be held responsible for latent defects in components bought-in from 3rd-party suppliers.
Last edited by a moderator:
N
Nikon Bob
Guest
Ben Z
I guess I misunderstood the number of problems you have had. If a company is operating under certain ISO certifications then they are supposed to ensure that outside suppliers meet their standards required for parts etc. That makes it a sort of maybe as to whom is ultimately responsable for issues arising after a product has been in use. No idea if Leica is so certified but it is every manufacturers nightmare when 3rd party components are faulty. In the end the manufacturer is in the hot seat and takes the hit. If not you would be dealing with the 3rd party suppliesr for issues arising from failures of their supplied components. This is not normally the case, thankfully. Nobody wants component failures, buyers, manufacturers or 3rd patrty suppliers. It ia a can of worms for everyone, especially on high end big ticket items where the tolerance of failures is less than with other, supposedly, lesser goods. Yea, I hope you havn't jinxed yourself either, touch wood.
Bob
I guess I misunderstood the number of problems you have had. If a company is operating under certain ISO certifications then they are supposed to ensure that outside suppliers meet their standards required for parts etc. That makes it a sort of maybe as to whom is ultimately responsable for issues arising after a product has been in use. No idea if Leica is so certified but it is every manufacturers nightmare when 3rd party components are faulty. In the end the manufacturer is in the hot seat and takes the hit. If not you would be dealing with the 3rd party suppliesr for issues arising from failures of their supplied components. This is not normally the case, thankfully. Nobody wants component failures, buyers, manufacturers or 3rd patrty suppliers. It ia a can of worms for everyone, especially on high end big ticket items where the tolerance of failures is less than with other, supposedly, lesser goods. Yea, I hope you havn't jinxed yourself either, touch wood.
Bob
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Bob,
My understanding of ISO standards in this area is that you have to do two things:
1 State your targets
2 Live up to them
The standard reductio ad absurdum is that you state 10% of your products will be acceptable. As long as 10% of them are, you meet the ISO standard.
This is from talking to ISO 9000 (or whatever it is)-qualified companies.
It may be that they overstate the case; it may be that I have misunderstood. But they all agree that ISO certification is worth as much as the vice-presidency (think comparisons with a pitcher of warm spit).
Cheers,
R.
cidereye
Film Freak
Anyways, back to the question at hand. i.e. The title of this thread...
Yes no question, one of the reasons I ditched my M8 was due to the frequency and ridiculous amounts of dust etc that the sensor would cling on to. M2 + M6 = Bliss .... for me anyway.
Yes no question, one of the reasons I ditched my M8 was due to the frequency and ridiculous amounts of dust etc that the sensor would cling on to. M2 + M6 = Bliss .... for me anyway.
N
Nikon Bob
Guest
Roger
I am not too impressed, personally, with ISO certified companies as there is little meaning in it for me. Certified or not the manufacturer still is in the hot seat for failures of components supplied to them by 3rd party suppliers. If they were not then you would be dealing directly with 3rd party suppliers for failures of components they supplied. You normally don't do that do you? The buck stops where; the manufacturer. It is not about ISO certification or not. It is a really simple concept, the manufacturer is responsible. We could go on discussing red herrings but I still say that I do not believe it would increase the size of the M9 or it's sucessor to have an in camera dust removal system fitted. On that point I am sure we are in disagreement. I am also sure that we would be in disagreement on wether it is even a wanted or useful feature. I am content to just wait an see what Leica do next.
Bob
I am not too impressed, personally, with ISO certified companies as there is little meaning in it for me. Certified or not the manufacturer still is in the hot seat for failures of components supplied to them by 3rd party suppliers. If they were not then you would be dealing directly with 3rd party suppliers for failures of components they supplied. You normally don't do that do you? The buck stops where; the manufacturer. It is not about ISO certification or not. It is a really simple concept, the manufacturer is responsible. We could go on discussing red herrings but I still say that I do not believe it would increase the size of the M9 or it's sucessor to have an in camera dust removal system fitted. On that point I am sure we are in disagreement. I am also sure that we would be in disagreement on wether it is even a wanted or useful feature. I am content to just wait an see what Leica do next.
Bob
cidereye
Film Freak
Totally agree, just because the in house Leica R&D dept can't quite work it out with dust removal obviously does not mean it is not possible in a digital M body.
After all I clearly remember Stefan Daniel stating after the launch of the M8 that a digital FF Leica M was most definitely NOT possible (I'm sure I can provide video footage of him saying this if needed.
) yet look what happened a few small years later ....ZlatkoBatistich
Established
But, but, but ... don't you just love the simple pleasure of cleaning dust from a sensor, and how careful cleaning really evokes the highest levels of thinking in photography? Aren't you experiencing the most traditional, classic form of photography when you clean dust from a digital sensor? The creative energy unleashed by a good sensor cleaning is almost like a runner's high; you can cruise on that juice all day and make pictures like you've never made before! Automatic sensor cleaning is for photographers who don't think and want the camera to do everything for them, right?
Just kidding!
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Totally agree, just because the in house Leica R&D dept can't quite work it out with dust removal obviously does not mean it is not possible in a digital M body.
After all I clearly remember Stefan Daniel stating after the launch of the M8 that a digital FF Leica M was most definitely NOT possible (I'm sure I can provide video footage of him saying this if needed.
I think you may find he said something like not possible at the moment, because my recollection (which may of course be at fault) was that he said it would be possible one day. Obviously one of us is misremembering, and I'd not like to bet that it's you.
But if the in house Leica R&D dept can't quite work it out with dust removal then actually, it does mean it is not possible in a digital M body, because no-one else is going to build one. For a given value of 'possible', of course. Equally, one has to assume that an entirely software-based solution, with no additional hardware, is in fact possible, or that whatever additional hardware is required can be fitted into an M9-size body.
In my experience, Leica listens politely to almost everyone, then does (a) what is technically feasible plus (b) what they can afford plus (c) whatever will not alienate those who actually reach into their pockets and buy new Leicas.
Cheers,
R.
Mephiloco
Well-known
I doubt a Leica will ever have IS or dust removal. Quite simply, Leica (the camera division) is not a technology company, they aren't good with electronics, they pride themselves in reliability through a mechanical means, which doesn't translate well to the digital era. If Leica hadn't made good lenses for years and years and emphasized the quality of their optics they would be a dead company right now. Of the two things they were great at, one of them is no longer relevant (at least as relevant as before).
It doesn't matter if you can make a digital camera that will last for ages and be reliable (which Leica can't do anyways), it's going to become obsolete well before it ceases to function, whereas the film Leicas can function 60+ years without problems and still be 'practical'.
Having IS or dust removal (like a good amount of entry level slrs have had for years) will no increase sales or improve their bottom line, the people that want a M9 are still going to want an M9 regardless of the features, the selling point is a full frame sensor and an M mount, there's no point in Leica trying to keep up and making a real competitor to dSLR's because they're different market segments, they'd rather stay in the realm they've created and which they have no competition.
It's silly to say that there's not room for dust reduction, IS, or (not mentioned) Live View, look at the Olympus DSLR's from a few years ago, they had all 3 and were the smallest DSLRs at the time (and are still small).
The NEX cameras have IS, Dust Reduction, and Live View and are significantly smaller (though lack an OVF) and have APS-C sensors, just slightly smaller than the sensor of the M8. There are APS-C cameras smaller than the M8 with far more features. I'm sure we'll see FF cameras smaller than the M9 soon which will without a doubt have much more features.
It doesn't matter if you can make a digital camera that will last for ages and be reliable (which Leica can't do anyways), it's going to become obsolete well before it ceases to function, whereas the film Leicas can function 60+ years without problems and still be 'practical'.
Having IS or dust removal (like a good amount of entry level slrs have had for years) will no increase sales or improve their bottom line, the people that want a M9 are still going to want an M9 regardless of the features, the selling point is a full frame sensor and an M mount, there's no point in Leica trying to keep up and making a real competitor to dSLR's because they're different market segments, they'd rather stay in the realm they've created and which they have no competition.
It's silly to say that there's not room for dust reduction, IS, or (not mentioned) Live View, look at the Olympus DSLR's from a few years ago, they had all 3 and were the smallest DSLRs at the time (and are still small).
The NEX cameras have IS, Dust Reduction, and Live View and are significantly smaller (though lack an OVF) and have APS-C sensors, just slightly smaller than the sensor of the M8. There are APS-C cameras smaller than the M8 with far more features. I'm sure we'll see FF cameras smaller than the M9 soon which will without a doubt have much more features.
Last edited by a moderator:
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Umm.. Leica wasthe first lens manufacturer to use dedicated computers - the COMO program in the 1950-ies, the inventor of autofocus, one of the first companies to bring a digital camera to the market -the S1 and nowadays partners with Fujitsu and Jenoptik ( a premier electronic-optic defense contractor), the only company able to build a large sensor digital rangefinder at an acceptable price. So - not electronically oriented??? A bit of bashing imo. Expensive - yes. Luxury-no,working cameras with the occasional luxury moneymaker. And yes - they bowed out of the DSLR market because they are not a mass producer, just as Canon and Nikon et al bowed out of the rangefinder market as they are not a niche producer. And the pros like Tina Manley and Mr.Kamber and many others would be highly surprised to hear their workhorses described as unserious cameras....
Last edited:
Ladies and gents; please let's keep to the interesting topic at hand, and avoid bashing each other (or Leica if it results in bashing each other!). Thanks!
Last edited:
Mephiloco
Well-known
You're talking about Leica during the days when film was still king. All the others have surpassed Leica in R&D and Leica is still trying to catch up. I don't see how that is Leica bashing. The S1 was a scanner-back camera of which less than less than 200 were made, it was nowhere near one of 'the first' digital cameras. Their partnership with Fujitsu has to do with the S2, not their rangefinder offerings at all, and their 'partnership' with Jenoptik is merely Leica outsourcing production for the electronics to someone more able and fitted to mass produce electronics.
How is it bashing to point out that Leica's strength as far as ita digital rangefinders is the lenses. For years Leica prided themselves in reliable, working cameras which promised years of service which merited the higher price tag, now the life span is greatly reduced because of the technology quickly becoming obsolete.
The other full frame offerings are built to go into harsher environments and reel off hundreds of thousands of frames whereas the M9 is aimed towards a different market segment. The Leica is a niche product and a good chunk of their sales come from non-professional photographers who buy their products as luxury items and items of status. I think the mind boggling amount of exorbitantly priced Leica special editions supports my theory.
Ben Z
Veteran
If you check facts, you'll find that's true of every high-end camera. No camera manufacturer could make a profit selling a model only to pros, at current prices, because there just aren't enough of them. Likewise, professional photographers (other than maybe someone like Peter Lik) could never afford what a full-frame DSLR would need to cost if not for the amateur market's participation.
I always get a chuckle out of that notion. Other than fellow shutterbugs, I've never run across anyone, including people of far greater means than I, who wouldn't think I was nuts for spending $7000 on any camera. Most don't know what an M9 is or how much it cost. Furthermore not only will I not reveal the cost voluntarily, I'll even lie about it rather than endure their negative looks and comments. All of that pretty well negates it being a status symbol. Cars, watches, designer clothes...those things are examples of status symbols.
You're saying one per year (if that) is a "mind boggling amount"? Leica is making 500 of the M9Ti. They've sold, what, 20,000 standard M9's thus far? I'm sure the limited editions comprise a goodly little chunk of windfall cash, but I think they hardly comprise a pittance of sales volume.
Last edited:
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Ben,
I've always loved that one too.
It's a bit like being a teenager in a village or small town and being worried because 'everyone knows your business' -- then realizing, when you grow up a bit, that they don't, because they can't be bothered enough to find out about it.
It's true that a few photographers buy Leicas because they've heard they're good cameras, or because their uncle had one, but they are very few, I suspect.
And of course you're absolutely right about 'pro' cameras. Ten or fifteen years ago, Linhof in the UK reckoned that their buyers were about 50/50, pro and amateur. That's a considerably more specialized camera than a Leica and probably roughly similar in price.
Cheers,
R.