m9 the working mans version?

[Roger Hicks]

I don't feel any pressure about ANY of the cameras I own. And there are some people who seem to get pleasure from cameras alone, no matter how bad their photography.

We acquire cameras for all sorts of different reasons, but the only reason I lay out good money for any of them is because they're cameras that deliver the results I like, and in addition, are cameras that I like using.

I've no doubt there are many other cameras which would deliver technical image quality that would be more than adequate for my purposes -- the technical requirements for publishable images really aren't very high -- but I am firmly convinced that I get better pictures with cameras that suit me ergonomically, as Chris says. And I enjoy them more.

To go back to the basic premise of this thread -- which has, as others have said, been lost on occasion:

1 Yes, it's almost certainly possible to 'harden' an M9 and make an M10 or M9PJ

2 Anyone who thinks this is going to be cheaper than an M9 is living in cloud-cuckoo land

3 The number of photojournalists who are going to buy two M9PJs is limited, which is why:

4 Probably, Leica don't care very much anyway. They've never marketed the Leica to the sort of reporter that wears the paint of his big Nikon DSLR

5 Yes, they're expensive. What of it? So are Rolls Royces, but no one says that RR 'should' make cheap cars for people who can't afford expensive ones. Why should Leica make cameras for people who can't or won't pay Leica prices?

6 Leica is making a profit. If they start losing money again, they may start listening to the advice of people who think they can run the company better than the current management -- though even if they do start listening again, they're going to be pretty selective about the people they listen to. No point in holding your breath!

Cheers,

R.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

Much of the discussion now indeed seems to be about why people who buy digital Ms now don't see themselves as buyers of a luxury boutique product, (an association that people apparently don't like).

I disagree on one point: it's not the "association" that "I don't like." I actually don't care about the association. It's that the argument distracts and spends so much energy that its only purpose is to deride (as paradoxical as that may be) just for the sake of deriding. We're talking about it right now and it has *nothing* to do with the OP's intent: why can't there be a "working man's M9?"

To me the point is very simple: the M9 was never meant to be so. In the past things were different. They're not so now.

If Leica pulls having a rugged M9 that "working men" would buy in enough numbers to justify the energy and research in redesigning, then it'd have to be one hell of a selling coup. Leica, just like Alpa (let's say), are quite the three-dollar bills.

 

[ferider]

OK. After temporary closure 🙂, back on subject:

Forget an M9P for a second. Repeating from my previous post, I think a pro support model, say, with guaranteed TAT of one month or less, and loaners when a camera has to be replaced, would go a long way for the support of professionals.

Why doesn't Leica offer this, at whatever cost they think it would take ?

Roland.

 

[Roger Hicks]

So much for civility.

So anyone who would like a digital M that can be as competent as a film M is a "whiner?" Why must you derail so many threads with cheap shots?

Dear Kevin,

You will see that I have changed the phraseology. It was not my intention for a moment to insult anyone personally, nor yet to lump together all contributors to this (or any other) thread as as whiners, fantasists and armchair designers. I merely wanted to point out that Leica probably ain't listening to anyone at the moment, and that when/if they start listening again, they probably will be highly selective, so a number of long-rehearsed arguments are almost certainly non-starters.

My apologies for offending you, but I really didn't think anyone would take it as personally as you clearly did.

Cheers,

R.

 

[back alley]

Rip



.