M9T - The purpose of possible innovations

[jamato8]

I don't think there is so much bashing as frustration. Being a Leica user since 1969 I can understand. Mechanical quality is great but quality innovation is also justified and should be justified at the price. Well no one makes us buy.. . . I think. :^)

 

[Roger Hicks]

As one of the few people who's actually handled one of these things, I can join in the chorus of 'what innovations?'

The LED framelines are an all-but-worthless bodge to get around the fact that the 'designer' didn't like the illuminating window: they come on only when you touch the shutter release. The camera is bigger and fatter than a standard M9, and the filling in of the accessory shoe and the deletion of the cable release socket show that the 'designer' (actually, stylist) rather misses the point of what a camera is for, viz., taking pictures.

As for Eleskin's "In this economy, it looks really bad though. It makes them look they are more concerned with the customers that are not impacted by the economic downturn. If they were really smart, they would have built a smaller CL like camera with an M8 sized sensor with much improved ISO for half the price of the M9. The fact that they did not is really too bad.", I couldn't agree more about 'theatre of the absurd'." It's just that the absurdity is his. Does anyone REALLY believe that Leica would build the camera he described?

It's precisely because they ARE 'really smart' that they've built a camera with virtually no R&D costs and a vast profit margin, which will sell to people who aren't affected by the economic downturn, rather than setting up soup kitchens for those poor souls who can 'only' afford a $3,500 camera. THAT WAS IRONY, for the humour-impaired.

As for 'much improved ISO for half the price', this is about as feeble a fantasy as can readily be imagined. If they could do 'much improved ISO' at ANY price, to put it into a cheaper camera would be pure idiocy.

Cheers,

R.

 

[iwaki]

for me, i tend to look at it in a positive way. It's not a bad thing to cater the needs of people who can afford them. Hopefully it brings money one way or another for Leica, because as far as i can see they are really a few steps behind other companies in digital.

FF in a rangefinder body, the M9 itself is not really an innovation either, well in my opinion at least. If any, it was kodak's innovation. The M9 is just the only choice we have, but that doesn't make it an innovation.

Hopefully the M10 would have a bit more to offer than just retrofitting a rangefinder into digital. I thought dust removal was a standard like 4 years ago? Forget about X100 type of hybrid viewfinder, manual focus confirmation, or whatnot. They can't even get the preview image of the M9 correctly.

don't get me wrong though, i love my M9, and i think the M9 is the perfect camera for me ( at the moment ), i'm just saying that they are a wee bit behind other camera companies out there.

 

[rxmd]

It's precisely because they ARE 'really smart' that they've built a camera with virtually no R&D costs and a vast profit margin, which will sell to people who aren't affected by the economic downturn

I think it's brilliant. Leica users tend to be at least mildly neophobic, so before you make a change to the traditional recipe you have to test the waters. In the old days they would have made a design study in one to three copies. Nowadays they make 500 copies of the design study that they can be sure to sell to collectors, and they get free feedback from the broader userbase in the form of threads such as this.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

If it gets working capital for Leica to do the M10, more power to them. The innovation was how they did a limited edition camera to get some R&D funds.

 

[Roger Hicks]

If it gets working capital for Leica to do the M10, more power to them. The innovation was how they did a limited edition camera to get some R&D funds.

YES!

Cheers,

R.