Edward Felcher said:
Would the M8 detractors prefer that Leica fail with the camera?
Irrelevant, Leica already has. Leica's brand trades on excellence. The introduction of the M8 caused harm to their brand. Releasing the camera to market as they did was either stupid or arrogant. It could be fatal.
This will lead to no production digital rangefinder cameras and no evolutionary development of the system.
The (M) system is not a suitable platform for evolution in digital photography. Get over it.
The lens rear element-to-sensor distance requirement is a severe handicap. Evolutionary development is futile without a radical change in sensor technology. There is no financial motivation for Leica or anyone else to invest in a fundamentally new sensor technology that is compatible with M mount lenses.
If Canon or Nikon or whoever (except Leica or Epson) sold a digital camera with the rangefinder aesthetic, I'd buy one in a minute. I would not care if it did not use the M mount. All I would care about was that excellent prime lenses were available. Until this happens, rangefinder evolutionary development is a contradiction in terms.
Evolution is not necessary to have market share. Static products can be profitable. Cosina seems to be doing well. Studio lighting systems and strobes are not evolving. There are examples in other hobbies (when's the last time there were radical technology changes in hunting shotguns, water skis, canoes, kaiaks, pool tables or bowling balls).
It will orphan all the Leica-mount lenses.
Only for digital photography... so what.
Is it because for $5000 you expect perfection on every detail?
The IR color cast is not a detail. Leica mislead their customers due to incompetence, or worse. Banding is not a detail. The former can not be fixed if you use Leica lenses particularly for focal lengths of 35mm and less and the latter should have never happened.
The $5K also pays the salaries of the marketing managers and Leica executives that bungled the M8 introduction. I do expect top-level performance from them at that price level. Why reward their performance? For me, this is not a detail.
Remember, even 8-10 years ago, even relatively primitive digital cameras were selling for much more money, yet they were eagerly adopted by people who by voting with their wallets spurred on the manufacturers to steadily refine the product.
Early adapters pay enable late adapters to afford desirable new technological advancements. Fine. But the reason M8 owners are on the bleeding edge is because Leica mismanaged the M8s release. Leica's poor decisions caused the bleeding, not the technology.
The M8 does not represent a quantum leap in digital imaging technology. Leica refined nothing (maybe they paid somebody else to develop improved Bayer reconstruction algorithms, maybe not), nor did they do anything new that entailed great risk. The M8 adapts the M lens mount to mature sensor technology. This requires an IR filter in front of the lens. Quality IR lens filter technology exists.
What's next? A third-party decides they can make money by selling a IR filter that attenuates IR frequencies at a level suitable for digital photography and is thin enough to satisfy Leica's optical requirements. Leica uses this filter with a slightly improved digital sensor, and the M9 is born. DSLR sales drive incremental sensor improvements. Leica brings out new models using mature sensors. Repeat as needed.
I should pay "extra" for this?
What's the alternative? A dead market niche.
A market is not dead because it is a niche market. A market dies when there is no profit to be made.
One wonders whether the Leica company in Solms represents some archetype that internally poses a threat to an unhappy consciousness.
To me it represents an arrogant, or incompetent, or desperate company.
1. Leica could have easily started a pre-release PR campaign based on the following premise: every other digital camera company has it backwards. The IR filter should be in front of the lens, not behind it. Only Leica does it right. Only Leica understands optical excellence should not be compromised by filtering light after it passes through the lens. Leica is smart...you are smart...smart people buy Leicas. Leica demands the best (even it the best requires a filter in front of the lens)... you deserve the best.
If Leica had done this, I bet I would have bought a M8 in 2007.
2. The banding problems were easily avoided by not rushing the release.
Many other companies have suffered by rushing to market. Smart people repeat well-known mistakes all the time. But the best (and top prices require the best) don't repeat obvious errors. This is the disconnect. When I observe trusting customers pay Leica top dollar and watch them receive less than they paid for, I loose respect for Leica. This does not mean a M8 that ships from Solms in June with two IR filters and competent firmware is not worth $5K. It means Leica's management does not deserve my business.
The other disconnect is: I am not able to say, "Well, the camera is OK now, and I'd rather pay for IR filters now to enjoy the camera now, and I get a discount for new lenses, and after all I want Leica to survive, so I forgive the company. Here's my $5000."
I don't condemn those who can forgive. It's just that I can't find any motivation to do business with Leica.
willie
