BillBingham2
Registered User
+10,000 on this one. I still say forget the LCD, give me a great IQ camera with the basic controls you find on an M6 or Nikon F2 and I would pay $5K for it. Simple, focus on the raw capture, let me adjust as I feel/want/need in my desktop.
But the share holders feel the love!
Colin Corneau
Colin Corneau
My point about that was that you have a camera whose interior is obsolete almost as soon as you get it out of the store...crazy.
The basic hardware - body, etc - is unchanged since the 50's. It works. No argument there. But you're paying top dollar for something that actually doesn't *do* what other cameras do...the precision engineering and attention to detail doesn't really extend to the software and innards.
That seems daft to me. The Monochrom seems like a truly interesting camera because it actually does something unique and does it very well...the others, well -- I'll stick with my film M's, thanks.
uhoh7
Veteran
so, what are these new wonderhorses which can make superior output to, say an M9 + 28 cron?
The Sonys with their latest sensors certainly cannot touch an M9 at 28mm.
I wish they did, and tried hard to get them to. No way.
I don't consider the M8 obsolete either, forget the specs, look at the shots. M8 is awesome.
But it would be nice to have a little mirrorless M with decent focus aids and half the weight and footprint of the M9.
That's the new digital M many are waiting for, and no reason Leica needs to make it, since others can as well.
f16sunshine
Moderator
I'd be happy to see a $7000 camera with $7000 in value and innovation.
Being in the only game in digital rangefinder Cameras at the moment does not make a $7000 value.
If the German brand could truly innovate something special like they do with their lenses.... well, what else needs to be said.
Being in the only game in digital rangefinder Cameras at the moment does not make a $7000 value.
If the German brand could truly innovate something special like they do with their lenses.... well, what else needs to be said.
icebear
Veteran
+1
If you are looking at advertising specs and feature lists, you are absolutely right.
If you are interested in taking pictures with your camera, you will very quickly learn that intuitive handling of a simple tool will produce better shots than more features and "superior" specs on paper
.For me the M9 and the MM will never feel obsolete but that's just me ... I'm a weird old fashioned guy. Cheers.
thegman
Veteran
I'm a 100% film guy, but these digital cameras are not obsolete, it's just older than the new stuff. Without wishing to offend, that people believe their technology is obsolete just because something newer comes out is just an incredible victory for marketing. It's made even more effective in that you can convince people on forums to do it for you.
I stuck with a low-end BlackBerry long after the dominance of iPhone and Android, I would be occasionally mocked in a light-hearted way for this. But some people wouldn't like it, and want to run out and buy the latest iPhone, that is the best marketing you can get, does not cost a penny and you get the masses to do it for you.
My Rolleiflex isn't obsolete because a new one came out, and nor is a digital camera.
icebear
Veteran
No ... a $7995 value , LOL
. Sorry couldn't resit here. What is more innovative in their evolution of the M lens range than developing the only full frame RF body in almost the same size as the film M's ?
YYV_146
Well-known
No ... a $7995 value , LOL
What is more innovative in their evolution of the M lens range than developing the only full frame RF body in almost the same size as the film M's ?
The M is heavier, and fatter...
I'd be a lot more impressed if they actually managed to maintain the size, if not the weight of the M6 and M7, yet still managed to stuff an FF sensor inside.
airfrogusmc
Veteran
Value? To me a the value is a camera with out all the stuff that gets in the way of creating. Give me a great sensor in a light tight box, great glass to focus the image, a shutter to control the time is allowed to strike the sensor and an aperture to control the amount of light and I'm good. The MM is that camera. I am also a film lover and if I still had a darkroom I would be still be shooting to but I don.t and the MM can do things that I couldn't do with a film M. Innovation? Ya mean more crap like they pack on DSLRs these day? Live view. video, FPS, auto everything? NO THANKS... There are to many of those out there already.
BTW Leica was not innovative when NICANON went with auto focus and they were late to even put a meter in the M. Thats OK by me.
f16sunshine
Moderator
^^
No Gus. I I don't mean auto DSLR features.
How about innovation like a camera that stays out of your way by not crashing for a battery removal like every Digital M I have used has done?
Or something really slick like offering at least 10 years of product support and then actually delivering at least 10 years of product support?
Leica set the bar high with their tradition of standing by their film M series all these years.
The only thing high about the Digital M tradition is the expectation of rabid RF devotees to line up wallets in hand.
Output can be wonderful ... sure. The disposable mentality especially at this price point is frankly just plain shameful.
What do they do with those traded in or M8's ?
How about creating a system with the RF optics and chassis that can affordably be updated as new tech develops down the road. Real innovation.
As a RF user I would invest in that future.
No Gus. I I don't mean auto DSLR features.
How about innovation like a camera that stays out of your way by not crashing for a battery removal like every Digital M I have used has done?
Or something really slick like offering at least 10 years of product support and then actually delivering at least 10 years of product support?
Leica set the bar high with their tradition of standing by their film M series all these years.
The only thing high about the Digital M tradition is the expectation of rabid RF devotees to line up wallets in hand.
Output can be wonderful ... sure. The disposable mentality especially at this price point is frankly just plain shameful.
What do they do with those traded in or M8's ?
How about creating a system with the RF optics and chassis that can affordably be updated as new tech develops down the road. Real innovation.
As a RF user I would invest in that future.
zuiko85
Veteran
Seems like what you guy want is;
Take an M6, unclip the bottom.
Swing up and unclip the back. Set aside bottom and back in a safe place.
Take the digital back out of it's holder, clip it onto the camera and swing it down to the flim plane.
Clip on the replacement bottom that contains the power supply, card holder and related processor. It makes contact with the sensor back through a series of gold plated contacts. Of course this bottom will be a bit more bulky than the film bottom.
Shoot with the digital back until you get tired of the whole digital thing.
Reverse the process, put the film back and bottom back on.
(By the way, this digital back does not have a preview screen and so will never have a cracked or inoperative screen that Leica didn't stock enough spares for. )
This back would not even have to be made by Leica. Sony could make it probably, I don't know if it can be full frame or 15X22 reduced frame to manage cost and logistics of building it.
Take an M6, unclip the bottom.
Swing up and unclip the back. Set aside bottom and back in a safe place.
Take the digital back out of it's holder, clip it onto the camera and swing it down to the flim plane.
Clip on the replacement bottom that contains the power supply, card holder and related processor. It makes contact with the sensor back through a series of gold plated contacts. Of course this bottom will be a bit more bulky than the film bottom.
Shoot with the digital back until you get tired of the whole digital thing.
Reverse the process, put the film back and bottom back on.
(By the way, this digital back does not have a preview screen and so will never have a cracked or inoperative screen that Leica didn't stock enough spares for. )
This back would not even have to be made by Leica. Sony could make it probably, I don't know if it can be full frame or 15X22 reduced frame to manage cost and logistics of building it.
CrisR
Well-known
A camera, that is no longer the pinnacle of technology, still takes photos.
Sometimes I feel like people talk about them like the latest iPhone, to be junked every 12months for 1mm extra thinness.
If you always buy the model previous, you always get a bargain, and great photos that would have wowwed 12 months ago. Are they not still great?
Sometimes I feel like people talk about them like the latest iPhone, to be junked every 12months for 1mm extra thinness.
If you always buy the model previous, you always get a bargain, and great photos that would have wowwed 12 months ago. Are they not still great?
Lss
Well-known
As far as I can tell they accomplished that with the M8. Too bad if the later models are Canons.
rluka
Established
Being honest, it's not about technology or function, but how much cash can be taken back from selling it in second hand market.
Which reflects: a) the buyers doesn't think it deserve the initial price. b) the buyers don't think they want to keep it forever anyway
Technology being obsolete would be truer in place like computers where they actually make something new once in a while (and it needs newer device to function). Over there, the device takes more credits for what it does.
Unlike camera where most of the result depended on the user.
Scrambler
Well-known
All jokes aside, I think this is a great idea. I think, though, that the whole body shell should come off and be (reversibly) replaced. There's a lot more to it than you might think! How do the electronics know you have triggered the shutter? What the shutter speed is? How does it select auto-ISO, or if manual ISO, how do you set it? All those controls need to go somewhere.
As for live view, I think it should have no screen but live wi-fi feed and an optional rear-mounted, swiveling iPhone clip ($250, code IPBOX)
pmu
Well-known
Of course it does. But using old technology in brand new (super expensive) products does not sound good. Couple of examples: the lcd sreen of Leica M9 (2009) was far far far worse than lcd's used already in 2007 Nikons (D3). The state of the art M body uses absolutely horrible and terrible Olympus EVF which was already 1-2 year old technology when the M was realeased.
I wish the next M would be a simple camera with limited features, but please make sure that ALL of the features used are state of the art. Then the high price would be easier to digest.
EDIT: I just realized that Monochrom has 230,000 dot lcd. Oh my... 2006 screen resolution in 2012 camera with the price tag of 7K€.
jschrader
Well-known
One thing I do not understand in these Leica bashing threads:
Either you find what you want from another producer, or from Leica. If you do not find it, who is wrong?
Sony for not being able to produce a Leica at a lower price or Leica for not having a Sony sensor of the latest generation?
Since noboby produces the cameras some people here (including myself) would like to have, either there are to few like-minded consumers or the camera simply cannot be produced.
I believe all our whishes here are discussed in the R&D departments of all producers (maybe even the wish to have a camera with less features).
Either you find what you want from another producer, or from Leica. If you do not find it, who is wrong?
Sony for not being able to produce a Leica at a lower price or Leica for not having a Sony sensor of the latest generation?
Since noboby produces the cameras some people here (including myself) would like to have, either there are to few like-minded consumers or the camera simply cannot be produced.
I believe all our whishes here are discussed in the R&D departments of all producers (maybe even the wish to have a camera with less features).
CrisR
Well-known
Why? Why can't the product be made however the designer intended?
Leather coverings is old technology. Plastic coverings are superior and can even look the same. So leather should never be used on a future camera.
Mechanical buttons are old. Touch screens are new. Touch only on for every future camera.
Autofocus is newer than manual. Only AF lenses from now on.
F0.95 lenses are newer than f2.8 lenses. Nothing under F0.95 shall be sold.
Optical VFs are old. EVF only from now on. Until we get bluetooth connected VR goggles, then all cameras shall be screenless and controlled by our minds with an overlay on our vision, 24/7.
And don't even get me started on the use of Brass. That material's over 500 years old. Carbon nanotube and Graphene construction, or nothing.
...
Okay, that may be taking the argument ad absurdum, but once you start making statements about "old" and "new" technology and what should and should not be used in current and future products, based solely on there being "a newer technology", just ends up always going that way.
Many parts of many products are "old".
Whenever a designer designs anything, they have choices, and they have constraints. Just because other designers with other companies, making other products, make different choices, has nothing do to with the former.
Saying "Oh, I only meant that I'd prefer this better screen" or "obviously I'm not saying they shouldn't use leather" is not only a slippery slope to going through every technology used, but it's also just playing the role of the designer, without having access to all the information the original designer did, or being burdened by their constraints. You might as well request it bestows superpowers.
As a consumer, your only vote, is with your money and where you choose to spend it. If I want to buy a brand new camera, right now, in 2014, that uses no technology designed after 1930, and I want to pay the price of a family car for that - that's my choice to support that product's design decisions, and the value I place upon it.
If you don't, buy a different camera and hope the company that wronged you, sees the error of it's ways.
