johnastovall
Light Hunter - RIP 2010
Erwin Puts's thoughts on the future of Leica.
"The basic question now is: is it possible to evolve the rangefinder concept into a new concept fitting fro the digital world. "
"The basic question now is: is it possible to evolve the rangefinder concept into a new concept fitting fro the digital world. "
Ben Z
Veteran
I agree with about 90% of what Erwin said in his two most recent essays. But I don't see why the rangefinder concept is any less suitable to digital capture than film capture. The rangefinder fell by the wayside to the SLR eons ago, and into its own little niche. I agree completely with Erwin when he says Leica products sell well for 2 years and then fall flat. But I strongly believe that if Leica dropped the price of the M8, unmodified just as it is, to just under $3K, they would sell at least another 25,000 of them along with a slew of Summarit lenses. I think there's a large un-tapped market demand for a digital rangefinder and Leica's main stumbling block is they've priced themselves into an even smaller niche than they were already in.
johnastovall
Light Hunter - RIP 2010
sitemistic said:
Look at the price of Canon 1DMkIII and no lens. They are selling very well even with unfixed problems...
Look at how the RD-1 sold at that price point and people still looking for them.
giellaleafapmu
Well-known
johnastovall said:
I love rangefinder cameras but I think it is a wrong example as the EOS 1D Mk whatever are today Nikon F's: complete systems profs use for almost everything, from underwater shots to macro works to still-life with tilt-shift lenses, whatever rangefinder has a much more limited use (that's why they were no longer used as soon as SLR's arrived).
GLF
georgef
Well-known
...but they are selling to 1DMkII owners mostly, along with upgraders from the X0D level. That is already a "tapped" market.johnastovall said:
I think the question is not just whether the RF concept works for a digital medium, but whether one can introduce a manual focus system to the world of AF! a harder sell IMHO. I love my DRF and sold my DSLRs, but I am not the untapped market
johnastovall
Light Hunter - RIP 2010
sitemistic said:
I would suggest the majority of 1DMkIII buyers are not Pros.
I see you now change your arguement from price to to volume. I still think your talking about the M8 and not shooting one is like a virgin talking about sex.
But I guess you have to have your fanasties.
Ben Z
Veteran
sitemistic said:
If memory serves, when the Canon 5D came out and for quite a while afterward, it cost $3300, and the most popular lens people bought for it, the 24-105L/IS, cost roughly $1200. I have a sneaking suspicion Canon sold way more of those $4500 combos than the paltry 25,000 more I said I felt Leica could squeeze out of the M8 by dropping the price to $3K.
Tuolumne
Veteran
Ok, I'll bite: What do you think the "rangefinder concept" is?
/T
/T
POINT OF VIEW
Established
Who cares?
Who cares?
If you’re a minimalist and you enjoy shooting with a classic RF format and you like total control over your photo, than you buy the DRF that suits you.
If you like fat cameras that you can close your eyes and get a good shot, than you buy a DSLR.
Leica does not force you to buy a M8, if you don’t like it who cares, but don’t pose a irrelevant question suggesting the only DRF camera in the world, doesn’t exist.
Who cares?
johnastovall said:
If you’re a minimalist and you enjoy shooting with a classic RF format and you like total control over your photo, than you buy the DRF that suits you.
If you like fat cameras that you can close your eyes and get a good shot, than you buy a DSLR.
Leica does not force you to buy a M8, if you don’t like it who cares, but don’t pose a irrelevant question suggesting the only DRF camera in the world, doesn’t exist.
TJV
Well-known
Who cares?
Who cares?
I care, but what does it matter?
I for one think there is a market for Leica, even if it is priced too high for the majority. It might just be too slim a market to sustain what is now mainly a sofware / hardware based R&D lab.
Their new web site encapsulates all things bad with the current (past now?) Leica mentality. It's a hark back to the days they were owned by Hermes and were purely a lifestyle / brag item not unlike a Luis V. handbag. At the end of the day a camera is a tool. Sure the great majority of people buy into gadgets and techno speak, but real photographers, people who actually use their cameras, appreciate a well made, reliable cameras with great optics. A RF is not for macro, but then again not everyone want to shoot flowers.
The price of a new M8 and 28mm Summicron to mount on it is too rich for me, as it is for most people I imagine, but that's not set in stone. There are many stratagies Leica could take to bring the prices down to a level where people can afford them. We should just wait a few days to find out the first steps they make towards meeting this wish.
Who cares?
I care, but what does it matter?
I for one think there is a market for Leica, even if it is priced too high for the majority. It might just be too slim a market to sustain what is now mainly a sofware / hardware based R&D lab.
Their new web site encapsulates all things bad with the current (past now?) Leica mentality. It's a hark back to the days they were owned by Hermes and were purely a lifestyle / brag item not unlike a Luis V. handbag. At the end of the day a camera is a tool. Sure the great majority of people buy into gadgets and techno speak, but real photographers, people who actually use their cameras, appreciate a well made, reliable cameras with great optics. A RF is not for macro, but then again not everyone want to shoot flowers.
The price of a new M8 and 28mm Summicron to mount on it is too rich for me, as it is for most people I imagine, but that's not set in stone. There are many stratagies Leica could take to bring the prices down to a level where people can afford them. We should just wait a few days to find out the first steps they make towards meeting this wish.
giellaleafapmu
Well-known
Ben Z said:
You can buy now a 5D + 24-105L/IS for less than 2800US$, some well known e-seller has a rebate on top of that which would cover the cost a battery grip more or less. That's about half the price of a Leica for a full frame camera and they are indeed selling quite well for what I understand. Really not surprising. If then one consider that one of the strongest point of rangefinder cameras (ultrawide non-retrofocus designs) cannot be used on a digital Leica one can easily see why they are having a hard time (and they will even more in the future, I believe) and why Canon and other producer of evil DSLR's are strongest than ever.
As I mentioned in another post what could be an answer to all this (in my opinion of course) is a completely new design. New lenses, no noise, small size but I doubt Leica has the know-how for that at the moment...
GLF
Tuolumne
Veteran
giellaleafapmu said:
Or the capital. Huge investment there.
/T
Larky
Well-known
I would personally love an M8, but if I had the money to buy one I'd go for DSLR! Why, because it's a proven item. If I get a modern Canon or Nikon I know it'll work perfectly until I can afford a new one. Can the same be said about the M8? Not from what I read.
Is there a market for Leica? I don't know, not if they keep charging what they do I expect. Leica is almost in the same position Apple was 10-15 years ago. They need a Steve Jobs to come along with a vision which works.
General users want a simple, easy, quality product for between £150 and £500. Leica, I don't think, can do this.
Maybe Apple should buy them.
Is there a market for Leica? I don't know, not if they keep charging what they do I expect. Leica is almost in the same position Apple was 10-15 years ago. They need a Steve Jobs to come along with a vision which works.
General users want a simple, easy, quality product for between £150 and £500. Leica, I don't think, can do this.
Maybe Apple should buy them.
giellaleafapmu
Well-known
Tuolumne said:
Yep, that is also a problem. Not that I really care of camera makers (I mean...at the end one look at the picture and doesn't really care which camera got it!) but perhaps the only real hope for a company like Leica would be to be absorbed by a large company like Nikon or Canon or to work together (really together not like now) with an electronics company.
GLF
giellaleafapmu
Well-known
Larky said:
Mmmh, not completely true, Apple has always been a very innovative company. When they could no longer get what they wanted from Motorola processors they changed to Intel, when their original system (which was itself very innovative) become obsolete they switched to some Linux like thing but they apparently considered first other option like BEos. If only Leitz was half that innovative...
GLF
Dektol Dan
Well-known
The masses drive the market
The masses drive the market
Quality may not matter, utility may not matter, but gadgets and accessories do.
What made SLRs happen way back when was the affordable unending options of accessories and lenses.
Rangefinders are sh*t for long lenses, macro, microscopes, telescopes etc.
The average amateur always goes for a long lens as his second to the normal 50mm. On the other hand, pros prefer to go wide, which is the glory of rangefinders (except sport photographers, of course).
SLRs are hard to focus and dim to see through with any lens slower than a 3.5.
So, auto focus saves their bacon and the rangefinder is doomed. Even though rangefinders are a snap to focus as mentioned in this thread previously, not having to focusing at all (so all cameras are back to being point and shoots) rules the day with the amateur.
Amateurs control the market, the masses are where the money is and amateurs don't want to take the time to learn the craft of photography.
Rangefinders will be around as a niche market, but boy it's going to be expensive.
Whether rangefinders are digital or not is the issue, but rather will amateurs live with a manual camera with restricted choice of options that are expensive.
The masses drive the market
Quality may not matter, utility may not matter, but gadgets and accessories do.
What made SLRs happen way back when was the affordable unending options of accessories and lenses.
Rangefinders are sh*t for long lenses, macro, microscopes, telescopes etc.
The average amateur always goes for a long lens as his second to the normal 50mm. On the other hand, pros prefer to go wide, which is the glory of rangefinders (except sport photographers, of course).
SLRs are hard to focus and dim to see through with any lens slower than a 3.5.
So, auto focus saves their bacon and the rangefinder is doomed. Even though rangefinders are a snap to focus as mentioned in this thread previously, not having to focusing at all (so all cameras are back to being point and shoots) rules the day with the amateur.
Amateurs control the market, the masses are where the money is and amateurs don't want to take the time to learn the craft of photography.
Rangefinders will be around as a niche market, but boy it's going to be expensive.
Whether rangefinders are digital or not is the issue, but rather will amateurs live with a manual camera with restricted choice of options that are expensive.
trittium
Well-known
Leica should advertise if they want to shift units. The general consumer does not even know of Leica. If anything, they probably think they are owned by panasonic. Leica needs to sell the rangefinder on it's compact size. New technology should make things smaller, yet DSLR's are gigantic. Sell the fact that it is easy to use; you only have 3 settings; shutter, aperture, and focus, and with these setting the consumer can take any type of photo. No messing with portrait mode, mountain mode, programing your own mode, etc. A good product can convince the consumer that they need it. They need to sell themselves as the original, the best, and the easiest.
As for the macro thing, just give it a good full frame sensor, build a digital zoom into the software package, and your done.
As for the macro thing, just give it a good full frame sensor, build a digital zoom into the software package, and your done.
trittium
Well-known
sitemistic said:
For a pro, it's bad. You are payed for your skill with evaluating the proper exposure and depth of field to create the best image. Algorithms can't determine it (yet).
For the consumer, P is ok. I feel like people should care more about there photo though. "A" is a better setting IMO
Tuolumne
Veteran
No, the pitch has to be it is challenging but more rewarding. And you become an "artist", whatever that is. It certainly is a proposition that many would buy into with the right marketing. I mean, people still use fountain pens, too.
/T
/T
kevin m
Veteran
Sitemistic, don't you think that if you're routinely contributing half the posts on a given topic you ought to give it a rest?