Thom Hogan, a very wise man

Roger Hicks said:
No-one else seems to have thought of this one, which certainly seems unanswerable at the moment. But then, when it's pie-in-the-sky, you can have any flavour you want.
Click to expand...

Not really an issue in use. For EVF substitute live view. In situations I really want to stop down and use live view (mostly very awkward angles) there is enough light (or I'd not be stopping down to begin with really) and if its really dark, then I'd not want to stop down a heck of a lot anyway.

Most live view implementations I've seen just go black and white to keep the grain down and the refresh rate high in really poor light situations.

It is worth pointing out that ISO 3200 just ain't that hard these days for any CMOS sensor in a DSLR and these EVF cameras do use CMOS sensors. In real darkness (long exposure night photography for instance) you can do things with the EVF/live view that just aren't possible with either an SLR or an RF viewfinder. If you want to focus accurately on black cats in coal mines at f1.2 then you are going to be using the noisy, grainy, LCD/EVF. May not be pretty but it can do the job. May not be useful to everyone but most people couldn't set the clock let alone use half the functions on their VCRs back in the day.

And of course you get to actually see the DoF you capture through the lens with these EVF bodies (which isn't even really true in an AF SLR view finder).

I think it is just a matter of time before a 35mm frame size EVF camera, but I doubt it'll be Leica and I doubt most die hard RF users will be interested. A camera like that would be an interesting additional market for used Leica lenses though if they can work out the back focal distances - the number of people using the Panasonic or Olympus cameras with lenses like the 40 Nokton is striking.

It is certainly true that pie-in-the-sky is always tasty. But it also seems to me, that people who are set in their ways are generally not keen on any change, regardless of the consequences of that change and have a tendency to favour arguments that support their view, regardless of whether they are sound or not.
 
I wonder if any of the great pundits clamoring for an EVF in a addition to a RF finder have ever removed the top cover of a Leica M ???

The optics for the current RF take up most of the space in front of the VF eyepiece.

Second - has anyone here had trouble focusing their Leica M camera with a 90mm or shorter, aside from a bit flare in some models ???

Maybe, I'm in a minority as an old M3 owner - but I focus faster with the M than I do with a SLR.

With regards to a sensor which each pixel records luminance irregardless of color. The idea of a M9m fascinates me - but is Leica a large enough company to survive, if the cameras do not sell well?
 
gnarayan said:
Not really an issue in use. For EVF substitute live view. In situations I really want to stop down and use live view (mostly very awkward angles) there is enough light (or I'd not be stopping down to begin with really) and if its really dark, then I'd not want to stop down a heck of a lot anyway.

Most live view implementations I've seen just go black and white to keep the grain down and the refresh rate high in really poor light situations.

It is worth pointing out that ISO 3200 just ain't that hard these days for any CMOS sensor in a DSLR and these EVF cameras do use CMOS sensors. In real darkness (long exposure night photography for instance) you can do things with the EVF/live view that just aren't possible with either an SLR or an RF viewfinder. If you want to focus accurately on black cats in coal mines at f1.2 then you are going to be using the noisy, grainy, LCD/EVF. May not be pretty but it can do the job. May not be useful to everyone but most people couldn't set the clock let alone use half the functions on their VCRs back in the day.

And of course you get to actually see the DoF you capture through the lens with these EVF bodies (which isn't even really true in an AF SLR view finder).

I think it is just a matter of time before a 35mm frame size EVF camera, but I doubt it'll be Leica and I doubt most die hard RF users will be interested. A camera like that would be an interesting additional market for used Leica lenses though if they can work out the back focal distances - the number of people using the Panasonic or Olympus cameras with lenses like the 40 Nokton is striking.

It is certainly true that pie-in-the-sky is always tasty. But it also seems to me, that people who are set in their ways are generally not keen on any change, regardless of the consequences of that change and have a tendency to favour arguments that support their view, regardless of whether they are sound or not.
Click to expand...

I'm sure you're right about the highlighted part, and probably most of the rest as well. I just get p'd off with those who appear to want Leica to fail, or to stop making M-series RFs, and with who think they have a divine right to buy luxury goods at whatever price they feel like paying, regardless of the cost of manufacture.

Live view cameras are no doubt great for those who want them, and if I could afford one that accepted my Leica lenses (full frame) I'd probably buy it. But I certainly don't see it as a replacement for an M, and right at the moment, I am less than convinced that such a camera is technically and economically feasible.

I completely agree with Solinar, too.

Ultimately, it comes down to this: eventually we'll see who's right, and what Leica comes out with.

Cheers,

R.
 
The only reason I can think of for Leica to introduce something new in their M cameras is to improve, not redesign, those cameras. They have many incentives to avoid redesigning the M line.

Applying the suggestions in the Hogan piece would amount to creating a new camera line. That's something Leica is free to do, of course.
 
Phil Askey, Ken Rockwell, and now Tom Hogan.... Interesting to see how these guys finally start thinking about a small German camera manufacturer whose cameras they wouldn`t have touched with a 10 feet long pole a couple of two years ago... 🙄
 
O.K. I have continued to follow this discussion, and there certainly is wide agreement with my post on the first page. Leica could develop a camera, but the question remains do they want to, or do they even need to do this? I do not know how anyone who is not a part of Leica can truly state that they need to do this or they will perish. Everyone has an opinion because it can be assumed they care about Leica continuing as a company, or they would like a camera that meets their needs.

I would like to address a couple of the points raised, and ideas placed on this thread and the articles.
1. A foveon sensor sounds good, but from what I have read in scientific articles, they are not there yet for this type of photography usage. They are also very sensitive to lens quality, which in time could prove very advantages to Leica.
2. Standard CMOS sensors and CCD sensors do not produce the same images. CMOS sensors require more software manipulation, and push you further from the actual images light waves. What you are doing is adjusting what is captured to better simulate the actual light waves. Until they are better, at this aspect, I would prefer that Leica continue to use CCD sensors. I am not one who is all distraught over the high ISO issue. I historically have shot film and I am very pleased with the image results. I can focus in low light, and I have lenses that I can exploit their capabilities in this situation.
3. Everyone is describing a camera that no longer is true to the Leica M heritage. It is not a bad thing, it just no longer is true to the historical development of this camera. Leica has been very careful to make choices that are honest to the design. I personally do believe that a B&W version would be very important to Leica. It would separate them from the pack, and it would be a crowning achievement. Statement products are important to Leica's history, and it would simulate the common practice of carrying one camera loaded with B&W and the other loaded with color film. I do not want to go into the technical advantages that lead to a significantly bette image in this post. But, they exist regardless of what the nay sayers want to think. Lastly, I think that the additions to the M9 are only needed in the areas of technological improvements in sensor technology, and electronics. They are refinements not changes. It is a wonderful camera as is, and it meets the needs of those who have traditionally looked to a range finder.
4. If Leica should decide to build a co-existing product that can use the Leica M lenses. I think it should be completely redesigned from the ground up. I think it should exploit CMOS technology, and that it should be ergonomic. I do not know what it would be, but it would need to be innovative and cutting edge. Or, it won't stand a chance in H#LL of selling. It would be an extreme waist of monetary resources, and R&D if it fails. So, if I was Leica, I would look to another company to partner with, attain revenue for the product and build it under another company name. The company could allow Leica and the other company to badge it, but if it failed it would isolate the destruction, protecting Leica itself. Lastly, I would say if you think this is going to produce an inexpensive alternative to the M9, I think you are in for a shock.

Kindest Regards,
 
biggambi said:
I personally do believe that a B&W version would be very important to Leica. It would separate them from the pack...

4. If Leica should decide to build a co-existing product that can use the Leica M lenses. I think it should be completely redesigned from the ground up.
Kindest Regards,
Click to expand...

I agree with the substance of your comment, but not with those two points. Leica certainly has no need to distinguish itself from the "pack". The return on investment prospects for a b&w-only digital Leica have to be very sketchy.

While it is certainly possible for that Leica, someday, may introduce another line of cameras, they have no reason to compete with themselves by selling camera that use M-mount lenses but are cheaper than M-mount Leicas. If Leica decides to bring out a new line of cameras, I'd expect them to roll out a new lens mount, too. (But, I don't really expect that to happen. The digital field is a much more level field in which Leica's traditional selling points count for less than they do in RF-world.)
 
Why do people think a monochrome-only digital camera is a good idea? One of the key advantages of digital is that you can make a color or b&w image from the same file. Would a monochrome sensor give truer b&w images than a file from a color sensor that has been desaturated? The b&W images I've made with M8 and M9 look pretty good to me and the work of seen from others, Martini comes to mind, are excellent.
I don't think Leica would see a ROI for such a camera.
 
Personally, I think Leica will not build an EVF or Autofocus M. Thankfully.

Some people enjoy sailing sailboats instead of motor yachts. The heart of the Leica M is its rangefinder. If you like a motor yacht there are many who make one.

Asking Leica to make an EVF or autofocus M is like asking Hasselblad to make a 135 size camera or Olympus to make a 135 size camera.
 
Last edited:
I can't be bothered reading all the posts in this thread so maybe this has been said before.

IMO, there are two groups of people who buy the M9. There are those who want to use a digital M rangefinder and then there are those who want to use Leica lenses. The people over at LL seem to belong to the latter group. They weren't really using M cameras for a long time prior to the digital M (because film sucks, right?) and the only reason they're using the M9 now is because apparently German lenses are sprinkled with fairy dust. It is quite logical, then, that they are not exactly crazy about the whole rangefinder experience.
 
Jamie123 said:
I can't be bothered reading all the posts in this thread so maybe this has been said before.

IMO, there are two groups of people who buy the M9. There are those who want to use a digital M rangefinder and then there are those who want to use Leica lenses. The people over at LL seem to belong to the latter group. They weren't really using M cameras for a long time prior to the digital M (because film sucks, right?) and the only reason they're using the M9 now is because apparently German lenses are sprinkled with fairy dust. It is quite logical, then, that they are not exactly crazy about the whole rangefinder experience.
Click to expand...

Good to see that you have read those articles and the others on LL as well as you have read this thread.
 
wgerrard said:
I agree with the substance of your comment, but not with those two points. Leica certainly has no need to distinguish itself from the "pack". The return on investment prospects for a b&w-only digital Leica have to be very sketchy.

While it is certainly possible for that Leica, someday, may introduce another line of cameras, they have no reason to compete with themselves by selling camera that use M-mount lenses but are cheaper than M-mount Leicas. If Leica decides to bring out a new line of cameras, I'd expect them to roll out a new lens mount, too. (But, I don't really expect that to happen. The digital field is a much more level field in which Leica's traditional selling points count for less than they do in RF-world.)
Click to expand...

I don't think that Leica is the type of company that does not like setting new standards. They have a history of setting themselves above and beyond the pack. They are a proud company, and rightfully so. Others have failed to establish a high quality B&W camera outside of the scientific community. Leica has two things going for them, they have a unique clientele, and they have the perfect system to take advantage of a B&W sensor. The economics may work themselves out, time will tell if this ever happens.

As for the Leica M mount being used. As I have tried to state, I do not know what the camera would look like, but it would not be a competitor with the M9. Those who look to a rangefinder, would not look to this as a substitute. It needs to be quite competitive with the dslr market, and be something that the M is not. I would personally have no interest in it. But, it would seem to appeal to many others who do not like the M9. The M lenses are incredible optical achievements. I think they can be used with a new automated system, and once the time comes a foveon sensor that could exploit the optical qualities of lenses. I think there are people that want M lenses but not the rangefinder. Otherwise, there would not be this discontent for a product that has been hardly available to the general public.

The M9 is the camera for those who have been shooting film rangefinders and wanted a digital alternative. It is not, and I am sure was not intended to be a dslr competitor. Rather, it is an alternative method of capturing photographs, that speaks quite profoundly to some of us. I do not pretend this is something that Leica wants to build or does not want to build. I have no idea. I do believe they built the digital M that they wanted to build. I do not know how many people have been involved in designing and building systems. But, I can tell you that you don't go through all of that work and not produce as close as possible the system that you wanted.

You may very well still disagree with these points. That is the way of life. But, I hope this has made them clearer.

Kindest Regards.
 
Trius said:
Dave: He has a point.
Click to expand...

I'm not so sure about this statement or his. It is only valid if the point of a thread is to give answers to the OP. It is not a valid point if the point of the thread is to engage in a discourse. Opinions without the consideration of others ideas, are of little interest in a discussion forum. Do you really think that Bill's motive is to have a bunch of people throw ideas at him, or does he wish to spark a discussion. I guess we would have to ask him, but I think he seems more interested in an intellectual discourse among the community. This sometimes creates something greater than "i think this - end of story."
 
Hokay, some discussion. The main problem with Leicas shtick at this point is that with digital, the bodies are disposable, technology changes too fast. The next evolution of digital is not 4/3s, it's raw processing. We are converting our raws with 1d lookup tables, unless you shoot fuji's and convert with hyperutility. The difference between 1d and 3d look up tables is that with 3d the hue and saturation of a pixel can be defined independently of it's brightness, and independently of other pixels. It allows much more precise control of color by the manufacturer. I don't know if you guys have seen those full rez downloads of the S2 shots, stunning resolution - jaw dropping. But the model was yellow, very yellow, shot under a standard one light studio setup with correct settings in capture one. Her lip color was spot on but her skin was yellow and her blonde hair was incandescent. If leica cant get skin tone right with a $30,000 camera sans lens under these conditions, why would I buy this over a canon, nikon or phase one?
 
Last edited:
biggambi said:
I'm not so sure about this statement or his. It is only valid if the point of a thread is to give answers to the OP. It is not a valid point if the point of the thread is to engage in a discourse. Opinions without the consideration of others ideas, are of little interest in a discussion forum. Do you really think that Bill's motive is to have a bunch of people throw ideas at him, or does he wish to spark a discussion. I guess we would have to ask him, but I think he seems more interested in an intellectual discourse among the community. This sometimes creates something greater than "i think this - end of story."
Click to expand...

Sure, you're right, it is about the discourse. And I'm happy to start a discourse with anyone who has to say anything about my comment.
 
Leica has been making fine cameras for almost a century, and M-bodies for more than 50 years. They've certainly set a standard for reliability and quality. But, I doubt even their most ardent fans would argue that Leica has a contemporary track record for technological innovations and standards, other than the 35mm RF early in the last century. After all, the M9 is most closely related to the M3.

Leica faces strong market pressure not to alter the basic design of its M line. (Consider the M5's fate: A camera with technological innovations was rejected by Leica's market because it did not look like a traditional M camera.) Buyers look to Leica to improve the tech and the overall quality of the M line, not to innovate it beyond recognition. For Leica, that's both a blessing and a curse.

If Leica brings out a b&w M9, it would, of course, be an M9. However, if Leica chooses to bring out a new line of cameras, using some of the technologies sketched by Hogan, they surely would not want to allow that line to be branded as the newer, cheaper, more capable version of the M camera. They would be foolish to compete with themselves. The surest way to prevent that competition is to use a different lens mount.

Now, admittedly, I think there is a slim chance of that happening, assuming Leica has the in-house production capacity. If, for example, the M4/3 format really takes off, it is conceivable (in the sense that no one really has any idea) that Leica might decide money could be made by rolling out a line of jeweler grade M4/3 cameras.

However, working against that supposition is the fact that the digital market is a different market than the traditional camera market. The digital and electronic parts in all digital cameras are of much the same quality, from the same sources, so Leica's reputation for hand-built quality can't play there. Most consumers expect to replace a digital product long before it actually wears out, in order to take advantage of improved technologies. That may not apply to many of today's M9 buyers, but I think it would to any new line of less costly Leica digitals. That means Leica's reputation for long-term reliability becomes less important. Finally, Leica's reputation for outstanding lens quality might transfer to a new line with new lenses, if Leica could deliver both quality and price.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom