Luddite Frank
Well-known
Thanks for the info, Stewart !
bukaj
Established
you can just get one of these
ran into someone at a party that had one of these. kinda neat, though no idea why the focal length is 3.85mm.
ran into someone at a party that had one of these. kinda neat, though no idea why the focal length is 3.85mm.
batterytypehah!
Lord of the Dings
Thanks for ever so slightly suggesting that we all live in virtual caves and need Google to stay informed about current events.
Plus, I fail to see how a change in government, even if it does come, will affect Chinese electronics exports to any significant extent.
MC JC86
Negative Nancy.
Is that the iPhones focal length? I know it's around 3mm..
greyelm
Malcolm
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
barnwulf
Well-known
No, I just don't see the point. My Barnacks are wonderful just the way they are. I have more important things to wish for. Jim
dave lackey
Veteran
Well, as an engineer, I would have to disagree about no one being able to actually make one. Engineers sometimes just lag behind before they can actually produce something. It is certainly feasible. Desirable. Interesting.
But is it marketable? Who knows?
Certainly is an interesting thought about Leica having such a void in their digital camera lineup from the bottom end to the top of the line M9. Wonder what they are thinking for the future?
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Dave,
Not, I think, with current technology. Why would the M8 be so much chubbier than an MP if they could get it all in to a 'normal' M body? And an MP is a lot bigger than a Barnack.
One day, quite possibly. But not now.
Cheers,
R.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
Sorry but I still don't get the whole digital Barnack thing. It was the camera that introduced 35mm film to the world of still photography and revolutionised the way people took photographs ... it deserves to be left totally unadulterated IMO!
Sparrow
Veteran
... well I wouldn't mind if they sorted out that clunky shutter release
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
There you have the reason why it won't happen. Why would Leica be interested in that?
It's like people proposing Rolls Royce to make a smaller, less expensive version of the Ghost.
Even without an LCD, it would have to be thicker than a Barnack. You would not have room for the horizontally traveling focal plane shutter. The Barnack is jam-packed as it is, something has to make room for the electronics. A battery could take the room of the film.
SO: once an imaging array can be equipped with a purely electronic shutter integrated into the sensor, you can pick up some size reduction. Until that happens, I do not see how to jam everything required into a Barnack. I'm amazed that Leica jammed so much stuff into the M8 and M9.
SO: once an imaging array can be equipped with a purely electronic shutter integrated into the sensor, you can pick up some size reduction. Until that happens, I do not see how to jam everything required into a Barnack. I'm amazed that Leica jammed so much stuff into the M8 and M9.
dave lackey
Veteran
Agreed. There is always a ramp up time lag for engineers as I mentioned. But can it be engineered? Absolutely. How soon? Who knows until someone pays for the engineering? Engineers are a myopic lot and most have no imagination. It takes those with vision to guide the engineering advances, and, of course, the almighty dollar.
dave lackey
Veteran
Because Nikon and Canon make millions of dollars with a range of cameras in different price ranges. Mercedes has a range of makes with price ranges from highest to lowest, albeit their lowest is not that low for most people. It is called successful marketing.
Niche marketing is different. Leica may not want to go that way. But, I bet you will eventually see a range of digital cameras somewhere between the X1 and the M9.
Even if it is only three cameras: Low range X1, middle price range camera, High range M9. Can't even think of what would be above the M9. For me, I think it is close enough to perfect right now.
Last edited:
dave lackey
Veteran
Keith, couldn't agree with you more.
CGenerally, change is inevitable. Change can be good. But not all things need to change.
Certainly is an interesting thought about Leica having such a void in their digital camera lineup from the bottom end to the top of the line M9. Wonder what they are thinking for the future?
They are thinking about raising all their prices... not new models.
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
I was agreeing and riding on your stated irony.
It usually doesn't translate well on the intertoobes, does it? Just look at the guy who was offended by the suggestion of Googling as a means of restating the obvious, not meant to be addressed seriously.
I tells ya.
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
Someday the Ricoh GR digital shall become a reality.
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
First and foremost, it's a different business model. Leica is not like Nikon and Canon, Leica is like Alpa and Gandolfi.
Rolls Royce won't produce a Silver Shopper just because VW sells some low-end models. The last time Leica tried to make a medium-end camera compatible with their high-end models, it came around and bit them in the rear, because it cannibalized their sale of the latter. They got rid of that business model for good and let the medium-end stuff be handled by Panasonic.
Niche marketing is different. Leica may not want to go that way. But, I bet you will eventually see a range of digital cameras somewhere between the X1 and the M9.
Above the M9 is the S2, the closest Leica has in cameras for a professional market.
Anyway, basically you have a company that sells the smallest full frame 35mm digital camera in the world, a high-end product for $7000. You propose that they produce an even smaller version of it for $4000, after all they can save on the display which you don't need. However, what makes the M9 expensive is not the display (displays are a dime a dozen, there's a high-res display in every better telephone and $500 compact camera). What makes it expensive, apart from the full frame sensor, is the aggregated development cost, spread out across a relatively low number of units, of cramming this sensor into a workable camera package with a small form factor - the only way of making cameras cheaper is selling more of them.
So, proposing that they build a new one that's even smaller for half the money for what is even a more minuscule photographic niche than what's already targeted by the M9 is not realistic. You propose to make it a medium-end camera, but where's the "medium" aspect? No display, netting you $50 or so per camera? A lower-resolution sensor that nets you basically not much more (because what makes sensors expensive is the area, not the pixel count? And how many man-years of German engineers do you have to put into a new full frame camera? If you save $50 on the display and then sell 2000 pieces, how many engineers does it buy you? Does it earn you more than you lose by the dropping dollar? A back-of-the-envelope calculation will show that there is no way to recoup the development cost. And doing all that for something that cannibalizes your sales of an existing camera that is on a good way to recouping its development costs and nets you an extra $3000 more per unit?
It might be done at 1.3x crop, but then you guys will all be up in arms and nobody will buy it. So it's a lose-lose proposition either way.
In other words, it's wishful thinking.
Last edited: