maddoc
... likes film again.
I think it is less the problem of building a DRF at a price to compete with Leica but also building a complete line of lenses at the same time.
There is no special magic to building an optical rangefinder (or even EVF-based system) that works with Leica lenses. Any of the major players could do it in their sleep. It just doesn't make financial sense. They can make a LOT more money doing something else.
rbelyell
Well-known
ive made numerous posts in this thread and never even alluded to a camera that was not a rangefinder, so most of your post is inapposite to my views. its hard to build any kind of digicam. thats assuredly not the reason for the lack of competition in this market. its solely because theres no money in the lenses going forward. no ones gonna make rf lenses anymore. having said that, i repeat, from its inception, the lowly 6mp rd1 has much to recommend it over the many times over more expensive m8. to me, and most who don't suffer from red-dot glaucoma, this proves a very competitive product can easily be put out there. epson did it and they're not even a real camera company for crying out loud! i'm not sure what your 'understanding' about their losing money is based on besides leica-loyalty, or what relevance that has to the quality of the product. only the lack of forward lens sales stops competition, not innate leica engineering know-how. but, i live in hope that one day a 21st century epson will emerge. the we'll see what happens to leica prices/quality.
and btw, i want the digital rf experience, and i chose not to 'suck it up and buy leica'. I've got and am immensely happy with my rd1. and i'll bet you my last dime you couldn't distinguish my results from an m8 in a side by side. as an aside, lest one incorrectly label me anti-leica, all the lenses i use on my rd1 are in fact leica. there, leica quality is imo not disputable.
and btw btw, merry christmas to you!
Godfrey
somewhat colored
I'm glad you like the R-D1. I tried one and was utterly disappointed with it, returned it pretty quickly. For me, the way it worked was beyond clunky and obtuse, and the image quality wasn't up to the standards of my 2004 Pentax *ist DS. I know others who love it too; but this is my experience and my opinion, not a disparagement of the camera or its enthusiasts.
Whether I could tell the difference in your photos is irrelevant. Heck, I bet you couldn't tell the difference between what I shot with my iPhone and what I shot with my M9 once I felt good enough about a photo to post it. This is because good photography transcends the equipment and is most reliant upon the photographer, not the equipment.
If a coming up on ten year old R-D1 is doing the number for you, life is good. After all, my eleven year old Olympus E-1 still does the number for me in several of my photographic endeavors, despite that it isn't a digital rangefinder.
G
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Ricoh did a darn successful job of it building the GXR's M-mount camera unit. Although only APS-C, it's more compatible with more RF lenses across the board than the M8 and M9 are. It is too bad that they didn't continue development on it, but the niche market it was selling to was probably saturated after a year or so of sales. I still have mine, although I haven't used it much since I bought the M9.
G
x-ray
Veteran
One of my complaints about my M9 was how bloated it felt. IMO the feel was nothing like a film M. I'd call it clumsy when you have a difficult time holding it without a grip of thumbs up. Ymmv.
No one has produced a pure RF with M mount because there's a tiny market. I think I read an estimate of 40,000 M9's in 5 years. How many D800's would you say Nikon has produced in 2 years for example? Nikon has all the technology and a fantastic RF to adapt to digital. Neither Nikon or Canon are tiny little startup companies. Nikon has been producing pro digital gear for 15 years. Canon has been in it for close to that.
noimmunity
scratch my niche
Purity-of-execution, for sure.
No-clumsiness? I wonder how those people who contemplated the sight of their base plate firmly attached to their tripod while the rest of the $7000 body lay dented on the ground would feel about that? And that's just the tip of the iceberg, no?
VertovSvilova
Well-known
As others have quite correctly pointed out already, it's not that nobody knows how to, it's that they don't want to. What's the point with such a tiny user base.
Emile de Leon
Well-known
Leica makes money off Rangefinders..
Someone else could too...
Most people would want it as a 2nd cam anyway..just for the experience..
Put bodies out at 2k to 3K..tap into Leicas market..make it in China..
Make it quiet and reliable..
They may have more buyers..worldwide..than anyone suspects..
Not good for Leica's market though..
Someone else could too...
Most people would want it as a 2nd cam anyway..just for the experience..
Put bodies out at 2k to 3K..tap into Leicas market..make it in China..
Make it quiet and reliable..
They may have more buyers..worldwide..than anyone suspects..
Not good for Leica's market though..
aeturnum
Established
I'd hope they would give the option to turn off all the information displayed but since the M240 can't control what frame lines it displays there are no guarantees.
Leica makes money off DRF because their tiny market will accept the high prices they charge.
Put the price at 2k-3k...combined with no associated lens sales...why would would any of these companies bother, when they can sell another 2k-3k product into a significantly larger market, along with lots of lens sales and other accessories, grips, etc?
willie_901
Veteran
willie_901
Veteran
It is physically impossible to be noise free. Who are you to call the color sad?
Emile de Leon
Well-known
Sometimes you do things..just to do em...not because its gonna make you $$$...there are plenty of examples of this..
and.. why not.. put stress on the competition..maybe a lot of stress..
And cameras are not exactly flying off the shelves..esp 7K Leicas..
A $2500- digital M substitute..would be a fun project for any company...make it...just for the fun of it..and to say..yup..we did it...doesn't it look pretty..
Wanna buy it..Leica people..? Wanna...it does more than a Leica M..and is less than 1/2 the cost..try it...you might...like it..or should we say...Leica...it..
aizan
Veteran
i don't have the money to forgo being picky. with the m8, it was the crop factor and purple blacks. with the m9, it was the noisy sensor. with the type 240, it's the new design. and they're all too heavy.
that said, the x type 113 is a built-in evf away from being sort of appealing.
that said, the x type 113 is a built-in evf away from being sort of appealing.
Michael Markey
Veteran
That`s right ...outside of these forums I know no photographer who uses one.
They are often surprised that people are still using RFs ...that`s if they`ve even heard of such a thing.
There is no market ...
nobbylon
Veteran
I honestly don't believe users here or on Leica user forum are the target buyers anyway. Somebody mentioned a figure of 40,000 M9 units and there aren't 40,000 owners on RFF or LUF, far from it however with these forums we are a combined voice on a very search accessible internet.
Where are these 40,000 units? Probably in wealthy hands never getting used?
Leica have already admitted they read all these threads on forums. I bet they do! probably in an attempt to keep the users of these cameras happy because otherwise their actual target customer ie camera jewellery wearer will do a search and find out all the problems and move on to something else.
I dread to think how many sales they've lost because of this latest debacle.
I've actually changed my mind with regard to the M9, yes I'll buy another but as a disposable camera and only when the price hits a €1000. The M8 is already there but I'll wait for a 9
Where are these 40,000 units? Probably in wealthy hands never getting used?
Leica have already admitted they read all these threads on forums. I bet they do! probably in an attempt to keep the users of these cameras happy because otherwise their actual target customer ie camera jewellery wearer will do a search and find out all the problems and move on to something else.
I dread to think how many sales they've lost because of this latest debacle.
I've actually changed my mind with regard to the M9, yes I'll buy another but as a disposable camera and only when the price hits a €1000. The M8 is already there but I'll wait for a 9
Michael Markey
Veteran
I`m sometimes minded that there is no actual target audience for the M.
Its just a kickstarter project for the new Leica company in order to fund much more market orientated cameras.
Given the technical problems which they`ve had already had a result of trying to incorporate the old technology of the lenses and body shape with the requirements of a digital sensor I find it difficult to believe that the M will be a long term objective.
Its just a kickstarter project for the new Leica company in order to fund much more market orientated cameras.
Given the technical problems which they`ve had already had a result of trying to incorporate the old technology of the lenses and body shape with the requirements of a digital sensor I find it difficult to believe that the M will be a long term objective.
nongfuspring
Well-known
I don't have the money, which precludes me from having to make the decision, but if I did I still wouldn't buy one. Reason is I'm just not that attracted to digital Ms, they seem nostalgic and conceited to me, I'd rather buy a film M. I'm far more interested in cameras like the X1 and X2 that found a fully digital means of continuing the traditions of the company but through fully contemporary technology.
oltimer
Well-known
I have a lot of Leica glass, and was ready to jump at one when all this news hit about sensor issues. I'm waiting this out till I see a clear direction on how this all settles, as my glass is made to run as a family member to these cameras.