Why the overbuilt digital M is flawed and why we need less expensive alternatives.

DanP said:
I have to disagree. Leica is relatively new in the digital market than Canon/Nikon and its R&D dept is much smaller (various online sources). M9 is very good for what it is and we will only see improvements in future products. Even though I can afford a M9, I will never spend that kind of money on it (personal reasons). Those who want to use will buy it regardless of its price.

And I don't agree that Japanese can't make good lenses, there are some excellent lenses from Canon/Nikon.

Cheers,
Dan.
Click to expand...
Hoary old chestnuts ain't in it...
Their computerized lens production program in the 1950ies was first in the industry when Japan was still using the Abacus, their first digital camera dates from 1991, their electronic partner is Jenoptic, a premier digital imaging company catering mainly for the defense industry, their S2 electronics are partnered with Fujitsu, not a dwarf either, so I fail to see where they are lagging behind. I fear your online sources are the usual ill informed Leica detractors...
 
jaapv said:
Huh? The ZI is a pretty impressive camera in all its variations.
By your book all cameras would be just to hang lenses on....
Zeiss just don't build digital consumer cameras. In fact they do build professional imaging systems of high complexity and quality. I suspect their rangefinder camera/lens line is not much more than a hobby of limited profitability.
Click to expand...

You seem to forget that zeiss don't build the IKON, Cosina build it and Zeiss just designed it with cosina and use the Zeiss name. There is a world of difference between that and Zeiss actually making cameras, especially digital cameras which require constant R&D to keep upto date. In the digital world pixel counting and IQ forces manufacturers to keep upping the bar which costs mega bucks in R&D. With the IKON there has been bugger all R&D since it was released. Some minor tweaks but thats all.

And yes a camera is just light tight box to put film in and hang lenses from. Nothing more. Or at least it was until digital came along. Now its something else because the camera body is resposible for IQ to a large part whereas before it played an important but very simple to implement part in IQ.
That differnece makes R&D for digtal cameras far more more expensive and if you don't keep up with the state of the art you die. The state of the art with film pretty much peaked a long time ago. With digital its still going up. Maybe zeiss will look at it when the state of the art has peaked.
But zeiss don't make cameras for you and me. They make lenses.
 
jaapv said:
Hoary old chestnuts ain't in it...
Their computerized lens production program in the 1950ies was first in the industry when Japan was still using the Abacus, their first digital camera dates from 1991, their electronic partner is Jenoptic, a premier digital imaging company catering mainly for the defense industry, their S2 electronics are partnered with Fujitsu, not a dwarf either, so I fail to see where they are lagging behind. I fear your online sources are the usual ill informed Leica detractors...
Click to expand...

Hmm...you have a point there. But, R&D in other formats doesn't mean R&D in Ms.

Dan.
 
Well, the only essential difference is the mechanical part of the M series and Leica has been developing that since 1935. The electronics can be done by the same engineers as the X1 and S2.
 
tlitody said:
You seem to forget that zeiss don't build the IKON, Cosina build it and Zeiss just designed it with cosina and use the Zeiss name. There is a world of difference between that and Zeiss actually making cameras, especially digital cameras which require constant R&D to keep upto date. In the digital world pixel counting and IQ forces manufacturers to keep upping the bar which costs mega bucks in R&D. With the IKON there has been bugger all R&D since it was released. Some minor tweaks but thats all.

And yes a camera is just light tight box to put film in and hang lenses from. Nothing more. Or at least it was until digital came along. Now its something else because the camera body is resposible for IQ to a large part whereas before it played an important but very simple to implement part in IQ.
That differnece makes R&D for digtal cameras far more more expensive and if you don't keep up with the state of the art you die. The state of the art with film pretty much peaked a long time ago. With digital its still going up. Maybe zeiss will look at it when the state of the art has peaked.
But zeiss don't make cameras for you and me. They make lenses.
Click to expand...
No - they make high end professional and military imaging systems and the lens part (made in Japan as well, probably in the same plant as the CV lenses) and camera division are just a minor sideline. Zeiss has no problem keeping up with digital developments - the create them themselves. They just have no interest in returning a loss on an extremely small market share of the camera market.
 
jaapv said:
No - they make high end professional and military imaging systems and the lens part (made in Japan as well, probably in the same plant as the CV lenses) and camera division are just a minor sideline. Zeiss has no problem keeping up with digital developments - the create them themselves. They just have no interest in returning a loss on an extremely small market share of the camera market.
Click to expand...

So you are saying they won't make a digital rangefinder for you and me. I think that's what I said.
 
Yes - that is what Zeiss said about a year ago -extensively discussed in the forums. They decided they cannot compete on price with Leica.
 
I don't think the M9 is overbuilt or flawed, but less expensive alternatives would certainly be welcome. A digital Zeiss Ikon or Bessa or Hexar would likely be less expensive than the M9. A digital rangefinder Nikon or Canon would be very sweet.
 
If the M9 was cheap, every guy out there with an SLR will have an M9 too. I've always used Leica because of their great rangefinders, and yes the exclusivity helps, and especially these days the exclusivity means even more. People in general are spending much more than they ever have on cameras, so the price point is about right, even though ridiculously expensive. I see way too many people out there with high end SLR's they use to shoot flowers and what not, costing somewhere around $5.5K, so Leica's M9 price is about right where it should be. I feel fortunate to own one, and yes feel for those 'real enthusiasts' that cannot meet the price point, where there are people just buying them because they can.

I've had zero issues with mine, so far, fingers crossed.
 
popeye said:
No offense, but I won't read any of that simply because it makes my head hurt trying to read it, please insert breaks for it's far too long for one paragraph.

Regards,

Popeye
Click to expand...

that's just SO damn funny when you sign it "popeye" :D
 
i'm not so sure that it's "flawed." (well, i guess every camera has limitations and, thus, is flawed.) but i do think there will be other options, in the form of other "bases" upon which to strap fine leica lenses, in years to come. of course, there are some options now (e.g., EP1 or 2; GF1), but i haven't experimented in that direction.
 
Last edited:
JenOptik was Zeiss Jena of former East Germany...set adrift after the German reunification. Jena makes all sort of optical instruments, including large (23x23cm aerial film cameras) and small (70mm) cameras, but their software was always lacking. Their "micro-electronics" is a butt of jokes in our industry.

JenOptik built an aerial scanner called JAS-150 and immediately got into a lawsuit with the other Leica (Leica Geosystem @ Heerbrugg) only recently settled.

Leica @ Wetzler is Leica MicroSystem, microscope maker formerly a division of Wild-Heerbrugg whose owner also owned E. Leitz Cameras after Ernst died. The real estate at Wetzler was redeployed while M4-2 production was moved to Midland.

Leica @ Solms was sold to Herr Kaufmann and soon the M8/9 was born.

Zeiss makes all kinds of digital cameras that most have never heard of or ever seen. Their latest is the RMK-DX 131Mp monolithic chip aerial camera ($1 million++). The 11,200 x 11,700 7.2u chip came from Dalsa of Canada. Zeiss also built the first composite chip aerial camera model DMC in 2000; 8,000x14,000@12u.

I smiled when JenOptik is mentioned and laughed when many believed that Zeiss do not or cannot build cameras. It is true Zeiss was out of the consumer small camera business for decades, but look up a Zeiss RMK-A or RMK-TOP 23x23cm roll film aerial camera.
 
We have had this discussion over and over again. The M system has it's limitations. Like the low total volume. Only a fraction of any of the big SLR brands. It is also difficult to make a good sensor for it. Due to the sharp angle of light hitting the sensor corners. These two obstacles makes it a difficult and expensive to make a good digital M.

Then one can wonder if a AF-less camera system will survive the future. When all us old guys that makes out the core of the Leica users are dead, - that can't be long now, then 'all' the buyers want only AF cameras. -If they want cameras at all. Since by then cameras come built in to phones, watches, tie and jogging shoes, I am sure.
 
everyone has made good point, but to repetition as stated .....

heres some fodder for rumor: Leica gave Mr K a VERY large check to keep his hands off the digital RF game so Leica could clean house with the M9 sales and salvage the Leica brand and heritage

.... and now with Photokina and the anticipated M9.2, what will the price be? has to be more than $7000 ..... and I assume they will contiinue to offer the M9 for another year, given the demand and back orders .............
 
I agree with the OP. Leica is in a tough spot. The build quality, form factor etc is essential for their brand image and customer loyalty of a significant portion of their buyers, but the engineering (and as a consequence, price) of the M9 is overkill relative to the obsolescence rate of a digital body in the current market. Granted, an M9 will continue to perform equally well after its replacement is out. But its price on the used market will take a big hit. At a price of $7000, the potential loss for a 50% decrease of the resale price is $3500, more than the price for a brand new Canon 5D or Nikon D700, two excellent performers in terms of image quality.

Given my limited budget, this has stopped me from buying a digital companion to my M6. For digital shooting, I grab my second hand 5D. I am sure I am not alone with that line of reasoning, and this is costing Leica much needed sales.

Which is why I believe Leica is facing a complex issue today. Some of us are willing to pay for the second to none leica build quality, even with the short market cycle of digital products. Others, like me would prefer a cheaper (and certainly less attractive) alternative. How can Leica satisfy both class of buyers, given their size and limited development and production capacity ?
 
jsrockit said:
I would imagine that Zeiss and Voigtlander versions would be very expensive as well.
Click to expand...

Well, using the lens pricing as an analogy, the Zeiss Digital body would cost around half of the price of Leica M9 and similarly a Voigtländer digital body only quarter of the price of M9.

I would think that at least Voigtländer priced like that would stir quite an interest among serious photographers.

Jukka Tikkanen
 
eleskin said:
I love film, and If I were starting in photography, I would learn the darkroom first in that it makes one a better digital photographer.
Click to expand...

Four years of serious DSLR photography made me a better film photographer because I don't need the instant digital feedback so often anymore.
 
I'm not so sure Leica needs to do anything differently. Sure, these are expensive tools that lose value over time. However, why would they just make their brand cheaper just because they will get outdated? Plenty of expensive film cameras lost their value ...even though the can still be used today.

Nobody seems to care when it comes to cars....expensive ones lose value as well and eventually become outdated / out of fashion and their owners no longer care selling them for a fraction of the price. Sure, some enthusiests will use older cars and rebuild them, but most regular people junk them after they rot to ****. The M9 will still be a beautiful camera in 10 years and will still be usable at that time as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom