Rant...Why?

> Cannon made a 50mm 0.95 for the SP in the ‘70s.

 

They did? Why would Canon bring out a lens for a Nikon rangefinder?

 

I think the OP meant the Canon 7. Nikon had a 5cm F1.1 lens for the SP. The Canon 50/0.95 on a Canon 7 is twice

as heavy as the SP with the 50/1.1.The Canon lens was introduced in the early 1960s.

 

Although, I'm betting the Canon 50/1.2 RF lens in LTM could be adapted to my Nikon SP. Yank the optics out of the

focus mount and put an internal bayonet mount on it for the Nikon.

Why Morton, I suppose you wouldn't be the first person to go off and spend thousands of dollars on equipment based on what is essentially a marketing campaign about an elusive mindset that really doesn't have any thing to do with getting good pictures. I wonder what would have happened if Mr. P was talking about jumping off a cliff.

 

But again...what is this mysterious "mind set"?

This is hilarious how some people fret about other people's money. Must be some sort of control thing. What a laugh.

Great civilised discussion. As an ex R8 user who would love to head back that way I have many reservations about the M8 but might I add a point. Leica built its repuation on well built, reliable bodies matched with superb glass. Technically (not artisticalyl) all that really mattered in getting a good photograph was the glass and the film. The film was not a Leica product. Its replacement, the sensor and all of teh software is now an intergral part of the camera and is part of leica's repsonsibility and greatly influences the end result. You coudl say that Leica has had to double its role and responsibities and that is a massive overhead for a small company, especially when the technology is so fast moving. Previously you could build a body and it's production was good for years but no longer. I suspect few invetsors are prepared to put money into Leica without it making big changes. the branding is fantastic but it could well be destroyed by mass production.

Well Ken, I don't know if your post was in response to mine above it, but if so, you miss the point..what is this elusive mindset that was being suggested. Its been expounded before. Is it an idea simply borrowed from a piece of marketing literature, or a reviewer's article, or is it something that Morton has experienced himself? Its a fair question. And I'm just curious as to what this "mindset' is.

 

Anyone can spend their money anyway they want, who cares, one can except any hype they choose, but just wondering if one developed this mindset before laying out tons of cash. I think Ken, it just sort of goes to the credibility of the idea. If you promote the idea, but can't explain it it kind of makes it difficult to know what one is talking about or if one knows what they are talking about. Then again, if you weren't referring to my post just above yours...than never mind.

I think the defining issue of our times is that Radical anti-Leica extremists are hell bent on destroying our forum. It's our

forum, right or wrong. Forum first!

Barry Hi

 

The mindset that was mentioned refers not to cameras or marketing but to thinking about what the photographs to

be taken are to be used for, and the circumstances they are taken in.

 

If you were a sports or news photographer it would silly and very difficult [ but not impossible ] to use a

camera other than a Canon or Nikon type machine gun SLR, which would not be the first choice of camera to use if

asked to record a wake, where a rangefinder would be more approriate - but once again any camera 'could' be used.

 

If you were taking fine art or, say interiors of isolated/empty churches the choice would probably go to

somthing along the lines of a medium format camera, although once again, any camera could be used, and if just

walking around hoping to see something worth photographing then another type may be preferrable - such as a

rangefinder or P& S, but once again any camera could be used with varying degrees of comfort or suitability.

 

Is it still true that photography in US Courts is allowed as long as rangefinders are used?

 

A mindset, in my opinion, is just that, the decision made by a photographer as to what camera to use for any

particular photographic task and situation, and marketing hype doesn't even come into the equation, but of course

this may not be understood or thought about if only one type of camera is owned.

 

Regards

 

Bruno

I shot Canon SLRs (AE-1, EOS) and bought an absolutely beaten up M6 secondhand and loved it. Sadly had to sell it to finance an EOS 300D.

 

The problem Leica have is that they are a lens maker. In the good old days you had companies making film and companies making lenses. The camera body was a light proof tin to mount the lens on and keep the film nice and dark. The game has changed. Now the camera body itself has become the film and an essential part of the process - and you need to be an electronics manufactucturer, or become one. Hardly any companies have the cash to play in this space. The only traditional camera makers really at the party are Canon and Nikon. The only people likely to challenge them are electronics giants - Sony, Samsung, Casio, Panasonic.

 

Sad perhaps but true. It's not just Leica, it's Olympus, Pentax, Minolta.

 

Lecia unfortunately are in the invidious position of trying to persuade people to part with £3,000 for a body. Too rich for most people's blood. You have to either love your legacy Leica glass or be a collector of expensive gizmos to be interested. The only way to save the company, imho, is to produce a cheap M body (caould be manual everything) with a decent third party sensor. That could drive new lens sales. Otherwise they are left with the recent direction of selling their brand to put on slightly cr@ppy Panasonic point and shoots. And that will only last until the name is not really worth anything any more.

 

Ironically, the closest thing to a Leica body now is probably the Canon 5D - the cheapest way to mount good glass on a full frame light proof box.

 

(I'm too scared to even read that back it's so long and boring.)

<i>I think that Canon (or Sony or Nikon) should make a digital rangefinder. They have such a huge advantage in technology and manufacturing it should be no problem to design a RF.They should be able to make a low end one for around the cost of the rebel or at least xxD series and they would be able to sell them like hotcakes.</i><p>

I doubt they would sell many. In the 1950-1960's people chose the SLR over the rangefinder. Nikon, Canon, and many other companies that made rangefinders stopped making them because their SLR line was selling more. Explain to me why in 2008 a digital rangefinder will do well when most people decided in the 60's that they preferred the SLR. I can get a D40 and kit lens for $430. Even if the rangefinder and lens was at that price people would still choose the SLR. Canon and Nikon might be able to profitably make a digital rangefinder but they have decided that they can maximize their profits by putting their R&D into the SLR and P&S cameras. I say this as someone who owns 3 rangefinders and 5 SLRs. Personally I would buy a digital rangefinder for $1000 but I doubt there are many of us who would. Photography forums are echo chambers, they don't represent most consumers. Only 1 of my friends has ever even heard of Leica and NONE of them knew what a rangefinder was.<p>

Now if you just want a smaller camera with large sensor I think we will see those in the near future. Nikon expert Thom Hogan says that multiple companies are coming out with compact cameras with APS-C sized sensors. Today dpreview has a preview of the new Panasonic micro 4/3 camera. It replaces the SLR mirror/viewfinder with an electronic viewfinder but still has interchangeable lenses. Many people call these EVIL cameras (Electronic Viewfinder Interchangeable Lenses) I think we are going to see a lot more of these.

Indeed, Leica's future may be in making Leica lenses for the Panasonic micro-4/3 bodies, or collaborating with Panasonic to make Leica M to Micro 4/3 adapters.

From a market perspective, the RF is dead. Sure, some people still use and collect them, touting believed superior

performance - just like vinyl albums, tube amps, and $2K interconnect 2 meter cables.

 

Why would canon/nikon ever want to invest $$$$ in a market that's essentially dead? That'd be nutz. Would be an

extremely poor allocation of resources and make zero business sense from an ROI standpoint.

I do not think any new model, even if well designed and carefully priced, could turn Leica into a big player. They used to have three main source of pride:

(1) excellent lens quality, which immediately translated into excellent image quality

(2) excellent life-lasting body reliability

(3) smaller dimension and unobstruniveness with respect to SLR.

Furthermore,

(4) RF use involves a wholly different workflow from SLR, which may be considered either an advantage or a disadvantage.

Thus, as Ben O'Bryan and Robert Prendergast just pointed out, Leica has a real problem. In the digital world, at least one half of the image quality (roughly speaking) is due to sensor and electronics. In such field Leica has neither a long standing tradition nor the kind of money required for huge R&D activities, and thus there is no reason to think they can be better than anybody else. This means that the lens quality advantage (1) could no longer be enough to get the best image quality.

Furthermore, in any electronic industry profits are always related to continuous upgrades. Thus, advantage (2), (human)life-long reliability, is of little use assuming a 3-5 years (camera)lifespan. Advantage (4), smaller dimension and unobstruniveness, looks really weak, and will become weaker and weaker, if anyone thinks about the size of entry-level DSLR or the possiblity offered by concepts like Micro Four Thirds. Advantage (4), RF experience, is always there for those who loves it, but fifty years history has proved that these are a small niche, even if often highly qualified. Epson experience, and the lack of any other commercial alternative, is quite a definitive proof of that.

Do not forget that official Leica financial reports show that in 2007-8 nearly one half of the camera sale value come from rebadget Panasonic, and during the first term of 2008 sales were reduced from 44 to 27 millions euro due to "reduced sales of the M system and of digital compact cameras, resulting from delays in the introduction of new products". Could Leica and/or Leica customers afford a continuous upgrade of M8 pro level cameras?

Thus, prices that in another thread were superficially judged 'insane', limited editions and appeal to boutique luxury buyers and all the like are simply necessary to keep the brand alive, and technology development rate (full frame or anything else) will always be extremely slow. Do not forget that Leica may often suffer from financial troubles, but is the only surviving German camera maker, so their CEO probably are not as silly or blind as someone believes: simply they have little or no alternatives. Leica could never offer 'affordable' prices or edge cutting electronic technology, simply because they need to redistribute increasing R&D costs among a shrinking number of customer.

Wow, this subject has to receive an award for repetitivity, fixed focus (why can't Leica bring out an M8 with FF sensor) and

ho-hum! Do the posters read the PN Google site for similar questions and answers before posting?

 

Are paradigms the hallmark of the Leica forum?

just curious, if anyone here actually owns/uses an M8. As i said earlier, i've only had mine a couple of days,

and it's everything i hoped it would be- basically an m7 that takes a memory card- 188 shots (for a 2GB card) as opposed to 36 at a time. I

had it set up and shooting about 5 minutes after i took it out of the box, without reading the instructions. It is expensive, but then so is film

and processing these days (Like everything else here in dirty Dublin)- I figure it'll pay for itself in 2 years at most.

I think Brad has a secret stash of Leicas in his closet. I know for sure Barry has three of those buggers, so I have no idea

what his argument is about.

Tom, Markus Hartel just got one. His work is here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/mhartel/

 

He also has a 5D, GRD, DP1 and other designs. Kind of an inclusive "whatever works and whatever I feel like" kind of

guy. I think he just loves photography. And gadgets that make photography. Nothing at all wrong with that.

Cheers Ray. Whyncha lose that crappy 5d and come across to the dark side? :)

Oh. Ok. I think I got it.

 

So Morton: you have permission to spend your money any way you want. But since you choose to buy an M8 we're worried you've lost your marbles.

 

I think this can be fixed if you talk to your shrink and get him to write you a prescription for an M8. Take said prescription and a wad of cash to your Leica dealer.

 

:-))

<I>Ray . , Sep 12, 2008; 06:09 a.m.

I think the defining issue of our times is that Radical anti-Leica extremists are hell bent on destroying our forum. It's our

forum, right or wrong. Forum first!</I><br>Ray, have you considered running for President? I'd vote for you. These

discussions don't move our photography forward an inch. It's just turned into noise.

Last 5d shot, first M8 shot, excuse the self indulgence, but c'mon, it's not like this thread is actually going anywhere.

<center><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3138/2850940907_70531ae0aa_o.jpg"><br><i> </i></

center>

Brad wrote; "...Sure, some people still use and collect them, touting believed superior performance - just like

vinyl albums, tube amps, and $2K interconnect 2 meter cables..."

 

Yes, there is elitism and a certain amount of "audiophile voodoo" attached to tube electronics and high-end

interconnects - just as there is with some Leica owners.

 

However, working professionals have different requirements than serious amateurs who appreciate and use the same

product, but under very different conditions.

You wouldn't attempt to navigate a sailboat across the Atlantic with a $6 watch (yes, it tells the same

time as a Rolex - but that's missing the point), or take a Canon 5D into an extreme environment (Iraq / hurricane

Ike).

 

As someone who uses a lot of tube equipment daily, when you need that particular hammer, elitism isn't the

issue; Getting the job done - whether capturing an iconic photo or musical performance - is the only thing that

matters.

If the same results and reliability could be achieved with less expensive tools, we'd do it.

 

Other than one post with a link to a working war photographer's review of the M8 (worth reading), this discussion

seems to have shifted to elite consumer vs mass produced budget goods - demonstrating how the market for what

were original specialty tools has shifted.

<center><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3207/2850908093_7f45e67e5b_o.jpg"><br><i> </i></

center>

Several strange assumptions. The auto companies don't start from scratch and produce new models every 6 months or a year or so. Development takes substantially longer to design the vehicle, procure the the parts, set up the tooling and finally go into production. They have the resources like size and organization to be doing these things in parallel to current product lines. Same thing with the mass production camera companies. Leica and the like aren't in the same kind of business. There is no reason they couldn't be but it's a discipline and a process and even changing to that kind of culture would take time.

 

The rangefinder with detailed and skilled and slow and expensive handwork may be a small part of he market. A quiet and reasonably compact with high quality glass is not an undesired product. But there needs to be a lot of demand to overcome the costs of development and production.

Leica has done exactly what the first person who posted asked for: They've developed a diverse series of digital cameras for every possible budget with PANASONIC. If that's what you want, it's right there before your eyes. I assume Leica is making money with this arrangement; I assume Panasonic has no idea how to make a quality lens. The M8 camera was designed for us. A custom designed digital camera for people who like Leica M lenses and begged for a high quality digital camera worthy of the lenses. Leica will give you one but you have to pay for it. If you don't have the money, get a panasonic/leica camera. I have grown weary of this kind of complaining post on this forum, so I only read the last entries with the photographs (a strength of this forum). So, if someone already said this, I second them.