Leica M Edition 60: 'Pure Photography' as the Df should have been done?

<p><< Real professionals will totally ignore it, as will anyone else that isn't still living in the last century ........>></p>

<p>Hmmm. I'm not a real professional but do think it's kind of cool. I was wishing Nikon made something small and simple like my Leica IIIc, but they didn't. I just love that little camera and the way it handles. Instead, Nikon makes a big clunky thing. I have some 1930s German photo annuals (Das Deutsche Lichtbild) that show a hand holding a Leica, with the caption, "Leica, gut in der Hand!" Why didn't they make something like that? Oh wait, Olympus did.</p>

<p>As for still living in the past century, hell I'm still living in the 19th century. :-)</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p><div></div>

<p>There was a time where the 24x34 or 24x36 fims cameras were the "compacts". They won against every other thing in the PJs market, used to Graphics, Rolleis, etc. At that time, the image quality of this "compacts" were also ridiculized by the "sensor" size of the "good old ones". Portability was the key.</p>

<p>Now, there are dozens of small digital cameras that fit inside a hand, capable of a image quality that exceed that on primitive Leicas, amongst others. Those who use to visit vintage and classic photographer`s exhibitions knows it; looks like perfect exposure and focus were not something so common and easy to achieve... many of the well know master`s pics are absolutely out of focus or blown, or underexposed. (Sometimes the master should have been the printer, not the photographer... :).</p>

<p>BTW, collector`s items are not always sensed; commemorative cameras have to be somewhat silly, simply because they have to be different, they aren`t real tools. They just need to be beautiful, rare, expensive. I have some corporate gifts that are absolutely silly, with no other ultility than... who knows. The first who came to my mind, an expensive watch with a flat, plain, blank dial, almost useless.</p>

<p>But I use to think that real, valuable "collector`s items" are not this ones; a "real" M2 could be a "real" collector item, the value will depend on the quantity of units and its condition. A D810 camera will be not a valuable "collector`s item" right now, but maybe in fifty years... Leica use to made products just to be collector`s items from its release, I find it somewhat absurd. This is the way I see it.</p>

<p>"....but do think it's kind of cool." - Cool enough to shell out nearly 20 grand for?</p>

<p>I didn't think so.</p>

<p>20K would get you a nice Fuji 6x9cm folding rollfilm rangefinder with enough cash left over for a roll of film or two. The slightly bigger-than-Leica sized body is more than made up for by the much-better-than-Leica image quality. Or you could get the new Leica M-P for about 1/3rd the price and slap a strip of gaffer tape over the sapphire display.</p>

<p>If Leica can get some publicity and turn a decent profit on these 'concept cameras' then good luck to them. Like Shun says in the first reply to this thread, this camera is designed for the white glove brigade - whether it's a practical tool is pretty much irrelevant. It's more of a shame that the pricing of their bread and butter items is so stratospheric - their 50 f/2 goes for £1750 nowadays, a price so crazy that they've launched a 50 f/2.5 'starter' lens (similar design, but artificially slow and a little smaller for product differentiation), yours for a mere £1200. Only their 'sports optics', though expensive, do not have prices completely out of touch with their high-end competition - birders and other binocular users seem to be less susceptible to the Leica Mystique than photographers...</p>

<p><<A D810 camera will be not a valuable "collector`s item" right now, but maybe in fifty years... >></p>

<p>I have some doubts that something like a D810 will ever be a collector's item. There are several reasons I think that. First, I have to question if any of these electronic cameras will even be functioning fifty years from now. Cameras have to be in working order and usuable to bring much interest to collectors. Second is there are so many of them made. Keep in mind that not all Leicas bring all that much money. The IIIf was made in big Post War quantities and ones in good working order rountinely bring only $200--250.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p>For something to be a collector's item, the #1 criterion is that it has to be rare, such that those super rich collectors can brag about owning one to their fellow elite collectors who don't. Therefore, as soon as they tell you that it is a limited edition with only a few hundred to one to two thousand units produced, it is a clear sign of a collector's item. The fewer units produced, the more collectable it is.</p>

<p>See this story I posted in 2006 and why a very wealthy collector spent $2 million to buy and rare stamp and immediately burned it into ashes: http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00H7ns</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I recall that about 10 years ago, there was some rare stamp from the 19th century on auction. At the time there were only 2 known ones left in the world. The person who won the auction spent like 2, 3 million dollars. It turned out that he was the owner of the other one. As soon as he got the stamp, he destroyed it immediately so that the one he had was the only sample left. That is the mentality of rich collectors.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Therefore, this Leica M Edition 60 is really just a piece of art work/jewelry that resembles a digital camera, intended for the super rich.</p>

<p>I sure am glad that Nikon mainly produces practical cameras for daily photography, rather than going down Leica's path to make one collector's item after another. Frankly, that is something only a few elite German/European brands can do; Nikon wouldn't be able to even though they wanted to, although Nikon occasionally has some special editions as described in that 2006 thread, mostly targeted for Japanese collectors.</p>

<p>To be fair on Leica, the collector's item market must account for only a tiny fraction of their production. It's just that even their regular range sells for what would be collector's item prices from any other brand. Even the overpriced 58 f/1.4 AFS, Nikon's entry into the luxury prime market targeted by Zeiss, is only about half the price of Leica's 50 f/1.4. The only current Nikon dSLR I can see becoming collectable is the Df, and then only if it's not replaced when they discontinue it. The same would go for any lenses that go out of production without direct replacements as Nikon moves entirely to AFS (e.g. the DC primes may not be replaced).</p>

<p>If Nikon would make a simple camera like the Nikon FM (same size) and if that would require that they remove the back screen, autofocus etc, like this Leica, then I would be interested. I would use it along side with my DF with my manual Nikkor lenses. </p>

<p>It would be difficult to make it the same size. It would have to be thicker than the FM.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"If Nikon would make a simple camera like the Nikon FM (same size) and if that would require that they remove the back screen, autofocus etc, like this Leica, then I would be interested. I would use it along side with my DF with my manual Nikkor lenses."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's potentially possible with an enlarged and modified version of the Nikon V1. The original V1 feels remarkably like a conventional SLR - which isn't necessarily a good thing. I added a Flipbac rubber finger grip to improve handling.<br>

<br>

The V1 EVF is quite good, lacking only some form of manual focus confirmation - focus peaking, or a focus sensor bracket changing from red to green, etc. The buffer clears pretty quickly and the viewfinder blackout isn't much worse than a typical SLR mirror blackout. Nikon could tweak the system to virtually eliminate any EVF blackout.<br>

<br>

I'd be willing to do without the rear LCD in exchange for keeping the EVF to review photos just to be sure I got the shot. The V1 gets pretty warm with the rear LCD on and it drains the battery, so I usually disable the rear screen anyway to save juice. However it is occasionally useful for odd angle snaps in crowded locations. But that could be done the old fashioned way - guesstimating with a wide angle, stopped down and zone focused. Many of us did that for years with film cameras too.<br>

<br>

A DX sensor might make it more palatable to potential customers who disliked the notion of the CX format. And, despite being a fan of the V1, I am occasionally disappointed in the noisy high ISO performance, which isn't much better than a 1/1.7" teensy sensor P&S digicam.<br>

<br>

But it may not satisfy folks who'd prefer a conventional optical prism viewfinder. I'm just toying around with the notion of modifying existing designs. And for a very basic manual everything digital camera, I'd prefer a quieter body without the need for a flipping mirror. I'd rather have an optical viewfinder/rangefinder akin to the Contax G or Konica Hexar AF, but that may not be economically practical either.<br>

<br>

And if it cost more than $1,000 it'd be DOA. Nikonistas are a stiffnecked hidebound, curmudgeonly bunch of traditionalists and history shows they tend to shun any of Nikon's more imaginative offerings, especially when the price is higher than the competition's - notably and most recently the Coolpix A compared with the Ricoh GR.</p>

Pure Photograph is captured upside down and backwards under a dark cloth while employing movements and

exposing film that you loaded by hand in bag that fills up with your perspiration. Anything that uses a viewfinder or automatically

advancing frames isn't Pure Photography.

 

That said, I'm not a Pure Photography snob. I use my modern, mechanized, computerized, brilliantly engineered D800E every single day,

and I never lose a wink of sleep over its blatant impurity.

<p>So. Looking at the images, the "M Edition 60" doesn't appear to be appreciably thinner than any other Leica. Yes, the LCD takes up some space, but it's generally only a couple of mm these days - it won't significantly affect the size of a camera which already has a mirror box in the way, and likely not an M-mount camera either. Compacts, maybe. I do find it ironic that the M-A can do the ground glass trick that the older Leicas could do, meaning that it's actually more capable of live view than the M60...<br />

<br />

I appreciate I'm not in the target market, but I maintain the press release picture of the M60 looks like really bad CGI (it may have been a photo that has be photoshopped badly, but it looks like someone spent an afternoon in Blender) and the images of one being handled on dpreview make it look like a plastic Mamiya 7 - so I'm not seeing the beauty that Robin does, though I never saw the beauty in a Df either. I guess these things are allowed to be subjective.</p>

 

<blockquote>Nikonistas are a stiffnecked hidebound, curmudgeonly bunch of traditionalists</blockquote>

 

<p>Hey! I resemble that remark! (Seriously, I've been trying to get Nikon to fix their handling for years. I want <i>some</i> changes. I'd have accepted the radical departure of the Df if I'd been persuaded that the handling changes helped me.)</p>

<p>Ok, so monitors are free to be taken off of digital camera's. High time they put a monitor on a film camera, Aye? If monitors are so important, and adhering to their function, there's no reason why a monitor should be exclusive to digital camera's. So why not?</p>

<blockquote>

<p> 50 f/2 goes for £1750 nowadays, a price so crazy that they've launched</p>

</blockquote>

<p>What about the Zeiss Otuses? Also ridiculously priced.</p>

<p>The price rises instigated with the Kaufmann regime are transforming Leica from an embattled company to a profitable one. The collectors' editions are just that: for rich people who collect beautiful things or things with mystique. They simply generate extra cash and cachet for the brand: they are not really meant to be used. They simply help the bottom line. The high prices for the rest of their goods are there to ensure a sufficient profit margin to still continue to operate. The important thing is that they are enough buyers to make it all work. The digital Leicas Ms are successes as far as the company is concerned, and the revamped series of ultra-expensive and often very fast optics have maintained the M-Leica as an impressive system-albeit at a high price. The S system is impressive, period. I also think their designs are beautiful and it is good to see them taking such care with design again.</p>

<p>It also bears saying that just because a person can buy a Leica does not invalidate them as a photographer, which is seems to be often rather smug assumption from many of the Nikon users here. In fact, I would suggest that the % of total Nikon users who have wasted their money on high end Nikons is probably very similar to those who are simply rich and wasted their money on buying Leicas (as opposed to those who really know how to use them).</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>What about the Zeiss Otuses?</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Costs a lot, manual focus only, but no macro or tilt-shift capability - I can't think of a single reason to own an Otus except for bragging rights. <br>

<br>

What are you going to use it for? Portraits? Why bother when you're going to soften the sharpness of the final image? Sports? Not long enough. PJ? Optical overkill for handheld shooting and no VR or AF.</p>

<p>I could buy and set up a studio for 19,000.00 +tax</p>

I like the ISO wheel. That thing is giant.

<blockquote>What are you going to use it for? Portraits? Why bother when you're going to soften the sharpness of the final image?</blockquote>

 

<p>The reason the fastest 50mm I own is a cheap f/1.8 is that I don't like the corner softness of the 50 f/1.4 AF-D or (older) Sigma and I don't like the LoCA or bokeh of the 50 f/1.4 AF-S. The Otus - and to a lesser extent the cheaper Sigma Art - do reduce the sharpness and LoCA issues, though I'm not 100% convinced on the bokeh. Why would you ever use a 50mm? Well, I actually usually don't (I prefer either to go wide or go long), but sometimes it's the right perspective, and I'm in no position to argue with HCB. As for hand-held shooting, it's really not that difficult to limit camera shake if you've got a usable f/1.4-f/2 to play with - the biggest problem may be missing the focal plane. I believe Zeiss when they say the Otus is differentiated by the kind of tolerances only possible in manual focus and by a lot of manual calibration, so it costs them a lot to make it. It really <i>is</i> measurably "better" for some uses - however rare - than the F-mount alternatives. So is my 200 f/2. So long as they're selling, and I don't believe just to collectors, it's hard to argue with the business model.<br />

<br />

I actually missed (until yesterday) that Leica had updated some lenses for Photokina. I must investigate.</p>

 

<blockquote>High time they put a monitor on a film camera, Aye? If monitors are so important, and adhering to their function, there's no reason why a monitor should be exclusive to digital camera's. So why not?</blockquote>

 

<p>The problem isn't putting the monitor in, it's getting the film out of the way. Arguably it's an option for medium format with interchangeable backs. You could do something like the Olympus E330, with a secondary image sensor for live view. It'd be interesting, but I'm not sure about the market. For Leica, what would be a really good idea is providing some <i>optical</i> way to see through the lens without the film being in the way. :-)</p>

 

<blockquote>It also bears saying that just because a person can buy a Leica does not invalidate them as a photographer, which is seems to be often rather smug assumption from many of the Nikon users here.</blockquote>

 

<p>There are lots of people who own Leicas and know how to use them. Indeed, probably more than own low-end DSLRs, because some technical ability is required to get any image at all. And yes, I own an (old) Leica lens, though for my Bessa rather than for a full-price Leica rangefinder. Rangefinders have their place. For the purposes of this discussion, I've nothing against the M-A as a collector's item (unless Leica claim in replaces the M7); the M60 equally seems more preposterous and attention-grabbing than useful. The Df is - I really hope - supposed to be used. So I'm not going to buy any argument that these cameras were what Nikon should have done with the Df. Particularly, <i>no</i>, they shouldn't have left off the LCD (or stopped it shooting anything but raw), which seems to be the question to hand. Yes, it would have reduced the number of external dials on the Df (no exposure compensation, unless I'm confused) and it would have avoided the need for a menu for white balance, among other things. But these things are actually useful.<br />

<br />

I've plenty of disagreements with the design that Nikon came up with for the Df. Partly, I don't really want the compromise over my normal way of handling a camera that the Df provides in order to solve a problem that I don't really have with my existing DSLRs - but I acknowledge that others <i>do</i> have genuine handling issues which the Df tries to solve. (I have <i>other</i> handling issues with my D800, but the Df doesn't help them.) I do think it was possible to solve the problems that the Df tried to solve in a way which was less of a compromise for normal shooting. I don't think the Df does everything that it tries to do very well (especially the pre-AI lens support and the shutter speed dial). And I do think Nikon might have made more money by making a more conventional camera with similar capabilities. But "doing an M60" would have been worse still.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>What about the Zeiss Otuses? Also ridiculously priced.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Indeed they are, though they've been priced this way (as a niche product) from the start - anyone thinking of buying something like this knows what they're getting into, and can choose much more reasonably priced alternatives from the camera makers and even from Zeiss.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The price rises instigated with the Kaufmann regime are transforming Leica from an embattled company to a profitable one. The collectors' editions are just that: for rich people who collect beautiful things or things with mystique. They simply generate extra cash and cachet for the brand: they are not really meant to be used. They simply help the bottom line.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, I agree.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>The high prices for the rest of their goods are there to ensure a sufficient profit margin to still continue to operate. The important thing is that they are enough buyers to make it all work.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It clearly works for Leica as a company, though that's pretty much irrelevant to the potential (and former) customers who now find themselves priced out of the market. It's like caring about the fortunes of Cartier or Patek-Philippe. A decade ago, that 50/2 was a £600 lens. Now it's nearly triple that. Over the same period the prices of basic prime lenses from Nikon that haven't been replaced by newer formulas or AFS versions have barely shifted (probably cheaper in real terms). Some of this is probably due to currency fluctuations (and VAT sales tax in the UK is now higher than before), but _triple_ the price..?</p>

<p>Leica camera's cost too much. So what's new?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If Leica can get some publicity and turn a decent profit on these 'concept cameras' then good luck to them.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Absolutely. Even if they are only bought by the rich and are kept in display cabinets, if it helps Leica stay in business, then that's a good thing.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Leica camera's cost too much. So what's new?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Only that they've gone from being very expensive to extremely expensive. 10 years ago, their 50 f/2 was 5-6x the price of the Nikon equivalent, fair enough considering the relative build qualities and economies of scale. Now it's about 16x the price. Even their 'economy' 50/2.5 (just re-launched as a 50/2.4), which must be the slowest double Gauss 50 ever marketed for the 35mm format, is a £1200 lens, double the price of their 50/2 a decade ago.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Absolutely. Even if they are only bought by the rich and are kept in display cabinets, if it helps Leica stay in business, then that's a good thing.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>A decade ago, Leica was on the verge of bankruptcy. They needed and have found a way to hang around. However, that is a path only a handful of brands can take, e.g. Zeiss lenses, Rolex watches, a number of sports/luxury car manufacturers .... Those are mostly western European brands. I don't think North American and Asian brands can go down that path. Nikon maybe able to find a few really wealthy collectors in Japan, it is not in the same league as Leica for collectors. Otherwise, Nikon is mainly a brand for working photographers and consumers.</p>

<p>I just pulled out a 2003 B&H catalog and use one Leica lens as example. The price has doubled in a decade. It is kind of weird to see the D2H was the current camera in that catalog.</p>

<p>People pay what the market will spend. I'm curious how much of the premium for video lenses is actually justified - especially given how many get used for 2MP or lower imagery - though I'm sure they don't ship in huge quantities. I can understand the 100x zooms having a premium, but I have to boggle at a 35mm T/1.5 that costs $4650 (B&H price check). Maybe there's a vast amount of work going into these, maybe they're just rebadged with the external interface tweaked. Sometimes even practical stuff gets overpriced.<br />

<br />

As for Nikon being able to play collector's tricks, Gray's of Westminster are very good at wheeling out cameras that have been into space or which are gold-plated special editions. None has ever interested me, though I admit that if I won a lottery I'd be looking closely at the 6mm f/2.8, 300mm f/2, 1200-1700mm f/5.6-f/8 triplet, if only for the unique capabilities, and I'm sure some rich collectors have thought the same. I can't really bring myself to care much about an expensive 13mm, though.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>As for Nikon being able to play collector's tricks, Gray's of Westminster are very good at wheeling out cameras that have been into space or which are gold-plated special editions.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Gray's whole schtick is to sell Nikons the same way other specialist dealers sell Leicas - a single brand boutique with current products and reverently displayed vintage gear. Is this the only shop that has tried to pull this off, or are there Nikon-only dealers elsewhere (maybe in Japan)?</p>