Why Leica made a mistake

[kevin m.]

"If Leica is hoping that anything other than a tiny percentage of its digital sales go to pros,

they're delusional."

 

I know half a dozen wedding pros who are ordering one. I'd wager that more pros will buy

this camera for their work than did the M7.

[ishik_tuna]

I already addressed this issue in a previous post.....

 

turn your M8 into a Leica Webcam when it becomes obsolete (next year).

 

You will still be able to use your lenses, and you will have one badass webcam!!

 

(i am assuming the M8 has a A/V output like the digilux 2, and every other digital camera in existence..)

[stephen_w.]

Audio output?

[nolan_ross]

Digital is the name of the game. Besides they can update the electronics easy every year and use the same body or change it a little. This is just the first model with more to come. Just wait and see what happens. I don't think they will drop the film camera line for a year or two. (due to the lack of profit)...It's all interesting watching the development. Myself I am a retro type and will just use film. It's my hobby. If I was a pro then I would purchase what was required, but I am not...Nolan

[eliot_rosen1]

The signal-to-noise ratio on this thread is pretty poor.

[dead_metaphor]

<It's funny. When the M8 was still just a rumor the bashing was fairly calm. Now that the M8 is a reality, even though neither the specs nor the price are anything unexpected, the bile and venom volume suddenly turns to "full on". Is it that for some people, not being able to afford one has gone from hypothetical to reality?>

 

My, my, arent we a presumptuous elitist!!!

 

You assume the negative reaction is based on one's inability to afford the M8? i can ssure you I can afford one. I just don't WANT one. Get it?

[eliot_rosen1]

i can ssure you I can afford one. I just don't WANT one. Get it?

 

I get it, and I don't care, Mr. Metaphor. :-)

[andy_piper2]

"Guitars aside, can any of us think of any digital/electronic items that we cherish and love?"

 

But that's just the point, Steve. My M8 is gonna be my AXE, man! My instrument. My stone

age/bone age/digital age hand-tool. I'm ready to play digital the way Jimi played "The Star-

Spangled Banner". Twelve-strings are lovely, but I wanna Rock 'n Roll!

[andrew robertson]

"The signal-to-noise ratio on this thread is pretty poor."

 

Is cheerleading considered signal or noise on this forum?

[oceanphysics]

Bodily fluids tend to short out digital cameras after a short time anyway, so I wouldn't worry about obsolescence.

[stephen_w.]

Andy,

 

You must know I respect you more than "Jay", but, why did you buy sight-un-seen, untested? Faith with Leica, or a stipend?

 

No Offense Intended.

[jeff_s]

If Andy buys the M8 and it's junk, he'll have plenty of (local) company with which to commiserate. But it won't be junk. I've got an M8 reserved out of the second shipment (first shipment is completely spoken-for in my region)

[andy_piper2]

Steve:

 

No offense taken.

 

Last Nov. I bought a $900 Sony R-1. One test shoot in RAW against my M6 with Leica

lenses and Velvia 100 at Arches National Park, and the Leicas started sitting on the shelf.

Not a big difference in resolution (the Leicas were even a little ahead at times) but in terms

of shadow and highlight range, color accuracy without doing back-flips in

Photoshop...that was it.

 

But the R-1 has clear limitations itself - f/4.5 at the 120mm end of the zoom (and a bit

soft compared to the 24mm end), noisy above 400 ISO, rather nasty bokeh. Plus it's big

and lumpy and plastic and has an EVF. Extremely nice for $900 - but it was always a

stopgap until something in the same Mpixel range arrived for my M lenses.

 

In Dec. my Leica reps were able to release the basic info we've all had since then: Digital M

by fall '06, 10+ Mpixels, DMR quality or better, crop 1.33x, target price $5,000.

 

So - underlying image quality equal or better than the Sony? With Leica f/2 primes? For

less than a DMR alone?

 

I placed my order the next week. I've been shooting with a DMR every Leica day I could

since, just to get primed.

[andy_piper2]

Guess I'm getting Steve and Stephen confused here - but the previous still stands.

 

Stephen: I'm a GREAT beta-tester. The perfect fool to find any flaw in "foolproof"

mechanisms.

 

Besides which, I've also shot with the DMR a lot at Leica Days (figuring it was the REAL

prototype for the Digital M) - my assumption is the M8 must be at least equal to the DMR,

and that's good enough for me.

 

I'd much rather shoot 1,000 shots in November - and have to send the camera off to have

a bug fixed in Dec. - than wait until June to shoot anything at all.

 

"When you realize you want to spend the rest of your life with someone, you want "the rest

of your life" to start as soon as possible." - Harry (Billy Crystal) in "When Harry Met Sally"

[george_lambsdorff]

Of course, within a few years more sophisticated sensors will be avaible, DSLRs with >10Mpixels will become even cheaper.

But two things won't become cheaper:

Build quality of the body and lens quality - you cannot surpass the image quality even with 22MPixels-full-frame when the lens cannot match. this resolution

 

"It's a Copal. The Sensor's from Kodak, the image processing is from Imacon, the body's from Portugal, etc.

They did box the thing up in Germany, though, which apparently is all you need to do to print 'MADE IN GERMANY' on your camera."

 

THe shutter is from Seiko, that's right, the sensor from Kodak (where do they produce them?) - some ICs, LCDs etc. from other countries.

 

But most parts are from highly specialized suppliers from Germany (soe of them even produce for the space industry).

 

Imacon is no longer part of the game.

[david_d4]

"Steve Larese , sep 15, 2006; 04:32 p.m.

...I really like old typewriters, even though I can['t] use them to post on photo.net"

 

---

 

Sure you can! Type, scan, filter through OCR, spell-check, post. What could be easier? Wasn't it William Gibson who said that to go low-tech these days you have to be a very high-tech guy?

 

 

 

As for the M8, Leica has had the advantage of watching the fate of the RD-1 before presenting the M8, a lot of people want this kind of camera, at least enough for Leica to consider it worthwhile to make one.

 

 

I can see the M8 being popular with photojournalists. First-off they're gear-heads as much as the rest of us, and secondly, unobtrusive - quiet cameras are as valuable a tool in that line of work as they ever were. Unobtrusive is good if you are a professional fly on the wall.

 

There's also a lot to be said for going to work carrying your whole kit in your pockets. Leica glass is't just as good as anyone else's best, it's also a lot smaller.

 

The third big advantage for the best known PJ's is that they won't have to worry about the cost of the camera, Leica will give them away, I believe they (and Nikon and Canon too) have always done that.

 

I think Leica's trying to cultivate PJ-panache for their brand (which has always been such a big part of the Leica thing), and I think they have a good chance as long as the camera is highly usable and highly reliable. It is being recognized as the camera that is used by "elite" photographers that has always driven Leica sales, not the sales to those photographers themselves.

 

--

David Dutchison

[._._z]

<blockquote>

 

"If Leica is hoping that anything other than a tiny percentage of its digital sales go to pros, they're delusional." <p> <i>

 

I know half a dozen wedding pros who are ordering one. I'd wager that more pros will buy this camera for their work than did the M7.

 

</blockquote> </i><p>

 

If Leica or anyone else is expecting that anything other than a tiny percentage of its digital sales go to pros, they're delusional.

[shiver_me_timbrrrre]

Take up another hobby...like flyfishing.

[shiver_me_timbrrrre]

Bailey Seals, if you or anyone else think that you know better than Leica AG, you're delusional.

[martin_patek_strutsky]

"A Leica M8 will have a much shorter lifespan than a film based Leica-M. What's your opinion?"

 

You are of course right. But still I think Leica did the right thing by developing a M8 for a fairly affordable price.

 

The alternative would be a completely modular camera, which allows to exchange the electronics whenever some new technolgy becomes available. Everyone would love to have such a camera but who would be willing to pay a hefty premium for it?

[vinay_patel]

"What bile and venom??? The only thing going to "full on" is Vinjay's imagination."

 

I'm not imagining a dozen threads started the day the M8 is officially announced, with people I've never heard before crawling out of the woodwork to bash the camera and belittle everyone who intends to buy one. Although in your case "Brad", Leica-bashing bile and venom are like air and water, judging from your many archived "discussions" with Mr. Kaplan.

[._._z]

Timber, if you paid attention to what I wrote, I never claimed that Leica thought that more than a tiny percentage of digital sales would go to pros. I said that they'd be delusional if they did.

[steve_larese1]

Thanks, David D., this was posted using a 1926 Underwood. It took me 15 hours to do,

but I think the text has a different quality than from my Powerbook, that Underwood

"glow." ;)

[Brad_]

<I>Although in your case "Brad", Leica-bashing bile and venom are like air and water,

judging from your many archived "discussions" with Mr. Kaplan.</I><P>

 

VinJay, you now seem to be sufferring from CDD, comprehension deficit disorder. I've

never bashed the camera or film, but have had a ton of discussions and taken issue with

those not familliar with digital technology, but spouting disinformation like it's firsthand

experience. Leica makes a fine camera; as does canon, nikon, and sony.<P>

 

It is amusing to watch people change their tune over time. For example, it used to be a

huge issue to many to not be dependent on a battery-driven camera. Cuz you never know

when you might be shooting in Fallujah on a moment's notice or something. Seems with

the M8 that requirement has mysteriously gone by the wayside.

[._._z]

Yes, there was much ado over this until just recently. This forum has many, many years' worth of archived posts by zealots, now either gone or amusingly silent, over this issue once used to bash anyone who used a camera with a battery in it.

 

It was always a silly argument, but I remember big dustups bashing the Nikon FE over the FM by zealots in the 1980s, and bashing of cameras like the Pentax 645 by Hassie owners.