Next step of Leica?

[vrankin]

Geez, folks... I wonder why this thread went so over the top. I actually read it all, and I'm mystified.

[steve_mareno]

Well, Leica is about film cameras. If they start making digital cameras, what's the point? Every digital image I see from every DSLR looks exactly the same. Some have more or less noise, but they look the same. The great Leica look that is inherent w/ a Leica lens and a film camera seems wasted on digital, compared to the top Canon or Nikon lenses. If Leica doesn't cater to their small but faithful film shooters, if they attempt to be like everyone else, mark my words, they will go bankrupt quickly.

[steve_mareno]

Actually, the reason the M8 is a success is that it's images DON'T look like every other DSLR's. Taking that little filter thingie from in front of the sensor may have caused a lot of other side issues, but it has resulted in a somewhat unique look to the pics. It appeals to people who want the convenience and low operating costs of a digital camera, yet still want a more traditional (film like for lack of a better word) image.

[andrewlamb]

Ron,

 

Apologies for the tardiness of my reply. In March, I met up with Leica people from Germany and the UK at a hotel in

London. The reason why I was asked was crushingly simple. I had done work for the PR company that represented

Leica in the UK and Leica needed to speak a jobbing photographer.

 

I know they had been going around the UK talking to all manner of people in the photographic business. No doubt, they

have been doing the same way all around the globe.

 

They simply picked my brains about what I used, what other pros were using and so forth and so forth. Maybe they

asked me because I had bought Leica products in the past. I don't know. I'm ashaed to admit, it was fun telling them

what I thought of some of their recent offerings.

 

They then asked me for my thoughts on some products they were thinking of developing. I was then shown a mock up

of a camera underneath the table. It was a mock up only!!! Having said that, I liked it and was genuinely intrigued by how

they were going to price it and so forth.

 

I have no idea, of course, how far down the line they are with this and the other stuff they mentioned. They alluded to

stuff to coming out at Photokina but were understandably coy and I didn't press them. Maybe the board has thrown out

everything?

 

I didn't sign a confidentiality form but I was asked verbally not to give anything detailed away. Besides, I didn't want to

upset the PR company as they are a client.

 

A few weeks later I was sent a camera, as a thank you present. Without sounding ungrateful it wasn't a lavish gift but I

appreciated the sentiment.

 

Incidentally, as far as I can tell, no one has come near to guessing what they are working on but I'm not exactly in the

loop.

[Brad_]

Nice to hear from Andrew...

 

He speaks to a subject that's been on my mind for a few years. And that's why can't manufacturers start with a fresh piece of paper with

respect to modern camera design. dSLRs look like and feel like SLRs. M8s look like film Ms. There's no reason for that, other than being

bogged down in inertia. And in the process, that inertia shackles creativity that can truly provide better picture making experiences Even

the

Oly cams, which some claim are fresh starts, aren't.

 

There's so much that could be done with the technology available. The trick is cost-reducing to the level where great and current

technology can be employed

on consumerish devices.

 

Super hi-rez LCD and electronic veiwfinder technology, just one small example, is ripe for exploitation. Indeed, look at the Apple iPhone

and Nikon hi-

rez LCD screens. Now, couple that into a hi-dynamic range EVF with zero lag, and you've busted through a lot of inertia. They don't have

to

suck as they do today. And, as a HUGE side benefit, it unburdens the physical design of the camera so that it doesn't need to look like a

SLR or

RF.

My god, there's no good reason for physical camera design whether RF or dSLR to live on for hundreds of years. Other than taking comfort

in being closed to fresh ideas.

[doug herr]

"<I>Super hi-rez LCD and electronic veiwfinder technology, just one small example, is ripe for exploitation.</I>"

<P>

I agree completely. This technology could get rid of the flipping mirror & mirror black-out, AF could read local contrast at

any point of the picture area instead of the Rube Goldberg contraptions with the limited number of focus points now being

marketed.

[ron_breeze2]

"He speaks to a subject that's been on my mind for a few years. And that's why can't manufacturers start with a fresh piece of paper with

respect to modern camera design. dSLRs look like and feel like SLRs. M8s look like film Ms. There's no reason for that, other than being

bogged down in inertia. And in the process, that inertia shackles creativity that can truly provide better picture making experiences Even the

Oly cams, which some claim are fresh starts, aren't."

 

In the 70's and 80's Harley Davidson was in deep financial trouble due to the radical Japanese bike designs that were grabbing the market

share. Harley didn't fall prey to this trend instead they built a better bike on a solid and reliable design marketing them on the traditions they

had established in the past. I can't see Leica changing the rangefinder design. What would it accomplish to change something, that in the

hands of a photographer who knows how to apply it, has been and still is perfect in design and function? I read over and over on these forums

statements by people who call for change but offer up nothing that either improves on the original or hasn't been tried in the past and now is in

the rubbish heap of camera history. My two cents worth is that Leica needs to continue with the M design, keep the M8 around and change

minor issues that can be accomplished by firmware changes and factory modifications. What is the point of an M camera that neither looks or

functions like one? If you want something different great, but call it something else, not an M.

[anthony_brookes5]

We've pretty well thrashed this argument to its conclusion but to me electronics should be an aid to photography not photography (picture taking.) itself. i.e there will come a point where we shall have a pair of sectacles with a head up display and when we blink - or something - whatever we are looking at will be stored - wifi - on our computer at home.. Leica is not in software or electronics and its market is small, and mainly composed of discerning OR wealthy people or both. I do hope it doesn't make electronics the be all and end all.

[andrewlamb]

Ron

 

I don't think Harley are so doing so well now.

 

http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/18/harley-davidson-takes-its-lumps/?

[Brad_]

>>> What would it accomplish to change something, that in the hands of a photographer who knows how to apply it, has been and still is

perfect in design and function?

 

Perfect in design and function? OK, great feedback to the designers to reward and keep mediocrity thriving...

 

 

>>> I read over and over on these forums statements by people who call for change but offer up nothing that either improves on the

original or hasn't been tried in the past ...

 

I just offered up something and Doug amplified on it with respect to the benefits.

 

 

With respect to Harley vs Japanese, lets extend that to Leica vs N&C. Who's excelling in both innovation and generating sales? And who

isn't? But wait, I forgot about that sapphire screen protector and shutter damping for +$1,800.

[ron_breeze2]

"Ron

 

I don't think Harley are so doing so well now."

 

From the article you posted:

It’s the economy, stupid (with apologies to Bill Clinton).

Harley-Davidson, which enjoyed two decades of record sales and earnings growth leading up to 2007...

 

Andrew, nobody is doing so well now as this article points out. Harley did have a resurgence and may well have another one

as gas continues its upward spiral and motorcycles get 60 MPG the luxury idea may give in to necessity. My point is that

change is not always necessary to produce a quality product. In light of dwindling natural resources I applaud Leica for

declaring the M8 an upgradable camera and not a disposable one. I also believe that if the truth were known about the

ownership of the M8, on this forum, a majority of those most vocally calling for change neither own, will never own, and have

not used the camera. I also believe that if Leica does come out with a new camera those same people will find something

negative to say about it and demand a replacement. Everyone deserves an opinion and if you own an M8 and have an opinion

then it is a valid opinion. If you don't own an M8 and have an opinion then it is just that.

[andrewlamb]

Ron

 

I would love to try out an M8. The truth is that rangefinders don't really work for what I do professionally. For my own

stuff, I prefer to use my M3. I don't think they ever bettered that camera but I haven't used every single M to make a full

call on that.

 

"Everyone deserves an opinion and if you own an M8 and have an opinion then it is a valid opinion. If you don't own an

M8 and have an opinion then it is just that."

 

Not necessarily :) I know plenty of people who own various items, whether they be cameras, computers or cars, and

whose opinion on said item I wouldn't feel inclined to respect.

 

Surely to make a really valid call on something like the M8 you need to know what else is out there and how it

compares? Apologies for the pedantry.

 

Don't know much about bikes but I think what Triumph has done is interesting. I like their product mix of classic-retro

bikes, like the Bonnie, along side the modern stuff, like the Speed Triple.

[Brad_]

>>> I also believe that if the truth were known about the ownership of the M8, on this forum, a majority of those most vocally calling for

change neither own, will never own, and have not used the camera.

 

Absolutely not true at all. I'm not stuck or have any emotional ownership of a particular brand. If leica were to come out with something

truly innovative (not $1800 screen protectors), I would absolutely consider it. My point is, camera design, both dSLR and M8, doesn't need

to be cast in the mold of what's been done for 50+ years. There's great technology out there. I'd like to see some radical changes that

can improve both the process, ergonomic experience, and performance. Cams going from ISO 6,000 to ISO 50,000, sure would be nice,

but that's evolutionary - not revolutionary.

 

I would like to see things like superb EVFs and screens, silent and fast LCD shutters, more ergonomic shapes that don't look like traditional cams because of a mirror box, superb dynamic range, much lighter weight, built-in wireless (when my cam gets within a few feet

of my computer, downloads just happen - with some intelligence, of course), better batteries, touch point AF, etc.

 

As an example, I just bought an iPhone 3G. An outstanding piece of engineering, integration, and great performance that turns what a

phone should be, and the possibilities of how it's used on it's head. Just look at the huge lines of people wanting one and willing to sign up

for expensive data plans. What was the one piece of technology (of many, really) that enabled the overall experience? The super high-rez

touch display. People are using them now as communication and computing devices; not just phones. This is a little off-track to the

discussion, but it's an example of the result of bold thinking.

[steve-walton]

"........How much market segment can Leica 'steals' from Canon, Nikon or others?"

 

No more than they ever have done in decades. Who cares? Certainly not Leica.

 

Leica have so far proven themselves to be inept in the digital arena. Their real strength lies within lens design and manufacture.

[ray .]

I don't assume to know the answer, it's just a question, but Brad, have you ever used a Leica rangefinder for any extended

time or at all? Not that it would change your basic opinion, but I think you should take into consideration people's natural

loyalty to something that has worked so well for them over a number of years.

[Brad_]

Ray, no, I haven't.

 

>>> but I think you should take into consideration people's natural loyalty to something that has worked so well for them

over a number of years

 

I don't understand your point. Where am I questioning others' loyalty? Of course that's why others are protective. I'm

expressing my views with respect to innovation because someone suggested I would never consider owning a leica. As I

said, I don't have any particular loyalty. The two are not mutually exclusive.

[ron_breeze2]

"Andrew Lamb , Jul 27, 2008; 04:46 p.m.

Ron

 

I would love to try out an M8. The truth is that rangefinders don't really work for what I do professionally. For my own stuff, I

prefer to use my M3. I don't think they ever bettered that camera but I haven't used every single M to make a full call on that.

 

"Everyone deserves an opinion and if you own an M8 and have an opinion then it is a valid opinion. If you don't own an M8

and have an opinion then it is just that."

 

Not necessarily :) I know plenty of people who own various items, whether they be cameras, computers or cars, and whose

opinion on said item I wouldn't feel inclined to respect.

 

Surely to make a really valid call on something like the M8 you need to know what else is out there and how it compares?

Apologies for the pedantry.

 

Don't know much about bikes but I think what Triumph has done is interesting. I like their product mix of classic-retro bikes, like

the Bonnie, along side the modern stuff, like the Speed Triple."

 

Andrew if I were going to buy a Harley and you owned a Triumph I would respect your opinion about Harleys but it would not

influence my purchase unless you had some valid experiences with a Harley, otherwise what you had to say would be

personal opinion based on hear-say or speculation. It would be the same for any product purchase I made. I was using Harley

as an example of a company that made a turn around based on tradition with innovation applied. Yes I do like Triumphs

because they have done the same as Harley in keeping tradition. If tradition is not important, as Brad would have us all think,

then why did Yamaha, Kawasaki, Honda, Victory and American Motorcycle all build bikes based on the Harley foundation of V

Twin and appearance? Yamaha even tried to duplicate the V-Twin sound of the Harley. My point is not the viewpoint of

someone proclaiming mediocrity it is my view that tradition can be maintained while adding intelligent innovation.

 

"Absolutely not true at all. I'm not stuck or have any emotional ownership of a particular brand. If leica were to come out with

something truly innovative (not $1800 screen protectors), I would absolutely consider it. My point is, camera design, both

dSLR and M8, doesn't need to be cast in the mold of what's been done for 50+ years. There's great technology out there. I'd

like to see some radical changes that can improve both the process, ergonomic experience, and performance. Cams going

from ISO 6,000 to ISO 50,000, sure would be nice, but that's evolutionary - not revolutionary.

 

I would like to see things like superb EVFs and screens, silent and fast LCD shutters, more ergonomic shapes that don't look

like traditional cams because of a mirror box, superb dynamic range, much lighter weight, built-in wireless (when my cam gets

within a few feet of my computer, downloads just happen - with some intelligence, of course), better batteries, touch point AF,

etc"

 

Yes Brad but you do seem stuck in the emotional response to continuously criticize Leica and M8 owners for their choices. I'm

not arguing with you about evolutionary changes to the M8, I have suggested a few myself, but I do argue with you regarding

tradition and the necessity for keeping some form of it. When you speak of changing traditional camera designs what would

you change them too? The human hand has traditional shapes that it can grasp and work with well with and Leica has made

one in the M series. If you go back and look at the original Leica One all modern point and shoots, and the M are modeled

after it's design. Why do you think that is? Look at early SLR designs, take off the prism and what do you have? The same

shape. If you want a better grip then Leica makes one as an accessory. If you want wireless transmission of your images get

one of the new Blue tooth SD cards and use it. You also need to update yourself on the cost of the Leica upgrades and you

left out the warranty extension in your incorrect cost analysis. The upgrades are also an option for M8 owners not a

requirement and one of them is that quieter shutter you mentioned in your list. Touch screens on cameras has been tried by

Sony for several years now without a lot of success because finger print residue needs to continuously be cleaned off or the

screen becomes hard to read. The i-pod rotating wheel and keypad are what I would like to see used more as it makes menu

operation quick and easy without smearing up the LCD. Battery development is an ongoing process that consumers will see

change over time, but right now we are using the best on the market. Even if Leica came out with a camera that met your

specifications I doubt you would buy on as you indicated you would "consider it" so what is the point of Leica coming out with a

camera that would only be considered and not bought?

[Brad_]

>>> Yes Brad but you do seem stuck in the emotional response to continuously criticize Leica and M8 owners for their choices.

 

You are so wrong again... I've criticized the camera and the company. A *lot* of my friends shoot with a leica. I meet up with a group of them (from

the RFF) and shoot in SF - as well with a handful of people here. All really excellent photographers; I like their work - they like mine. Leica's M8

introduction (without any apparent beta testing) and subsequent "solution" speaks to their engineering process. Perhaps it's because I'm an engineer

and appreciate innovation rather than $1,800 LCD glass.

 

>>> When you speak of changing traditional camera designs what would you change them too?

 

That's for great product engineers to study, prototype, refine, beta test, cost-reduce, and then introduce. But we've seen the results of how beta (And

even alpha testing) testing works at leica - let the customer do it and then introduce a "solution" when stuff happens on the net.

 

>>> Why do you think that is? Look at early SLR designs, take off the prism and what do you have? The same shape. .... and on and on.

 

OK Ron, looks like you have ALL the answers predetermined. No room for innovation. No imagination, No looking towards the future. That's what

will keep leica innovating with $1,800 screen protectors and extremely gorgeous black product boxes worthy of Faberge Egg presentation.

 

 

>>> Even if Leica came out with a camera that met your specifications I doubt you would buy on as you indicated you would "consider it"

 

You're really not serious are you? You're expecting the guarantee of a purchase from me, one who appreciates engineering excellence, service, etc.

After the M8 was so famously "introduced?"

 

If leica "delivered" a truly innovative and superb camera, I would ***absolutely*** consider it.

 

I suspect you don't test drive cars, bicycles, try on suits, computers, phones, etc. You just buy... Other people like to try. That's why stores (like

the Apple Store for example) have counters, merchandise, salespeople, displays, etc.

[tina_manley]

>Brad said: If leica "delivered" a truly innovative and superb camera, I would ***absolutely*** consider it.

 

It does and you should. Cameras are not cars, bicycles, suits, computers or phones. You have to learn to use them. You only learn through experience. Nobody can tell you from a manual how to use a camera. You have to use it to learn it based on its pluses and minuses. The M8 has many more pluses than minuses. If you don't use it enough to find that out, you should not condemn the camera because of your inexperience with it.

 

Tina Manley

[Brad_]

Hi Tina. The camera simply does not meet my requirements. I enjoy shooting one-handed with strap wrapped around my wrist. Using one

hand I can quickly change ISO, aperture, and compensation (in less than a second) with the cam I'm currently using. It also has a

superb 3" LCD that's crisp and bright. It's light weight. And most importantly, it delivers ***superb*** 12mp images with great performance

to ISO 1600. I've yet to run out a battery - I suspect it will go to 1K+ images.

 

The fact that it currently costs 1/7 that of an M8 is icing. The handling, weight, ergonomics, and most of all IQ is what I am truly pleased

with. Should leica deliver something in the future that innovates and exceeds those requirements, I'll certainly consider it.

 

 

 

>>> Cameras are not cars, bicycles, suits, computers or phones. You have to learn to use them.

 

I agree with you - I think you missed my point. I said that because the person I responded too took issue that I would only *consider* a

leica, rather than just automatically buy one without study, thought and input from other people using them.

[raymond_tai]

Fasinating read. I like my M8 for reasons why I like my MP. My MP is not anything like my F6 which is superior in many ways including price and price advantage of Nikkors, but it is not a small quiet rangefinder. I agree Leica lenses are now insanely expensive and likely I will not be in a position to buy another new Leica lens anytime soon. That said, Leica lenses are superb and I can see in my prints how they are "better". If you cannot see it then or think the price difference is not worth it then buy the cheaper alternative and don't look back. My friends tease me how little alcohol it takes to get me drunk but it is a definate plus on the wallet. Anyway the MP or M8 is not for everybody. Don't buy an orange and expect it to taste like an apple.

[travis1]

I may get one because of the good old lenses I have and left to rot. Also, handling a dslr feels inherently different than that of a rangefinder. Maybe the price will drop a little more..

'

[travis1]

and I agree with Raymond. If you don't like it, don't get one. What's the problem?

[doug herr]

Brad, IMHO it's fine to say that a product simply doesn't meet your requirements. You've gone beyond that to suggest

incompetence on the part of Leica. I am also an engineer and products are never put on the market when the engineers

are satisfied with them. They're put on the market when the marketing department decides the product is good enough

and takes it away from the engineers. Engineering issues that turn out to be problems in real use can be fixed with

'service packs' or firmware updates, a.k.a. bug fixes. They're an unfortunate fact of complex systems. Ideally they're

kept to a minimum but the odds are that they'll be necessary.

<P>

"Good enough" is a judgement call that depends on knowing what the remaining problems are, estimating how frequently

the end-user will encounter the problem, and how annoyed the end user will be once the problem is encountered. I don't

know how many beta testers there were or what conditions they encountered but among the beta testers was one in

Florida in the summer. I'll let you guess how many times he encountered magenta polyester. Hint: it's about the same

as the number of thumbs on my left foot. Whether they knew about the IR contamination issue is anyone's guess, my

guess is that they did. The remaining question is their estimate of how annoyed the end-user would be once (s)he

encounters the problem.

<P>

Let's suppose for the sake of the discussion that Leica's marketing people knew about the problem. Since this is a new type of product for

the company, it is reasonable to assume that they'd look to the experience of other similar

products with the same or a similar problem. The Epson RD-1 and several early Nikon digital cameras also have IR

contamination problems, and the end users either didn't notice (Florida in the summer?), didn't care enough to make a

fuss, or simply figured that it's one of those 'things' about digital cameras one works around in order to gain the benefits

of the product. Since it apparently wasn't a big deal to the Epson and Nikon users, a reasonable guess is that the M8

users would respond similarly. If this is the case, they made an error in judgement. You have the benefit of hindsight to

make a better call.

<P>

OTOH if they didn't know about the problem there was a serious breakdown in communication between the engineers

and the marketing department. IMHO the first scenario is more likely.

[Brad_]

>>> I am also an engineer and products are never put on the market when the engineers are satisfied with them.

 

But that is just your personal experience. I've worked for three companies where engineering drives the company and marketing

serves as a result. It's about company culture and the processes that are established.

 

Whichever the two of your scenarios were true (and there are at least a couple others), the customer was not well-served. The fault in

your chosen scenario is that the company ethos of delivering the absolute best IQ was abrogated. I can see Kodak making that

decision with one of their $200 digicams - ie, our customers will never notice the difference or care. But on a flagship camera at a

premium price, whose company reputation is built around having the absolute best quality in the world?

 

But this is getting off track. The subject at hand is about innovation and the possibilities of delivering better cameras by employing

technology that can be cost-reduced for incorporation into pro/prosumer cameras; enabling novel more ergonomic designs in the process.

 

That's what interests me looking forward. The cam I have today serves my needs extremely well.