Leica chief speaks of removal of Lee

[jlm]

to sandy's remark:
i doubt anyone is truly fond of rangefinder focus per se.
Speaking for myself, what I find appealing in this context is only the resulting smaller size of the body. Inherent RF side effects, like reduced size framelines, small and fixed viewer field of view, inaccuracy of framelines and focus distance, RF adjustment and lens matching, not WYSIWYG, etc. are huge negatives however.
now if they could come up with a focus scheme that measured off the sensor (manual would be fine, with a confirmation dot), much of the focusiing side effects would go away and i could more easily live with the remaining viewing issues

 

[Terry]

Don't forget about the Digilux 2. If they remade that with current electronics and updated the viewfinder system that would make a lot a people happy.

 

[Cindy Flood]

to sandy's remark:
i doubt anyone is truly fond of rangefinder focus per se.

I must be really weird, but I love the simplicity of the rangefinder system. The only point of frustration for me is the sloppy framelines.
There are times when I am shooting kids or sports where a rangefinder is totally inappropriate, so I have a dslr for that. When I'm shooting for personal enjoyment, give me the rangefinder.

 

[LJL]

I am like you in that regard, Cindy. The rangefinder is more of a creative component for me than the 100% viewfinder on my DSLRs. I do wish the framelines were more accurate, as that would lead to even tighter compositions. I enjoy seeing the "other stuff" that is in the viewfinder, and seeing it all in focus, as it does help think about composition, subject placement, and even what you want to focus on. When I shoot my DSLRs, it is always showing me narrowest DOF (widest aperture), and only what will actually be in the frame (unless I keep hitting the DOF preview for a darkened view, and panning around a bit to see what lies just beyond the frame). Not too bad a problem when shooting wide angle for the most part, but not quite like seeing that little extra that is beyond the frame. For 50 on up, DSLRs have their own tunnel vision of sorts. The RF is not great for the faster action stuff I have to shoot, but with practice, one can do a lot of things. (I captured some equestrian jumpers in a dark arena last spring that were hard enough to get with my Canons and all they can do. It was more creative shooting, but it can be done.)

The RF market may not be as recognized as it once was, but the camera type is just different enough from everything else on the market today that is more than nostalgic, in my opinion. It is a very different kind of shooting than DSLRs or digicams provide.

As for AF on a rangefinder.....that feature completely baffles me, and I would hate to think of what it would do to lens size, not to mention all of the other things. No thanks.

LJ

 

[johnastovall]

<snipped>

As for AF on a rangefinder.....that feature completely baffles me, and I would hate to think of what it would do to lens size, not to mention all of the other things. No thanks.

LJ

But the AF rangefinder has already been made.

Behold the Contax G series.

 

[LJL]

....and that is still going strong, right? (Not.) John, not saying it cannot be done, but more asking why one would want that. The concept of the rangefinder was mechanical and could be used effectively in lower light shooting. Taking it to AF is interesting, but it did dramatically change the lenses, and it is still faced with many of the same problems of the digicams.....if it cannot find a focus, it freezes.

Maybe it is more a personal thing, but for me, rangefinder and AF are not something I want together. If I want AF, I will grab a DSLR or a digicam.

LJ

 

[johnastovall]

Oh but for those Contax lens before Kyocera trashed Contax. Part of the problem with Contax it was too far ahead of the market particulary in it's digital model.

I'm a technophile at times...

 

[LJL]

Technophile is good....those older Contax lenses were very good.

Picture the uproar if Leica introduced AF for the M(x).....Not only would it make all of their present lenses obsolete, but if they were clever enough to figure a mechanical "fix" to permit AF, what would it be like sending lenses back to Solms for THAT work, given the nightmare and headaches for the rather simple "coding" work many suffered through?

That is a bigger disaster in waiting. IMHO. Now, if there was a completely new configuration, like the old Contax, that might work, but it goes back to one of the original questions.....is there enough interest and buyers to sustain that sort of thing? Based on Contax's history, apparently not. Sort of like grass-eating snakes....seems like they could exist, yet evolution has not seen that success, or if it had, they are not around anymore ;-)

LJ

 

[johnastovall]

Don't call it an "M", just as sweet by any other name....

 

[jlm]

nobody is saying they like RF for focusing (what it is named for) just that they like looking through the viewfinder. AF is not the only conceptual alternative. I just put a Conurus modded Contax 24-85 lens on my 5D, you manually focus it, using the eyeball or the focus confirmation red dot.

by the way, i had that G2 and loved it, except for the touchy AF. sold it and lenses to get the...M7, anticipating the M8

 

[Mitch Alland]

...No matter what, Leica's is in a bit of a tough spot. Keeping the M as the flagship for recognition is fine, but they need something else to allow growth into the overall camera market. The Digilux is a step on a rather limited sensor platform. The R is going to face tough competition for sure, but that is the nature of this business today...

That is the tough spot they have been in since the 1960s when the Nikon F took over and Leitz, as they were at that time, dwindled. Considering that they could not get out from the position of being a niche player that sold 10,000 cameras in a "good year" before the digital era, when their skill set as an enterprise was relevant for film cameras, what chance do you think they have in the digital camera market place, considering the huge R&D and development costs necessary to develop a top-end digital camera?

Leitz's problem was that they were a classic case of a "production-oriented" company that could not compete with Japanese marketing-oriented companies, which is what Nikon and Canon became during the critical period of the 1960s and 1960s, without losing their technical and production culture and orientation; but of course this development of being market orientated while developing world-class design and manufacturing technologies is part of the Japanese industrial culture toward the end of the 20th century and is the reason that Toyota and Honda because leaders in the automotive field. Production-oriented Leitz almost went bankrupt when they produced the M5 because they thought the market wanted them to be a producer of range-finder cameras rather than a producer of small, high-quality cameras with some of the best lenses around. This is similar to Volkswagen around 1969-1970, when they produced their first larger four-door car, the 411, a turkey that almost drove them into bankruptcy. This was a "compact"-sized car with a rear, air cooled engine because Volkswagen thought that the market wanted them to be a producer of rear, air cooled engine cars, and it took them a while to figure out that what the market really wanted from them were reliable cars at low cost, at a time when automobiles were not as reliable as they are today. But, then, Volkswagen, was not a small enterprise which is what Leica is.

And the Leica company needs a good CEO, which Kaufmann may or may not be, but I would not necessarily bet on that in the light of his background. Nor is it obvious that Leica can get the type of CEO that it needs considering its small size and low chances of growth into a much larger or much more profitable company, because the people that have the skills necessary would go after much more attractive propositions in terms of companies that they want to run.

—Mitch/Bangkok
http://www.flickr.com/photos/10268776@N00/

 

[PeterA]

Leica has a competitive advantage in producing lenses at price points and quality points for both M and R bodies that other manufacturers do not play in. So teh Leica competitive positioning is high priced high quality. Every time they stuff up on quality and service etc - they tarnish the only competitive position they can compete in.
Leica owns the rangefinder market - but liek LGL says its a bit like conquering Leichtenstien...
So looking at R lens system which already exists and comparing size of SLR market versus ranagefinder market - I think it makes sense for them to make a full frame R body which can take existing lenses to keep clients and perhaps introduce auto focus to bring on new clients etc
If they don't do this - then all you have is a company who is selling existing inventories..on a slow road to nowhere ...
It will be interesting to see what they do ( if anything) - introducing a new range of cheaper Summarit lenses to put on an expensve M8 body is like really funny. if there was a cheaper M seres digi box coming - then maybe that makes sense - but chips are chips and the net generation of chip is unusually better - so you end up with lower priced m body that has a beter chip?/hahahhaaaa..

A few strategic errors have been made over teh last year post M8 introduction..small niche quality companies always try and expand downwards - cos marketers tell them that their brand name has cachet - it doesnt..

and they shy away from progressing upwards..because that takes hard work and more percieved risk..

thats what teh next generation r is..a higher risk challenge..but every company in the world HAS to take risk to survive. ...

 

[espressogeek]

I think a digital Zeiss RF camera would do Leica so good. They would have to be somewhat competitive against it and while it would probably hurt M8 sales, if they adapted, they would be a more competitive company in the long run. It is a shame the R-D1 was not better executed because it IS a great camera. Cmon Zeiss put a 12-14 mp APS-C or larger sensor in there and put that puppy on the market.

 

[johnastovall]

I think a digital Zeiss RF camera would do Leica so good. They would have to be somewhat competitive against it and while it would probably hurt M8 sales, if they adapted, they would be a more competitive company in the long run. It is a shame the R-D1 was not better executed because it IS a great camera. Cmon Zeiss put a 12-14 mp APS-C or larger sensor in there and put that puppy on the market.

Speaking of Ziess, Mike Johnston has his review of the Zeiss Ikon Z1 up. It' looks like a nice platform for Zeiss to package a digital sensor in.

 

[Maggie O]

A digital ZI would be wonderful. Perfect backup for an M8.

 

[Mitch Alland]

Speaking of Ziess, Mike Johnston has his review of the Zeiss Ikon Z1 up. It' looks like a nice platform for Zeiss to package a digital sensor in.

While the ZI is a good camera, the approach of packing a digital sensor into it, which is the M8 design concept, seems to me a dead end. Better to start with a whole nes digital driven design that would use M lenses. There is a fellow on LUF who took the M8 apart and put it back together again, photographing the while process step-by-step. To some his pictures show the brilliance of Leica's designers and engineers; to others they show the Rube Goldberg nature of the M8 design.

—Mitch/Bangkok
http://www.flickr.com/photos/10268776@N00/

 

[scott kirkpatrick]

Did the Zeiss Ikon review on TOP strike anyone else as a little weird? Sean Reid did a thorough review of the ZI and M7 almost two years ago, and he linked to several earlier reviews, so this is not news. The news seems to be that Mike still has rangefinder chops, or wishes he did. (The pictures that accompany the review are by someone else.)

scott

 

[johnastovall]

While the ZI is a good camera, the approach of packing a digital sensor into it, which is the M8 design concept, seems to me a dead end. Better to start with a whole nes digital driven design that would use M lenses. There is a fellow on LUF who took the M8 apart and put it back together again, photographing the while process step-by-step. To some his pictures show the brilliance of Leica's designers and engineers; to others they show the Rube Goldberg nature of the M8 design.

—Mitch/Bangkok
http://www.flickr.com/photos/10268776@N00/

Starting with clean sheets for a project is wonderful but Senior Mangement is generally easier sold on a new idea if it's is built on something they already have a foundation for. Plus clean sheet projects just drink money unless you are Kelly Johnson and the Skunk Works.

I'm not sure we have any digital cameras which were designed from clean sheets up. All are derivative from existing film bodies.

 

[vieri]

I'm not sure we have any digital cameras which were designed from clean sheets up. All are derivative from existing film bodies.

4/3 cameras are supposed to be how succesfully, that's another story - some strong points to it, but not as strong as they looked beforehand IMHO (size, weight, price just to mention a few worked but didn't quite work as expected I guess - especially price ) and quite a not-so-great sides, noise, limited DOF control... but, a system designed from the grounds up and starting with a clean sheet up

 

[jlm]

digilux 2 was a new thing, not trying to be an M version; manual focus, f-stop and aperture was easy. a few problems, of course