Nikon's mirrorless is a gentle wake up call for Leica

[Godfrey]

"Honestly, I have little interest in anything short of 1.3x to full frame these days."

YES! We didn't spend big money on Leica glass to only use the center 1/3 of the lenses! We love shallow depth of field and creamy bokeh.

The reason I've come to prefer smaller formats is that often medium format and even 35mm DoF is too shallow for my uses. I'd rather have a bit more DoF and a faster lens that I can use at lower sensitivity settings.

Thank the gods there are choices. (I also want an M9, but it may be just a passing fancy... ;-)

 

[Godfrey]

... I know in the case of DSLRs, peeping a crop VF is like looking down a tunnel. ...

But, what the hell do I know? I love "antique" Leicas and Hassys. :loco:

SLR viewfinders are particularly stressed when the format size goes down below 35mm as the illuminating source is the focusing screen and the reduction in area makes them much less efficient. This is irrelevant for electronic and optical viewfinder cameras that are not reflex cameras.

I love antique Leicas and Hasselblads too. I miss my 903SWC, and I just bought another Leica M4-2 because I missed my M4s too much.

What I like about the GXR+A12-M is that here we have a modern, compact digital capture body with excellent ergonomics and a reasonably sized sensor for good focus control, and the M-bayonet lenses used with it allow for all the control possibility that I need. As said above, I have little use or desire for AF systems because manual focus does me better most of the time.

The Ricoh GXR + Leica M4-2 presents a very nice continuum of use for all of my lenses, with both film and digital capture characteristics. I hope Leica's LIVE camera, when it ships, does as well as the GXR at least.

 

[Double Negative]

^ Valid points, Godfrey!

The smaller sensors do have that deep DoF effect which does come in handy. And if you're a tele shooter, the crop factor can be quite a benefit, especially with faster lenses.

I go the other way - thin DoF when I want it (which honestly, is most of the time) and stop down when I want more. But with diffraction you are limited to f/8-f/11 or so...

The 903SWC is a wonderful camera - or should I say, the lens on it is stunning. Too bad they don't work well with digital backs (say, CFV).

I love the new cameras that can be used with M lenses for just that reason - and I love technology as much as the next guy, no doubt. But since I wear glasses to read (but not shoot) fiddling with menus and what-not is out. One of the big reasons I don't use DP&S. The Leicas on the other hand, work really well as the controls are all analog, I know where they are, the VF is bright and clear, etc. Though I admit, that GXR is very intriguing.

 

[Godfrey]

I try to be reasonable. ;-)

... And if you're a tele shooter, the crop factor can be quite a benefit, especially with faster lenses.
...The 903SWC is a wonderful camera - or should I say, the lens on it is stunning. Too bad they don't work well with digital backs (say, CFV).

The Nikkor-H 85mm on FourThirds is a good tele-shooter example. Fitted to my E-1 or E-5, it nets the FoV and DoF of the combination I used to use (Nikon F3+MD-4 motor+180/2.8) while being a stop and a third faster and half the weight/size. Lovely combination.

Yeah, if I thought the Biogon 38 would ever work on a near "full frame" 6x6 digital back nicely, I would have put the 903SWC away and waited for the backs to arrive. Oh well.

 

[Godfrey]

@Godfrey, will be interested in your findings with the two screen protectors.

Both arrived. They're packaged quite differently and branded differently... but when I hold them up to the light, side by side, they're as identical as two supposedly different products can be.

I fitted the GGS onto the GXR. It fits nicely and looks good. If it annoys me too much, I'll remove it. I plan to buy another GXR body unit anyway: I'll see how the ACMAXX compares when it arrives.

 

[pgmj]

The 903SWC is a wonderful camera - or should I say, the lens on it is stunning. Too bad they don't work well with digital backs (say, CFV).

Sorry for a bit OT, just wanted to mention that I use a SWC/M with an old Imacon 132c (22mpix, 37x49mm) and it works very well. There is a thread on LL on the topic:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=55849.0

 

[Braeside]

Both arrived. They're packaged quite differently and branded differently... but when I hold them up to the light, side by side, they're as identical as two supposedly different products can be.

I fitted the GGS onto the GXR. It fits nicely and looks good. If it annoys me too much, I'll remove it. I plan to buy another GXR body unit anyway: I'll see how the ACMAXX compares when it arrives.

Thanks Godfrey :thumbup:

 

[4season]

Leica's new system will have to knock my socks off, what with the NEX7 arriving almost a full year prior!

I say skip the M and R lens compatibility and make it an appealing modern take on what Leica can be, sans (costly) legacy baggage.

Give it more of a sporting air with water-, dust- and shock-resistance. Since the M is none of those, it's an excuse to buy a companion system.

APS-C is fine, keep the overall size and weight down. Something the approximate size of a Leica CL or IIIa would be good.

Street price of about 2500 USD for a complete package with lens. Price most popular lenses below $500, and nothing over $1500.

If it cannibalizes M sales, so be it. IMO, they should have the guts to make this system really appealing in it's own right.

 

[Stuart Richardson]

I would seriously doubt Leica could even make lenses for less than 500 dollars, even to lower standards, let alone make money on them. They can't build enough lenses to satisfy demand at 2000-10,000 dollars a lens. It's just not what they are set up to do as a company. They could outsource it to someone else, but from their perspective, it would probably dilute their brand image. It's like Aston Martin making that little car based on the Toyota IQ:

But who knows what they will do? If they do it in house, I don't think you will see any lenses under 1000 dollars, nor a body under 2000. They also have a long memory of the CL -- it was a very popular camera, but it was not good for the company!

 

[Double Negative]

Sorry for a bit OT, just wanted to mention that I use a SWC/M with an old Imacon 132c (22mpix, 37x49mm) and it works very well. There is a thread on LL on the topic:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=55849.0

Oh. My. That's some good info. Thank you! Of course, this might change everything...

 

[4season]

I would seriously doubt Leica could even make lenses for less than 500 dollars, even to lower standards, let alone make money on them. They can't build enough lenses to satisfy demand at 2000-10,000 dollars a lens. It's just not what they are set up to do as a company. They could outsource it to someone else, but from their perspective, it would probably dilute their brand image.

Leica seems to do okay with the *LUX series of compact cameras, and these haven't tarnished the brand's image. No one is fooled into thinking these are actually made in Germany; they buy into the mystique because it's fun to do so.

Today, top-of-the-line Leica lenses in the $4K-10K range are in high demand. But tomorrow, who can say? Once upon a time a particularly desirable specimen of tulip might have fetched a small fortune, and conventional wisdom was that real estate would always increase in value. The time for Leica to be developing a new system is now while they are flush with cash.

 

[ken_vs_ryu]

the price of the v1 justifies the cost of an m9.

 

[JSRockit]

It's starting to seem like Nikon knew what they were doing with these systems... apparently, they are selling well. Nikon cannot sell in small quantities like Leica... they made a consumer camera and consumers are supposedly buying it.