The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Some Interesting News - Photokina 2012

Godfrey

Well-known member
Exactly! What we both expressed (and I'm sure many others have too) would make a lower prcied alternative interesting. Not just a striped down version of an already exising camera but a new entry level camera that takes interchangeable M lenses ala Leica CL, Ricoh GXR, X2, that has it's own little feature set but clearly being cost effective for both lecia and the consumer is bult into the equation. No one doubted at the time of the CL, that it was clearly a budget made and priced alternative to the Leica M bodies at the time but at the same time, wasn't just a stripped down M4 or whatever M body was the standard at the time.
The sad part about the CL was that it was very very popular, but Leica lost money on every one they sold due to the amount of OEM rework they had to do and the warranty costs. They can't afford to make another CL on that front ...

The CL came out in 1973, following the M5 (1971, which replaced the M4). The biggest thing the CL was lacking compared to the M4 and M5 was the rangefinder baseline. So, to Leica standards, the faster 90mm and the 135mm focal length lenses were no-go on it ... not enough rangefinder accuracy to meet Leica's criteria. The viewfinder was simpler too, with just 40, 50 and 90 framelines. The body was outsourced to Minolta for manufacture, and that's where all the issues came in—because Minolta didn't really grok Leica quality standards and customer demand for quality.

But it is a charming camera nonetheless. I'm happy to have another one again. A digital CL would be superb.
 

StephenPatterson

New member
I'm really not interested in a baby M9 with optical rangefinder. Will I have to purchase even more $100 diopter correction lenses? No, leave the optical rangefinder and all of the calibration issues that go with it to the M9, MM and probably the M10.

Now, if this new digital CL has an EVF that would really be something. A great companion to the M9, M10, MM or whatever Leica sends our way. Heck, I would be thrilled if it ONLY had an EVF and no damn screen.

Now if I can just get Dr. K on the phone...hello? hallo???
 

D&A

Well-known member
I'm really not interested in a baby M9 with optical rangefinder. Will I have to purchase even more $100 diopter correction lenses? No, leave the optical rangefinder and all of the calibration issues that go with it to the M9, MM and probably the M10.

Now, if this new digital CL has an EVF that would really be something. A great companion to the M9, M10, MM or whatever Leica sends our way. Heck, I would be thrilled if it ONLY had an EVF and no damn screen.

Now if I can just get Dr. K on the phone...hello? hallo???
Even if Leica made a lower cost alternative to the M9 in a lower cost form factor, many would have a different set of features they'd like to see. Some woud be similar to what Stephen has expressed, some would simply like it to be a lower cots alternative that had better ISO (maybe due to using less expensive CMOS) and others would have a combination of the two. It's hard to appeal to everyones concerpt in exactly what it should be.

Me, I'm simple to please. Just reprice the upcoming MM at half it's current suggested retail price and leave the rest of the camer just the way it is! :)

Dave (D&A)
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
... Me, I'm simple to please. Just reprice the upcoming MM at half it's current suggested retail price and leave the rest of the camer just the way it is!
I'd go for that too. :)
Unlikely, though.

If they took the X2 body and fitted a sensor optimized for RF lenses, a focal plane shutter, and M lens mount to it, left the price right as it is, that would be just fine by me. It's pretty much what the GXR is, but the X2 controls and optional EVF are better. Heck, they could do worse than just buying the sensor/shutter assembly in the GXR... And the camera doesn't have to have the range of additional features that the GXR has to have to support multiple camera units, so it remains simple and true to the Leica aesthetic.

I look forward to whatever it is that Leica announces. :)
 

snowboarder

New member
I have a funny feeling the next full frame EVIL body that will accept my Leica M lenses will be Fuji instead of Leica.
I hope it's a NEX with a great EVF and focus peaking.
Fuji would be full of bugs as always :(
Leica would be the most logical one, but they never proved there is any
logic in what they do, so maybe it's true and they are not gonna show
an electronic FF M mount camera. Would be really shocking to be honest...
I really don't want a rangefinder.
All I want is a great FF modern camera for my M glass.
 

Shashin

Well-known member
The cheaper Leica? Well, 4,000 euros is about 2,000 euros off the M9 price. Just imagine how much Leica glass you could buy with 2,000 euros! Folks have poked fun at me because of how much I spent on my Pentax 645D. An M system is actually more expensive.
 

StephenPatterson

New member
...so maybe it's true and they (Leica) are not gonna show an electronic FF M mount camera...
I really don't understand why Leica would make this new ME a rangefinder and not an EVF. What's the point if it's just a smaller M9 with a plastic body? That's like going out and getting a mistress who looks just like your wife.
 

monza

Active member
I'm hoping that they ditch the CCD for a mainstream CMOS in this model, if it indeed happens. That will probably reduce the cost quite a bit...
 

StephenPatterson

New member
Having a CMOS sensor with higher usable ISO could be a benefit, depending upon IQ. If it's just a less expensive rangefinder with a CCD I don't see why anyone with an M9 would buy one, and remember the existing customer base is always important for any new product. But if Leica's plan is that all present M9 owners will jump to have an M10 with video and a clip on EVF while a new baby M9 attracts the masses, well, good luck and godspeed...
 

snowboarder

New member
...while a new baby M9 attracts the masses, well, good luck and godspeed...
Yeah, if they think they will attract
a new crowd expecting a modern camera,
by giving them such an old school "baby" M9
which would be even harder to use, they
are even less logical than I would ever think...
 

Shashin

Well-known member
I really don't understand why Leica would make this new ME a rangefinder and not an EVF.
Because Leica believes their customer base is attracted to the rangefinder form. I doubt Leica is trying to compete with the EVIL Japanese market, but are simply trying to enlarge their own customer base.

And personally, I have no interest in EVF cameras. I really don't like that type of viewfinder.
 

ptomsu

Workshop Member
I hate to say, but actually a good working EVF can be pretty helpful. Not wanting to look through it? Rather prefer OVF?

Keep in mind that each OVF has a lot of limitations. SO I think they need to come up with an EVF concept for the M-Digital finally in order to stay competitive and successful.
 

Shashin

Well-known member
Having a CMOS sensor with higher usable ISO could be a benefit, depending upon IQ. If it's just a less expensive rangefinder with a CCD I don't see why anyone with an M9 would buy one, and remember the existing customer base is always important for any new product. But if Leica's plan is that all present M9 owners will jump to have an M10 with video and a clip on EVF while a new baby M9 attracts the masses, well, good luck and godspeed...
It would make a nice second body. But most likely it is not aimed at people that already have an M9, but folks that could not afford, but want, a rangefinder. Leica is not nor does it position itself to be a mass manufacturer of cameras. Actually, an existing customer or owner base is not that important--if you already have a camera you like that gives great results, why buy a new one? Generally speaking, a new model is a replacement for an old one. Future customers will not buy the old model and companies have to keep their line relevant.
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
I hate to say, but actually a good working EVF can be pretty helpful. Not wanting to look through it? Rather prefer OVF?

Keep in mind that each OVF has a lot of limitations. SO I think they need to come up with an EVF concept for the M-Digital finally in order to stay competitive and successful.
I agree. With the X2, I bought both EVF and optical finders. I like using the optical finder most of the time* because it's easy on the eyes and delightfully casual in use. But if I really want framing precision AND access to the focusing information AND the live histogram, etc etc, the EVF is FAR superior.

* ... Although even there the vexing issue of what is framed with it varies a lot due to my eye glasses ... I've now determined that what I need is a Voigtländer 28mm Brightline finder, which will frame much more accurately what the sensor sees given my eyes and my glasses—just like the Voigtländer 35mm Brightline finder does a better job of framing for me than the technically accurate 40mm finder would for a 28mm lens on the GXR-M.​

An X2-alike with M-lens interchangeable mount would be superb. And a CL-alike with a built-in optical finder AND live view LCD would also be superb. I'm easy.

;-)
 
Top