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!

An open letter to Leica (2015)...please share your own thoughts

aDam007

New member
That's what I thought. I might just go for it.

I use the hoods all the time, they almost never come off the lens once I get it out of the box. They help protect the lens as well as control flare.

re: 90mm ... I've often thought about one of the newer 90mm lenses, then I pull out my M-Rokkor 90mm f/4 (mine is an early production, so identical to the Elmar-C 90 other than the bezel) and realize it's still a fantastic lens. If I were to buy a newer 90mm, I'd go for the Macro-Elmar-M 90mm f/4 kit: having the close up capability would be nice.

G
Yes, that would be my second choice for 90mm lenses.. I have the 90APO so a 90 Macro-Elmar would be "neat". and I love the rendering of Leica's f/4 lenses for some reason.

Also if you use the hood, then yeah that should be factored into the price.
 

aDam007

New member
Not sure. All I know is that they sold the rights afterwards to Minolta.



I am very curious about the (delayed) new S I have to say.

I own the S2 and it is a great camera but anno 2015 trying to sell a 37.7MP CMOS camera that is at least one year late for $25K has got to be a challenge!

Hopefully I am wrong...

The delay was simply due to the chairman getting anxious about competition and wanting to tell the world that they haven't given up on medium format.

Simply, the camera wasn't ready and still isn't ready. But will be soon, and other then bug fixes, not much has changed. Price will obviously stay the same :(
 

aDam007

New member
Let's be very clear what you're talking about in terms of the size difference between an M6TTL and an M typ 240 when you say "M240 is way too large"... from Camerasize.com:


Leica M6 TTL is 1% (1 mm) narrower and 4% (3 mm) shorter than Leica M.
Leica M6 TTL is 10% (4 mm) thinner than Leica M.
Leica M6 TTL [585 g] weights 14% (95 grams) less than Leica M [680 g] (*inc. batteries and memory card).

Leica M6 TTL dimensions: 138x77x38 mm (camera body only, excluding protrusion)
Leica M dimensions: 139x80x42 mm (camera body only, excluding protrusion)


As you can see, the biggest difference is the 95g (3.4 oz) difference in weight. Having both cameras right here on the table in front of me (well, my M4-2 which is a little bit smaller than the M6TTL) it's easy to be confused over which is which until you pick them both up. Then the 95g difference is noticeable.

The Leica M was never a super small, super light camera, film or digital. It was always just smaller and lighter than most pro-grade SLR cameras. That remains true today.

G

I agree with you. I think the M is a fine size.. But I think the biggest difference is probably in the width of the camera. Where people are gripping the camera, and can feel the difference.

Obviously the weight is an issue, but I don't think I'd give up brass top and bottom plates for a lighter camera. I sure as hell wouldn't give up battery life, or want the mount to stick out more then it does.
 

aDam007

New member
We all need to remember besides creating the early 35mm rangefinder Leica M has not been innovative. How long did it take them to put a meter in an M. No auto focus yet (thank God). What I like and hope that Leica M offers is something I can't get with the mass produced, one size fits all cameras the big two crank out. I want a camera that keeps me involved in the process. And am I the only one that remembers when Leica M was over twice the price of the top-o-the line pro Canons and Nikons? Now they are about the same price. So does that make the M a bargain? I'll pay extra to not have a camera that does everything for me. I don't want, use or need auto exposure, FPS or auto focus. I just want a camera that gets out of the way and lets ME create. As long as they make a product like that I will buy. If you want all those things I don't you have all the others to choose from. As long as Leica stays different we have a real choice.
I don't want the M to go away.. I don't even care for LV or EVF or any of that.. I want better ISO (clean 12800 would be nice) and faster repair times. Also a few lenses could use updating (75APO/90APO veiling flare problem, 50Lux mid zone dip, etc.. But don't sacrifice rendering quality to achieve it. And I don't mind a updated 75LUX.)

I just want Leica to make a second line, mirrorless line, high quality mirrorless, something better then the A7, which has just let me down. Some that is truly a no nonsense top quality product.. Preferably not at S-system pricing..

People keep going on about how good the A7 series is, and how Sony will eventually work out the menu problems and kinks.. But Sony has been making "walkmans" that takes quality images since the A100 days (2006). Nothing has really gotten better from the camera end of things. They're not a camera manufacturer. They're an electronics company that slapped a camera together years ago, and have just updated the markable bits. And now are corrupting the optics market by making by making low cost lenses with digital corrections that pressure other companies to do the same. And people that go around praising them are just adding to the downfall of quality products.

That's why I pay a premium for Leica, and will continue to do so... Despite my problems with CS and repairs. I feel the whole quality without compromise should always be Leica's stand point.

I'm OK with the Q, it's quite fun ergonomically. Though I do wish for a interchangeable system with lenses that are worthy of a $3k-$5k price tag.
 

rayyan

Well-known member
I have and very much enjoy M equipment. But I have no qualms about switching
To other equipment if and when it meets my needs.

I am not currently in the market for Sony cameras. But what is said in the quoted post is way way ignoring Sony's contribution and innovation/s in the imaging field.

The largest manufacturer of sensors...cutting edge sensors.

The RX1...a world first. Leica responded years later with the Q.

Most camera manufacturers have had to ' work out the kinks '. Some are still at it. Remember the M8, the M9 et al sensor corrosion issue. Leica too has had its problems. To single out Sony is unfair.

' And now are corrupting the optics market by making by making low cost lenses with digital corrections that pressure other companies to do the same. And people that go around praising them are just adding to the downfall of quality products. '

If a product cannot stand on its merit and competition leads to its downfall, then the said product deserves to be gone. This comments reeks of elitism, seemingly
Arguing that competitive products should not be marketed in order to allow the few blessed ones only to enjoy quality products.

The author of this post has previously mentioned a sum of money he has invested in the Leica system...an irrelevant point...others might have invested more or less. To me how much, how, and in what one puts their money is of no concern. However, the results and enjoyment I derive from my purchases is.

Many here and world over enjoy Sony products. I wish Sony success, as I wish Leica success.

But I am not prepared to support any manufacturer of camera products by buying equipment I don't need or want, in the mistaken belief that my purchase shall keep them afloat. I have other priorities that need my support.

A product shall and should fail or succeed based on its merits. Competition moves us forward. And make no mistake, Sony, currently, is leading the way
With vastly superior innovations in consumer photographic technology.

I don't want the M to go away.. I don't even care for LV or EVF or any of that.. I want better ISO (clean 12800 would be nice) and faster repair times. Also a few lenses could use updating (75APO/90APO veiling flare problem, 50Lux mid zone dip, etc.. But don't sacrifice rendering quality to achieve it. And I don't mind a updated 75LUX.)

I just want Leica to make a second line, mirrorless line, high quality mirrorless, something better then the A7, which has just let me down. Some that is truly a no nonsense top quality product.. Preferably not at S-system pricing..

People keep going on about how good the A7 series is, and how Sony will eventually work out the menu problems and kinks.. But Sony has been making "walkmans" that takes quality images since the A100 days (2006). Nothing has really gotten better from the camera end of things. They're not a camera manufacturer. They're an electronics company that slapped a camera together years ago, and have just updated the markable bits. And now are corrupting the optics market by making by making low cost lenses with digital corrections that pressure other companies to do the same. And people that go around praising them are just adding to the downfall of quality products.

That's why I pay a premium for Leica, and will continue to do so... Despite my problems with CS and repairs. I feel the whole quality without compromise should always be Leica's stand point.

I'm OK with the Q, it's quite fun ergonomically. Though I do wish for a interchangeable system with lenses that are worthy of a $3k-$5k price tag.
 

aDam007

New member
I have and very much enjoy M equipment. But I have no qualms about switching
To other equipment if and when it meets my needs.

I am not currently in the market for Sony cameras. But what is said in the quoted post is way way ignoring Sony's contribution and innovation/s in the imaging field.

The largest manufacturer of sensors...cutting edge sensors.

The RX1...a world first. Leica responded years later with the Q.

Most camera manufacturers have had to ' work out the kinks '. Some are still at it. Remember the M8, the M9 et al sensor corrosion issue. Leica too has had its problems. To single out Sony is unfair.

' And now are corrupting the optics market by making by making low cost lenses with digital corrections that pressure other companies to do the same. And people that go around praising them are just adding to the downfall of quality products. '

If a product cannot stand on its merit and competition leads to its downfall, then the said product deserves to be gone. This comments reeks of elitism, seemingly
Arguing that competitive products should not be marketed in order to allow the few blessed ones only to enjoy quality products.

The author of this post has previously mentioned a sum of money he has invested in the Leica system...an irrelevant point...others might have invested more or less. To me how much, how, and in what one puts their money is of no concern. However, the results and enjoyment I derive from my purchases is.

Many here and world over enjoy Sony products. I wish Sony success, as I wish Leica success.

But I am not prepared to support any manufacturer of camera products by buying equipment I don't need or want, in the mistaken belief that my purchase shall keep them afloat. I have other priorities that need my support.

A product shall and should fail or succeed based on its merits. Competition moves us forward. And make no mistake, Sony, currently, is leading the way
With vastly superior innovations in consumer photographic technology.

Sure.. But I'd rather spend my money on a product I enjoy using, from a manufacturer that's actually taken the time to do something right. Then on a product that frustrates me. Sony has the worst bodies in the industry. They also have terrible sensors. They have a good marketing strategy, it's called listening to the customers, while cutting corners wherever they can. I agree that Sony has been innovative, which is good.. But they went about it in the wrong way. A way that directly impacts the industry. And look at these half baked bodies that come out a year apart. Just flooding the market with nonsense to make headlines. That's not really being loyal to your customers (IBIS coming a year after when they've had IBIS all along).
Unfortunately their numbers are good.. And yes this does put pressure on other manufactures, but the results end up negatively impacting other companies and photographers.
It's the same with WALMART moving into a small town, offering cheap products at a cheap price. They drive out all the small shops and then can do what they want because there's no more competition.


Actually just to add.. My comment is the exact opposite of elitism. I personally think Sony is bullying other manufacturers with their buying/spending power. If I were comparing Sony to the Fuji X series, you wouldn't say it's an elitist comment. You just have a bias opinion of me because I shoot with Leica gear (BTW I also have or have had full Sony, Nikon, Canon, Fuji, Hassy, Phaseone setups as well). And I pay very close attention to the industry, and innovations. I really truly believe that Sony isn't making a positive impact on the photographic industry.
 

rayyan

Well-known member
I would assume most of us spend our money on product/s we enjoy. I would not consider the effort behind the scenes a manufacturer takes to produce a product to be the deciding factor in my purchase. That is cheesy marketing, a la Leica. Jeez, I would otherwise have bought the 15 hour polished block of aluminum.

In a market economy, the market determines the success or failure of a product.

Sony has terrible sensors:eek: Get real pal. I can understand one might not prefer the ergonomics, but bad sensors..:shocked:

' Sony went about it in a wrong way..' Of course, that is your personal opinion and you are entitled to it. The marketplace and other cam manufacturers think otherwise.

' They have a good marketing strategy'..if anything Leica is the one with a marketing strategy that continuously harks back to a bygone era. The only way to sell a luxury priced product is through marketing and targeting the well to do. Simple business 101.

' Just flooding the market with nonsense..' If the market stops buying the ' nonsense ' Sony won't flood the market or even be able to flush their toilets

' loyal to customers '...I really am at a loss for words. Businesses are in it for money. Pure and simple. Loyalty to customers is another marketing strategy to retain customers and attempt to gain new ones. As simple as that.

' IBIS coming a year after..' if that makes money, why not. Remember it is only a numbers game. A bean counters daily job.

' Unfortunately their numbers are good..' Bingo. You seem to get it now.

' ..And yes this does put pressure on other manufactures, but the results end up negatively impacting other companies and photographers.'...Welcome to the market capitalism.
A crude expression goes something like; if one cannot stand up and p*ss long, then stay away from the big boys.

Re: Walmart moving into a small town and....really not my issue. Ask Walmart not to do so. Maybe start a petition to Walmart similar to this one. Who knows, eh.

Give a product the market needs, or create a want through brilliant marketing, at a price point the market can support..maybe then a product would be successful

Dog eats dog in the marketplace. Sentimentality or wishful thinking ain't gonna make a product or company successful.


Sure.. But I'd rather spend my money on a product I enjoy using, from a manufacturer that's actually taken the time to do something right. Then on a product that frustrates me. Sony has the worst bodies in the industry. They also have terrible sensors. They have a good marketing strategy, it's called listening to the customers, while cutting corners wherever they can. I agree that Sony has been innovative, which is good.. But they went about it in the wrong way. A way that directly impacts the industry. And look at these half baked bodies that come out a year apart. Just flooding the market with nonsense to make headlines. That's not really being loyal to your customers (IBIS coming a year after when they've had IBIS all along).
Unfortunately their numbers are good.. And yes this does put pressure on other manufactures, but the results end up negatively impacting other companies and photographers.
It's the same with WALMART moving into a small town, offering cheap products at a cheap price. They drive out all the small shops and then can do what they want because there's no more competition.


Actually just to add.. My comment is the exact opposite of elitism. I personally think Sony is bullying other manufacturers with their buying/spending power. If I were comparing Sony to the Fuji X series, you wouldn't say it's an elitist comment. You just have a bias opinion of me because I shoot with Leica gear (BTW I also have or have had full Sony, Nikon, Canon, Fuji, Hassy, Phaseone setups as well). And I pay very close attention to the industry, and innovations. I really truly believe that Sony isn't making a positive impact on the photographic industry.
 

uhoh7

New member
Let's be very clear what you're talking about in terms of the size difference between an M6TTL and an M typ 240 when you say "M240 is way too large"... from Camerasize.com:


Leica M6 TTL is 1% (1 mm) narrower and 4% (3 mm) shorter than Leica M.
Leica M6 TTL is 10% (4 mm) thinner than Leica M.
Leica M6 TTL [585 g] weights 14% (95 grams) less than Leica M [680 g] (*inc. batteries and memory card).

Leica M6 TTL dimensions: 138x77x38 mm (camera body only, excluding protrusion)
Leica M dimensions: 139x80x42 mm (camera body only, excluding protrusion)


As you can see, the biggest difference is the 95g (3.4 oz) difference in weight. Having both cameras right here on the table in front of me (well, my M4-2 which is a little bit smaller than the M6TTL) it's easy to be confused over which is which until you pick them both up. Then the 95g difference is noticeable.

The Leica M was never a super small, super light camera, film or digital. It was always just smaller and lighter than most pro-grade SLR cameras. That remains true today.

G
I understand your love for 240 knows no bounds, it's perfect!!! LOL

Your measurements show how easy and within reach the M6 footprint is. In hand, the M6, by wide consensus, feels great. The M9, let alone the 240, feels totally unnatural in comparison. I'm not the only one who feels this way.

You seem to feel Leica "needs" the 240 size to get all the bits in there, including a decent battery. This is baseless. Not only could they hit the M6 footprint but could build in the EVF as well. But it would take a design from scratch, which is expensive. Why spend the money when fans like you will accept the current model? And defend it ti the hilt!!

But I like to see a man who loves his camera :)
 

aDam007

New member
I would assume most of us spend our money on product/s we enjoy. I would not consider the effort behind the scenes a manufacturer takes to produce a product to be the deciding factor in my purchase. That is cheesy marketing, a la Leica. Jeez, I would otherwise have bought the 15 hour polished block of aluminum.

In a market economy, the market determines the success or failure of a product.

Sony has terrible sensors:eek: Get real pal. I can understand one might not prefer the ergonomics, but bad sensors..:shocked:

' Sony went about it in a wrong way..' Of course, that is your personal opinion and you are entitled to it. The marketplace and other cam manufacturers think otherwise.

' They have a good marketing strategy'..if anything Leica is the one with a marketing strategy that continuously harks back to a bygone era. The only way to sell a luxury priced product is through marketing and targeting the well to do. Simple business 101.

' Just flooding the market with nonsense..' If the market stops buying the ' nonsense ' Sony won't flood the market or even be able to flush their toilets

' loyal to customers '...I really am at a loss for words. Businesses are in it for money. Pure and simple. Loyalty to customers is another marketing strategy to retain customers and attempt to gain new ones. As simple as that.

' IBIS coming a year after..' if that makes money, why not. Remember it is only a numbers game. A bean counters daily job.

' Unfortunately their numbers are good..' Bingo. You seem to get it now.

' ..And yes this does put pressure on other manufactures, but the results end up negatively impacting other companies and photographers.'...Welcome to the market capitalism.
A crude expression goes something like; if one cannot stand up and p*ss long, then stay away from the big boys.

Re: Walmart moving into a small town and....really not my issue. Ask Walmart not to do so. Maybe start a petition to Walmart similar to this one. Who knows, eh.

Give a product the market needs, or create a want through brilliant marketing, at a price point the market can support..maybe then a product would be successful

Dog eats dog in the marketplace. Sentimentality or wishful thinking ain't gonna make a product or company successful.
So if I don't want to support Sony on the basis that they're corrupting the market (what you call "business"). Then I'm an elitist? If I choose to buy products from a company that I believe in. A company that for the most part shares similar values to my own, then I'm an elitist?

And by the way, the Q is better then anything Sony currently has on sale. Better AF then anything I've used to date, better EVF. Faster response time overall. Sensor (especially the colors) better then sony. Good strong high ISO, great base ISO. And even though the lens has it's share of compromises it's still leagues better then the 28/2 FE. And this is Leica we're talking about.. A company that doesn't piss with the big boys, as you say.

Sony camera bodies are severely lacking. Which is the main reason why I don't like Sony. They don't care to work on the minor details, they only care about producing gimmick cameras.. That was the whole basis of my initial argument. Sony really isn't about producing a quality product. They're about producing marketing hype.

And if I may get real for a moment.. Sony sensors are terrible.. Colours are just awful. Tonal transitions are poor. But yea there's the whole 36mp thing and good high ISO, at the cost of everything else. But maybe you and I see things differently.
 

iiiNelson

Well-known member
I understand your love for 240 knows no bounds, it's perfect!!! LOL

Your measurements show how easy and within reach the M6 footprint is. In hand, the M6, by wide consensus, feels great. The M9, let alone the 240, feels totally unnatural in comparison. I'm not the only one who feels this way.

You seem to feel Leica "needs" the 240 size to get all the bits in there, including a decent battery. This is baseless. Not only could they hit the M6 footprint but could build in the EVF as well. But it would take a design from scratch, which is expensive. Why spend the money when fans like you will accept the current model? And defend it ti the hilt!!

But I like to see a man who loves his camera :)
The M240 and M9 may be many things... Too big does not fit into the "con" column IMO. Maybe the ergonomics are slightly different than they are on the M6 but saying it's way too big when it's marginally larger in reality is disingenuous.
 

sjg284

Member
I've found the digital Ms, especially the M240 to be sufficiently heavy/thick to require a grip for ergonomics.. which then leads to even more weight.

I find there is a good deal of wrist strain associated with using my M240 kit vs my A7s kit, unfortunately. The Q is tempting, I bought the X 113 last month and have been very happy with it for my super light body.
 

rayyan

Well-known member
I used the term ' elitist ' based on this:

' And now are corrupting the optics market by making by making low cost lenses with digital corrections that pressure other companies to do the same. And people that go around praising them are just adding to the downfall of quality products. "

Good. Somebody is pressurizing other lens manufacturer's. Good for the consumer. For the ' plebes ' that don't necessarily have a readily disposable income to afford luxury prices, but still want to enjoy the pursuit of photography at a reasonable cost.

Which company you buy from or what you buy is really no concern of mine. And neither should it be. But to keep prices high for a product that serves a niche market, while denying others the opportunity to afford almost similar quality products definitely is. Let me repeat a fundamental..companies are there to make a profit. Nothing more,nothing less. How they go about it varies. Price is one of the variables used to compete in a free market.

The only value a company shares ( with its stockholders and investors ) is the profit margins. Along the way, all the preamble one finds in a company's annual report is for people like me. Marketing. That is what it is about.

Let me repeat, I think the Q seems to be an excellent product...fit for some, unfit for others. I shall wait for the early adopters to begin to have buyer's remorse..expressed in various subtle forms, of course. It is already beginning to show.

I wish Leica well with its products.

I wish Sony and all other cam manufacturers well too. I want all of them to do well, because in the end it benefits the end consumers..the luxury market and the
professionals and the enthusiasts and the beginners.

That can only be good for all of us.

But warm wooly cuddly notions of brand loyalty, shared values and sentimentality
do not figure in my decisions to buy a camera.

My interest, need, disposable income, camera capability, service and support are a few parameters on which I base my decisions for camera purchases.

A camera is just a commodity..let the market put a price on it.
 

aDam007

New member
I've found the digital Ms, especially the M240 to be sufficiently heavy/thick to require a grip for ergonomics.. which then leads to even more weight.

I find there is a good deal of wrist strain associated with using my M240 kit vs my A7s kit, unfortunately. The Q is tempting, I bought the X 113 last month and have been very happy with it for my super light body.
I find the M240 fits my hand better then the M7/MPfilm. My Q is a bit on the small side for my fingers. But I'm pretty thrilled about the weight being reduced significantly, though not at the cost of battery life. Which could be better. It's not as bad as Sony's A7-series batteries though, but still could be better (and hopefully will be, if they release an interchangeable Q).
 

iiiNelson

Well-known member
So if I don't want to support Sony on the basis that they're corrupting the market (what you call "business"). Then I'm an elitist? If I choose to buy products from a company that I believe in. A company that for the most part shares similar values to my own, then I'm an elitist?

And by the way, the Q is better then anything Sony currently has on sale. Better AF then anything I've used to date, better EVF. Faster response time overall. Sensor (especially the colors) better then sony. Good strong high ISO, great base ISO. And even though the lens has it's share of compromises it's still leagues better then the 28/2 FE. And this is Leica we're talking about.. A company that doesn't piss with the big boys, as you say.

Sony camera bodies are severely lacking. Which is the main reason why I don't like Sony. They don't care to work on the minor details, they only care about producing gimmick cameras.. That was the whole basis of my initial argument. Sony really isn't about producing a quality product. They're about producing marketing hype.

And if I may get real for a moment.. Sony sensors are terrible.. Colours are just awful. Tonal transitions are poor. But yea there's the whole 36mp thing and good high ISO, at the cost of everything else. But maybe you and I see things differently.
In honesty Rayyan makes some very good points. I won't go so far to say you're elitist but I would go so far to say that Sony and Leica are not all that different in many ways.

Full disclosure - I'm a Sony being shooter now after being a Leica shooter nearly exclusively for 4 years.

As for Sony's sensors being "terrible" I think you're in the minority on that one.That is the ONE thing that they unequivocally do better that everyone else. Sony colors at and near base ISO is one of the strongest reasons that people choose them. Whether they are better than Leica or Olympus is subjective but I can say I prefer them to the M240 color by a long shot - again it's subjective. I agree that there is room for improvement in their bodies but they DO listen to feedback and they DO add the most requested addition IF they can within the target price range.

I can't say the same for Leica... How long have people asked for a less expensive M alternative? How long have people asked for an FF entry level camera to get people interested in Leica for the under 30-40 crowd? Well I can say first hand in my case I got tired of waiting for that camera to come once Sony released the FE cameras. Perfect or not they are in the right direction of what I hoped Leica would make for the M lenses that I have... Well mostly that's HAD at this point.

Regarding the Q having a better lens built in than the Sony 28/2... Well it better for 10X the price... If it didn't no one would take it seriously outside hardcore Leica people.

When it comes to lens corrections - there isn't a company INCLUDING Leica that isn't correcting for distortion/vignetting in software - this includes Phase One, Schneider, Rodenstock technical camera lenses, Zeiss, Hasselblad, etc. To highlight this as a "flaw" exclusive to Sony bringing down the camera industry is ignorant at best. It may not be optimum but it's the cost of doing business, having shareholders, doing marketing analysis that looks at cost/value relationships in declining world markets. If computers can correct more efficiently, faster than the human brain, and the final product can be produced nearly indistinguishably - then a company is going to make the less expensive version depending on the market it's aimed at.

Don't get me wrong. I loved using my M but it's not as versatile as my FE cameras. Maybe the M's were more natural for me to use but my 6 month test of the FE cameras I bought revealed to me that I have a M9-P sitting in a Luigi case with light dusting on it in that time period... That was enough to make a decision with my head and not with my heart about what gear was "needed."
 

iiiNelson

Well-known member
I say all of that and the reality is that there really aren't many bad cameras today... Not even our cell phones. The fact that we can engage in debate over the merits of various pieces of electronic equipment definitely falls deeply into the realm of "FIRST WORLD PROBLEMS."
 
V

Vivek

Guest
I say all of that and the reality is that there really aren't many bad cameras today... Not even our cell phones. The fact that we can engage in debate over the merits of various pieces of electronic equipment definitely falls deeply into the realm of "FIRST WORLD PROBLEMS."
:thumbs:

I am seriously thinking about ditching everything for an iPhone 6 or a future 7.
 
This argument about software corrections for lenses is beyond hilarious to the point of just being sad. Is it really getting in the way of your photography??? Lee Friedlander made photos for years with lenses that even Voigtlander has outpaced by modern standards, with emulsions and developers that would make most of your throw up your hand in desperation. If they can make the flange distance less by a software correction and bring costs/size down, they should do it! If that's really preventing you from making quality photos then you have bigger problems than Leica can solve. The cats outta the bag and its not going back to whatever idea you have in your head of the good old days. I understand that it used to be fun to disparage other non-Leica brands by saying their lenses weren't up to Red Dot standards because of software, but now that you know Leica is playing this game too, maybe you have other questions to ask yourself? Like...are these prices REALLY worth it? Nobody has the answer to that but you.
 

aDam007

New member
I used the term ' elitist ' based on this:

' And now are corrupting the optics market by making by making low cost lenses with digital corrections that pressure other companies to do the same. And people that go around praising them are just adding to the downfall of quality products. "

Good. Somebody is pressurizing other lens manufacturer's. Good for the consumer. For the ' plebes ' that don't necessarily have a readily disposable income to afford luxury prices, but still want to enjoy the pursuit of photography at a reasonable cost.

Which company you buy from or what you buy is really no concern of mine. And neither should it be. But to keep prices high for a product that serves a niche market, while denying others the opportunity to afford almost similar quality products definitely is. Let me repeat a fundamental..companies are there to make a profit. Nothing more,nothing less. How they go about it varies. Price is one of the variables used to compete in a free market.

The only value a company shares ( with its stockholders and investors ) is the profit margins. Along the way, all the preamble one finds in a company's annual report is for people like me. Marketing. That is what it is about.

Let me repeat, I think the Q seems to be an excellent product...fit for some, unfit for others. I shall wait for the early adopters to begin to have buyer's remorse..expressed in various subtle forms, of course. It is already beginning to show.

I wish Leica well with its products.

I wish Sony and all other cam manufacturers well too. I want all of them to do well, because in the end it benefits the end consumers..the luxury market and the
professionals and the enthusiasts and the beginners.

That can only be good for all of us.

But warm wooly cuddly notions of brand loyalty, shared values and sentimentality
do not figure in my decisions to buy a camera.

My interest, need, disposable income, camera capability, service and support are a few few parameters on which I base my decisions for camera purchases.

A camera is just a commodity..let the market put a price on it.

Again, you think because I have expensive cameras that I'm an elitist.
But you'll readily dismiss the fact that I care about quality. And you'll defend Sony, which hasn't been giving us quality products, and you'll call it "fair business".

Again you miss the original point. Sony makes inferior products, purposely. Drives product prices down to force other manufacturers to use their tech, and at the end of the day, the photographer is worse off for it.

You seem to think that because they gave the world a compact FF camera that we're all better off for it. Great, I agree.. But since, what have they done that's been positive for the end consumer?

Again, because I like to support businesses that try their hardest to not play by Sony's terms, I'm an elitist?
 

aDam007

New member
I say all of that and the reality is that there really aren't many bad cameras today... Not even our cell phones. The fact that we can engage in debate over the merits of various pieces of electronic equipment definitely falls deeply into the realm of "FIRST WORLD PROBLEMS."
I can agree with you here on both points :D
 
Top