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!

Irwin Puts Says Farewell to Leica?

Geoff

Well-known member
Lurking somewhere in this conversation is a larger issue, that of how to undertake revamping traditions. It’s a tricky business, to be sure, and evermore so in a world with significant, high paced, and constant technological change

Leica has, as have others, to make changes, while at the same time, tried to stay true to their core values. The problem becomes more difficult as there is a lack of clear consensus on what those core values are.

Looking back over Leica’s efforts over the past say 10-20 years, one can readily see a number of mis-steps or approaches that didn’t work out. But one can also see some that did, surprisingly so - each of us will have our own list. I suspect the M9-M10 dwould be on most, and not the M8. I’d pick the MM and even today’s CL as special examples.

What is admirable about Leica is that they are still trying - having both misses and successes. One has to give them points for a willingness to try, to explore, and for engaging the issue of what makes them special if we step back, the list of approaches tried is rather long, and quite interesting. It includes fashion, boutiques, quality manufacture, T and S models, among others.

Puts’ departure clearly signals some sort of internal struggle going on, probably related to future business models, focus and direction; it’s likely that core manufacturing (Puts’ favored approach) is under revision. Maybe it’s necessary to change, maybe it’s a mistake (remember Hasselblad?). We’ll see over time.

But I for one am heartened by those in the company who have good design values, and a willingness to make a product with some core values I share -which include a focus on ease of use, refinement, build quality, and lens excellence. They are cameras made for thoughtful shooters. Let’s hope they continue to have success and remain in the game. The world needs smaller companies charting out a different path.
 

jdphoto

Well-known member
Obviously, the analogue vs digital debate thrives over his comments. I think he's right. I had the M9 and although, liked the look of a CCD, it was, at launch a really outdated camera. Most digital cameras today share the same technology and parts manufactures, so why overpay for tech that is not cutting edge or innovative? Leica's reputation was built on its film heritage and quality and that seems more diluted with each new digital model. Irwin Puts has a respectable reputation for those who agree with him.
 

pegelli

Well-known member
Leica's reputation was built on its film heritage and quality and that seems more diluted with each new digital model.
I don't see this, compared with the M9 the M10 has a better sensor with less reliability issues and the body is a lot thinner, thereby resembling more to the film M's. And I also don't see the SL2 being a step back from the SL, allthough it's early days.

Re. Puts, I think sour grapes are never an elegant farewell.
 

jonoslack

Active member
Are Leica giving up the rangefinder? This is the first I have heard of it. But the idea that Leica is only a rangefinder company is silly--what was the Leica R series? That was carried over with the S. Now they are going forward with the development of mirrorless. It is actually a natural procession for camera companies.

Puts was always a romantic and I really did not really agree with his characterization of photography (I have never been a fan of mythologizing camera equipment). Still, he could have had more grace in his retirement than using overused cliches to slam the company--I wonder how he would feel knowing that his well loved M optics have been designed with software for a long time.

But I think this is good news. Leica has been hamstrung by the conservatism of its fans like Puts for far too long. They started as innovators. I am sure Puts would have been critical of the company for abandoning the universality and simplicity of the screw mount for the bayonet and appalled with putting the rangefinder in the viewfinder. The only good thing is he became a Leica fan when the M was in production.
Great post Will
No - Leica are absolutely NOT giving up on the rangefinder (or the M of course).
And it’s more difficult to mythologise camera equipment in the face of deluges of technical specifications.
Maybe it’s just that they don’t (can’t) listen to him like they used to, and they’re much bigger than they were in his heyday (I caught the tail end of the charming ‘cottage industry’ at Solms [which never made a profit]) - and it was lovely going there and seeing your name on the notice board!

I guess he has talked himself into a corner and there’s no way out!

All the best
 

jonoslack

Active member
As a grumpy old man I realise that the most important thing left for me to do is to try to avoid sounding like a grumpy old man . . .
I guess that Erwin is embracing his inner grumpy old man.
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
As a grumpy old man I realise that the most important thing left for me to do is to try to avoid sounding like a grumpy old man . . .
I guess that Erwin is embracing his inner grumpy old man.
With the launch of the SL2, I think I see the reason for his sorrow. The M is not any longer the ultimate Leica. That title now belongs to the SL2, a camera with an electronic viewfinder, professional level video and other features that traditionalists love to hate. While the M is not being sidelined, it's becoming even more irrelevant than it was, and there's clearly no way back.
 

SrMphoto

Well-known member
With the launch of the SL2, I think I see the reason for his sorrow. The M is not any longer the ultimate Leica. That title now belongs to the SL2, a camera with an electronic viewfinder, professional level video and other features that traditionalists love to hate. While the M is not being sidelined, it's becoming even more irrelevant than it was, and there's clearly no way back.
SL2, with its IBIS and higher resolution, may give new life to M-lenses, though. Leica may decide to redo a couple of older designs to be able to handle better +100Mp resolution.

On the other hand, the M cameras and the mirrorless are so different that I do not think they compete against each other. If you need/want a rangefinder, SL2 will not do.
 

MCTuomey

New member
I'm squarely in the last third of my life, and feel empathy toward Erwin Puts. It is hard not to find much in the future of one's affiliations, and consequently feel only nostalgia for a world that's well past. Sad he seems to see little value and continuity in Leica's new mirrorless bodies and lenses.
 

ptomsu

Workshop Member
I am not feeling sad about Erwin, I did not like his attitude during the last years anyway, so better let him go.

WRT modern Leica mirrorless bodies (and lenses) - after a while now I start liking the idea to buy an SL2 body just for using my M lenses. It is cheaper as an M10 (or whatever will come in the next years), has a perfect EVF that makes manual focusing a breeze, has IBIS that probably never will come in a digital M and finally if I decide I could get one or two of the modern clinical SL lenses and use it with decent AF.

IMO Leica is just on the right way :thumbs:
 

iiiNelson

Well-known member
I am not feeling sad about Erwin, I did not like his attitude during the last years anyway, so better let him go.

WRT modern Leica mirrorless bodies (and lenses) - after a while now I start liking the idea to buy an SL2 body just for using my M lenses. It is cheaper as an M10 (or whatever will come in the next years), has a perfect EVF that makes manual focusing a breeze, has IBIS that probably never will come in a digital M and finally if I decide I could get one or two of the modern clinical SL lenses and use it with decent AF.

IMO Leica is just on the right way :thumbs:
Also, keep in mind it’s going to be about the same size as the LUMIX S that you stated was too large for your personal desires. The SL2 looks great on paper and in practice... but is it actually right for YOU based on your list of desired features?
 

ptomsu

Workshop Member
Also, keep in mind it’s going to be about the same size as the LUMIX S that you stated was too large for your personal desires. The SL2 looks great on paper and in practice... but is it actually right for YOU based on your list of desired features?
Well, I kind of gave up on finding a right camera for my M lenses that is not Leica, as it always also implies for me to build a native non Leica FF system which duplicates a number of the lenses I already have in my M lineup. I am sure no 3rd party camera can be as good as a native Leica with M lenses.

Why the SL2? Because I would use it mainly as a digital M replacement - as I mentioned it is cheaper than any modern M that interests me and IF I want I could also add a few native SL lenses (maybe zooms, maybe just non Leica L-mount lenses) and call it a day. And shoot this in parallel to my Olympus m43 gear I already own and will most probably never sell as I will not get much money out of that.

So 2 systems - Olympus for "fast, quick and dirty shooting" and also extreme telephoto use and Leica SL for when I really want to work with my M glass. And for that the SL2 seems to be the best piece of gear hands down.
 

iiiNelson

Well-known member
Well, I kind of gave up on finding a right camera for my M lenses that is not Leica, as it always also implies for me to build a native non Leica FF system which duplicates a number of the lenses I already have in my M lineup. I am sure no 3rd party camera can be as good as a native Leica with M lenses.

Why the SL2? Because I would use it mainly as a digital M replacement - as I mentioned it is cheaper than any modern M that interests me and IF I want I could also add a few native SL lenses (maybe zooms, maybe just non Leica L-mount lenses) and call it a day. And shoot this in parallel to my Olympus m43 gear I already own and will most probably never sell as I will not get much money out of that.

So 2 systems - Olympus for "fast, quick and dirty shooting" and also extreme telephoto use and Leica SL for when I really want to work with my M glass. And for that the SL2 seems to be the best piece of gear hands down.
Makes sense... and also a similar conclusion that I’ve come to.

Sony for my business kit and I’m heavily leaning towards adding a LUMIX S body for my personal kit... or maybe a G9 too since they’ve cut the price heavily. I thought about the GFX but I don’t want the 100 megapixels and older bodies give up a certain amount of speed. I like the SL2 but I can’t deal with not having a tilting screen personally. It’s really the thing that took it out of consideration. I think the video specs are good enough that they’re worth the premium over the S1R (if one wanted to utilize them) but perhaps Panasonic will firmware update the S1R (to add 10-bit, LOG key option, and maybe C4K) since its nearly the same price as the S1H.
 

ptomsu

Workshop Member
Makes sense... and also a similar conclusion that I’ve come to.

Sony for my business kit and I’m heavily leaning towards adding a LUMIX S body for my personal kit... or maybe a G9 too since they’ve cut the price heavily. I thought about the GFX but I don’t want the 100 megapixels and older bodies give up a certain amount of speed. I like the SL2 but I can’t deal with not having a tilting screen personally. It’s really the thing that took it out of consideration. I think the video specs are good enough that they’re worth the premium over the S1R (if one wanted to utilize them) but perhaps Panasonic will firmware update the S1R (to add 10-bit, LOG key option, and maybe C4K) since its nearly the same price as the S1H.
Yes absolutely agree!

If I would not want to use (reuse) all my M glass than I would not even consider the SL2 but go with Panasonic FF.

But hey, owning the 1/50 Nocti, the 1.4/75, the WATE, the 2.8/24, 2.8/28, 2/35 ASPH, 1.4/35 ASPH, 1.4/50 ASPH, 2/75, 2/90 ASPH and finally the 3.4/135/ASPH why should I want to buy new glass replacing these beauties? If I can make them shine on a SL2 again :thumbs:
 

PeterA

Well-known member
Yes absolutely agree!

If I would not want to use (reuse) all my M glass than I would not even consider the SL2 but go with Panasonic FF.

But hey, owning the 1/50 Nocti, the 1.4/75, the WATE, the 2.8/24, 2.8/28, 2/35 ASPH, 1.4/35 ASPH, 1.4/50 ASPH, 2/75, 2/90 ASPH and finally the 3.4/135/ASPH why should I want to buy new glass replacing these beauties? If I can make them shine on a SL2 again :thumbs:
It is a very very tough decision to exit M glass - took me 2 years of back and forth in my thinking. What I realised was I was holding on to gear that I 'used to love' shooting with - nostalgia is a drug.

What tipped the scales for me was a combination of Fuji when the GFX100 was announced but more importantly - when I started really testing the new Leica L primes on my SL.

I've bought an SL2 because of the primes - best glass Leica has ever made- by a long way - only things that come close are the best of the TL lenses on a CL. I think Peter, you might consider an SL body to use your M lenses on - the SL2 is 'wasted' on M glass - you don't have autofocus and you don't have the resolving power or to be frank the rendering beauty of the new crons - they are all outstanding - and really how many focal lengths does one really need?

My GFX is for landscapes and when I want to print very large...my SL's are for events and some lifestyle/editorial shooting I occasionally get roped in for.If I was just making happy snaps - I'd probably just use a CL with the 11-23 | 35/1.4 and 60 macro as a kit - hard to beat for quality.

You are 'stuck' because of your M lens inventory - difficult place to be - I've been there.
 

D&A

Well-known member
Although the SL and SL2 are more optimized for M glass than the Panasonic S1 and S1R etc., not all is a panacea with M glass on the SL...most notably some (not all) of the wide's and ultra wide's (even though obviously they are better than on the Panasonic's and unaltered Sony's). Clearly they work best on an M body and although a different beast, work extremely well on the APS Leica CL, due to it's crop factor. I'm not suggesting image wise, there is no difference between a Leica SL and CL, but I almost think money wise and also performance wise regarding some of the wide's and ultra wide's M glass, that a CL might actually be a better choice. Then again lenses like the 50mm Noct and 74mm f1.4, do balance better on a SL. There really is no one perfect, ideal solution and it comes down to where one is willing to make compromises for their type of work/photography.

Dave (D&A)
 
Last edited:

iiiNelson

Well-known member
Yes absolutely agree!

If I would not want to use (reuse) all my M glass than I would not even consider the SL2 but go with Panasonic FF.

But hey, owning the 1/50 Nocti, the 1.4/75, the WATE, the 2.8/24, 2.8/28, 2/35 ASPH, 1.4/35 ASPH, 1.4/50 ASPH, 2/75, 2/90 ASPH and finally the 3.4/135/ASPH why should I want to buy new glass replacing these beauties? If I can make them shine on a SL2 again :thumbs:
I hear you but personally I’d trade in the M versions of my favorite focal lengths for the SL Summicron versions. For me that would include the 35, 90, and the upcoming 21. For a 50 I think I’d look at the LUMIX S Pro 50/1.4 even though it’s large. From the shots I’ve seen it’s hardly distinguishable from the Leica Summilux. The Leica is better but I don’t know that it’s $3k more better. For the other lenses the M’a would be fine because frankly they wouldn’t be my most used lenses. I could also see foregoing any 50’s other than your Noctilux too.

Update... just decided to buy an S1R kit which will be here on Tuesday.
 
Last edited:

Paratom

Well-known member
It is a very very tough decision to exit M glass - took me 2 years of back and forth in my thinking. What I realised was I was holding on to gear that I 'used to love' shooting with - nostalgia is a drug.

What tipped the scales for me was a combination of Fuji when the GFX100 was announced but more importantly - when I started really testing the new Leica L primes on my SL.

I've bought an SL2 because of the primes - best glass Leica has ever made- by a long way - only things that come close are the best of the TL lenses on a CL. I think Peter, you might consider an SL body to use your M lenses on - the SL2 is 'wasted' on M glass - you don't have autofocus and you don't have the resolving power or to be frank the rendering beauty of the new crons - they are all outstanding - and really how many focal lengths does one really need?

My GFX is for landscapes and when I want to print very large...my SL's are for events and some lifestyle/editorial shooting I occasionally get roped in for.If I was just making happy snaps - I'd probably just use a CL with the 11-23 | 35/1.4 and 60 macro as a kit - hard to beat for quality.

You are 'stuck' because of your M lens inventory - difficult place to be - I've been there.
I am stuck there as well.
Some years ago I started a first attemp to reduce my m-glass collection - when I relized I couldnt focus some lenses reliable anyways. Got rid of my Nocti 0,95, 75/1.4, 50/1.4.
After getting some SL primes I use my M10 less and less. I am not willing to give it up but I really think I will get rid of some more lenses. For me M works best with 28/35 and 50mm.
For 21mm I dont need AF so I will keep the 21/3,4 M and have that as a compact UWA for both M and SL2.
But I really dont think I will be using any longer lenses tha 50mm on my M in the future.
 
Top