stephengilbert
Active member
Erwin Puts Says Farewell to Leica (?)
https://theonlinephotographer.typep...019/10/erwin-puts-says-farewell-to-leica.html
https://theonlinephotographer.typep...019/10/erwin-puts-says-farewell-to-leica.html
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!
I think the changing market has forced Leica into a position of product diversity. People may not like it but the reality is that the traditional Leica customer is dying off. People in my age demographic (35-44) may have had some film experience but more than likely that was on a Canon/Nikon/Pentax/Minolta Camera... unless someone had a rally nice hand me down.Go to the source he explained himself on his own blog . Leica has made a major shift in its strategic direction . (1) emphasis on firmware /software leading to computational photography ..moving away from precision manufacturing of cameras and lenses (2) profit completely driving investments .eg. Cinema lenses sets at over $200K (3) strategic partnerships as source of income and approach to reducing investments required .
This has killed Leica s emphasis and investment in unique products . The M can no longer sustain the business ,the S is dead . Only the Q and SL represent professional products and they are not particularly differentiated from Sony,Canon,Nikon .
Its going to get much much worse for Leica s traditional customer base .
Well, hmm. I don't know what word fits better. Rangefinder 35mm cameras with interchangeable lenses were surpassed in focusing accuracy, framing accuracy, lens versatility, etc, by SLRs in this camera class, and later by AF equipped slim, similar cameras. While there is a niche following that still prefers the rangefinder, its view/focusing system is an obsolete design.I don't think "obsolete" is the correct word. While rangefinders aren't leading edge, they still have a strong following and are selling. The thing that makes M cameras relevant is still present, I just don't think it does anything for my photography.
Joel
Actually, obsolescence is when something isn't used, outdated, surpassed, etc. Outdated and surpassed might be a matter of opinion but they are certainly being used.Well, hmm. I don't know what word fits better. Rangefinder 35mm cameras with interchangeable lenses were surpassed in focusing accuracy, framing accuracy, lens versatility, etc, by SLRs in this camera class, and later by AF equipped slim, similar cameras. While there is a niche following that still prefers the rangefinder, its view/focusing system is an obsolete design.
Whether it's still a good camera, still satisfies users, etc etc, isn't at issue. Obsolescence is a matter of technical verisimilitude, not whether the thing in question is still useful and liked.
The question that comes to mind is in the phrase you wrote: "The thing that makes M camera relevant is still present ..." What is that "thing" and why don't you think it does anything for your photography?
G
Well, it's kind of a semantic or nomenclatural distinction. Wikipedia says :Actually, obsolescence is when something isn't used, outdated, surpassed, etc. Outdated and surpassed might be a matter of opinion but they are certainly being used. ...
By that, it's something of a judgement call as to how you interpret the term. I use the first interpretation in this discussion.Obsolescence is the state of being which occurs when an object, service, or practice is no longer wanted even though it may still be in good working order.
The international standard EN62402 Obsolescence Management - Application Guide defines obsolescence as being the "transition from availability of products by the original manufacturer or supplier to unavailability".
Obsolescence frequently occurs because a replacement has become available that has, in sum, more advantages compared to the disadvantages incurred by maintaining or repairing the original.
Obsolete also refers to something that is already disused or discarded, or antiquated. Typically, obsolescence is preceded by a gradual decline in popularity.
This often-ballyhooed feature of the rangefinder I have not found to be of any value to me at all, for two reasons. First of all, with wide lenses and most RF viewfinders, and the fact that I have always worn glasses, there's often little to no visibility of anything outside the frame available. In fact, with the 28mm frame lines on a Leica M with .72x magnification finder, I cannot even see the 28mm frame lines without moving my eye around the too-tight exit pupil of the viewfinder ... It's only with longer focal lengths that I can easily see outside the frame... One thing that comes to mind is that with a rangefinder, you can see the action coming in and going out of the frame. ...
Yes, very subjective. Some of my Ms have been easier to focus than others, due to qualities and changes in the viewfinder optical system. The best two so far have been my now-departed M-D typ 262 and my first-series M4-2 (same as the M4). My M9 was particularly difficult to judge coincidence of the RF images with compared to my other Ms over the years, due to the lower magnification of its viewfinder image (.68x vs .72x).... Another thing might be ease of focusing, but that's subjective. These are some of the reasons I loved the Leica system for all those years.
Granted, and note that I'm enjoying the discussion....I'm certainly not trying to make any sort of argument for or against either you or Leica, but ultimately I feel a loss and perhaps even let down. Not their fault as they need to survive, but after 42 years, it's a loss none the less.
I agree with the definition you use, but not your interpretation. The Leica Ms are still wanted, which from the definition you posted does not make them obsolete.Well, it's kind of a semantic or nomenclatural distinction. Wikipedia says :
By that, it's something of a judgement call as to how you interpret the term. I use the first interpretation in this discussion.
This often-ballyhooed feature of the rangefinder I have not found to be of any value to me at all, for two reasons. First of all, with wide lenses and most RF viewfinders, and the fact that I have always worn glasses, there's often little to no visibility of anything outside the frame available. In fact, with the 28mm frame lines on a Leica M with .72x magnification finder, I cannot even see the 28mm frame lines without moving my eye around the too-tight exit pupil of the viewfinder ... It's only with longer focal lengths that I can easily see outside the frame.
And then it's a matter of where my attention is directed: when I'm framing a scene, my attention is on what's inside the frame lines, not on what's outside the frame lines, and I barely notice the latter. I also do not tend to hold the camera to my eye for anything other than a brief moment with an RF, like I do with a TTL viewfinder, so the notion that I'm studying what's inside the viewfinder to see what's moving in and out of the frame lines is false.
With an RF camera, I always "know" what the lens will see, pick the camera to my eye to rapidly adjust the focus indicator, point the camera using the frame lines as a quick guide, release the shutter, and put the camera down to continue looking around me for photo opportunities. My workflow differs with a TTL camera as then I'll spend more time looking at and around with the camera viewfinder for opportunities. I don't know whether others have this same differentiation between cameras in their workflows, but that's how I do it
Yes, very subjective. Some of my Ms have been easier to focus than others, due to qualities and changes in the viewfinder optical system. The best two so far have been my now-departed M-D typ 262 and my first-series M4-2 (same as the M4). My M9 was particularly difficult to judge coincidence of the RF images with compared to my other Ms over the years, due to the lower magnification of its viewfinder image (.68x vs .72x).
Certainly any TTL viewing/focusing camera has more diverse capabilities with regards to focal length and focusing accuracy, close up framing (due to the lack of parallax issues), etc. The Leica M typ 240 and later with the Visoflex EVF, earlier and other models fitted with a Visoflex ... these devices add more capability to the RF camera and overcome the RF system's inherent accuracy limitations by making the M a TTL camera. But they're nowhere near as convenient and fluid in use as actual TTL cameras can be.
Granted, and note that I'm enjoying the discussion.
The Leica SL and CL/T/TL series cameras overcome all of the obsolescence of the M's RF viewfinder system, and the SL and TL lens series designed for them are certainly at the same level of quality and rendering as the M and R series lenses. So if you need or want the TTL capabilities, Leica has the solution for you well in hand. If you prefer the RF system, well, the M is still in production (both film and digital versions, and lenses) and continues to work well despite its obsolescence. So I don't really know what there is to complain or be sad about.
G
LOL! I'm sorry, Will, but the Leica M has not been the preferred camera type for the VAST majority of photographers since the middle 1960s. Sure, there's a niche market for 35mm, interchangeable lens, rangefinder cameras that still exists today ... but there's still a niche market for Daguerreotypes and one could hardly not call that an obsolete technology despite that fact.I agree with the definition you use, but not your interpretation. The Leica Ms are still wanted, which from the definition you posted does not make them obsolete.