MSTR Photography: I think the mistake everyone here is making is not looking at what can keep Hasselblad viable in today's and tomorrows market. There is nothing wrong with branching out into the ILC market or the APS C market or even the full frame market to help the company grow. Instead of trying to bring the bling like Leica does to an over-priced product, they need to consider bringing the quality they are famous for to a reasonably priced product. I don't mean dropping their prices to Sony, Canon or Nikon levels (which are all making great cameras), but following the example of Pentax in making a product which is affordable to the semi-pro photographer while maintaining their ever-present quality standards would go a long way to keeping them in the ever trembling photography market and help to strengthen their position as a top of the line company with both the product and the photographer in mind.
AR - In my own experience, the quality of many affordable West German made post-war cameras was simply not good enough and they were generally much too expensive. This is what killed the Voigtlanders and Zeiss Ikons. Pro cameras like the Rolleiflex became too expensive and couldn't compete with Japanese products made by companies like Mamiya in terns of cost and quality. There was nothing in Europe to compare with the Spotmatic, Nikon F, etc, etc and that's what killed the European amateur camera business. Leica and Hasselblad survived, because they produced superb hardware that was designed as tools - for example being chosen by NASA and the US military for various jobs. These were never simply posh items of hardware to wear around your neck on a South of France beach.
zzzxtreme: Please continue rebadging cameras so we can have a laugh. We need a joke in the photography industry
Having a track record that lists Gucci doesn't exactly inspire confidence. If Perry Oosting had been head of R&D at Leica, or somewhere similar, that would tick all the right boxes.
Sadly, I don't think we should expect too much.
GabrielZ: Hallelujah! They seem to have come to their senses. I wish them well and look forward to see what they come up with.
Totally agree HR!
Many of the companies you mention actually buy in their basic optics from people like Sigma and Tamron, then they re-package them. Most of the electronics found in current generation digital cameras come from companies like Sony, Panasonic, Toshiba, etc. Not really all that much is manufactured on-site - so-as-to-speak. Most of it is bought in. Same with many modern industries.
Oh dear, it's BS time!
The handling looks a bit odd. The lens - probably manufactured by Tamron lacks sufficient focal length and I don't see any mention of the rotating control dial problem being fixed.
Not being a diehard Sony fan, I really can't see anything that might tempt me to buy one at the current rather high suggested price. Maybe the RX100-5 will be more to my liking? Shouldn't be too long before it appears.
Really nice and I wouldn't mind owning one of these. It pretty much goes without saying that the lens will be a superb performer and assuming the viewfinder is as good as suggested, this would be an excellent tool for some types of newspaper work.
photominion: To put myself out in the open: I hate overprized stuff like what Leica usually stands for (low res screens, outdated tech, etc) and usually buy used items in good condition at a great prize.
However, if Canon were to offer a 1Ds mk III with no color or low-pass filter at the same prize as the color version (got mine "used" with 5k shutter actuations at only 20% of the original retail.) I would instantly buy it!
I love shooting black &white be it on film or digital and I can see a clear difference in images from this Leica to a DSLR. And I don't think it's the lenses or the expensive casing, but simply the underlying tech from the sensor!
Ps: I also prefer vinyl on a valve amp for the sake of "focused" listening to music versus stupid "consumation"..Same with film photography: it's not about quality or hipster-swag but about the experience and anticipation for the pictures.
In terms of features, Leica have generally lagged behind the mainstream pro manufacturers for decades. However, having owned several Leica film cameras in the past, I would just say that although they have their faults and like a Rolex are well-overpriced, the standard of build, engineering and feel are superb and the modern Leitz lenses (I've used) are second to none. I also suspect they remain more reliable than any of the competition, due to a lower number of components that are likely to fail.
Nevertheless, a B&W only camera to me is a fairly pointless tool I could never justify buying and don't really want.
In my opinion, should Canon or Nikon produce a camera with a B&W only chip, they would find it a disastrous move, even if many amateur compacts now come with assorted special effects options built in, presumably intended to make mediocre work look more interesting.
dccdp: This is the weirdest justification for snobbery I've ever read.
Just face it: if there really is a practical value to this type of camera, the market will request it, and other companies will start make it in volumes so that in two years such tools will be sold at affordable prices. But I'm afraid this is not about practical value, and this kind of tool is not really needed by photographers or artists. This is only a collector piece, it's about snobbery, and about throwing away money just to get a fabricated feeling of being special and unique. They might as well have printed a limited edition stamp with "Monochrom" written in gold letters on its face, and the effect would have been the same.
When you go to an art gallery, you don't care what brand of paint has the artist used. You just look at the painting and value its message.
HR - I can see we'll eventually be back to Alan Turing and Babbage at this rate!
I'd just add that solid state memory is rapidly replacing various types of disc drives and the software continues to evolve.
HR - no, you certainly didn't mention video and I'm not suggesting you did. I said that in overall terms, the CD and its various derivatives filled assorted gaps in different markets for digital data storage. It would seem a little restrictive to limit my comments to the original CD, which for all I know is now outsold by DVDs, either blank or carrying movies.
As for the market needing CDs, vinyl discs were showing serious limitations on capacity/quality/etc by the late 70s and were no good for in-car use, now dominated by cassettes. I may be wrong, but I think one of the original written requirements for the CD was to play a complete orchestral piece - not possible on an LP.
The music business was crying out for a good universal replacement and it's fairly clear that there was industry wide consultation to decide on a new technology.
Loreno Heer: It is funny how people here are apparently so upset about this camera. Fact is, it will be sold, a lot. It is a great camera to work with and it is fun to use. If you never used one maybe you should try before giving your oppinion. Many stores give you one to tryout for free for a few days. By the way, the statement in the article: "255 shades of grey" is wrong. As far as I know the sample-depth is 14-bit (maybe even 16) which would equal to 65536 shades of grey.
Thanks for the link. Still very expensive at just over $8,000 with sales tax. Obviously there is either a mistake with the UK price or something seriously wrong with Leica's European prices.
HR, I can see you just like arguing every single point for the sake of it. CDs / DVDs / whatever, have a variety of uses in various markets as I'm sure you know - from storing computer data/software to audio and movies. What's the problem with that?
The quoted price for this camera body is £12,750 (UK) which is $19,600 at today's exchange rate. No idea where the dollar figure in the report came from as it's incorrect. In Europe you can buy something pretty good for that much money, new or used and something adequate in the US.
Emm which country are you taking about that has stores willing to loan out the latest exceedingly expensive Leicas and lenses to test out for a few days? I'm obviously not living in the right place!
I would say the fact is that this "fun" camera, costing more than a reasonably good family saloon car will never be sold in quantity. If they make more than 1000, I would be very surprised as it has very narrow appeal for most purposes.
HR - The CD and subsequent DVD were developed from laser disc technology of the 1970s produced as I recall by a group of well known companies headed by Philips and Pioneer. The picture quality was certainly better than tape, but I don't remember if they were ever made for audio use. Nevertheless, the discs were rather clumsy and costly, with storage and development issues. It was obvious that the CD, CD ROM and DVD were just what was needed to fill huge market gaps and it was actually Philips and Sony behind the compact disc, not just Sony, who had earlier come unstuck with ill-conceived products like DAT and Betamax.
It really is fair to say that the computer/ audio/ movie markets were looking for a new inexpensive storage product and the large electronic companies simply filled the gap. What's complicated about that?
Pardon me for pointing out that it was the US Government that spurred initial development of The Internet for secure WW3 communications. The US Gov might be considered a major defense market I would have thought? The CD represented a stage in the constant push for increased data storage that the public and commerce immediately adopted. This would be called successfully filling a huge gap in existing markets that relied on crude magnetic discs and increasingly badly made vinyl sound recordings.
I really rather doubt if there is any significant market for something like this Leica camera, aside from a select few individuals with plenty of disposable income, who drink real ale, drive classic sports cars, think valve amplifiers and vinyl records are wonderful items and like telling everyone how right they are about everything. I suppose there are even some people who would like to go back to watching small, low resolution B&W televisions?
ThePhilips: ... The photographic fads get more ridiculous with every year.
In the days of film, I often printed color negative film onto B&W paper - without having to used specialized paper. The quality of B&W was always better and color film came with exposure tolerance, processing and cost issues and full acceptance of it by all publishers didn't happen until maybe the 1990s. But that was a different era and now a few people apparently want to do arty B&W stuff with a very expensive status symbol. I don't dislike good B&W work, but I think I'm still missing the point of all this!
VENTURE-STAR: Pardon my obvious stupidity, but where's the actual preview for this camera? There are a series of images that don't even show the back of this camera - is that the preview? Wouldn't a bit of technical spec and comment have been useful?
Leicas are lovely things and nice toys for lottery winners who have an interest in photography, but what's the point of a camera body that only does monochrome even if the images are fractionally cleaner? What's the advantage over making whatever you want monochrome on your PC? I'm afraid the point of this camera body seems to be going right over my head. It must be aimed at an extraordinarily small specialized market! I certainly don't know anyone who would seriously consider buying it.
No 7 most certainly does show the back. Obviously I missed it when hastily flicking through these snaps. Well spotted Darngood :-)
Pardon my obvious stupidity, but where's the actual preview for this camera? There are a series of images that don't even show the back of this camera - is that the preview? Wouldn't a bit of technical spec and comment have been useful?
bigdaddave: Use (waste) your money if you choose, it's your choice, but don't expect results to be any different from a good quality Nikon, Canon or even Sony lens.
I hate Leica, that's my choice, don't expect me to think they're great just because they're expensive.
Ah ha! I've always had a dislike of Volvos, mainly because the owners seem to drive like selfish idiots.