-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Interesting view of next M from Reichmann
- Thread starter jagsiva
- Start date
J
Jim Radcliffe
Guest
I've been saying something similar for almost two years now. I was criticized, beaten down and some even thought I was a troll because of my blasphemous thoughts.
I'm glad to see that someone as respected as Michael Reichmann thinks the same way I do. Great article, great suggestions... now, will Leica listen or continue down the same old path?
--
Jim Radcliffe
http://www.boxedlight.com
http://www.oceona.com
The ability to 'see' the shot is more important than the gear used to capture it.
I'm glad to see that someone as respected as Michael Reichmann thinks the same way I do. Great article, great suggestions... now, will Leica listen or continue down the same old path?
--
Jim Radcliffe
http://www.boxedlight.com
http://www.oceona.com
The ability to 'see' the shot is more important than the gear used to capture it.
I agree with almost everything he says, with the exception of the shape of the camera. I think that a well-molded rangefinder body fits very nicely in the hand, and one major thing that distinguishes rangefinders is the body shape. (D)SLR's have evolved into chunky, clumsy things with all manner of rounded protruberances, but even Olympus and Panasonic understand that the market will accept and welcome a smooth, rectangular body design.
I really like the idea of using a high resolution screen as well as a high res EVF instead of optical rangefinder, too.
--
Archiver - Recording the sights and sounds of life
http://www.flickr.com/photos/archiver/
I really like the idea of using a high resolution screen as well as a high res EVF instead of optical rangefinder, too.
--
Archiver - Recording the sights and sounds of life
http://www.flickr.com/photos/archiver/
I just read the article and I have to say that the concept sounds a lot like the m4/3 EP-1/2 and GF-1's but for full 135 frame.
And I have to say I like it but don't think it should be an M camera though.
Keep the M a rangefinder and add a new M mount system priced between the X1 and M9. Call it the MD series, loose the rangefinder, add a top class back LCD and EVF, great mf support and af too if it's not difficult plus the rest of what the article suggests, but most importantly keep the sensor 135 format.
Superior to m43 in almost every single way except size and price but all those M lenses will no longer be twice the focal length. It won't have any competition, well setting itself firmly in the premium segment but not as prohibitive as the M9 pricing.
And I have to say I like it but don't think it should be an M camera though.
Keep the M a rangefinder and add a new M mount system priced between the X1 and M9. Call it the MD series, loose the rangefinder, add a top class back LCD and EVF, great mf support and af too if it's not difficult plus the rest of what the article suggests, but most importantly keep the sensor 135 format.
Superior to m43 in almost every single way except size and price but all those M lenses will no longer be twice the focal length. It won't have any competition, well setting itself firmly in the premium segment but not as prohibitive as the M9 pricing.
J
Jim Radcliffe
Guest
His point was that the M/Rangefinder will eventually be a dead end except for a few hangers on (there will always be those).. and of course, collectors.
I've said for a long time that Leica's future is in their lenses rather than their bodies. If Leica were to introduce a number of lenses for MFT they'd sell like the dickens. In fact, a number of MFT owners are using M adapters and their crons and luxes on their MFT cameras with great results... even at double the focal length.
I'm also glad MR addressed the baseplate issue which has never made any sense at all to me. It's just a throwback and not very functional at all.
--
Jim Radcliffe
http://www.boxedlight.com
http://www.oceona.com
The ability to 'see' the shot is more important than the gear used to capture it.
Perhaps rangefinders will be an evolutionary dead end (like film?), but I somehow view the M rangefinder as somewhat important if only for the image, linking it's past.
I just feel if leica wanted to change its approach radically (by their standards) a different model line might be better.
There's no arguments from me about producing lenses for other mounts. The more revenue they generate the better for them.
I just think since they can get a 135 sensor in an M9, they could modernise it in a new product line and get that sensor into more photographer's hands who're likely to already own some M lenses.
So if I was an M film shooter, am I more likely to buy m43 and new Leica m43 lenses or keep my existing M lenses and buy a new leica m-mount 135 format camera but cheaper than an M9. I don't know cos I'm not an existing M-mount user but what I am is someone watching the mirrorless market very carefully to see where I want to put my money this yr and if leica had a 135 format EP-1 style camera I'd go that over m43.
I just feel if leica wanted to change its approach radically (by their standards) a different model line might be better.
There's no arguments from me about producing lenses for other mounts. The more revenue they generate the better for them.
I just think since they can get a 135 sensor in an M9, they could modernise it in a new product line and get that sensor into more photographer's hands who're likely to already own some M lenses.
So if I was an M film shooter, am I more likely to buy m43 and new Leica m43 lenses or keep my existing M lenses and buy a new leica m-mount 135 format camera but cheaper than an M9. I don't know cos I'm not an existing M-mount user but what I am is someone watching the mirrorless market very carefully to see where I want to put my money this yr and if leica had a 135 format EP-1 style camera I'd go that over m43.
webrunner5
Senior Member
I think Lecia has to change. Most of the people like me are in there 60's that where hooked and grew up with a Lecia as the top camera to have. Well guess what our eye sight is way past gone on manual focus and we are just are no longer able to focus a rangefinder that well.
So they need to change or they are going to die like the rest of us.
Don
So they need to change or they are going to die like the rest of us.
Don
shaocaholica
Senior Member
Why not have the entire top of the camera which holds the RF mechanism be modular? If you want an optical RF, you get that. If you want a high res EVF, you get the other module. This could also be a way to remove the mechanical RF linkage and replace it with an electronic one (for the optical RF) that can be re-calibrated on the fly. No more RF calibration woes.
You can even have different optical modules with different FOVs depending on your tastes.
You can even have different optical modules with different FOVs depending on your tastes.
J
Jim Radcliffe
Guest
Which is more along the lines of what Leica should have produced rather than the X1.
--
Jim Radcliffe
http://www.boxedlight.com
http://www.oceona.com
The ability to 'see' the shot is more important than the gear used to capture it.
ashwinrao1
Senior Member
I generally enjoy what MR has to say about these things, but I gotta disagree on this one...sorry guys...
The concept of the rangefinder is very unique to the world of photography and an aesthetic that I, as a younger photographer (I started with rangefinders 4 years ago, when I was 29), embrace fully. I would hate to see it disappear or even be called outdated. Some of prefer the Leica way of shooting, as Leicas have been shot for 60+ years. Others like SLR's. Even others like point and shoots or M4/3. Leica is unique in offering a digital rangefinder, and now a full frame digial option. That's unique and this uniqueness will always find a certain market among photographers. Not necessarily a huge market, but one that may be scaled to Leica's size and economic goals.
It seems that Michael is hoping for another type of camera, one that is closer to the Panasonic GF-1/EP-1 (as mentioned above), but with M roots. There may certainly be room for such a product in the marketpace as a true entry level for the rangefinder-curious, but it should not supplant the M9 or its follow ups, as that type of camera would have a completely different feel entirely.
To me, it seems that the M system has yet a ways to grow. Leica would be served well to continue to improve its pixel quality, dynamic range, and low light/higher ISO capabilities. At some point, we'll reach the limits of this technology and come upon a true digital Leica MP, but Leica is not there yet (nor, dare I say, are Canon, Sony, Nikon, or Olympus/Panny with m4/3). Some of the details that Michael refers to as antiquities, such as the baseplate, can be interpreted as part of the Leica aesthetic, rather than some antiquated detriment to camera useability.For me, there's no need to add tons of features like live view, an electronic viewfinder, or video to an M body...I could use a 5DII for that....
In my mind, The X1 will be an interesting (and possibly worthwhile experiment), but it seems that Leica would be better served (and maybe better served in terms of profit margins) in designing a smaller profile, M-style camera (like a digital CL that so many talk about), with some form of sensor (be it cropped or not) that has an M mount, but have more of the GF-1/EP-1/2 focussing concept. Such a product, if marketted appropriately, and priced right, would be a better entry into rangefinder photography and could make Leica some $$$. People would be able to use the legendary Leica glass and heritage lenses (which will be around long after we are) on such a camera, sans adapter, and the sensor could be optimized to make use of whatever fraction of the lenses field that Leica sees fit. This could be a true Leica entry drug, moreso than the x1 and its fixed lens.
Once people enter into this world, the more elemental (I laugh to write that), path to the digital M would be logical, if they chose to proceed that way. It's all about how Leica would care to market such a product. But I don't think such a product would be a replacement M.
Ultimately, as sensor technology gets cheaper, I see tiny sensor cameras such as the D-Lux 4, which I love and own, to fade into the past (or into entry level point and shoot-only status), while larger sensor portables such as the X1/EP 1/2/GF 1/GXR replace it. Leica should focus their efforts on this market if they want to further increase their profitability....BUT....
Leica is a small company...and seem set on staying that way...so they may not feel the need to do any of this....
And truth be told, I personally enjoy the rangefinder experience in its current incarnation. Having just spent a ton o' cash on the M9, I ain't goin' nowhere, and I suspect Leica's better goal should be to continue to recruit more people into RF photography by offering a cheaper option....
Time will tell, and until then, I am going to enjoy my M9....
--
Ashwin Rao
My blog: http://photos-ash.blogspot.com
My Flickr Sets: http://flickr.com/photos/ashwinrao1/sets/
The concept of the rangefinder is very unique to the world of photography and an aesthetic that I, as a younger photographer (I started with rangefinders 4 years ago, when I was 29), embrace fully. I would hate to see it disappear or even be called outdated. Some of prefer the Leica way of shooting, as Leicas have been shot for 60+ years. Others like SLR's. Even others like point and shoots or M4/3. Leica is unique in offering a digital rangefinder, and now a full frame digial option. That's unique and this uniqueness will always find a certain market among photographers. Not necessarily a huge market, but one that may be scaled to Leica's size and economic goals.
It seems that Michael is hoping for another type of camera, one that is closer to the Panasonic GF-1/EP-1 (as mentioned above), but with M roots. There may certainly be room for such a product in the marketpace as a true entry level for the rangefinder-curious, but it should not supplant the M9 or its follow ups, as that type of camera would have a completely different feel entirely.
To me, it seems that the M system has yet a ways to grow. Leica would be served well to continue to improve its pixel quality, dynamic range, and low light/higher ISO capabilities. At some point, we'll reach the limits of this technology and come upon a true digital Leica MP, but Leica is not there yet (nor, dare I say, are Canon, Sony, Nikon, or Olympus/Panny with m4/3). Some of the details that Michael refers to as antiquities, such as the baseplate, can be interpreted as part of the Leica aesthetic, rather than some antiquated detriment to camera useability.For me, there's no need to add tons of features like live view, an electronic viewfinder, or video to an M body...I could use a 5DII for that....
In my mind, The X1 will be an interesting (and possibly worthwhile experiment), but it seems that Leica would be better served (and maybe better served in terms of profit margins) in designing a smaller profile, M-style camera (like a digital CL that so many talk about), with some form of sensor (be it cropped or not) that has an M mount, but have more of the GF-1/EP-1/2 focussing concept. Such a product, if marketted appropriately, and priced right, would be a better entry into rangefinder photography and could make Leica some $$$. People would be able to use the legendary Leica glass and heritage lenses (which will be around long after we are) on such a camera, sans adapter, and the sensor could be optimized to make use of whatever fraction of the lenses field that Leica sees fit. This could be a true Leica entry drug, moreso than the x1 and its fixed lens.
Once people enter into this world, the more elemental (I laugh to write that), path to the digital M would be logical, if they chose to proceed that way. It's all about how Leica would care to market such a product. But I don't think such a product would be a replacement M.
Ultimately, as sensor technology gets cheaper, I see tiny sensor cameras such as the D-Lux 4, which I love and own, to fade into the past (or into entry level point and shoot-only status), while larger sensor portables such as the X1/EP 1/2/GF 1/GXR replace it. Leica should focus their efforts on this market if they want to further increase their profitability....BUT....
Leica is a small company...and seem set on staying that way...so they may not feel the need to do any of this....
And truth be told, I personally enjoy the rangefinder experience in its current incarnation. Having just spent a ton o' cash on the M9, I ain't goin' nowhere, and I suspect Leica's better goal should be to continue to recruit more people into RF photography by offering a cheaper option....
Time will tell, and until then, I am going to enjoy my M9....
--
Ashwin Rao
My blog: http://photos-ash.blogspot.com
My Flickr Sets: http://flickr.com/photos/ashwinrao1/sets/
Mark Ehlers
Senior Member
I think you're right about that. But the collector concept is not new for Leica, as some people seem to believe. Far from it. Leica has also been an "elitist" camera for pretty much their entire history. They have never been an easily affordable camera for the average person. There will always be users though, just as there are still users of other "obsolete" cameras and formats. And as with the other obsoletes, they will develop a niche, which has already been happening for quite some time.
Although I agree that Leica's future in the mass market would seem to point to their lenses, it's pretty obvious that they have never cared for the mass market. I'm not sure I agree with you about the lenses selling that well though, Jim. Sure, it would certainly help their sales, but the lenses are still out of reach for many people...I mean the ones that make them unique as a Leica product. Again, I think even the lenses will always be an elitist product, with an elitist price. The best always cost more than what many people believe it's worth.
That was the worst mistake Leica made in the digital M, aside from their AA filter screw up.
Jim, as far as your comment earlier goes: "...criticized, beaten down and some even thought I was troll because of my blasphemous thoughts." , I think you're being a little bit melodramatic, don't you? If you come on any forum and criticise the forum's product, of course you're going to receive some opposition. Even the Leica forum is not immune from that. But I don't think it's quite as bad as you're making it out to be.
--
- Mark Ehlers (formerly 'markE')
'Good street/wildlife photography is a controlled accident,
a vision of preparation and surrender materialized.'
Mark Ehlers
Senior Member
and...
and...
Finally, someone got it! (applause!)
--
- Mark Ehlers (formerly 'markE')
'Good street/wildlife photography is a controlled accident,
a vision of preparation and surrender materialized.'
Exactly. But since there is a huge difference in price between an X1 and the M9, there's room for an X1 with interchangeable lens isn't there? Although I would prefer non-cropped sensor.
Ashwin, I agree with what you painstakingly took the time to write. I usually steer clear of these discussions because I don't have the fortitude to sit down and write what you just wrote. Well done.
Peter.
--
Peter | QDIEM4SC
http://qdiem4sc.zenfolio.com/
I started just a year ago, and I'm in my late 30's. Never grew up with the Leica "mystique" so my appreciation for the rangefinder is based solely on what it is, and how it's used.
Peter.
--
Peter | QDIEM4SC
http://qdiem4sc.zenfolio.com/
Hi ashwinrao, I agree with pretty much everything u said.
I'm 29 (no previous ties to rf/leica etc) and about to purchase my first rangefinder (film, not digital) and it is this uniqueness to the rf that has drawn me to purchasing something seemingly obsolete in today's world. So IMO keep the M a rangefinder, and cash in on this new mirrorless concept with something else that will entice a new generation of photographers to leica.
Someone else said something about a modular rf unit. Cool idea but is that possible?
I'm 29 (no previous ties to rf/leica etc) and about to purchase my first rangefinder (film, not digital) and it is this uniqueness to the rf that has drawn me to purchasing something seemingly obsolete in today's world. So IMO keep the M a rangefinder, and cash in on this new mirrorless concept with something else that will entice a new generation of photographers to leica.
Someone else said something about a modular rf unit. Cool idea but is that possible?
DRabbit
Senior Member
I do expect that the EVIL/mirror-less cameras are the wave of the future. However, I don't want them to replace my M.
Change the body? Change the focusing? Well then it's just not a rangefinder anymore, and I love rangefinders as do a lot of people who shoot with an M.
I never shot a rangefinder before the M8 and I'm sure I'm not all that unique. I don't think the concept dies because all the film-shooters of old pass on to the great darkroom in the sky.
I think Leica's biggest hurdle to more mass success has always been price . I think twice as many people would be interested if they didn't have to sell their car to buy the M9. But it seems Leica likes it that way.
I've nothing against the E-P1 (have one) or GF1... m4/3 is a nice format. I've liked the 4/3 format for a while and welcomed the m4/3 with open arms. However, even if full-frame or 1.3x or ASP-C... it would and could not replace my M8. It's not just the IQ I'm after... but the shooting experience, ergonomics and just plain feel of shooting with a rangefinder. Just because a camera can mount M-glass doesn't mean it's a rangefinder.
Amy
--
Creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes. Art is knowing which ones to keep.
Twitter: http://twitter.com/DangRabbit
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/DangRabbitPhotography
PAD Project: http://www.DangRabbit.com/photography/pad
Gallery: http://www.DangRabbit.com/photography
Change the body? Change the focusing? Well then it's just not a rangefinder anymore, and I love rangefinders as do a lot of people who shoot with an M.
I never shot a rangefinder before the M8 and I'm sure I'm not all that unique. I don't think the concept dies because all the film-shooters of old pass on to the great darkroom in the sky.
I think Leica's biggest hurdle to more mass success has always been price . I think twice as many people would be interested if they didn't have to sell their car to buy the M9. But it seems Leica likes it that way.
I've nothing against the E-P1 (have one) or GF1... m4/3 is a nice format. I've liked the 4/3 format for a while and welcomed the m4/3 with open arms. However, even if full-frame or 1.3x or ASP-C... it would and could not replace my M8. It's not just the IQ I'm after... but the shooting experience, ergonomics and just plain feel of shooting with a rangefinder. Just because a camera can mount M-glass doesn't mean it's a rangefinder.
Amy
--
Creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes. Art is knowing which ones to keep.
Twitter: http://twitter.com/DangRabbit
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/DangRabbitPhotography
PAD Project: http://www.DangRabbit.com/photography/pad
Gallery: http://www.DangRabbit.com/photography
J
Jim Radcliffe
Guest
Mark.. you seem to follow my posts and always have a rebuttal. You've not walked a mile in my shoes. I get emails all the time, some of them not all that pleasant but thankfully most of them agree with me.
I am critical of Leica because I care for Leica.. a concept some have a hard time getting their head around.
I stand by what I wrote.. and I can't understand how you can possibly suggest I am being less than truthful about it. Let's not get into another discussion like the last one, please, I don't have the time for it.
--
Jim Radcliffe
http://www.boxedlight.com
http://www.oceona.com
The ability to 'see' the shot is more important than the gear used to capture it.
DRabbit
Senior Member
I replied above before reading your post and you said it all very well!
Amy
--
Creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes. Art is knowing which ones to keep.
Twitter: http://twitter.com/DangRabbit
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/DangRabbitPhotography
PAD Project: http://www.DangRabbit.com/photography/pad
Gallery: http://www.DangRabbit.com/photography
Amy
--
Creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes. Art is knowing which ones to keep.
Twitter: http://twitter.com/DangRabbit
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/DangRabbitPhotography
PAD Project: http://www.DangRabbit.com/photography/pad
Gallery: http://www.DangRabbit.com/photography
DRabbit
Senior Member
As I said in my other reply... the M8 was my first rangefinder... I'm not all that unique and it's proven right here in this thread.
FYI - I also just bought my daughter's best friend her first rangefinder film camera. She is 15. She LOVES it.
Amy
--
Creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes. Art is knowing which ones to keep.
Twitter: http://twitter.com/DangRabbit
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/DangRabbitPhotography
PAD Project: http://www.DangRabbit.com/photography/pad
Gallery: http://www.DangRabbit.com/photography
FYI - I also just bought my daughter's best friend her first rangefinder film camera. She is 15. She LOVES it.
Amy
--
Creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes. Art is knowing which ones to keep.
Twitter: http://twitter.com/DangRabbit
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/DangRabbitPhotography
PAD Project: http://www.DangRabbit.com/photography/pad
Gallery: http://www.DangRabbit.com/photography
J
Jim Radcliffe
Guest
Ashwin, I get the feeling that you and others here see Reichman's article as a threat to the very existence of rangefinders and a way of photographic life. It is not. I think people read his article and think he is trying to usher in the death of the rangefinder. That's not what he is suggesting.
You don't hear this kind of outcry from DSLR owners considering the Miirrorless Camera as being a threat to their DSLR way of life. Honestly, sometimes I think Leica fans are just way to sensitive when it comes to the M line.
Rangefinders will, due to their cost and their own shortcomings, remain a niche camera.. and one day that niche may be so small that it can not support the company that makes them. In that sense, the rangefinder is its own enemy. Reichman is simply suggesting there should be a new branch on the family tree, that's all. And that is a suggestion that I would expect most to welcome.
I'm for progress and better and more affordable photography. I don't care if it comes from Canon, Nikon, Sony, Panasonic or Leica. I can not and will not allow myself to be tied to any system whose limitations will impede my ability to get the shots I desire. That is one of the reasons I have a variety of cameras and do not rely on just one to serve all my needs.
I suggest everyone keep an open mind about what is to come and not reject it outright because of some perceived threat to the rangefinder. I mean really, is it about the gear or the photography? I swear, the day I get more enjoyment out of holding my equipment than the photo it produced is the day I sell it all and find another hobby because I will have lost site of the actual purpose of the camera.
--
Jim Radcliffe
http://www.boxedlight.com
http://www.oceona.com
The ability to 'see' the shot is more important than the gear used to capture it.
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum