Washashore
Forum Enthusiast
- Messages
- 386
- Reaction score
- 224
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
What do we do now Kimosabe?
- Thread starter Washashore
- Start date
Solution
Gregm61
Veteran Member
Precisely.
But, you also have to consider, chances are, many who will buy the Sony camera to use Leica lenses, never would have bought a Leica digital M in the first place because of the price difference, and that's what I was saying. That's not taking away from any possible Leica sales because that person was never going to buy a Leica camera to begin with. Not Leica's target market.
Someone buying a Sony to shoot Leica glass is great. That means more Leica lens users, but if someone wants the rangefinder experience, the Sony is never going to even be considered, and that is Leica's target market.
I'm also figuring most who buy a Sony to shoot with Leica glass are buying used Leica lenses and not spending the ultra-high prices on new Leica lenses, which affects Leica in no way whatsoever either.
OK, now you are trying to associate some kind of common sense into the equation and that's the last thing associated with buying a Leica camera. Leica's will never be a mass-sold item and the people who like them, will keep buying them.
I would imagine Leica M camera production will still be happening long after Sony gets bored with the Sony A7 series and moves on to something else, like Sony always does.
I also imagine, not all, but most Leica users are like me in terms of video. I have probably shot 5 minutes worth of video since I started buying digital cameras 11 years ago, and that was just fooling around. Video capture for me holds absolutely zero allure.
--
"There's shadows in life, baby.." Jack Horner- Boogie Nights
Last edited:
LOL me too
lloyd begs the real question and the only "threat": how will the new backlit a7r2 sensor shoot RF wides?
The article is simply a provocation. Yes the monster "OTUS" is the best 50 and utterly useless because no one is carrying that beast anywhere.
I could go on and on. MP? Real men don't crop, sorry. Even M9 is already 5K. Quality of pixels trumps the number.
The sony lens choices are tiny compered to M options for great great glass. Sure you can pop SLR stuff on there. There goes the size advantage.
For many shooters the A7r2 will be the better choice, but no lust here...yet.
PS my two main rigs : M9 and A7.mod
Godfrey
Veteran Member
It is at best a rule of thumb, assuming identical technologies and surrounding infrastructure.
I've done my own analysis. I don't need to wait.
My cameras don't play competitive sports against each other.
I love shooting with my Leica typ 240 and am getting lots of excellent photos with it, regardless of what its specs might be. I don't look at my photos with a densitometer, nor print the ISO setting used in big bold letters ... Clients are completely uninterested in that stuff.
I am certain that they will improve their cameras on the next revision. They always have in the past, no reason to imagine that they won't again. At the same time, the cameras that they're making now are perfectly satisfactory and I don't intend to buy another M after my MM246 arrives for several years at least.
I find this unstoppable need for more and more and more and more a bit boring, and a bit nauseating at the same time. I'm interested in photography, not buying toys with the mostest spec sheet. I see no reason to buy a Leica if you are going to be concerned or disappointed that your Nikon is "better" or "trounces it" .. Just stick with the Nikon, then, and put your energy into making photographs.
G
Last edited:
user_name
Veteran Member
Mine each fill a niche.
True, but I can't do some things with the M that the D800 does and there are things the M does that the D800 can't.
I am happy it fits all your needs. If only the M240 checked off all of my needs I would happily sell my Nikon gear. In fact, I want to, but I can't. I prefer the M, but I can't get long exposures of 5 minutes (which I use for specialized night photography) and I can't get high ISO. Although the M240 is arguably better than my M8, there are times when I need or could use more than what the M offers.
Sadly, just about every other manufacture can do these things, so it is frustrating that I have limits on the Leica side that prevents me from ditching my heavier and bulkier system.
I am sure that many people simply buy into the next greatest, newest thing because they just got to have it, but I see a deficiency that needs to be overcome to bring Leica closer to parity with existing 2012 and 2013 technology. I realize it is 2015.
My only car just turned 100,000 miles of ownership. I have owned scores of cars in my driving lifetime and for the first time I have a 2004 model that I am looking forward to the next 100,000 miles in.
I just want a Leica rangefinder that I can say the same for. I think I am not alone.
Godfrey
Veteran Member
I didn't say that at all. I have several other digital cameras and several film cameras as well. Each camera has particular advantages and disadvantages ... I use them for different things and/or different kinds of photography. There never was, and never will be, one camera that does everything best.
It's just like with cars: my current car (a 2000 model) suits my day to day needs perfectly, has 150,000+ miles on it, is in practically new condition, and should last me another 150,000 miles easily. But I'd be the last to say it is perfect for ALL uses. There are occasions when I've rented a truck or a larger car to suit specific circumstances and needs.
I'd do the same with camera gear if the attendant costs of ownership, and the availability of rental use, was anywhere near the same as for automobiles and trucks. As it is, however, having multiple different cameras to suit different needs proves to be far less expensive to achieve by just buying what you might need once in a while and using it when needed.
I see no need to want my Leica RF camera to do what my Nikon SLR does best, or what my Olympus E-M1 does best. Each of them does what they do to my satisfaction, and all three will last me for years to come despite newer models of all of them coming on the market. It cost me a bit to buy them all, but it costs virtually nothing to keep all of them for even only occasional use.
G
Gregm61
Veteran Member
user_name
Veteran Member
I think Leica could have gone a long way toward satisfying the EVF desires of most people if they had just the foresight to implement a high speed bus and processor that could accommodate better EVFs than the EVF-2.
That would also require improving live view.
Those two things moves the M into the macro, wide angle, and telephoto ends of the lens spectrum.
S
Schroedingers_cat
Guest
As a relatively new Leica owner and a brand new M240 M-P owner, I find myself in this same frame of mind. In fact, I DID sell a portion of the Nikon gear, just can't part with the D800e.
biza43
Veteran Member
The thing is: spending EUR 6000 on a digital camera body that is bound to break or have problems with its electronics in a few years (as all electronic products are bound to have) does not make sense. All for what?
- RF experience
- Silent shutter
- Robust construction
Of the above, only the first one is not provided by other systems; exception to the Fuji XPro1, but that is not FF, so lets leave it aside.
If people are willing to pay that money for a digital camera, fine, not me. For a film camera, maybe, because that will keep on ticking for many years.
- RF experience
- Silent shutter
- Robust construction
Of the above, only the first one is not provided by other systems; exception to the Fuji XPro1, but that is not FF, so lets leave it aside.
If people are willing to pay that money for a digital camera, fine, not me. For a film camera, maybe, because that will keep on ticking for many years.
Wild Light
Member
Lloyd is totally on the money here. I agree with him entirely.
Leica is lagging. They need to offer a high res in the M, increase their MP count if they want to service a professional market. I realise some don't want it, but some, like me, need it for their photography business to remain competitive.
The problem being Leica want you to buy the S, at a paltry 37MP for high res, and ridiculous price, so I don't believe the M is going to change any time soon. You can buy a brand new Phase one IQ160 for about the same cost as the leica SE 006. Ridiculous.
I have been a customer of Leica for many years and spent a hell of a lot of money with them. I am very close to selling my Leica M kit and moving on from this company who seem to have lost their way to the luxury market.
Leica is lagging. They need to offer a high res in the M, increase their MP count if they want to service a professional market. I realise some don't want it, but some, like me, need it for their photography business to remain competitive.
The problem being Leica want you to buy the S, at a paltry 37MP for high res, and ridiculous price, so I don't believe the M is going to change any time soon. You can buy a brand new Phase one IQ160 for about the same cost as the leica SE 006. Ridiculous.
I have been a customer of Leica for many years and spent a hell of a lot of money with them. I am very close to selling my Leica M kit and moving on from this company who seem to have lost their way to the luxury market.
Good luck equalling M glass with another system.
37MP....what on earth are you producing on a daily basis that needs this?
Maybe you need the bragging rights? Again Leica glass trumps.
Sony themselves realize the MP issues and their most expensive A series camera is what?
A7s
what is the Mp of the camera?
biza43
Veteran Member
Well, the Sony A7's provide a very good platform to shoot the Leica glass from... that is the point, the glass is great, the cameras, well, are lagging behind...
Well, some people do need it...
Again, you mention the glass; that is not what we are discussing here, we are discussing the cameras...
12 mp, but the A7S is made for particular applications, and provides really good image quality at astronomical ISO's, something that Leica is very far from doing... together with the Sony sensor on the Nikon D4 and Df, these are probably the best options to shoot under low available light.
But the point is, Sony do offer now from 12 mp to 42 mp, so again, several tools for different users.
John Gellings
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 11,472
- Solutions
- 1
- Reaction score
- 9,345
A7RII is the most expensive these days...and its highest MP camera.
Why not? If they come out with a Q-type body (or series of bodies) I think it would overwhelmingly be in their interest to make it compatible with the existing M-lenses AND a new line of auto-focus lenses. Like Nikon has done with the F-mount - still works with a lot of great old manual focus glass (the DF with pretty much ANY old Nikon lens) and works with all of the new and not so new auto-focus lenses. That way, people with a sizable investment in Leica glass who are getting less and less able to focus with a rangefinder, or who just don't like the RF bodies anymore, can hang onto their glass and use it with a high-res EVF and may also pick up a couple of newer AF lenses. People just getting into it might just buy the new AF lenses, but might also develop a taste for some of the classic MF lenses too.
Is there a technical reason they couldn't or wouldn't do this? Because from a business sense, it seems like a no-brainer to me...
-Ray
--------------------------------------
We judge photographers by the photographs we see. We judge cameras by the photographs we miss - Haim Zamir
Gregm61
Veteran Member
Yeah, if Leica's sales were as massive as Nikon's, yes. I think there's just a little bit of a difference in market-size and manufacturing capability for the two though that makes the proposition something less than a "no-brainer". Certainly in the fantasy world though, anything is a no-brainer.
I don't see Leica as being a company looking to do the same thing as Nikon or being anything more than the niche company they are. They seem to be selling about as much as they are capable of producing.
Gregm61
Veteran Member
The competition has been way, way less than half the cost.....much of it less than one-quarter or more the cost..... forever.
Clearly different scales. And yeah, Leica's been a niche company for many years now. But if they really are working on a Q like ILC, it's only because the RF niche isn't doing it for them anymore and sales are slipping to the point they're worried about sustainability. Otherwise, why change such a long-standing niche? Whether they're selling as much as they're capable of producing or producing as little as they're capable of selling at a price that works to keep it in balance is a question I don't know the answer to. Do you?
Regardless, assuming they're moving toward a Q type ILC platform (which I don't know, but this is all speculation anyway) I assume it's out of need rather than want. And if that's the case, I don't see any DOWNSIDE to making the new bodies compatible with the old lenses as well as whatever AF lenses they're developing alongside the new bodies... And giving the existing user base - particularly the older part with failing eyesight - an entrance ramp into the new system with their current lenses seems like all upside to me. Unless there's some technical reason it wouldn't work, but nobody around here has suggested there it...
Do you?
-Ray
--------------------------------------
We judge photographers by the photographs we see. We judge cameras by the photographs we miss - Haim Zamir
http://www.flickr.com/photos/20889767@N05/
Last edited:
bosjohn21
Veteran Member
yawn heard it all before nothing new in the article
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum