Dr. Andreas Kaufmann... Is this the same creator of LUF and SAR? I didn't know his first name but it all makes sense now .
This is the most hilarious thing on lavidaleica: "There will be two additional lenses coming as well - with a TL mount - which are T mount lenses that can be used on both Leica T and Leica SL."
"The SL is "an M-like camera for those that don't care for the rangefinder experience...""
The mount is nice and seems more appropriate than Sony's E, and those lenses look incredibly nice with awesome focal ranges. The package seems massive however.
Doubt I'll ever actually even see one in my lifetime though so what can I say :P
rscheffler wrote:
Looking forward to the electronics package in the next M...
DoubleNegative wrote:
Following the current trend with Leica cameras, the circuit boards will have a "Made by Panasonic" imprinted on them.
Not necessarily a bad thing, IMO. Hopefully it will result in greater operational stability.
Leica has certainly come a long way since the M8/M9's electronics. Very happy to see this continuing.
Unlike most of the "purists" I found the T to be attractive and the entire exercise relatively innovative. The new SL looks like a direct descendant but I'm afraid the price is a non-starter for all but a fraction of the potential market. This is really an issue for Leica if they ever hope build a user base outside of their current narrow club. In the old days Leica's were never really out-of-reach even in 60's and 70's dollars, but in 2015 both Hasselblad (MF) and Leica have basically become irrelevant in terms of market share and technology.
Not sure about Leica, but I just saw a Sears photo catalog from ~1953 posted somewhere (maybe petapixel?). In it the Contax IIa with 50/2 Sonnar was listed for $444. The 85/2 was $292. In 2015 dollars, that's $3950 and $2600 respectively. I would expect Leica's offerings to have been similarly priced, which I wouldn't exactly consider within reach of many at that time. Just like now, there would be a dedicated few who would make sacrifices to buy that gear, or simply have the disposable income to do so...
Anyway, I don't think Leica has been a relevant force in the market for quite some time, long ago passed by the major Japanese brands. But interestingly, Leica's brand still evokes quite passionate reactions - good and bad.
rscheffler wrote:
Not sure about Leica, but I just saw a Sears photo catalog from ~1953 posted somewhere (maybe petapixel?). In it the Contax IIa with 50/2 Sonnar was listed for $444. The 85/2 was $292. In 2015 dollars, that's $3950 and $2600 respectively. I would expect Leica's offerings to have been similarly priced, which I wouldn't exactly consider within reach of many at that time. Just like now, there would be a dedicated few who would make sacrifices to buy that gear, or simply have the disposable income to do so...
Anyway, I don't think Leica has been a relevant force in the market for quite some time, long ago passed by the major Japanese brands. But interestingly, Leica's brand still evokes quite passionate reactions - good and bad....Show more →
And what about other gear? My impression was that gear was much more expensive in general back then if you set it into relation with the average income of a worker. I would assume that the Leica stuff wasn't 3-4 times as expensive as the competition back then.
I think it was similar to Contax gear. Both were extremely premium. But I think you're right that photography in general was more expensive.
Sears had an in-house line of cameras called 'Tower'
Their Leica/Nikon/Canon thread mount clone camera started at $175 with the Nikkor 50/2 = $1550
Nikkor 35/3.5 was $90 = $800
Nikkor 50/2 was $107 = $950
Nikkor 50/1.4 was $198 = $1750
Nikkor 85/2 was $179 = $1600
Nikkor 135/3.5 was $145 = $1300
Contax IIa w/50/1.5 Sonnar was $488 = $4350
Contax 35/2.8 was $245 = $2200
Contax 135/4 was $170 = $1500
Contax IIIa with 50/1.5 Sonnar was $534 = $4750 (IIIa had a built-in meter)
Hasselblad with 80/2.8 Kodak Ektar lens and 12 exposure back was $500 = $4450
Zeiss 250/4 was $440 = $3950
'Miniature' film (35mm):
Kodak Plux-X ISO/ASA 50 36 exp. $1.28 = $11.40
Kodachrome ISO/ASA 10 36 exp. $5.50 = $49.00! (also available in 20 exposures for $3.50 = $31)...
I can see why older relatives always said you had to make the film last and the photos count because it was expensive...
Do your conversions also account for the rest or just the growth of the dollar?
What was the average income back then? How much could people spend on hobbies?
Because these days, ppl are just plain rich even if they don't see it that way. A Mac whatever for 2'000 here, an iPhone every year for 600 each, craps (err, beats) headphones for 300, etc etc etc.
As for the Leica: the design is downright ugly!
Why copy an SLR design when people prefer the rangefinder style viewfinder with mirrorless cameras?
(not crushing your nose as a right-eye shooter nor poking it as a leftie..)
That is an incomprehensibly ugly camera. I have to admit.
I'm happy with my M system, and honestly I'm glad that this announcement wasn't some great M system killer. I like the way they work. I think the Q is a interesting camera as well and if it was cheaper I'd definitely buy one. But this... This is just not good design, from an aesthetics or ergonomic standpoint.
.
