Chinese manufacturers make decent low price lens, but there's disconnect here. I think most Leica owner don't care about that. I think what Chinese manufacturers need is a mid priced body. What is keeping that from happening?
the camera industry has shrunk so much that scaled production is very risky.
Well there was the Epson, a Cosina/Voigtlander body and digital.
The problem would be the rangefinder. Nobody ever made a rangefinder as good as the Leica M one, expensive to produce and needs high mechanical precision. Not what the camera industry does since a very long time except for Leica..
Just bite the bullet and choose a modern camera, Fuji Xpro if you want the optical frame finder, otherwise any of them with EVF will give you as accurate manual focus as you yourself can achieve, without the possibility of mechanical mis-adjustment affecting the focus.
gyoung143 wrote:
otherwise any of them with EVF will give you as accurate manual focus as you yourself can achieve, without the possibility of mechanical mis-adjustment affecting the focus.
I would love a full frame version of the Leica CL digital. That size, EVF and form factor are perfect.
ottokbre wrote:
I would love a full frame version of the Leica CL digital. That size, EVF and form factor are perfect.
+1
It was a joy to use with M glass on it ... gateway to the M for me. So, if they wanted to make the "EVF M", the CL form factor is the way to go. Even if they do have to scale the body a bit for FF (or IBIS) a kiss or two, the form / function of it worked really well with M glass.
I sold mine in early anticipation of the CL2 rumor.
I had the little 28/2.8 Elmarit on it, functioning more like a 42mm FOV and it was a gem. Had I known that the CL2 was never going to happen, I would have kept that setup. Darn near pocketable, and IQ for days. Sometimes I think I should do it again, maybe with a 28 Cron this time.
In fact, I'd still say this is the closest experience you're gonna find to an EVF M in the wild today. Don't let the APS-C fool ya. With Leica glass and the pixel density of its bigger brothers (just not absolute pixel count), it's definitely a forgotten gem. The TL glass is great, but it does have a bit more of a "modern" look to it than M lenses.
Mostly, if I'd "do it again", it would be with the M glass only. AF performance was adequate, not inspiring. Not going that route, at the moment ... but, it's a setup that I'd gladly shoot any day of the week ... CL + M glass. Not an M, but darn nice in its own right.
An updated version of the CL with an M mount (an proper M microlenses / cover glass) would be something a certain set of folks would definitely like (imo). Heck, even make it a D variant without an LCD. Call it EM-D (EVF, M mount, No LCD) and it's a niche camera. Despite it being an EVF (vs. RF), the lack of an LCD (but still an EVF) could still harken to the film-esque era ... just with an EVF for those who are visually challenged by the RF.
A low-budget M camera out of China seems unlikely. They are far more complex devices than lenses from a small workshop, something any number of PRC outfits seem to be able to do with relative ease and produced in widely varying quality. A complex mechanical camera manufactured at scale, seems less likely. I can more likely foresee a Pentax film camera (several iterations due out) with simple electronic innards accommodating an M-mount, though I strongly doubt even that.
If we drop the requirements of a classic rangefinder,and just contended with M mount body, EVF, screen is optional. Would that make it a doable product?
If we drop the requirements of a classic rangefinder,and just contended with M mount body, EVF, screen is optional. Would that make it a doable product?
fmwing wrote:
If we drop the requirements of a classic rangefinder,and just contended with M mount body, EVF, screen is optional. Would that make it a doable product?
Composite body digital along the lines of a full frame Panasonic LX/ Digilux? The problem being, manufacturers are hesitant to introduce a new camera when they’re having trouble selling the ones on the shelf. Leica likes to tout how they sell everything they make but compare their yearly output to what Canon makes in a month.
If you want full image quality in digital format using M lenses you need to do a great deal of sensor development. That will include asymmetrical microlenses. This may be above the capability of small Chinese companies. I don't think a Range Finder is required, an LCD and EVF will work. These can be bought in the market.
1bwana1 wrote:
If you want full image quality in digital format using M lenses you need to do a great deal of sensor development. That will include asymmetrical microlenses. This may be above the capability of small Chinese companies. I don't think a Range Finder is required, an LCD and EVF will work. These can be bought in the market.
Yeah. Just give us the SL 601 in the CL body. Panasonic can probably crank those out and Leica can mill a nice simple block and put the bits together. Way less moving mechanical parts, way less European labor inputs. Make it $4k and slide it just under the SL2S price mark.
ottokbre wrote:
Yeah. Just give us the SL 601 in the CL body. Panasonic can probably crank those out and Leica can mill a nice simple block and put the bits together. Way less moving mechanical parts, way less European labor inputs. Make it $4k and slide it just under the SL2S price mark.
+1 for the CL body form factor.
Having the VF in the top left corner is so much nicer than the hump in the middle.
My little Panny GX8 (gateway > CL > Q2 > M) even has a tilt EVF in the top left corner. Dinky little thing that it is from Panny ... yeah, Panny's relationship with Leica, they could easily put together the combination of CL form factor with M mount and M sensor (with asymmetrical microlenses). Granted, it wouldn't be some "cheap China camera", but it would be one heck of a nice manual focus camera. And, a FF version would make a much better gateway to the M, than a smaller format does (imo).
I mentioned an EM-D above. The more I think about this, the more I'd like to have one.
Leica "experimented" with the Q and it turned out to be a success. An EM (or EM-D variant) has been asked for so many times, that I can't see it not doing well for them. Sure, the history of M is something they want to safeguard, etc. ... but, they also have a history of bringing things to market that challenge the status quo.
I figure it is a matter of WHEN, not IF. They just have to decide to how their going to manage the PR of it in context of the M.
Personally, I think there is room in their stable for it. Time, will tell.
