Leica is a niche manufacturer, they don't cater to the masses and for the most part, they have a very loyal customer base who still wants a rangefinder, myself included. There are already so many other manufacturers out there providing mirrorless solutions and as Leica themselves said, they are not in a position to compete with the other mass manufacturers such as Canonikon, etc It may come one day that we may well have an electronic rangefinder on a Leica M, but right now for certain kinds of shooting, eg with lots of movements, the EVFs are not at the level that they want to give up on an optical viewfinders. Furthermore, with liveview and an add on EVF on the new M, I feel that this will attract others who not necessarily want a rangefinder, but still want a nice looking camera with the capability to shoot some nice Leica glass.
edwardkaraa wrote:
Thank you Joe! I think I will wait a couple of weeks. New M9s might depreciate even more when the ME becomes available. Or get a used M9 for about 4K.
Edward, I think it will be soon enough that we will see used M9s below US$4k. If you can find a used one in good condition and with some warranty left, it might be an opportunity to check it out. If the local Leica dealers won't want to honor your local used warranty, I know that you can contact Leica Solms directly and they will not turn you away, the only difference is that you have to pay for shipping to Germany on your own.
Also, right now there is a certain Leica store in Europe which has the best prices on new Leica gear with international warranty and and reasonable shipping rates. I won't mention names openly in the forums but send me a pm if you are interested to find out which one. Right now with the favorable USD to EUR exchange rates, buying Leica from Europe seems to be "en vogue"
telyt wrote:
I have no problem with Leica making rangefinder cameras but IMHO the rangefinder is as much an anachronsim as the SLR mirror box is. The advantages of the EVF are substantial and should be the primary focus of future cameras, not an add-on.
i agree, but leica is a company that is primarily sustained by anachronistic people. there is no way they could get rid of the rangefinder without permanently alienating the majority of current users that have been so rabidly faithful for so long. abandoning these people would be the death of leica. at the same time, leica is uniquely positioned to expand their user base (and bring some youth to it perhaps?) by offering a parallel product designed from the ground up as an evf based camera for their m-lenses. they could continue a heritage line of cameras for the unique m rangefinder experience and modern line of cameras designed specifically to fit the modern technology that is emerging without any of the hold over design elements from the film era that don't work well with digital. unlike every other producer, they already have a fantastic lens line and FF sensor designed for this. the problem with this idea is of course autofocus – how many people can an evf based manual focus only camera actually attract even with the wonderful lenses? i have no idea whether there are enough such people (like myself) for such a product to even match the sales of the m9. maybe it would draw more or maybe the number of people interested in a FF mirrorless and manual focus is mostly overlapping the rangefinder crowd. it would have to be manual focus though because i seriously doubt leica has the capacity to bring out a line of autofocus lenses for such a camera.
Coming at this a bit late, and maybe you've already made your decision, but my feeling is if you buy the M9 new, and then plan to replace it once the M ships, you'll probably lose in the range of $1500 on resale, perhaps more. Maybe this is acceptable to you for around 6 months of ownership, as I don't know your financial situation or your tolerance for such depreciation. Over the period of 6 months you could definitely put it to good use and make some really nice images with it. And buying an M9 now at least gives you a mature platform that should be pretty reliable. But I suspect it will still be susceptible to the annoying electronic quirks all M9s have exhibited... In that respect the ME likely will not be any different. If you're really only looking at the M9 as a ~6-month stopgap, my inclination would be to find a decent used copy.
Edit: I just noticed your reply to Joe on the last post of the previous page...
As for when the M will be available... Daniel's interview with Overgaard definitely gives the impression they have a fair amount more work to do, especially in regards to image optimization. I suppose one benefit they gain from introducing the camera now is to better judge initial demand and adjust production plans accordingly. IIRC, the M9 was available at or near introduction, at least for the very lucky few. Leica was also a different company then, seemingly with fewer resources to manage the extreme demand than the impression they give now. So, hopefully the wait for the M won't be as interminable as it was for the M9. The 55,000 figure for M9 sales is quite interesting and I'm very curious how well the M does in comparison.
Regarding future developments: I was thinking it could be quite realistic to see the next M with a sensor that incorporates on-chip phase detect sensors like we're seeing with various cameras from other brands. While those brands use it to support AF, an immediate benefit for M system use would be the much requested electronic focus confirmation.
While it's dangerous to say never, Leica has indicated they will not introduce a 'budget' M camera and are not looking to compete with the major brands in areas dominated by those brands. Therefore I would expect we'll continue to see future models with both OVF and EVF and at a significantly premium price point. If they did develop an EVF only camera, what would be the right price? Most would demand it be on-par with comparable Canikony offerings (if any of them ever release a FF EVIL camera), which doesn't even guarantee they would select the Leica over Canikony. My initial reaction is 'can't we just get along?' in regards to the call to remove the rangefinder. I do wonder how many who want to see the RF removed have actually tried it? Clearly, there are still areas where an OVF will surpass an EVF. One example where I've been frustrated with EVF is in extreme lighting conditions. If it's extremely dark, the EVF goes pretty much black and/or the frame rate drops dramatically. If it's extremely bright, the EVF is too dim. Having both on the M simply provides more options without necessarily taking away from one or the other. I guess the complaint is really more that the EVF on the new M is kind of an afterthought add-on. I can agree with this to some degree, though by making it external, it does at least offer the options of not using it and keeping the traditional M form factor, provides a useful 90 degree tilt function for shooting from odd angles/positions and perhaps will allow use of future, better performing EVFs.
rscheffler wrote:
The 55,000 figure for M9 sales is quite interesting and I'm very curious how well the M does in comparison.
Is that figure for all M9's since introduction? If so, my bet is the M will will certainly exceed it, maybe by even a factor of four over the same time span.
Re. EVF, Leica's has said the electronics in the M will not support frame rates greater than 30FPS. That is the rate at which panning or motion becomes an issue due to stutter and dropped frames. So, EVF (and rear LV) with the M will not be ideal and the OVF will be much preferred in most situations.
I think there is still a wide enough gap between a Leica X2 and the ME for Leica to provide something there. Agree with sebboh that since Leica already have the know how with the digital M, maybe a full frame mirrorless sans rangefinder could be a reality and maybe already in the pipeline. Looking at the current price point, an EVF only camera would have to sit in between the X2 and ME but the question is, will there be enough demand for Leica to invest in such a camera and also it might jeopardize the sales of the Leica M itself? Now that the new M has EVF and video, I don't really see the need for an existing Leica M user to own a standalone EVF only camera as they can have (almost) the best of both worlds with the RF and EVF/live view.
I shoot Leica M and don't necessarily defend their price point and market approach, but I have never seen a camera maker ridiculed as much as Leica has endured, well maybe now, with the new Hassy Lunar, a Hermes Leica seems pretty reasonable after all?
sebboh wrote:
... but leica is a company that is primarily sustained by anachronistic people. there is no way they could get rid of the rangefinder ...
Leaving out the rampant stereotyping, who said they had to eliminate the rangefinder entirely? Make another model without and let the market decide. Same body shell, pretty much the same internal works. Leica seems to think the M-E and New M can coexist. Why not a RF model and a non-RF model?
rscheffler wrote:
My initial reaction is 'can't we just get along?' in regards to the call to remove the rangefinder. I do wonder how many who want to see the RF removed have actually tried it?
I have. For me the 60mm Macro is a wide-angle lens. The rangefinder does absolutely nothing for me. I have no problem with Leica making a model with a rangefinder. I want a model with a robust EVF, without the rnagefinder. I call that getting along. The rangefinder is the component of the camera that is most likely to go out of adjustment and is one of the more expensive components of the camera.
telyt wrote:
Leaving out the rampant stereotyping, who said they had to eliminate the rangefinder entirely? Make another model without and let the market decide. Same body shell, pretty much the same internal works. Leica seems to think the M-E and New M can coexist. Why not a RF model and a non-RF model?
It could not exist with the same internals/ electronics and be EVF only due to the reason of the FPS limitation I mentioned. It would be a terrible reflection of Leica capability and would be roundly criticized. So, a complete redesign with new electronics would probably be very expensive - perhaps prohibitively given Leica did not try to design the still-in-prototype Leica M with better EVF capability.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
It could not exist with the same internals/ electronics and be EVF only due to the reason of the FPS limitation I mentioned. It would be a terrible reflection of Leica capability and would be roundly criticized. So, a complete redesign with new electronics would probably be very expensive - perhaps prohibitively given Leica did not try to design the still-in-prototype Leica M with better EVF capability.
The EVF works as an external add-on, but not if built in?
As far as I'm concerned, Leica is on the right track. Not everyone will be satisfied but the cameras are indeed very interesting. I wouldn't be surprised if in the future, we get 4 models:
M: RF and LV
M (classic): RF only, ME with newest sensor, LCD and processor.
MM: Same as classic but b&w.
M (electronic): No RF, EVF inside.
telyt wrote:
Leaving out the rampant stereotyping, who said they had to eliminate the rangefinder entirely? Make another model without and let the market decide. Same body shell, pretty much the same internal works. Leica seems to think the M-E and New M can coexist. Why not a RF model and a non-RF model?
joe88 wrote:
Tariq, what about live view on the M? How would the refresh rates compare to the external EVF?
It's the same, 30FPS. Probably perfectly fine for anything you would be using LV for. I think this lower refresh rate would really only be an issue if someone were using the EVF to photograph something in motion - or it might be distracting when panning.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
It's the same, 30FPS. Probably perfectly fine for anything you would be using LV for. I think this lower refresh rate would really only be an issue if someone were using the EVF to photograph something in motion - or it might be distracting when panning.
I have to admit to being completely ignorant in this subject, but aren't movies shot at 25 fps? I always thought that was just about faster than the eye refresh speed.
telyt wrote:
The EVF works as an external add-on, but not if built in?
Not sure exactly what you mean. The EVF is an add on accessory currenly. The point is that if the same electronics were used in the current M for some future EVF only model, users will get a poor EVF experience in some situations (motion, panning). To solve this will require completely new internal electronics - including most likely the Maestro processor. I'm not sure how likely it is that Leica will be updating that anytime soon. For that reason, I don't see an EVF only model being released at the mid to high end (one actually made by Leica).
edwardkaraa wrote:
I have to admit to being completely ignorant in this subject, but aren't movies shot at 25 fps? I always thought that was just about faster than the eye refresh speed.
24FPS...and there is an issue with panning in motion pictures at that rate...and there is a certain look to films (which most of us prefer) due to the slower frame rate. For seamless motion, you need more than that (and more than 30FPS). That's why the better current EVF's have higher frame rates.
telyt wrote:
Leica seems to think the M-E and New M can coexist. Why not a RF model and a non-RF model?
I don't think there is a technical reason not to do it (other than maybe what Tariq has pointed out). It's very much a marketing/branding/loyalty reason.
The ME and new M coexist because the ME is clearly a lukewarm option to anyone desiring modern components and features, which was already a criticism of the M9 in 2009. Finally a new digital M is actually contemporary. The ME in no way undermines the appeal of the M and allows Leica to focus primarily on one new camera. If the ME was the identical M9 based configuration but with a new sensor, buffer/electronics and shutter, then the decision would be less clear-cut (at least for me). But as it stands now, I want the new features, therefore the new M is the only option. If it was EVF only, it likely would significantly compete with the top of the line M, which I'm not denying would be very appealing. But it would alienate Leica's core M user group to a degree by forcing them to buy the most expensive option to retain RF/OVF. Right now they don't have to, on paper, though if they want a truly new camera, they still do...
Leica is not large, so their tendency has been to roll out staggered releases once sales seem to slacken a bit. I.e. M9P and then the MM. Maybe in 1.5 years we'll see an EVF-only M, once demand for the new M has mostly been sated. But as I asked earlier, at what price point and how will they differentiate themselves from Canikony when they don't want to compete in the same pool as the giants?
rscheffler wrote:
Leica is not large, so their tendency has been to roll out staggered releases once sales seem to slacken a bit. I.e. M9P and then the MM. Maybe in 1.5 years we'll see an EVF-only M, once demand for the new M has mostly been sated. But as I asked earlier, at what price point and how will they differentiate themselves from Canikony when they don't want to compete in the same pool as the giants?
i don't think there is any point with leica competing on price with the electronics giants. any evf based camera would be a premium camera priced at least as high as the ME. i don't see why having the choice between rangefinder only, evf only, or both would be a bad thing for leica unless it turns out to be much more expensive to produce multiple camera lines (i'm not sure it it would be a big difference given leicas production methods). it would certainly expand leica's user base, the question is how much.
