philber wrote:
Back to the original track, if I may. Actually Leica have been adressing a number of different requirements with their offering IMHO. It is (a) the only "small" FF camera, (b) the only true digital rangefinder, (c) the best platform for rangefider glass, (d) a status symbol.
My guess is that other manufacturers won't copycat the Leica M, but may well take cracks at one or another aspect of Leica's attractiosn to customers. Such as Sony with the RX1, for small-FF lovers
Agree!!
Leica has cornered the market with your reasoning of (B) and (C), and charge a premium because of (D) as well as because they choose to stick to in inefficient high cost of manufacturing.
At the end of the day, the only choices for range finders is to pay a high price for the M9, or buy a used M8 (which in the digital world is very dated), or go back to film (which is the cheapest option).
Where it rubs me wrong is that I can get a new Canon 1DX for the same price as a leica M9 body. I look at the capabilities of both cameras and Canon blows it away, except for the fact that the leica is a rangefinder and optimized to use manual lense.
Red 90 wrote:
Where it rubs me wrong is that I can get a new Canon 1DX for the same price as a leica M9 body. I look at the capabilities of both cameras and Canon blows it away, except for the fact that the leica is a rangefinder and optimized to use manual lense.
I'm reasonably certain the 1DX has a higher profit margin than the m9. most of the extra capabilities it has are not that expensive to make.
Red 90 wrote:
Where it rubs me wrong is that I can get a new Canon 1DX for the same price as a leica M9 body. I look at the capabilities of both cameras and Canon blows it away, except for the fact that the leica is a rangefinder and optimized to use manual lense.
from a practical standpoint, what do you need beyond the Leica's framing, focus and exposure controls?
I think that several German companies have figured out that there is a customer who would rather have what they feel they need done as well as it can be done rather than have R&D spread out over a bunch of stuff they just don't feel they need.
the 1Dx is a perfect camera for the sort of person who values only the end result and the M is a perfect camera for the sort of person who values the process just as much.
edwardkaraa wrote:
When I used sony my camera and lenses were all japanese. Now I have no idea.
The high-end bodies and lenses are japanese-made, but the consumer grade stuff has been Thai made for the life of the Sony Alpha system. Right now I think the only Japanese-built body is the A99, but the ZA lenses are all Japanese and most/all of the G lenses are too.
My NEX-7 is Thai, but my ZA E 24/1.8 is Japanese-built
redisburning wrote:
from a practical standpoint, what do you need beyond the Leica's framing, focus and exposure controls?
For me, the ability to focus anywhere in the frame without focus and recompose and a focusing system which is more robust (RF's are fragile that way).
But that's personal taste to a large part. I'd take an M9 long before a 1Dx, it's a lot better suited to my work than Canon's boat anchor. But neither are as well suited to my work as my NEX-7.
Spyro P. wrote:
well thats one opinion, and fully respected one as it seems to drive leica sales
I have a different opinion which is that the ikon, or the bessa for that matter, had it just right and they were as durable and well made as people expected a camera to be. We are talking about cameras, the kind of appliance that people buy expensive padded bags for, place carefully on the table and hate it when they see scratches on. It was leica that was overbuilt in a wasteful and costly way. And could be annoyingly heavy, depending on how your hang or hold you camera.
That kind of build and longevity that came with a leica was relevant 60 years ago, when you used a rangefinder and if it didnt break you just kept using it for a lifetime and then gave it to your grandchild. No point getting a new one because technological evolution in the RF world was practically zero, an old leica was as good as a new leica (for actual picture taking). That kind of thinking is irrelevant today: in 5-10 years most M8s will be landfill.
I rarely use a camera bag at all. My M9 is on a strap across my chest risking the possibility of banging into things all of the time, so I'm not sure I'd want to give up the build. Tough call. It would depend on the price of the digital Ikon.
I might disagree about the M8s being landfill in 5-10 years, although the smaller sensor does put them at a disadvantage compared to everything from the M9 forward. All new Ms come every few years, and cameras like the M-E artificially hold the value of M9s, but it is tough to say with the M8. I can't see the value of M8s dipping below $1500 for a long time, because digital rangefinders are still unique.
Red 90 wrote:
Where it rubs me wrong is that I can get a new Canon 1DX for the same price as a leica M9 body. I look at the capabilities of both cameras and Canon blows it away, except for the fact that the leica is a rangefinder and optimized to use manual lense.
Blows it away on paper. You're getting hung up on spec list features and perceived value based on quantity. The 1DX certainly has functional advantages over the M9, if you require those features (hence why I own both), but in 'normal' use, one could say it's the 1DX that's got feature bloat. Unfortunately, for a minimalist, fairly manual/mechanical digital rangefinder camera, there are very few choices and only one brand choice. Therefore you have no choice but to pay the price of admission set by the manufacturer (and the used equipment market).
redisburning wrote:
the 1Dx is a perfect camera for the sort of person who values only the end result and the M is a perfect camera for the sort of person who values the process just as much.
I think that pretty much sums up what I was trying to say a few pages back. The 1DX has allowed me to be a more productive sports photographer, but it's the M9, despite it being technologically less advanced, that I will use 'for fun' in addition to work.
rattymouse wrote:
Manufacture in China or some other part of Asia and your cost of sales goes way down. There's your Leica tax.
China can make anything to any quality spec you want. Sure, most people will frown on that. But the reality is, the most advanced manufacturing machines in the world right now are in China. Enormous amounts of Boeing parts, Airbus parts, Pratt & Whitney parts, RR, etc, all come out of China. The costs here are (for now; it's changing fast) are lower.
There is no reason in the world a rangefinder, ancient technology, has to cost so much.
They could. But then their IP would mysteriously be disseminated to rival Chinese companies. They'd have to deal with the massive annoyance of having their HQ in Germany and their factory 7 hours and thousands of miles away. If they weren't careful, the products coming off of the assembly line would be surprising worse in quality than expected when some middle-manager decides to cut some corners and pocket the difference.
rscheffler wrote:
Blows it away on paper. You're getting hung up on spec list features and perceived value based on quantity. The 1DX certainly has functional advantages over the M9, if you require those features (hence why I own both), but in 'normal' use, one could say it's the 1DX that's got feature bloat. Unfortunately, for a minimalist, fairly manual/mechanical digital rangefinder camera, there are very few choices and only one brand choice. Therefore you have no choice but to pay the price of admission set by the manufacturer (and the used equipment market).
I think that pretty much sums up what I was trying to say a few pages back. The 1DX has allowed me to be a more productive sports photographer, but it's the M9, despite it being technologically less advanced, that I will use 'for fun' in addition to work. ...Show more →
I agree with you that the cost of admission is due to the lack of choice in the market for a digital rangefinder camera. Its the concept of having to pay more for less that bugs me. Of course leica owners will call it less is more . The M9 is basically a mechanical rangefinder camera fitted with a full frame sensor. No bells or whistles. It can't shoot high iso, high frames, track wildlife or sports. It's a simple camera with a sensor that is on par with last generations dslr sensors.
I know leica has a premium, but even in the days of rangefinder film cameras, there were cheaper alternatives like minolta, canon, yashica. If you wanted to get into photography back then, you didn't have to pay the entry price of a leica.
Edgars Kalnins wrote:
A word on the quality of things made in different countries. Coming from country that used to be part of USSR I can remind that quality was far from top priorities there. And, I guess, it used to be similar in China. It might have changed now but I do not know that yet. I know for sure that Germans traditionally take pride in the products they offer and I presume they are well motivated to do so financially. Therefore I trust in the quality of lenses made in Germany. Of course, with effort it is possible to train staff to make quality products anywhere in the world, but in some countries it may take more persuasion and effort due to the historical and cultural circumstances. ...Show more →
Ask yourself this: Are Airbus planes falling out of the sky now since some are now built in China?
well of course the M9 has a sensor equivalent to the last gen of dSLR sensors.
it's an older camera and it's replacement(s) have been announced already.
do you actually care about high burst rate? accurate autofocus? zooms? telephoto lenses? if so, stick with your Canon. I thought you said in your original post you wanted a camera for street shooting and candids... how are any of those things relevant for that? RFs are about symmetric or close to it wides, ridiculous short teles and fast lenses that aren't the size and weight of the tripod they are mounted to.
you are aware that the 50/1.4 from Leica costs 4,000 US right? the Canon only costs 340 dollars. I mean, the 1.2L is still a bargain 1,400 if you care about that sort of thing.
why don't you rent an M9 and a 50 lux ASPH for a week and go shoot hardcore. See if you like it. If you like it as much as some of us, you'll do what most of us did and make sacrifices to make the purchase happen.
redisburning wrote:
well of course the M9 has a sensor equivalent to the last gen of dSLR sensors.
it's an older camera and it's replacement(s) have been announced already.
do you actually care about high burst rate? accurate autofocus? zooms? telephoto lenses? if so, stick with your Canon. I thought you said in your original post you wanted a camera for street shooting and candids... how are any of those things relevant for that? RFs are about symmetric or close to it wides, ridiculous short teles and fast lenses that aren't the size and weight of the tripod they are mounted to.
you are aware that the 50/1.4 from Leica costs 4,000 US right? the Canon only costs 340 dollars. I mean, the 1.2L is still a bargain 1,400 if you care about that sort of thing.
why don't you rent an M9 and a 50 lux ASPH for a week and go shoot hardcore. See if you like it. If you like it as much as some of us, you'll do what most of us did and make sacrifices to make the purchase happen....Show more →
Four grand for a 50mm lens....wow. This is not news to me; I've know it for a long time. But I can never get used to such an insane price for a simple 50mm lens.
While it may sound trivial for one of the major Japanese makers to break onto the scene with a digital rangefinder, i suspect it is actually not. At minimum there needs to be a few lenses in different focal lengths. This would be a significant investment of time and resources. And if it fails to catch on, it could be a huge bust.
Jabberwockt wrote:
While it may sound trivial for one of the major Japanese makers to break onto the scene with a digital rangefinder, i suspect it is actually not. At minimum there needs to be a few lenses in different focal lengths. This would be a significant investment of time and resources. And if it fails to catch on, it could be a huge bust.
and it would fail to catch on, because how on earth would you sell your lenses in a vast lens market that ranges from perfect (Leica) to cheap and excellent (CV) AND is backwards compatible to about a century back? No way.
Unless you made a new proprietary non-adaptable mount to force the RF crowd to ditch their vast selection of lenses and buy into a whole new system that only has 3-4 lenses (which would have to be damn excellent to entice), just to save 1-2k on the body.. Good luck with that.
So you'd be stuck doing all the hard R&D work only to make a platform that helps Leica, Zeiss and CV to sell more of their own lenses, and you'd only be selling the kit lens, if that. It just doesnt make sense from a business perspective...
there are companies with big budgets that have the luxury to commit R&D money to risky projects (eg Fuji) but they have already put their chips elsewhere (XPro)
redisburning wrote:
well of course the M9 has a sensor equivalent to the last gen of dSLR sensors.
it's an older camera and it's replacement(s) have been announced already.
do you actually care about high burst rate? accurate autofocus? zooms? telephoto lenses? if so, stick with your Canon. I thought you said in your original post you wanted a camera for street shooting and candids... how are any of those things relevant for that? RFs are about symmetric or close to it wides, ridiculous short teles and fast lenses that aren't the size and weight of the tripod they are mounted to.
you are aware that the 50/1.4 from Leica costs 4,000 US right? the Canon only costs 340 dollars. I mean, the 1.2L is still a bargain 1,400 if you care about that sort of thing.
why don't you rent an M9 and a 50 lux ASPH for a week and go shoot hardcore. See if you like it. If you like it as much as some of us, you'll do what most of us did and make sacrifices to make the purchase happen....Show more →
Your not understanding the point of the post. Yes, I understand the cost of a Leica lens, it shown to have that value. My problem is there is no other lower cost option out there besides Leica. If you wanted to use a 50mm F1.4 your choice isn't only Leica for 4K, you have others like canon that can produce a 50mm F1.4 for 400 dollars. Yes it's not a Leica, but it can still be used as a 50mm F1.4. So for 1/10 of the value of a Leica, one can still use a 50mm F1.4 lens. At the present time, and talking about currently available cameras new, there is no other digital rangefinder that one can purchase besides the leica M9 for 7K.
Yes my post was for about street shooting and how a rangefinder is so suited for it, but also about the question about why no other company beside leica that produces the rolex of cameras can't produce a range finder camera. I'm not questioning why the 1DX isn't suited for street photography or why Leica cost so much. The question is why any other second teir company can't put a digital sensor into a rangefinder and market it out.
The answer to the question as mentioned in muliple post on this thread is that there is no market for it. Companies like canon, nikon or sony won't use their mass production efficiencies to apply it to a digital range finder. Leica cost so much not because of there's anything innovative about their camera, but their choice to produce things in Germany and make it by hand as well as their name premium. I'm not saying there isn't value in Leica. That is what people are willing to pay for and there is merit in all of that.
However for some of us, we would be satisfied just paying 400.00 for a canon 50F1.4 over a $4000.00 Leica F1.4.
mawz wrote:
The high-end bodies and lenses are japanese-made, but the consumer grade stuff has been Thai made for the life of the Sony Alpha system. Right now I think the only Japanese-built body is the A99, but the ZA lenses are all Japanese and most/all of the G lenses are too.
I'm quite convinced that a full frame digital rangefinder camera system *could* be made less expensive to Leica, but to do so, a manufacturer would probably have to decide up front they'd support the Leica M mount such that they don't need to invent a new line of lenses.
As was said earlier, a film Zeiss Ikon camera includes all the optical and lens linkages required to provide the full rangefinder experience (on film) and it does so very well.
Sensor costs clearly are not prohibitive when a Sony RX1 can be produced with a full frame sensor *and* a Zeiss autofocus 35/2 lens for less than the cost of a single Leica Summicron 35/2.
Sensor customization costs clearly are not prohibitive when the Ricoh GXR M-mount A12 camera unit includes all the microlens magic to provide for very high performance even from lenses considered very demanding (ultra wides / symmetrical wides).
I used to add up all these bits and figure that sure, Zeiss in cooperation with Sony or Ricoh could come out with a digital rangefinder. But I no longer believe they will. Zeiss seems very happy being where they are in the lens market. Ricoh... maybe they are the dark horse out there who could bring a disruptive camera, a full frame compact which appeals to those who like minimalism, but it would be an EVF/live view camera, not a rangefinder. It would still sell well though and knowing them they'd make a good product if they ever decide to do it. And they have M mount experience to boot.
Sony... I just can't see them purposefully building a M mount camera system. If anything they'd one day come out with a full frame compact camera line, quite apart from NEX, but I think the RX1 signals that such a development is unlikely in the near future.
What many have said or come to the conclusion is that there just isn't a market big enough to interest anyone else, but what there is, clearly, is a high end enthusiast and pro market for very high IQ very small cameras that is substantial enough to allow companies like Sony and Fujifilm and others to keep upping the ante and bring out new higher end compact cameras and lenses.
So while we may not see a digital *rangefinder* camera ever produced by a maker other than Leica, certainly we should see other high end compacts arrive, nipping at this high end market from the edges. Fujifilm certainly is nipping with its X100 and X-Pro 1 (hybrid optical-electronic finder) and rangefinderish styling. Sony is likewise competitive in the full frame small camera market with the RX1, a camera that has to appeal to some film (and maybe even digital) M shooters particularly those that leave a 35mm lens on the front of their Ms all the time.
Rather than competing with Leica on their own turf, these other companies are free to compete with Leica on areas of shared turf. This is much safer... and typically these other companies can produce innovations and get them to market at a faster rate.
Bottom line: you want a digital rangefinder, it is going to say either Epson on it (too old for most to consider) or will be a new or used M8 or M9 or M-E or M Monochrome or M typ 240 on it. And it'll have a red dot. And it'll cost what it costs.
Red 90 wrote:
Yes my post was for about street shooting and how a rangefinder is so suited for it
that's quite questionable these days to be honest
if you study the history of street photography you would find many big names who were infamous for producing bad quality photos (bad in the focus/sharpness pixel-peeping kind of way). Street shooting traditionally has a very low benchmark for "IQ", it is almost entirely about content, timing, proximity, composition, light and mood. Some motion blur or misfocus or bad equipment quality is acceptable or sometimes even used deliberately to communicate a message.
Leicas have always been popular with street shooters because it was the smaller and quieter decent quality kit available. It just isnt anymore. Welcome the x100, sigma DP1, PanaLX5, RX100, various mirrorless etc which will all simply give you more photos to to choose from because they are all easier to carry around, lighter, smaller and quieter than a real rangefinder, and are all making inroads with the street shooter community. And they will all easily beat the street benchmark for IQ.
Exceptions: many people use the word "street photography" to describe urban landscape, stills of all sorts, posed or semi-posed portraits of passers by, architecture, graffiti and other people-less street scenes. Nothing wrong with that and I'm not going to argue semantics, but in all seriousness these guys should get into larger formats, they will blow their mind.
An RF is awesome as a small "do all" kit these days, a bit of street, bit of travel and landscape work, a bit of grandchildren running around, some portraiture, maybe some casual pro work, even macro and tele these days with the live view. Jack of all trades that does most things well (and getting better) but no real specialization.
Red 90 wrote:
Yes my post was for about street shooting and how a rangefinder is so suited for it
I guess there are two parts to this, only one of which really has to do with the rangefinder itself. When you see two images converging linearly as you focus, you can estimate directly how far you have to go, and so you can very quickly get a reasonably well focused shot, much quicker than with a matte screen, which gives no direct hint at how far you have to turn.
The non-rangefinder part is that the Leica lenses generally have little focusing tabs, and by learning the correspondence between position and distance, you can guesstimate the focus without even looking at the rangefinder. Again, normal cameras do not have this.
. The M9 is basically a mechanical rangefinder camera fitted with a full frame sensor. No bells or whistles. It can't shoot high iso, high frames, track wildlife or sports. It's a simple camera with a sensor that is on par with last generations dslr sensors.