flash wrote:
I have never even seen one but what about the Pixii? Or does that have some issues I’m not aware of?
Cosina also had their Bessa cameras and they were popular with some but also never really made an impact in the long run.
Now these are actual rangefinders but really I’ve seen a few attempts at using the M mount from non Leica and they’ve all failed to grab much of the market. And I’m not sure why. Is this enough to scare them off even trying an EVF M mount camera? It’s easier to have something with an adaptor.
Gordon
I had a couple of the Bessas and the reason they didn't make a lasting impact is because the only way they compared to an M is the ability to mount M lenses.
Everything was much cheaper built with worse functionality unless having standard film loading is something you were looking for.
So to make a real impact, the quality/feel (let's not even talk about reliability!) has to match Leica for it to be a competitor.
brick33308 wrote:
I don't agree. Like you, I used to look down at APS sensors, thinking they were beneath my FF sensors on Sony/Leica.
Then I got my hands on a CL (a mint old copy that is WAY MORE reliable than my M11P that turned into a brick just like my Q3, both of which had to be repaired or replaced), and my misguided sneering at APS sensors shattered into thousands of pieces.
whiteonline wrote:
Just call it the L.
Basically a Q3 with an L mount. Perfect for the M-L adapter.
Or a Q3 with an M mount ... skip the adapter.
Or, they could do the Pentax thing and make an APS-C monochrome ... bring the CL back as a monochrome, M mount, APS-C. That would be about as niche as it gets. Talk about a gateway to FF M and or FF Monochrome. Don't even bother with lenses ... just an M mount.
flash wrote:
I have never even seen one but what about the Pixii? Or does that have some issues I’m not aware of?
Yes, but this camera is very pricey. You can get easily a newer used digital M for this. I don't think it had a market impact at all.
Cosina also had their Bessa cameras and they were popular with some but also never really made an impact in the long run.
These are for film - but yes, lesser known than the M-camera series but also very good. Bessa prices climbed up quite high in recent years, too. A digital Bessa with FF sensor would be very interesting if priced accordingly!
Now these are actual rangefinders but really I’ve seen a few attempts at using the M mount from non Leica and they’ve all failed to grab much of the market. And I’m not sure why. Is this enough to scare them off even trying an EVF M mount camera? It’s easier to have something with an adaptor.
Correct - it's was always the initial price which was a big bummer for each of these including the one Zeiss released. To enter this market, the digital M-based camera from another manufacturer needs to be priced significantly lower than what Leica is asking for. IMO this won't happen with another German (Zeiss) or even Japanese company. I would only see China as origin able to accommodate it. The 7Artisans and TTArtisan plus LightLensLab lenses have improved significantly in built and optical quality - they are learning fast, and I think they have all the tools to make metal-framed rigid digital M-cameras in theory. Offer such camera with decent EVF and FF sensor for $1500 (since it won't have AF or other bells and whistles) and you will have a winner for sure!
Never understood the bad hype which surrounds the M4-2 even some cheaper components were used at the time compared to the original M4. My M4-2 works like a charm and performs as well as my non-TTL M6 camera (the M4-2 without light meter obviously).
Desmolicious wrote:
I had a couple of the Bessas and the reason they didn't make a lasting impact is because the only way they compared to an M is the ability to mount M lenses.
Everything was much cheaper built with worse functionality unless having standard film loading is something you were looking for.
So to make a real impact, the quality/feel (let's not even talk about reliability!) has to match Leica for it to be a competitor.
One Bessa camera has capabilities no other M-based camera on the market has: the Bessa R4M came with ultra-wide and wider frame lines for 21 and 25 mm lenses and it therefore even today in demand. But yes, the built quality is more plasticky.
retrofocus wrote:
Never understood the bad hype which surrounds the M4-2 even some cheaper components were used at the time compared to the original M4. My M4-2 works like a charm and performs as well as my non-TTL M6 camera (the M4-2 without light meter obviously).
It stems from the jamming problem after the switch to steel gears. To save product costs, Leica moved part of its manufacturing to Canada and decided to bring back a version of the M4 after the slow sales and high cost of the M5. The new design eliminates some parts and the biggest change was the steel gears. Previous Leica’s had brass gears that were individually fitted to each camera, a labor intensive process. Steel gears offered the strength needed to add a motor winder and could be installed without a lot of individual adjustment.
The early cameras would often jam because the gears weren’t meshing properly. The steel gears still needed some attention during installation and once that problem was corrected, the M4-2 became a reliable camera and the basis for every film Leica to today.
retrofocus wrote:
I agree with your assessment regarding the pricing and gear line strategy of Leica. I also consider the adaptability of M lenses to the SL series rather a byproduct than the desired objective from Leica. Similar to Sony in 2013 with their first E-mount MLCs, Sony provided an adapter to make lenses from other brands work with their new cameras because Sony/Zeiss didn't have enough lenses to sell yet in this new mount. Leica copied this path with the SL and making M-lenses to some good degree compatible - but in the long run they want the user to buy L lenses to work with this camera. We always complain of the bulk of the SL camera, but likely this was done purposely to balance for the larger AF-based L-lenses - not caring for users with M-lenses mostly.
A smaller body-sized EVF-M would kind of torpedo this approach even if it didn't have AF capability. I bet that many users would jump on such model and desert fixed lens Q cameras and also bulkier SL ones. That's what Leica is afraid of. I don't think that an EVF-M would compete much with existing traditional M cameras - since rangefinder focus is sometimes better than EVF, most users will likely stick to their M cameras and consider adding such kind of EVF-M to their portfolio instead in situations where in-camera EVF is more advantageous.
Leica is likely continue dragging their feet to make such camera especially with good performing Q-series sales. And the number of desperate users who are using M-lenses on something like the Nikon Zf is small and won't affect Leica's profits much if anything at all. If on the other hand a company like TTArtisan as example ventured into the camera business to make an EVF-based M-mount camera for a decent price....hmmm, this would be a big concern for Leica! I actually hope for something like this to happen to be honest. ...Show more →
Why are those who use M lenses on a Zf ‘desperate’?
johnvanr wrote:
Why are those who use M lenses on a Zf ‘desperate’?
Desperate meant in the context that there is currently no Leica alternative to OVF in rangefinder Ms other than adapting M lenses to either SL cameras (expensive) or third parties like Nikon with the ZF camera for example. Or you are happy with a fixed lens and the Leica Q. But there is nothing to use a LTM or M-lens without adapter on any Leica camera and having in-camera EVF capability.
There's been a few videos recently of people visiting Wetzlar, most recently I watched the Alan Schaller one. The interviews, the factory and the things you see in the background are intriguing.
All the people saying why don't they do an interchangeable Q or bring back APS-C or whatever...watch the video.
If you look at the factory site (the location, not the website), it is not that big really. They cannot make lenses fast enough. They cannot make M cameras fast enough. The certainly cannot fix M cameras fast or slow enough. They don't have time to update the SL line. There is hardly 5 people working there anyway (judging by how few people asctually show up in the background...).
Yet they are doing fine as is, they had their most successful year. Why would they dillute their capacity and market offerings? They currently have:
- M: they could drop everything but this and still be good
- SL: I'll be surprised if it still exists in a couple of years
- Q: the M sidekick
- DLux: bait and switch
- Sofort: just some playful fun to complete the film aura which probably didn't take them much effort to make
Would you add more? They did! They added something they felt was more important than the M with the hybrid finder or the Q with a mount: watches. Tells you all you need to know about the mentality and direction of travel.
They are now in the business of making beautiful, collectable, expensive objects. The fact that they happen to take photos (and are good at it) is just an added bonus.
The moment they start competing on features they end up with something like the S or the SL. White elephants that are shown for what they are, an uber expensive system that doesn't actually offer that much on an A vs B checklist. They only know how to make expensive cameras so they need a unique proposition to be able to sell them. An AF camera with a zoom has none of that.
Nobody bought a mechanical watch because it is more accurate, has more features and is easier to live with than a Casio.
panos.v wrote:
There's been a few videos recently of people visiting Wetzlar, most recently I watched the Alan Schaller one. The interviews, the factory and the things you see in the background are intriguing.
All the people saying why don't they do an interchangeable Q or bring back APS-C or whatever...watch the video.
If you look at the factory site (the location, not the website), it is not that big really. They cannot make lenses fast enough. They cannot make M cameras fast enough. The certainly cannot fix M cameras fast or slow enough. They don't have time to update the SL line. There is hardly 5 people working there anyway (judging by how few people asctually show up in the background...).
Yet they are doing fine as is, they had their most successful year. Why would they dillute their capacity and market offerings? They currently have:
- M: they could drop everything but this and still be good
- SL: I'll be surprised if it still exists in a couple of years
- Q: the M sidekick
- DLux: bait and switch
- Sofort: just some playful fun to complete the film aura which probably didn't take them much effort to make
Would you add more? They did! They added something they felt was more important than the M with the hybrid finder or the Q with a mount: watches. Tells you all you need to know about the mentality and direction of travel.
They are now in the business of making beautiful, collectable, expensive objects. The fact that they happen to take photos (and are good at it) is just an added bonus.
The moment they start competing on features they end up with something like the S or the SL. White elephants that are shown for what they are, an uber expensive system that doesn't actually offer that much on an A vs B checklist. They only know how to make expensive cameras so they need a unique proposition to be able to sell them. An AF camera with a zoom has none of that.
Nobody bought a mechanical watch because it is more accurate, has more features and is easier to live with than a Casio. ...Show more →
Pretty much saying they had a great year why adding something new innovative to the table is - exactly what Kodak did when digital came along - ignoring it. And saying an EVF-M might be something like a SL is mistaken - biggest obstacle with the SL is the form factor and made for bulkier AF lenses (for a high price, too). And the watches - IMO a joke, but for Leica another way to create profit as luxury brand for collectors. In one point I agree with you though - I am not sure if the SL will survive.
retrofocus wrote:
Pretty much saying they had a great year why adding something new innovative to the table is - exactly what Kodak did when digital came along - ignoring it. And saying an EVF-M might be something like a SL is mistaken - biggest obstacle with the SL is the form factor and made for bulkier AF lenses (for a high price, too). And the watches - IMO a joke, but for Leica another way to create profit as luxury brand for collectors. In one point I agree with you though - I am not sure if the SL will survive....Show more →
I don't know...they make their money selling a 70 year old camera with a digital sensor. They charge more for versions without a screen or ones that only take B&W photos. And even more for different paint.
If anything, their innovation is actually shunning technical innovation. Their innovation is how they position themselves and market their products and how they use complimentary products and events, special editions, reissues and all that to keep the brand going.
retrofocus wrote:
Yes, but this camera is very pricey. You can get easily a newer used digital M for this. I don't think it had a market impact at all.
These are for film - but yes, lesser known than the M-camera series but also very good. Bessa prices climbed up quite high in recent years, too. A digital Bessa with FF sensor would be very interesting if priced accordingly!
Correct - it's was always the initial price which was a big bummer for each of these including the one Zeiss released. To enter this market, the digital M-based camera from another manufacturer needs to be priced significantly lower than what Leica is asking for. IMO this won't happen with another German (Zeiss) or even Japanese company. I would only see China as origin able to accommodate it. The 7Artisans and TTArtisan plus LightLensLab lenses have improved significantly in built and optical quality - they are learning fast, and I think they have all the tools to make metal-framed rigid digital M-cameras in theory. Offer such camera with decent EVF and FF sensor for $1500 (since it won't have AF or other bells and whistles) and you will have a winner for sure!
...Show more →
Honestly, I'd buy something like that if it was ever made if it was at that level...For me, I do want something in the style of a like a Panasonic GM5 but full frame. I was hoping the Panasonic S9 would have been closer to that style but more photo centric...But m mount with keeping the size down on the lenses vs L mount...
But I am fine with something EVF/LCD + M mount with just manual focus. The Pixii is also so close to what I want but I still have reservations on the electronic shutter...
panos.v wrote:
I don't know...they make their money selling a 70 year old camera with a digital sensor. They charge more for versions without a screen or ones that only take B&W photos. And even more for different paint.
If anything, their innovation is actually shunning technical innovation. Their innovation is how they position themselves and market their products and how they use complimentary products and events, special editions, reissues and all that to keep the brand going.
Using that same logic, I guess Porsche sells 60 year old cars, with certain updates. The great product companies seem to have mastered the ability to retain the core esthetics of a product while making it relevant in today's World. About the only thing the same between an M11 and the first M camera is the core esthetic. However, every part is different, and current.
Other great premium brands also create interest and value by producing limited editions, and color variations. I will mention Rolex as one such company.
Just in the camera World the other brands also see the value in this. The Nikon Zf as one example. but there are many. It is not an unusual branding practice at all. It is just that in Cameras, Leica is best at it.
1bwana1 wrote:
Using that same logic, I guess Porsche sells 60 year old cars, with certain updates. The great product companies seem to have mastered the ability to retain the core esthetics of a product while making it relevant in today's World. About the only thing the same between an M11 and the first M camera is the core esthetic. However, every part is different, and current.
Other great premium brands also create interest and value by producing limited editions, and color variations. I will mention Rolex as one such company.
Just in the camera World the other brands also see the value in this. The Nikon Zf as one example. but there are many. It is not an unusual branding practice at all. It is just that in Cameras, Leica is best at it. ...Show more →
Much better said than I did. Yes, obviously every single part of the M11 has nothing to do with the M3. Yet put them side by side and you'd initially struggle to tell them apart. An M11-D has the exact same number of controls as the M3. How amazing is that.
panos.v wrote:
I don't know...they make their money selling a 70 year old camera with a digital sensor. They charge more for versions without a screen or ones that only take B&W photos. And even more for different paint.
If anything, their innovation is actually shunning technical innovation. Their innovation is how they position themselves and market their products and how they use complimentary products and events, special editions, reissues and all that to keep the brand going.
Leica has something as camera brand no other has - a significant collector base. This IMO is the reason why Leica went full force into the luxury brand business. It is speculated that the revenue just from this collector base is more significant than the profit made from regular users of the brand. It explains why Leica is so vested in events, special editions, watches etc. I believe that this is the main reason which keeps Leica Camera afloat.
Leica has been innovative successfully with the Q series and special M editions for users like monochrome cameras for example. In the past Leica was known to implement changes very slowly to their products. I think we will see the same with some kind of EVF-M. It will happen but they will continue dragging their feet for a while.
panos.v wrote:
There's been a few videos recently of people visiting Wetzlar, most recently I watched the Alan Schaller one. The interviews, the factory and the things you see in the background are intriguing.
All the people saying why don't they do an interchangeable Q or bring back APS-C or whatever...watch the video.
If you look at the factory site (the location, not the website), it is not that big really. They cannot make lenses fast enough. They cannot make M cameras fast enough. The certainly cannot fix M cameras fast or slow enough. They don't have time to update the SL line. There is hardly 5 people working there anyway (judging by how few people asctually show up in the background...).
Yet they are doing fine as is, they had their most successful year. Why would they dillute their capacity and market offerings? They currently have:
- M: they could drop everything but this and still be good
- SL: I'll be surprised if it still exists in a couple of years
- Q: the M sidekick
- DLux: bait and switch
- Sofort: just some playful fun to complete the film aura which probably didn't take them much effort to make
Would you add more? They did! They added something they felt was more important than the M with the hybrid finder or the Q with a mount: watches. Tells you all you need to know about the mentality and direction of travel.
They are now in the business of making beautiful, collectable, expensive objects. The fact that they happen to take photos (and are good at it) is just an added bonus.
The moment they start competing on features they end up with something like the S or the SL. White elephants that are shown for what they are, an uber expensive system that doesn't actually offer that much on an A vs B checklist. They only know how to make expensive cameras so they need a unique proposition to be able to sell them. An AF camera with a zoom has none of that.
Nobody bought a mechanical watch because it is more accurate, has more features and is easier to live with than a Casio. ...Show more →
Well, for me the SL3 is my favourite Leica camera. I’ve basically stopped using my M’s, except my Monochrom. There was a thread on LuF and a few others have done the same.
I have a R5 and A7R5 and to me the SL3 is very much a Leica and very different to those cameras. And I prefer it to them.
---------------------------------------------
retrofocus wrote:
Pretty much saying they had a great year why adding something new innovative to the table is - exactly what Kodak did when digital came along - ignoring it. And saying an EVF-M might be something like a SL is mistaken - biggest obstacle with the SL is the form factor and made for bulkier AF lenses (for a high price, too). And the watches - IMO a joke, but for Leica another way to create profit as luxury brand for collectors. In one point I agree with you though - I am not sure if the SL will survive....Show more →
In the interview Mt Kaufman actually said how important it was to be aware of what the industry was going when he talked about the two digital revolutions. Looks like he’s very aware of the market and his place in it, to me.
retrofocus wrote:
One Bessa camera has capabilities no other M-based camera on the market has: the Bessa R4M came with ultra-wide and wider frame lines for 21 and 25 mm lenses and it therefore even today in demand. But yes, the built quality is more plasticky.
panos.v wrote:
Much better said than I did. Yes, obviously every single part of the M11 has nothing to do with the M3. Yet put them side by side and you'd initially struggle to tell them apart. An M11-D has the exact same number of controls as the M3. How amazing is that.
I agree with the comments about Porsche 911 and Rolex being largely the same for 40 years, and I think that's a good thing.
I don't agree that every single part of the M11 has nothing to do with the M3. Well okay maybe as to parts, but not as to ethos such as size and simplicity of camera controls.
I’ll take give it a read, thanks for sharing.
