johnvanr wrote:
but most others think of that camera as overpriced old tech not worth considering.
This is what a lot of people think of Leica but they still manage to to very well in a very bad market by targeting people like you and he with a unique offer.
Or people like me who do not care about using old tech, use a GM5, Pen-F and LX100 II and would buy the DLux-8 except I've already too many cameras.
johnvanr wrote:
The Q is, but there is no FF competition. The S and SL lines probably not. The M is, but the question will be if that remains so if it gets the EVF. You and I like the D-Lux 8 because of that Leica interface, but most others think of that camera as overpriced old tech not worth considering.
pmeheut wrote:
This is what a lot of people think of Leica but they still manage to to very well in a very bad market by targeting people like you and he with a unique offer.
Or people like me who do not care about using old tech, use a GM5, Pen-F and LX100 II and would buy the DLux-8 except I've already too many cameras.
Well; people who shoot GM5, Pen-F and Leica seem to congregate here. Slightly updated versions of the former two would be very welcome, but I'll happily use the existing ones as long as I can. Also some of my many (too many) other cameras.
johnvanr wrote:
The Q is, but there is no FF competition. The S and SL lines probably not. The M is, but the question will be if that remains so if it gets the EVF. You and I like the D-Lux 8 because of that Leica interface, but most others think of that camera as overpriced old tech not worth considering.
When announcing record sales for Leica this past year Leica had this to say.
"In the photography segment, models such as Q3, SL3, and SL3s were also top contributors. The Leica Q3 was also the top seller amongst digital offerings."
Without any solid contrary data I think we should take Leica's statements as true. Especially with such strong financial results.
The D-Lux 8 was backordered for a significant period of time. So it must have sold in reasonable quantities. I really enjoy mine. But this is due primarily it's excellent implementation of Leica's workflow. Not any sort of technical advantage. It helps keep all my workflow consistent across my use cases. I suspect that the D-Lux 8 appeals primary to existing Leica users. I am sure Leica was aware of and planned for this.
Leica knows very well it's position in the market and it's competitive challenges. That is one reason Leica is focusing on building a global network of company owned stores. These stores offer shopping and ownership value to Leica customers. This is not available with any other brand although there is some experimenting from them currently being tested. Leica is able to capture the full financial benifits of retail pricing. Competing on a technical level is not the only way to meet today's selling challenges for Leica.
1bwana1 wrote:
...
The D-Lux 8 was backordered for a significant period of time. So it must have sold in reasonable quantities. I really enjoy mine. But this is due primarily it's excellent implementation of Leica's workflow. Not any sort of technical advantage. It helps keep all my workflow consistent across my use cases. I suspect that the D-Lux 8 appeals primary to existing Leica users. I am sure Leica was aware of and planned for this.
.
I know the only reason I bought the D-Lux 8 100 years was the Leica workflow/UI. It fixed all the issues I had with the LX100m2.
flash wrote:
Premium manufacturers have no problems doing this. Same for cars, watches and handbags.
Gordon
Not to mention Whiskey, Wine and Wagyu (consumable vs. durable goods).
Ultimately, the differentiation resides in the experience one derives from the product and/or ownership of the product.
People will pay for experience ... beyond the practical. I mean, even a trip to Disneyland is gonna cost more than going to the County Fair.
In that regard, the M offers a mechanical tactile and RF experience that is differentiated from other technical offerings. The EVF brings an experience that is more pragmatic / practical oriented for some. Putting the EVF in the M, then becomes a hybrid of practical / experiential.
Some will see the EVF as a Half-Full gain in the practical realm. Others will see the EVF as a Half-Empty loss in the RF experiential realm.
To which ... it will be a case of YMMV for folks on an individualized basis.
At one time Leicas were hand made, I guess for the top lenses like the 0.95 noct, apo 50/2 basically are and this put Leicas in the same catagory as so many other special things. Now it is more a mix, more porsche than rolls royce in producton. It is still a special thing a Leica but maybe not as special in the past as a dig unit that like all dig gets old fast and is not as custom as it was. But there is a long list of special things hand made with geat craftsmanship, I could add bamboo fly rods, the very top tier telecscopes like Zeiss and Astrophysics. But I guess I would contend a MP is special because it is what it is, whereas anything dig like a M11P with software little computers sensors will become obsolete as do my Macs with frequency no matter how pretty the case. So in the end I consider any dig Leica like an expensive Mac it will not look current and be greatly discounted in a few years, whereas a MP, that might well hold its value much more. So there is no point agonizing about a dig Leica, buy it, use it, enjoy its output and far too soon you will be in the market for the next thing (M12?).
EMH2025 wrote:
At one time Leicas were hand made, I guess for the top lenses like the 0.95 noct, apo 50/2 basically are and this put Leicas in the same catagory as so many other special things. Now it is more a mix, more porsche than rolls royce in producton. It is still a special thing a Leica but maybe not as special in the past as a dig unit that like all dig gets old fast and is not as custom as it was. But there is a long list of special things hand made with geat craftsmanship, I could add bamboo fly rods, the very top tier telecscopes like Zeiss and Astrophysics. But I guess I would contend a MP is special because it is what it is, whereas anything dig like a M11P with software little computers sensors will become obsolete as do my Macs with frequency no matter how pretty the case. So in the end I consider any dig Leica like an expensive Mac it will not look current and be greatly discounted in a few years, whereas a MP, that might well hold its value much more. So there is no point agonizing about a dig Leica, buy it, use it, enjoy its output and far too soon you will be in the market for the next thing (M12?)....Show more →
That’s mostly just a lovely myth. The vast majority of Leica parts have been made by machines for most of Leica’s lifespan. It’s not like there’s some old guy carving out RF lever arms from a billet of brass. Sure, some elements were finished by hand like lens elements but 90% of the work has always been done by machines. Leica’s have mostly been hand assembled for the last 70 years, not hand made. That continues today except more of the parts are integrated units so less assembly is required.
Hand made isn’t a sign of build quality anyway. Most things made by hand are less reliable than their machine made counterparts. Nor is digital. The only real issues is batteries being available. There are still plenty of M9’s in the world running just as they did a decade ago.
And the top computer designed telescopes of today simply stomp on the very beautiful optics handmade in yesteryears.
Indeed. In the past, let's say half a century ago or even more, a lot of industrially produced goods where inferior to handmade ones.
Because at the time, they were 100% optimized for price and the available technology would not allow better.
At the time, a Rolls would be more reliable than a cheaper car, a Leica more than most entry-level camera, a high-end watch more than a cheap one.
This is not true anymore.
flash wrote:
And the top computer designed telescopes of today simply stomp on the very beautiful optics handmade in yesteryears.
And Zeiss stopped building telescopes decades ago. Many parts of an Astro-Physics refractor are built by CNC machines too.
I have been invited to test out the EV-1 next week. In preparation I went out shooting today with my 75mm 1.5 VM Nokton, my 35mm Summilux, and my Visoflex on my M11. I want to be able to effectively compare the shooting experience of the new camera with the existing EVF solution.
All I can say is that I don't enjoy shooting with the Visoflex at all. The EVF is slow, the image is not smooth, the image jumps around when zoomed in for focus that I really hate it, and the focus aide pixel highlight is inconsistent at best. Everything is much worse at 75mm where the largest potential benefit from an EVF should be. Reminds me why I almost never use the Visflex.
If the EV-1 doesn't offer a much better experience I predict it will fail as an offering. I will post after I have had a chance to use it a while.
1bwana1 wrote:
I have been invited to test out the EV-1 next week. In preparation I went out shooting today with my 75mm 1.5 VM Nokton, my 35mm Summilux, and my Visoflex on my M11. I want to be able to effectively compare the shooting experience of the new camera with the existing EVF solution.
All I can say is that I don't enjoy shooting with the Visoflex at all. The EVF is slow, the image is not smooth, the image jumps around when zoomed in for focus that I really hate it, and the focus aide pixel highlight is inconsistent at best. Everything is much worse at 75mm where the largest potential benefit from an EVF should be. Reminds me why I almost never use the Visflex.
If the EV-1 doesn't offer a much better experience I predict it will fail as an offering. I will post after I have had a chance to use it a while....Show more →
How is your shooting experience with the same lenses on the SL?
Would you compared to the SL (and except for the lighter body and perhaps better performance for wider focal lengths) expect the M EV1 to bring anything else to the table?
SlowDriver wrote:
How is your shooting experience with the same lenses on the SL?
Would you compared to the SL (and except for the lighter body and perhaps better performance for wider focal lengths) expect the M EV1 to bring anything else to the table?
I love shooting my M lenses on my SL3. With very wide,very long or very fast lenses wide open it is actually better than on my M11. The excellent IBIS, superb EVF, and smoothe image in the EVvF of the SL3 make it an excellent and accurate manual focus platform. The EV-1 needs to match this performance to ensure acceptable in my opinion.
1bwana1 wrote:
I love shooting my M lenses on my SL3. With very wide,very long or very fast lenses wide open it is actually better than on my M11. The excellent IBIS, superb EVF, and smoothe image in the EVvF of the SL3 make it an excellent and accurate manual focus platform. The EV-1 needs to match this performance to ensure acceptable in my opinion.
If rumored specs are to be believed, seems the EV-1 shares EDIT :"some" specs to the SL3 EVF.
Meanwhile and since you described your experience with the M11 + Visoflex 2 a few comments up, I am now motivated to test and compare the same between the M11+ VisoFlex 2 and the SL3 EVF w/ both VM 75 1.5 and my longest M lens the Summicron 90AA. Otherwise I was planning to dust the bookshelves today. Thanks for getting me out of that!
BTW, am I correct thinking the M11's LiveView Stabilization mode for the VisoFlex 2 is activated whenever M11 LiveView is engaged or is there some other LiveView Stabilization on/off setting in the menu?
flash wrote:
That’s mostly just a lovely myth. The vast majority of Leica parts have been made by machines for most of Leica’s lifespan. It’s not like there’s some old guy carving out RF lever arms from a billet of brass. Sure, some elements were finished by hand like lens elements but 90% of the work has always been done by machines. Leica’s have mostly been hand assembled for the last 70 years, not hand made. That continues today except more of the parts are integrated units so less assembly is required.
Hand made isn’t a sign of build quality anyway. Most things made by hand are less reliable than their machine made counterparts. Nor is digital. The only real issues is batteries being available. There are still plenty of M9’s in the world running just as they did a decade ago.
And the top computer designed telescopes of today simply stomp on the very beautiful optics handmade in yesteryears.
LBJ2 wrote:
If rumored specs are to be believed, seems the EV-1 shares EDIT :"some" specs to the SL3 EVF.
Meanwhile and since you described your experience with the M11 + Visoflex 2 a few comments up, I am now motivated to test and compare the same between the M11+ VisoFlex 2 and the SL3 EVF w/ both VM 75 1.5 and my longest M lens the Summicron 90AA. Otherwise I was planning to dust the bookshelves today. Thanks for getting me out of that!
BTW, am I correct thinking the M11's LiveView Stabilization mode for the VisoFlex 2 is activated whenever M11 LiveView is engaged or is there some other LiveView Stabilization on/off setting in the menu?...Show more →
The Visoflex 2 software stabilization I beleive is always active. Unfortunately it is not very good...
1bwana1 wrote:
I have been invited to test out the EV-1 next week. In preparation I went out shooting today with my 75mm 1.5 VM Nokton, my 35mm Summilux, and my Visoflex on my M11. I want to be able to effectively compare the shooting experience of the new camera with the existing EVF solution.
All I can say is that I don't enjoy shooting with the Visoflex at all. The EVF is slow, the image is not smooth, the image jumps around when zoomed in for focus that I really hate it, and the focus aide pixel highlight is inconsistent at best. Everything is much worse at 75mm where the largest potential benefit from an EVF should be. Reminds me why I almost never use the Visflex.
If the EV-1 doesn't offer a much better experience I predict it will fail as an offering. I will post after I have had a chance to use it a while....Show more →
Those are my primary lenses with my SL2, so you're going to be the best test example for me. I do a lot of low-light shooting, and the Visioflex was absolutely terrible.
1bwana1 wrote:
The Visoflex 2 software stabilization I beleive is always active. Unfortunately it is not very good...
Thank you. That's what I thought.
I rarely use the Visoflex and have never compared side by side with the SL EVFs. I just completed a casual VisoFlex hand shake test and it seems with LiveView Image Stabilization, there can still be some movement seen in the image due to handshake. I included default zoom/magnification vs digital zoom up to 1.8X magnification on these longer lenses and then compared vs stabilizing the camera on desktop zoom/magnification. This is where IBIS assist would help. However, If I can't turnoff Visoflex LiveView Image Stabilization, then I can't compare handshake LiveView Image Stabilization effectiveness on vs off.
1bwana1 wrote:
The Visoflex 2 software stabilization I beleive is always active. Unfortunately it is not very good...
For wide angle lenses, which for me means 21mm, I think that I prefer to use an optical viewfinder, like the Zeiss ZM. Zone focusing works great and I’ve yet to use an EVF that beats a quality optical finder. I have a 35mm & 50mm f/1.2 where the Visoflex2 is, for me, necessary. I’m able to focus my 75mm f/2.0 APO using the rangefinder and usually use the 90mm Macro-Elmar vs F/2.0 APO Asph.. which I use with the VF2(the 90mmAPO?Asph). So, most of my shooting is readily handled without the VF2. For me to purchase an EV based ‘M’, the manual focus would need to be an improvement over my experience shooting manual with Sony A7Rv and X2Dii. My guess is that this first edition EVF is aimed at those that dislike rangefinders and not someone, like myself, who likes rangefinders. The M12 will be different. Here Leica must keep people like me in the fold. That said, I am looking forward to your experience with the new camera.
crazeazn wrote:
Those are my primary lenses with my SL2, so you're going to be the best test example for me. I do a lot of low-light shooting, and the Visioflex was absolutely terrible.
How do you define your typical low light shooting e.g.: aperture/shutter speed/ISO? I'm interested to test similar scenario with the Visoflex 2.
