Leica will create a miracle if they managed to solve the sensor tile issue when IBIS is being introduced. Every M body sent in for check up they'll check sensor alignment and they're very particular about it.
Also interested in how they can fit in EVF inside such compact and cramped space in the RF chamber...
I am on the fence about ever upgrading again. I do like the M11 Ev ! combo it does what I want, stabilization would be nice but I don't want a thicker heavier body.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Here are the latest Leica M12 rumors according to Leicarumors.com
Core Hardware
New Gpixel sensor, likely paired with a new processor and battery system
Camera body could be about 3mm shorter
Versions
Two possible variants:
a) Fixed bottom plate
b) Classic removable base plate, possibly labeled a "Heritage" edition
Stabilization
IBIS has been tested, but it's unclear if it will make it into production
Controls & Design Changes
ISO dial on the top left may be removed entirely
Larger 3.9 inch rear screen, up from 2.95 inches on the M11
Rear button layout could be redesigned or simplified, possibly reduced
Viewfinder
Potential hybrid vision system combining traditional rangefinder with EVF functionality, similar in concept to the Fuji X100
Trademark Status
"M12" trademark appears as dead or abandoned in some regions, possibly due to conflicts
In the United States Patent and Trademark Office, it is currently listed as active
Release Timeline
Rumored release in 2027
----
What's ya guys think, is Leica about to shake things up or just mess with us a little? It will be interesting to see how many of these actually stick as the M12 release gets closer....Show more →
Leica sure loves selling us new batteries. But I'll reserve judgement in case they move to the Q3/SL3 batteries, in which case, "kudos and finally".
I like the 3mm shorter so that it's more the height of the film M bodies.
highdesertmesa wrote:
Leica sure loves selling us new batteries. But I'll reserve judgement in case they move to the Q3/SL3 batteries, in which case, "kudos and finally".
I like the 3mm shorter so that it's more the height of the film M bodies.
I might be naοve but isn't that solved with BSI sensors? I've never observed tiling issues except with older CCD's.
Haven't seen any issues with any IBIS cameras with M lenses either.
jeffersoncasey wrote:
Leica will create a miracle if they managed to solve the sensor tile issue when IBIS is being introduced. Every M body sent in for check up they'll check sensor alignment and they're very particular about it.
Also interested in how they can fit in EVF inside such compact and cramped space in the RF chamber...
Leica sure loves selling us new batteries. But I'll reserve judgement in case they move to the Q3/SL3 batteries, in which case, "kudos and finally".
I like the 3mm shorter so that it's more the height of the film M bodies.
Batteries! Leica prices their batteries like it is gold whereas every other manufacturer prices batteries like batteries. X2D2=$99 and it is 50% more powerful than the SL3 battery costing $240. Same with the M11 battery pricing.
Based on Leica 's battery pricing, it indicates they think batteries are also luxury items. I'm about feed up with them. M11M over $11k now!
Batteries! Leica prices their batteries like it is gold whereas every other manufacturer prices batteries like batteries. X2D2=$99 and it is 50% more powerful than the SL3 battery costing $240. Same with the M11 battery pricing.
Based on Leica 's battery pricing, it indicates they think batteries are also luxury items. I'm about feed up with them. M11M over $11k now!
Another reason why I stick to my M-E 240 and M 246 cameras - I have three batteries for them which work still perfectly fine and which last quite long when fully charged. I agree with your comment though - I am not a fan of all this Leica luxury pricing including increased battery prices.
If you ever encounter Leica service crew telling you your sensor alignment is off, you'll never notice it cause that's the first stage of diagnosis they'll do. Tried to send in an M9 with filter glass replaced by 3rd party they simply return it saying it's off, and end up not wanting to touch 3rd party replaced stuff.
If you follow decentering test guides, it's important to switch off the IBIS as well.
thrice wrote:
I might be naοve but isn't that solved with BSI sensors? I've never observed tiling issues except with older CCD's.
Haven't seen any issues with any IBIS cameras with M lenses either.
Another reason why I stick to my M-E 240 and M 246 cameras - I have three batteries for them which work still perfectly fine and which last quite long when fully charged. I agree with your comment though - I am not a fan of all this Leica luxury pricing including increased battery prices.
I have an M262 and I agree that those batteries for the M240 series of cameras are great. Also the 24MP sensor is enough for most.
Batteries! Leica prices their batteries like it is gold whereas every other manufacturer prices batteries like batteries. X2D2=$99 and it is 50% more powerful than the SL3 battery costing $240. Same with the M11 battery pricing.
Based on Leica 's battery pricing, it indicates they think batteries are also luxury items. I'm about feed up with them. M11M over $11k now!
The fact that people just accept that these full frame cameras must cost over $10k now, and batteries must be 1) priced 3 times higher than Hasselblad and 2) generally unavailable is pretty puzzling to me.
I can justify high prices for a lot of gear. I have a Magicflex Rollei 2.8E. I have high end scanners. I have an X2DII. I even have an 11x14 Ritter camera. None of the above cost as much as what Leica wants for their 135 format cameras.
speedgraphic wrote:
The fact that people just accept that these full frame cameras must cost over $10k now, and batteries must be 1) priced 3 times higher than Hasselblad and 2) generally unavailable is pretty puzzling to me.
I can justify high prices for a lot of gear. I have a Magicflex Rollei 2.8E. I have high end scanners. I have an X2DII. I even have an 11x14 Ritter camera. None of the above cost as much as what Leica wants for their 135 format cameras.
thrice wrote:
I might be naοve but isn't that solved with BSI sensors? I've never observed tiling issues except with older CCD's.
Haven't seen any issues with any IBIS cameras with M lenses either.
Maybe they're talking about the possibility that IBIS could impact IQ due to sensor alignment on a sensor that has a very specific microlens array designed to accommodate M lenses? I think Fujifilm ran into a similar issue moving from the 50mp sensor without IBIS to the 100mp sensor with IBIS. Corner performance was slightly weaker on the 100mp camera and not just due to the increased resolution. When Fujifilm released the 100S II, they said had improved corner performance, so I assume they addressed the issue somehow. Perhaps the fix was as simple as to pivot IBIS from the center of the frame versus it being tied to the focus point. I have no evidence to back that up, just a guess.
speedgraphic wrote:
The fact that people just accept that these full frame cameras must cost over $10k now, and batteries must be 1) priced 3 times higher than Hasselblad and 2) generally unavailable is pretty puzzling to me.
I can justify high prices for a lot of gear. I have a Magicflex Rollei 2.8E. I have high end scanners. I have an X2DII. I even have an 11x14 Ritter camera. None of the above cost as much as what Leica wants for their 135 format cameras.
At a certain point it's just obscene.
OK everyone, at what price would you consider a M11-P not obscene?
I am not arguing with you, or trying to justify Leica's channel placement decisions. I sincerely have a hard time arriving at an answer for myself. The problem I have is there is no real equivalent product from another manufacturer that is truly equivalent. It is the only camera of it's type in the market today. To establish equivalency one must not only consider images created, but the entire ecosystem of the camera. I think that is what drives sales of the M system. Then we must consider market acceptance, which in this case is very high judging by Leica's financial results and sales numbers. When I consider it all in context I just can't come up with a number. Can you?
That said, I do find the current prices to be extremely high. But in today's World I feel that way about many, many things...
1bwana1 wrote:
OK everyone, at what price would you consider a M11-P not obscene?
I am not arguing with you, or trying to justify Leica's channel placement decisions. I sincerely have a hard time arriving at an answer for myself. The problem I have is there is no real equivalent product from another manufacturer that is truly equivalent. It is the only camera of it's type in the market today. To establish equivalency one must not only consider images created, but the entire ecosystem of the camera. I think that is what drives sales of the M system. Then we must consider market acceptance, which in this case is very high judging by Leica's financial results and sales numbers. When I consider it all in context I just can't come up with a number. Can you?
That said, I do find the current prices to be extremely high. But in today's World I feel that way about many, many things......Show more →
To me the question of pricing comes down to an investment option: Do I vest $10K into a Leica M camera, or do I vest it into a stock/bond fund which gives me some dividend and interest (taxable of course but still). The value of a new camera only depreciates. Which price point would I find a good balance for a camera? My answer is going for a used one in EX or EX+ condition but which lost about 40% of its initial sales value. So this brings me in my example with $10K into the range of $6K. This I could see justified. Currently used M10-R fall into this ballpark - I probably would consider slowly at this point if there wasn't all this battery issue with it.
1bwana1 wrote:
OK everyone, at what price would you consider a M11-P not obscene?
I am not arguing with you, or trying to justify Leica's channel placement decisions. I sincerely have a hard time arriving at an answer for myself. The problem I have is there is no real equivalent product from another manufacturer that is truly equivalent. It is the only camera of its type in the market today. To establish equivalency one must not only consider images created, but the entire ecosystem of the camera. I think that is what drives sales of the M system. Then we must consider market acceptance, which in this case is very high judging by Leica's financial results and sales numbers. When I consider it all in context I just can't come up with a number. Can you?
That said, I do find the current prices to be extremely high. But in today's World I feel that way about many, many things......Show more →
I have taken the liberty of highlighting a few words in your post. This -- the lack of an equivalent -- is central to this discussion.
Leica rangefinder cameras have some unique mechanical components that one could argue carries a cost that all other digital cameras do not (although the R&D costs of the rangefinder mechanism are clearly lost in the depths of time). On the other hand, cameras like the top-end Sony mirrorless models and the Hasselblad X2D II have significant capabilities (such as incredible autofocus and IBIS) that the M11s do not. Interestingly, the MP and M6 are significantly cheaper than the M11s; could Leica really assert that the digital componentry in the M11 costs that much more?
So, although this is an entirely subjective view, based on a decidedly flimsy rationale, it seems to me that a reasonable (first world statement!) price for an M11 would be 30-40% lower than the current actual price. But, of course, Leica seem to be enjoying considerable success with prices at their current levels, so why should they care -- in the short term, at least -- if some people regard the prices as distasteful?
I should know better than to engage in a discussion about prices ....
1bwana1 wrote:
OK everyone, at what price would you consider a M11-P not obscene?
I am not arguing with you, or trying to justify Leica's channel placement decisions. I sincerely have a hard time arriving at an answer for myself. The problem I have is there is no real equivalent product from another manufacturer that is truly equivalent. It is the only camera of it's type in the market today. To establish equivalency one must not only consider images created, but the entire ecosystem of the camera. I think that is what drives sales of the M system. Then we must consider market acceptance, which in this case is very high judging by Leica's financial results and sales numbers. When I consider it all in context I just can't come up with a number. Can you?
That said, I do find the current prices to be extremely high. But in today's World I feel that way about many, many things......Show more →
I mean it's dangerous to compare prices because these products are wildly different. But if you take the pro camera line up from Canon and Nikon, a Z9 is about $5k and the R1 is $6800.
First let me say, I don't think it's insane to say that for what Leica is doing, being priced at the same as a pro level Canon or Nikon isn't that crazy of a proposition. These cameras are basically prosumer electronics, plus some very nice materials, plus the RF mechanism. We can see what it costs Leica to rip out the RF because they have an EVF model now, and it's just not really that much cheaper. But even with Leica being Leica, if they wanted to be 30% more expensive than the R1, you're still only at $8840.
If we take Leica on 'good faith', and their margins are reasonable for what they're making...I think any decent business person might say that they need to look for ways to make these cameras more cheaply. What is the value proposition of an $11k 135 camera in a logical sense? They're not more reliable than the competition. The camera sensors are basically what Sony will sell you in a modified form. And the firmware is often slightly buggy. I personally do not take them on good faith. I think they know as well as we do that they provide Velben goods and they just feel the need to jack up the price in order to project the idea that they're so exceptional, one must go into debt (they're financing cameras now) to use their offerings.
I just think if Hasselblad is under cutting you on price, you're over your skis. And i'm sitting here at my desk with a chrome M4P and an X2DII sitting on it. Meaning, Signed, me, a person who is willing to spend exorbitantly on cameras.
retrofocus wrote:
To me the question of pricing comes down to an investment option: Do I vest $10K into a Leica M camera, or do I vest it into a stock/bond fund which gives me some dividend and interest (taxable of course but still). The value of a new camera only depreciates. Which price point would I find a good balance for a camera? My answer is going for a used one in EX or EX+ condition but which lost about 40% of its initial sales value. So this brings me in my example with $10K into the range of $6K. This I could see justified. Currently used M10-R fall into this ballpark - I probably would consider slowly at this point if there wasn't all this battery issue with it. ...Show more →
I often tend to calculate like you on such matters.
Andrew CD wrote:
I have taken the liberty of highlighting a few words in your post. This -- the lack of an equivalent -- is central to this discussion.
Leica rangefinder cameras have some unique mechanical components that one could argue carries a cost that all other digital cameras do not (although the R&D costs of the rangefinder mechanism are clearly lost in the depths of time). On the other hand, cameras like the top-end Sony mirrorless models and the Hasselblad X2D II have significant capabilities (such as incredible autofocus and IBIS) that the M11s do not. Interestingly, the MP and M6 are significantly cheaper than the M11s; could Leica really assert that the digital componentry in the M11 costs that much more?
So, although this is an entirely subjective view, based on a decidedly flimsy rationale, it seems to me that a reasonable (first world statement!) price for an M11 would be 30-40% lower than the current actual price. But, of course, Leica seem to be enjoying considerable success with prices at their current levels, so why should they care -- in the short term, at least -- if some people regard the prices as distasteful?
I should know better than to engage in a discussion about prices .... ...Show more →
So your pricing model is linked heavily to cost of production. Logical for many products. I am not sure how relevant it is in the luxury goods market however. Some of the longest wait time extending even to almost impossible to acquire are completely decoupled from productions costs. Watches being just one example. The same is true of functionality. The cheapest watches tell better time and offer more features than almost any of the expensive ones.
