boojum
Mentor
Oh, I love a juicy story like this. https://petapixel.com/2022/11/07/the-m-rangefinder-is-holding-back-leicas-innovation/
boojum
Mentor
And I agree with the article completely. The design is way past its sell-by date. You want to see the future? The Hasselblad X2D with lens costs about the same as the M11 with lens and gives a better image by far and has 15 stop dynamic range, 7 stops of stabilization and 16 bit color. It can also go full auto or full manual and all stops in between. RF's are yesterday's papers. Just look at pro news photography, what is left. Other than a core hobbyist group where is the Leica RF market?
Yes, I have four of them. The M8.2 for color and B&W, the M9 for color, the M240's were mistakes. They are OK cameras and they work. One was a gift for a friend who sent it back. LOL The other I had believed was an improvement on the M9. Not so. But the point is that maybe, just maybe, rangefinders are a thing of the past, anachronisms. And as the article points out, they may be holding back Leica. How many more M6's can they pull off? They have become the Morgans of the camera world.
Yes, I have four of them. The M8.2 for color and B&W, the M9 for color, the M240's were mistakes. They are OK cameras and they work. One was a gift for a friend who sent it back. LOL The other I had believed was an improvement on the M9. Not so. But the point is that maybe, just maybe, rangefinders are a thing of the past, anachronisms. And as the article points out, they may be holding back Leica. How many more M6's can they pull off? They have become the Morgans of the camera world.
There are a lot of technological anachronisms that people just like.
Like a hard copy of a book, when electronic books are available online and PDF versions can be downloaded.
That's a Rangefinder mechanism- does not require the Sensor to be running while you focus. Saves power. You can quickly flip back and forth between sections of the book, faster than a PDF loads. Harder to do a keyword search with hard copy. With the rangefinder you can see outside the images area, and it does not Black-Out during the actual exposure. You can pan with the subject and keep focusing through the exposure.
Most people have never used a rangefinder. Most do not know how to make effective use of it. Most people do not understand the advantages. Their loss.
As far as holding back Leica's innovation: the quality of the firmware in Leica digital cameras is the worst I've seen in any camera, more bugs, more lock-ups, more cases where the battery must be dropped from the camera to restore operation. The Nikon N8008s of the late 1980s had a firmware error that locked up the camera if the last shot on the roll was exactly at the end. The camera could not sense the end of the roll, could not rewind. Drop batteries- put them in, immediately hit the two buttons to enter rewind mode. The M8- is the least bug-prone camera of the Leica M series line. That was the last camera that the firmware development was outsourced.
Like a hard copy of a book, when electronic books are available online and PDF versions can be downloaded.
That's a Rangefinder mechanism- does not require the Sensor to be running while you focus. Saves power. You can quickly flip back and forth between sections of the book, faster than a PDF loads. Harder to do a keyword search with hard copy. With the rangefinder you can see outside the images area, and it does not Black-Out during the actual exposure. You can pan with the subject and keep focusing through the exposure.
Most people have never used a rangefinder. Most do not know how to make effective use of it. Most people do not understand the advantages. Their loss.
As far as holding back Leica's innovation: the quality of the firmware in Leica digital cameras is the worst I've seen in any camera, more bugs, more lock-ups, more cases where the battery must be dropped from the camera to restore operation. The Nikon N8008s of the late 1980s had a firmware error that locked up the camera if the last shot on the roll was exactly at the end. The camera could not sense the end of the roll, could not rewind. Drop batteries- put them in, immediately hit the two buttons to enter rewind mode. The M8- is the least bug-prone camera of the Leica M series line. That was the last camera that the firmware development was outsourced.
Pál_K
Cameras. I has it.
Leica knows where its business is. If they were to innovate in the manner suggested by the article, they’d have a Leica M-Pro1 and it’d be competing directly with the products of other companies with far more knowledge and resources.
Besides, plenty of people are perfectly happy with a camera like the M3. All mechanical. The basics.
Besides, plenty of people are perfectly happy with a camera like the M3. All mechanical. The basics.
boojum
Mentor
Brian, I do think Leica RF's are the Morgans of the camera world. They may always exist, be well-made and maybe even have a long waiting list. And RF's may have their advantages. But they have become quaint anachronisms. Fortunately leather driving gloves are not required and there is no insanely difficult top to manage. I wonder how much of an overlap there is between Morgan Motor Company (https://www.morgan-motor.com/) and Leitz Camera? That would be interesting. I'd guess the percentage of Morgan owners with Leicas would be larger than the Leica owners with Morgans.
ptpdprinter
Mentor
The author of the article is a wedding photographer who shoots Nikon. Two weeks ago he wrote a Petapixel article lavishing praise on Leica rangefinders and recommended that everyone run out and buy an M6. You can't take these guys seriously. Your time is much better spent posting pictures of your Leica rangefinders in the "Let's see your Leica M" thread. It has over 4,000,000 views. People really like looking at Leica rangefinder cameras. It appears to be an obsession.
boojum
Mentor
"Plenty" is about as vague a number as there is. This is a skewed sample here on RFF. Out of the camera-buying public Leica commands a sliver of the market. I'd wager their share of the high end is not large either. Here is a quick find: https://cameraprism.com/camera-brands-market-share/ Leica is not even in the list. Why is that?
https://www.statista.com/statistics...rs-digital-cameras-market-share-sales-volume/
https://www.digitalcameraworld.com/news/camera-market-share-canon-owns-48-sony-22-nikon-drops-to-14
Now I know there is a cadre of people who champion the brand here. This is a gathering point as the name indicates. But the brand is not faring well in the free market, unless selling just a few cameras is the goal. In that case they are a resounding success. The R&D budget has to be pretty small, innovation is low, so there must be a generous markup in selling the updated digital M3's. As for "All mechanical. The basics.", yes, that is true of the film cameras, film cameras, film. Film is not a lot of fun I did it for almost 50 years and while I may be a minority I sure do not miss it, not even one little bit. The M9/Amotal combo satisfies me for Leica color image but with the penalty of the RF.
The point of the article is that there are newer and quite often better solutions to picture taking than rangefinders. It may be heretical here but I am willing to say I agree with the article. It is 2022 now.
AAlfano
Well-known
I don't own a Leica and am not terribly interested in their digital cameras, but I own several 40–50 plus year old film cameras and enjoy shooting them all. An M3 or an M4—or even the brand-new M6—would suit me fine. If someone wants to spend a fortune on an M11, more power to them. Leica wouldn't still be making film cameras (and probably wouldn't even exist) if the digital cameras weren't paying the bills.
The most efficient tool for the job is not always the most enjoyable. I drive a nice, practical Honda Civic to and from work, but if I was going to buy a car just to drive for fun on the weekends, it would probably be something small, with two seats and a drop top, and tremendously impractical.
If anyone thinks digital efficiency is making our lives better, I would love to have a talk with you about having to respond to 100+ emails a day and how technology has turned my professional life into a living hell. I long for the days when the hard copy mail came only once a day.
The most efficient tool for the job is not always the most enjoyable. I drive a nice, practical Honda Civic to and from work, but if I was going to buy a car just to drive for fun on the weekends, it would probably be something small, with two seats and a drop top, and tremendously impractical.
If anyone thinks digital efficiency is making our lives better, I would love to have a talk with you about having to respond to 100+ emails a day and how technology has turned my professional life into a living hell. I long for the days when the hard copy mail came only once a day.
cboy
Well-known
I have the fp and in regards to the spiritual successor to the m id say close but not quite there YET..The full frame sensor, small form factor and silent shutter of the fp make it appealing to those who want a discreet camera, which is a quality many M shooters value. The additional addon evf make the fp is as good as any other mirrorless camera out there for focus accuracy & framing albeit adds bulk to overall original size.
However imo the only major disadvantage the fp has compared to M is its sensor readout. Since the fp is mirrorless and shutterless camera it requires a faster readout speed, much like the sony A1 stacked sensor, which negates the effect of rolling shutter.
Future iterations of the fp hopefully will adopt a stack sensor and or use sigmas' proprietary up coming foveon FF that addresses the sensor readout issue, in which case will blow the M out of the water with foveons higher image fidelity.
The only thing the M has going for it, which is overlooked by manufacturers going to mirrorless is its optical rangefinder. Personally as a person who stares at a LCD screen all day at work i dont want to stare at a smaller LCD to only see what the camera is capable of seeing....It is much more refreshing to see a more direct connection to reality with a optical viewfinder, which is why i wont be selling my M anytime soon.
However imo the only major disadvantage the fp has compared to M is its sensor readout. Since the fp is mirrorless and shutterless camera it requires a faster readout speed, much like the sony A1 stacked sensor, which negates the effect of rolling shutter.
Future iterations of the fp hopefully will adopt a stack sensor and or use sigmas' proprietary up coming foveon FF that addresses the sensor readout issue, in which case will blow the M out of the water with foveons higher image fidelity.
The only thing the M has going for it, which is overlooked by manufacturers going to mirrorless is its optical rangefinder. Personally as a person who stares at a LCD screen all day at work i dont want to stare at a smaller LCD to only see what the camera is capable of seeing....It is much more refreshing to see a more direct connection to reality with a optical viewfinder, which is why i wont be selling my M anytime soon.
boojum
Mentor
The economy would stop without digital. It has been so for 50+ years. The problem is not the digital world so much as the misuse of it. People probably complained about Gutenberg, Edison, Morse, Bell and the Wright brothers, too. Do you really want to give up cell phones and computers, even the computers in your fridge and stove?
Coldkennels
Barnack-toting Brit.
That article - hell, this thread - is dumb as all hell and I feel bad for interacting with it.
Leica has a niche. It doesn't matter that the rangefinder is antiquated: it continues to exist because in certain use cases and for certain people it is beneficial to all alternatives. That might be a very small group, but it is obviously a group large enough to justify Leica's continued existence.
For instance, people continue to buy and sell 80 and 90 year old rangefinder cameras knowing full well that there's a digital body from Fuji or Sony that has all the bells and whistles the designers of these Leicas and Contaxes could never have even imagined. Does that make the Fuji better than the Contax? No. It makes it different. And for the people buying that Leica Standard and loading it with film, there's obviously something they get from the experience that an Olympus OM1 or a Sony A7R just doesn't provide.
I've seen a similar short-sighted/moronic approach to the industry I work in. For two decades people argued that there wasn't a market for a niche product (which is also considered "old hat")... because they'd spent two decades refusing to make them and telling people there was no market for them. It took two or three brands/companies to buck the trend and make said product, and all of a sudden, what do you know? There was a market all along. Sure, it's not got widespread appeal and isn't making millions of dollars - but it's more than sustainable, and it's making plenty of people happy by giving them an alternative to the countless generic competitors they'd been dealing with before.
That's exactly where Leica - no, that's what the optical, mechanical rangefinder - is positioned. It's a sustainable market, it has a specific use case, and it serves people who are under-represented by other companies who continue to push auto-focus, SLRs, and/or EVFs they don't want to use.
If Leica dropped the rangefinder tomorrow they'd probably cease to be by the end of the decade as they'd just get lost in the noise of interchangeable and forgettable alternatives. It's as simple as that.
Leica has a niche. It doesn't matter that the rangefinder is antiquated: it continues to exist because in certain use cases and for certain people it is beneficial to all alternatives. That might be a very small group, but it is obviously a group large enough to justify Leica's continued existence.
For instance, people continue to buy and sell 80 and 90 year old rangefinder cameras knowing full well that there's a digital body from Fuji or Sony that has all the bells and whistles the designers of these Leicas and Contaxes could never have even imagined. Does that make the Fuji better than the Contax? No. It makes it different. And for the people buying that Leica Standard and loading it with film, there's obviously something they get from the experience that an Olympus OM1 or a Sony A7R just doesn't provide.
I've seen a similar short-sighted/moronic approach to the industry I work in. For two decades people argued that there wasn't a market for a niche product (which is also considered "old hat")... because they'd spent two decades refusing to make them and telling people there was no market for them. It took two or three brands/companies to buck the trend and make said product, and all of a sudden, what do you know? There was a market all along. Sure, it's not got widespread appeal and isn't making millions of dollars - but it's more than sustainable, and it's making plenty of people happy by giving them an alternative to the countless generic competitors they'd been dealing with before.
That's exactly where Leica - no, that's what the optical, mechanical rangefinder - is positioned. It's a sustainable market, it has a specific use case, and it serves people who are under-represented by other companies who continue to push auto-focus, SLRs, and/or EVFs they don't want to use.
If Leica dropped the rangefinder tomorrow they'd probably cease to be by the end of the decade as they'd just get lost in the noise of interchangeable and forgettable alternatives. It's as simple as that.
boojum
Mentor
I am not arguing that Leica is not a niche product. That is exactly what it is. I doubt very much if M bodies keep the lights on at Leitz. They make other things, too. And that the Leica M body rangefinders appeal to a small group means it is a better way for very small group of people. We have a subset of those which still shoot, develop and print film. Why? Because they enjoy it. But using a niche product does not mean it is a better product. It means you favor it. If it were that great it would be more popular. I believe Leica M bodies hang on because of a devoted but tiny following not because of their superiority.
Yes, you enjoy the RF M bodies. Yes, many if not most people here do. This is a very small and skewed sampling of the camera buying public. I would be amazed if there were not legions defending the anachronism. And if you enjoy it, great. I drive a stick shift and have all my life. That just means I am a fussy old fart not that stick is necessarily better. Today's automatics are quite nice. But if we can take the marketplace as any indicator of selection for quality and success Leica is running way back in the pack when judged by sales. Leicas just do not sell well. Other expensive cameras do. The technology difference is reflected in the sales difference.
Yes, you enjoy the RF M bodies. Yes, many if not most people here do. This is a very small and skewed sampling of the camera buying public. I would be amazed if there were not legions defending the anachronism. And if you enjoy it, great. I drive a stick shift and have all my life. That just means I am a fussy old fart not that stick is necessarily better. Today's automatics are quite nice. But if we can take the marketplace as any indicator of selection for quality and success Leica is running way back in the pack when judged by sales. Leicas just do not sell well. Other expensive cameras do. The technology difference is reflected in the sales difference.
ptpdprinter
Mentor
Better product? It may be better for some tasks and worse for others. It may be better for some people and worse for others. I don't think anyone has argued that the Leica rangefinder is better for all tasks and all people. And certainly not by virtue of it being a niche product. A classic straw man argument.
Why in the world would you use sales volume as a measure of quality and success? It makes absolutely no sense. A lot of successful companies are small and make high quality products. Leica is one of them. They had their best year ever last year.
Everyone knows you are not fond of the Leica rangefinder even though you have three Leica rangefinder cameras. You put up with the rangefinder on the M9 because you like the CCD sensor. I don't know if you still shoot the two 240s you own. You also recently bought the Pixii II, which is a rangefinder camera, as best as I can tell because it runs a Linux based operating system and can be updated, and was therefore the camera of the future. I don't know if you still shoot that camera either. Basically, rangefinders aren't your thing, which may explain certain of your views on the subject at hand.That and the fact that you just bought a Hasselblad X2D.
Pál_K
Cameras. I has it.
Among all my friends and acquaintances, I am the only person who owns a camera. With cameras we are dealing with a sort of luxury item - something bought with discretionary income because cameras are not a necessity. Therefore, what we buy is totally a personal preference and based on our personal whims - likes and dislikes formed perhaps in our earlier years.
This week I’m using my Pentax 6x7 and my Instax SQ6. It’s fun for me. Watching that new M6 unboxing, I felt I wanted that M6 even though I already have M’s.
This week I’m using my Pentax 6x7 and my Instax SQ6. It’s fun for me. Watching that new M6 unboxing, I felt I wanted that M6 even though I already have M’s.
Evergreen States
Pierre Saget (they/them)
New art forms are usually precipitated by technological innovation. But a blanket call for a small company to "innovate pls" seems - well, pathetic, for one - to be missing the mark. I imagine the new horizons will be with things like AI art, something that went through a fad of mockery online a couple months ago. New materials and forms always get ridiculed by the masses, by the academy, by the market. They're garish, base. Then somebody grabs hold of the unique technical properties and draws the beauty out. And everybody is stunned that such a thing was ever possible.
The era when street photography was an exciting new genre came and went decades ago. There's absolutely nothing wrong with carrying on the tradition. And nothing wrong with using anachronistic tools from another age to do it. People still paint. Some even make a living at it. But why beg Leica - or any company - to make an innovative camera unless you're going to make innovative work?
The era when street photography was an exciting new genre came and went decades ago. There's absolutely nothing wrong with carrying on the tradition. And nothing wrong with using anachronistic tools from another age to do it. People still paint. Some even make a living at it. But why beg Leica - or any company - to make an innovative camera unless you're going to make innovative work?
Retro-Grouch
Mentor
And some of us still use (GASP!) film! Even more shocking, some of us use only film!!! By the way, this is RANGEFINDER Forum, isn't it?
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
Looks like empty cup to me.
sjones
Established
As Retro-Grouch stated, this is a rangefinder site. If anyone has the slightest problem with rangefinders, please consider leaving the site. It’s not your thing, we get it, and that’s OK. But it’s probably not going to appeal to your interests.
Yes, I use a Leica M2. It’s niche. Film is niche. I guess I don’t decide to buy things simply based on their popularity…which, by the way, would require exclusively using a camera phone (and that’s cool if that’s your thing…ain’t subjectivity grand).
Yes, “street photography” is now old, no argument there. So is portrait, wildlife, and landscape photography. Pianos are old, so is the paint brush, so is the chisel, so is the human voice. I guess anyone who sings is using an anachronistic instrument lest they hook it up to Auto-Tune.
If one wants a camera with all of the doodads and super-duper tech, there are other brands…hell, there are other Leicas…that are even digital…with buttons galore. But if you want a full-frame, simplified rangefinder, a true rangefinder, and you want digital, Leica is the only option now. And if a rangefinder is your preferred camera, regardless of brand or regardless of digital or film, then there are no other ‘superior cameras’.
But as for superior cameras, want to define this? Because I’ve seen photos from pinhole cameras that are, FOR ME---maybe not the rest of the word, as aesthetically compelling as anything I’ve seen from any other camera irrespective of manufacturing date or cost. I remember about a decade ago on another site whenever positive comments were made about inexpensive cameras, someone would always bark, “Like to see how well that works on the sidelines”, as though handling sports photography determined the legitimacy of a camera’s very existence, never mind its capabilities.
And just to note, my preference for Lecia, as I owned a perfectly functioning Bessa rangefinder, was based largely on ergonomics. The tactile pleasure of using a Leica enhances the overall photographic process, which, FOR ME, is important, particularly since I’m a hobbyist; I don’t have to worry if my camera’s capabilities will help put food on the table. Oh, and not having to worry about batter charge is one of those little intangible joys, as is the feel of the film advance.
Funny, people have different preferences, and sometimes, those preferences aren’t based on marketing and sales charts.
Yes, I use a Leica M2. It’s niche. Film is niche. I guess I don’t decide to buy things simply based on their popularity…which, by the way, would require exclusively using a camera phone (and that’s cool if that’s your thing…ain’t subjectivity grand).
Yes, “street photography” is now old, no argument there. So is portrait, wildlife, and landscape photography. Pianos are old, so is the paint brush, so is the chisel, so is the human voice. I guess anyone who sings is using an anachronistic instrument lest they hook it up to Auto-Tune.
If one wants a camera with all of the doodads and super-duper tech, there are other brands…hell, there are other Leicas…that are even digital…with buttons galore. But if you want a full-frame, simplified rangefinder, a true rangefinder, and you want digital, Leica is the only option now. And if a rangefinder is your preferred camera, regardless of brand or regardless of digital or film, then there are no other ‘superior cameras’.
But as for superior cameras, want to define this? Because I’ve seen photos from pinhole cameras that are, FOR ME---maybe not the rest of the word, as aesthetically compelling as anything I’ve seen from any other camera irrespective of manufacturing date or cost. I remember about a decade ago on another site whenever positive comments were made about inexpensive cameras, someone would always bark, “Like to see how well that works on the sidelines”, as though handling sports photography determined the legitimacy of a camera’s very existence, never mind its capabilities.
And just to note, my preference for Lecia, as I owned a perfectly functioning Bessa rangefinder, was based largely on ergonomics. The tactile pleasure of using a Leica enhances the overall photographic process, which, FOR ME, is important, particularly since I’m a hobbyist; I don’t have to worry if my camera’s capabilities will help put food on the table. Oh, and not having to worry about batter charge is one of those little intangible joys, as is the feel of the film advance.
Funny, people have different preferences, and sometimes, those preferences aren’t based on marketing and sales charts.
boojum
Mentor
I really do not care what anybody uses for photography and have never said I did. I do agree with the posted article that Leica RF tech is outdated. Unless you consider something 100 years old current. If you do consider century old tech current you are then riding the wave. I was unaware that RF ownership and adulation were requirements for using the board. Thinking differently is an invitation to an auto-de-fe it seems. And while many do like RF cameras please take the time to look around and note that there are forums for non-RF cameras on this board. Perhaps you missed this. They are listed under "Forums." It may indicate that some members use both RF and non-RF or just solely non-RF. But I am just guessing. If it is otherwise please let me know.
And I think you have the preferences - sales chart thing backwards. The sales charts indicate the preferences expressed by buyers. And as for seeing wonderful pinhole camera photos, were they RF pinhole cameras? Of course not, so why the lather about RF photography? There is some cultish behavior around here.
And I think you have the preferences - sales chart thing backwards. The sales charts indicate the preferences expressed by buyers. And as for seeing wonderful pinhole camera photos, were they RF pinhole cameras? Of course not, so why the lather about RF photography? There is some cultish behavior around here.
Guth
Appreciative User
This article struck me as being a bit off-base. At the end of the day, it's not always about the most advanced technology. Among other things, many photographers choose their gear based on the user experience it provides rather than how much of the latest technology it incorporates. This tends to explain much of the appeal of rangefinder cameras in general (Leica or otherwise) in my mind. (This is also a big part of why so many people like film cameras in general.) This same type of selection occurs in other markets as well.
It wasn't all that long ago that we were told vinyl records and turntables were going to be a thing of the past, to be fully replaced by CD's and CD players. Well CD's and CD players have practically been replaced by streaming music. Meanwhile, there are an amazing number of companies producing turntables these days. Sometimes it's not so much a matter of which technology is best, but rather which is more enjoyable. So it goes with cameras.
Sometimes the older technology is simply the preferred technology for some folks. It's really that simple. It seems that Leica figured this out some time ago. Not only that, but the marketing potential of such a story has proven to be beyond huge for them. So while Leica might not have the large customer base that other manufacturers enjoy, those customers that they do have are willing to pay the high prices that Leica is charging. Like their use of rangefinders, it's a different way of doing things. I don't think things would work out nearly as well for Leica were they focused on competing purely on technological advancements.
Ironically, one of the goals of the article appeared to be driving traffic to the site's other articles on Leica rangefinders.
It wasn't all that long ago that we were told vinyl records and turntables were going to be a thing of the past, to be fully replaced by CD's and CD players. Well CD's and CD players have practically been replaced by streaming music. Meanwhile, there are an amazing number of companies producing turntables these days. Sometimes it's not so much a matter of which technology is best, but rather which is more enjoyable. So it goes with cameras.
Sometimes the older technology is simply the preferred technology for some folks. It's really that simple. It seems that Leica figured this out some time ago. Not only that, but the marketing potential of such a story has proven to be beyond huge for them. So while Leica might not have the large customer base that other manufacturers enjoy, those customers that they do have are willing to pay the high prices that Leica is charging. Like their use of rangefinders, it's a different way of doing things. I don't think things would work out nearly as well for Leica were they focused on competing purely on technological advancements.
Ironically, one of the goals of the article appeared to be driving traffic to the site's other articles on Leica rangefinders.