Bad times for LEICA S- guess they will be severely hurt

[Ken R]

The Leica S is a superb camera platform. It has a short Flange Focal Distance so basically all other medium format lenses can be adapted to work on the S. The body is not unnecessarily large in respect to it's sensor size (unlike the all other 6x6, 645 cameras when used for digital with the smaller sensors and even the APS-C 35mm based DSLRs) and feels great in hand. Also, The Leica S lenses are all superb being mostly recent designs for digital.

Yes, the Leica S sensor might not be state of the art when measurebators take a 100-200% look at it and test it to shreds but everything else about the camera is really nice. So yes, I understand if some people call it the case of a great camera / system looking for a sensor but the one it has is not useless, it's pretty good. Well see how the new sensor measures up.

Right now the only way to get the best overall sensor (specially for DR measurebators) and the best glass together with top notch functionality (screen quality, tethering, processing etc) is with one of the PhaseOne IQ250/150 and Leaf Credo 50 backs. And it's well known it ain't cheap.  

[uheck]

As of today, LEICA is urged by its stakeholder Blackstone to have a new CEO:
https://translate.google.de/translate?sl=de&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=de&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.manager-magazin.de%2Funternehmen%2Findustrie%2Fblackstone-macht-druck-leica-wechselt-chef-aus-a-1021417.html&edit-text=

[ndevlin]

Uheck,

What's your obsession with Leica doing badly? Seriously man, what?

Yeah, it would make sense that their camera sales numbers are pretty anemic since all of  their core products are end-of-cycle and replacements are very slow in coming (as always).  They also have a few bills to pay over Dr. K's new Leitzpark playground, which is gorgeous but a pretty questionable outlay of capital.

But there will Leica cameras being made long after you and I are in the ground. Of that you can be quite certain. Remember, just as there are rich people who collect Leicas, there are even richer people who would collect Leica, for fun.She's here to stay, as much as this may wrankle you. 

- N.

[uheck]

Uheck,

What's your obsession with Leica doing badly? Seriously man, what?

....snip

- N.

Seriously
nothing.Otherwise I would´ve been more active in this discussion as you can see.
It´s just that they "milk the cow" until it breaks.At least in MF.They don´t innovate enough (bigger sensor jsut one exapmple).
That´s when Canon threw the white glove in and I was curious if the others felt the same as me.

[Ken R]

Uheck,

What's your obsession with Leica doing badly? Seriously man, what?

Yeah, it would make sense that their camera sales numbers are pretty anemic since all of  their core products are end-of-cycle and replacements are very slow in coming (as always).  They also have a few bills to pay over Dr. K's new Leitzpark playground, which is gorgeous but a pretty questionable outlay of capital.

But there will Leica cameras being made long after you and I are in the ground. Of that you can be quite certain. Remember, just as there are rich people who collect Leicas, there are even richer people who would collect Leica, for fun.She's here to stay, as much as this may wrankle you. 

- N.

Nick, Haters gonna Hate. There are quite a few people here who want to see PhaseOne, Hasselblad and Leica go down in a ball of fire. Mainly because of their pricing and business model. It is what it is. In most threads one has to weed through the hate and read between the lines and try to see through this. Get's tiring after a while.

[bcooter]

Haters gonna Hate.

I've seen this type of thread since the start of forums.

What is (expensive pro camera) going to do now that  (inexpensive prosumer camera) is announced?

Usually nothing because building a camera to assist in producing compelling professional imagery is more than tiny little 300% crops of what could go wrong, charts, graphs and apples to oranges comparisons.

In stills Lecia, Phase, Leaf and hasselblad make professional cameras.  Some non pros appreciate them, some don't, but these cameras are produced to be solid and robust in a professional setting with excellent build quality and workflow.

My old P30+ is still relevant today with ever improving software, amazing tethering, never over the buffer shooting and a deep rich file that sings in post.  How old is that camera and it goes to show how long real professional equipment can be useful.

Same with motion cameras  Arri and RED.   

The viewfinder on the new Arri Mini is $6,500.  Arri loses no sleep over this because once again they make cameras for professional production and have a business model to reflect that.

Lecia . . . they're always compared to rich guys playing around, but I can promise you the S series is a professional tool and used with that purpose produces what is expected.   

In reality a very good artist can produce a compelling project with just about any camera, but that in no way makes higher priced cameras less relevant.

I like professional gear.  I can trust it to perform and am willing to do the extra work to get that 10% better look.  (noticed I said look not tech specs).

I'll own the leica no matter if some less expensive maker comes out with a 200mpx camera.

I'll end this with the final thought of I've never understood the negativity that has developed through these type of conversations.

it seems more pervasive every day.

Why start a thread with a damaging negative?  Why wish for a companies demise?   It seems to me it's just a way to gain attention and smacks of gawker world.



IMO

BC

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I would say that the 5Ds would be a professional camera, too. At least a lot of professional photographers seem to have opted for the 5D models over the 1D models. You yourself say that the Panasonic GH3 you use serves your professional needs well, don't you?

Personally, I felt that the original S2 was quite attractive. But, times are changing. In my world it makes no much sense to make the best lenses if they are not paired with the best sensor. When the S2 was introduced the lens designers stated with some pride that the lenses were designed for at least twice the resolution. So, when the new 50 MP sensors arrived and Leica released another 37.5 MP sensor I felt the offering was quite less reasonable.

Personally, I print normally A2, occasionally up to 70x100cm. I feel that both 24MP and 39MP are perfectly OK for that A2 size. Still, printing larger I would think that more pixels would be beneficial. It is also very probable that Nikon and Sony will follow up with 50+ MP cameras. 24 MP on APS-C we had for long, and that would be 54 MP at full frame. Such a sensor may look less than optimal with mediocre lenses at actual pixels but may outperform larger pixels with excellent lenses when viewed at the same scale.

So, my take is that the Leica S2 was attractive compared to low end MFD, but I also feel that with the new sensors low end MFD made two-three steps forward. In that context I feel Leica is lagging behind.

Another way to see it, I felt that the Leica S2 was a reasonable choice if anyone wanted a high quality and weather proofed camera, but with the new CMOS offerings in MFD those benefits weight far less.

Another small observation is that I got a P45+ something like 20 months ago. I guess that I have done something like 40% of my shooting on that camera, but none of the images I shot with the P45+ made it to my small exhibition I have hanging right now. Hard to know why. Would I have taken images from where I live and not from travel the percentage would be different, I am pretty sure.

Best regards
Eik

I've seen this type of thread since the start of forums.

What is (expensive pro camera) going to do now that  (inexpensive prosumer camera) is announced?

Usually nothing because building a camera to assist in producing compelling professional imagery is more than tiny little 300% crops of what could go wrong, charts, graphs and apples to oranges comparisons.

In stills Lecia, Phase, Leaf and hasselblad make professional cameras.  Some non pros appreciate them, some don't, but these cameras are produced to be solid and robust in a professional setting with excellent build quality and workflow.

My old P30+ is still relevant today with ever improving software, amazing tethering, never over the buffer shooting and a deep rich file that sings in post.  How old is that camera and it goes to show how long real professional equipment can be useful.

Same with motion cameras  Arri and RED.    

The viewfinder on the new Arri Mini is $6,500.  Arri loses no sleep over this because once again they make cameras for professional production and have a business model to reflect that.

Lecia . . . they're always compared to rich guys playing around, but I can promise you the S series is a professional tool and used with that purpose produces what is expected.  

In reality a very good artist can produce a compelling project with just about any camera, but that in no way makes higher priced cameras less relevant.

I like professional gear.  I can trust it to perform and am willing to do the extra work to get that 10% better look.  (noticed I said look not tech specs).

I'll own the leica no matter if some less expensive maker comes out with a 200mpx camera.

I'll end this with the final thought of I've never understood the negativity that has developed through these type of conversations.

it seems more pervasive every day.

Why start a thread with a damaging negative?  Why wish for a companies demise?   It seems to me it's just a way to gain attention and smacks of gawker world.



IMO

BC

[ndevlin]

I don't mean to dump unduly on the OP, because I do find discussions about the business side of photography interesting in their own right. 

That said, it is interesting how mightily they have struggled to make their digital cameras work.  As one of the smaller players in the field, it's instructive in terms of how this is truly a big-boys' game only.  If you don't have billions, don't build digital cameras, seems to be the moral of the story.  

I expect to see a lot of limited edition film "M"s in the years to come - easy way to pay the bills. And I don't begrudge them doing so for a second.

- N.

[bcooter]

I use cameras to produced different work, genres, for different purposes than Erik does, see the world in a different way and make my entire income from image creation.

I respect the "right" that someone has a different viewpoint, uses equipment for different end results, even when it doesn't, or never will apply to me.

I still look listen and attempt to learn, though 300% moire crops really don't interest me, given the fact that I can find a flaw in an image from any session and if your post production skills are decent, it's usually an easy fix.

But I'm curious (I know I'll regret this line), but if I had a system that I used to show 300% crops of issues and didn't produce work with it that I wanted to present, then I think I'd make a change in my shooting style or equipment.

IMO

BC

P.S.   I'm have no problem with the op's viewpoint, though do take issue with the title as I feel it serves no purpose, other than to draw attention in a negative way.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I don't think that either me or "Torger" has shown 300% moiré crops, the ones I have shown are at 100%. Regarding Torger, he actually modified both shooting style and equipment. He bought a 50 MP CCD back for his technical camera and uses f/16 to suppress moiré and other artefacts.

Personally I am still shooting f/11 mostly, would I have live view I would use wider apertures more often. It is also one of the reasons I didn't jump on the A7r. Would that camera had an OLP filter and an electronic first curtains shutter, I may have jumped on it.

I am quite happy with the Hasselblad/P45+ I have. I see quite a bit more of that moiré stuff than I would like, but on most subjects it is not obvious.

Regarding the Leica S, it is quite a bit more expensive than what I would be willing to spend on a camera, but I feel that it would make more sense if the sensor resolution would be a better match the resolution of the lenses. Well, I feel I would get cleaner rendition with smaller pixels, some of the samples I posted indicate this quite clearly, and more pixels never hurt when printing large.

I hope that Sony makes a decent A-series camera with a new 50 (or so) MP-sensor. That camera can open some doors, like taking T&S lenses from Canon and some of the more interesting Zeiss lenses, I guess that is the direction my spending will go. But I guess I keep the Hasselblad with the P45+ and all the lenses.

Best regards
Erik

I use cameras to produced different work, genres, for different purposes than Erik does, see the world in a different way and make my entire income from image creation.

I respect the "right" that someone has a different viewpoint, uses equipment for different end results, even when it doesn't, or never will apply to me.

I still look listen and attempt to learn, though 300% moire crops really don't interest me, given the fact that I can find a flaw in an image from any session and if your post production skills are decent, it's usually an easy fix.

But I'm curious (I know I'll regret this line), but if I had a system that I used to show 300% crops of issues and didn't produce work with it that I wanted to present, then I think I'd make a change in my shooting style or equipment.

IMO

BC

P.S.   I'm have no problem with the op's viewpoint, though do take issue with the title as I feel it serves no purpose, other than to draw attention in a negative way.

[Telecaster]

That's when Canon threw the white glove in and I was curious if the others felt the same as me.

As has been observed before in this thread, Leica's primarily target market is different than Canon's. Different worlds really. There may be some overlap if the new Canon models perform well, but there won't be much.

As a small company Leica is more exposed to the short-term ups & downs of (potential) customer interest than big companies like Canon and even mid-sized ones like Nikon. Sounds to me like Blackstone is getting a bit antsy about this. It's the foolish gimme results now! venture capital mindset.

-Dave-

[uheck]

since this is turning into a general Leica strategy dicussion-

once again:
I was not talking about Leica in general.The topic is labeled "bad times for Leica S", a.k.a.
there´s a good chance that the MF "arm" gets severly affected, and that is my guess.
What happened to Hasselblad (didn´t innovate enough, too many owner changes, held on to the Kodak CCD sensor too long etc.)
might very well now happen to Leica.
On top of that we now have a margin challenge due to the fact of having Blackstone, a fierce private equity player, on board.

Erik nails the technical aspect here.

Hi,

I would say that the 5Ds would be a professional camera, too. At least a lot of professional photographers seem to have opted for the 5D models over the 1D models. You yourself say that the Panasonic GH3 you use serves your professional needs well, don't you?

Personally, I felt that the original S2 was quite attractive. But, times are changing. In my world it makes no much sense to make the best lenses if they are not paired with the best sensor. When the S2 was introduced the lens designers stated with some pride that the lenses were designed for at least twice the resolution. So, when the new 50 MP sensors arrived and Leica released another 37.5 MP sensor I felt the offering was quite less reasonable.

Personally, I print normally A2, occasionally up to 70x100cm. I feel that both 24MP and 39MP are perfectly OK for that A2 size. Still, printing larger I would think that more pixels would be beneficial. It is also very probable that Nikon and Sony will follow up with 50+ MP cameras. 24 MP on APS-C we had for long, and that would be 54 MP at full frame. Such a sensor may look less than optimal with mediocre lenses at actual pixels but may outperform larger pixels with excellent lenses when viewed at the same scale.

So, my take is that the Leica S2 was attractive compared to low end MFD, but I also feel that with the new sensors low end MFD made two-three steps forward. In that context I feel Leica is lagging behind.

Another way to see it, I felt that the Leica S2 was a reasonable choice if anyone wanted a high quality and weather proofed camera, but with the new CMOS offerings in MFD those benefits weight far less.

Another small observation is that I got a P45+ something like 20 months ago. I guess that I have done something like 40% of my shooting on that camera, but none of the images I shot with the P45+ made it to my small exhibition I have hanging right now. Hard to know why. Would I have taken images from where I live and not from travel the percentage would be different, I am pretty sure.

Best regards
Eik

And lastly: I´m not a "Leica hater" at all, otherwise I wouldn´t use an "S".
Maybe You saw my other thread where I suggested CANON fires one of their PR/strategy managers....

[JV]

And lastly: I´m not a "Leica hater" at all, otherwise I wouldn´t use an "S".

I don't get this...

Weren't you  looking for a Leica S in these forums perhaps 6 months ago... ?

And then you bought a used one with a 37.5 CCD sensor...

And then you started moaning about the ISO performance and the fact that it is not an 80 MP, obviously knowing all of this when you bought into the system...

I quite frankly have no idea what your intention is with this thread other than you seem to want to put Leica in a negative light and draw attention to yourself...

[uheck]

I don't get this...

Weren't you  looking for a Leica S in these forums perhaps 6 months ago... ?

And then you bought a used one with a 37.5 CCD sensor...

And then you started moaning about the ISO performance and the fact that it is not an 80 MP, obviously knowing all of this when you bought into the system...

I quite frankly have no idea what your intention is with this thread other than you seem to want to put Leica in a negative light and draw attention to yourself...

Interesting.
I speculate about a camera makers strategy, and You begin to attack me...
Nice1.

[JV]

Interesting.
I speculate about a camera makers strategy, and You begin to attack me...
Nice1.

Hardly a personal attack at all... 

You only very recently bought an S2 on the cheap knowing that it is only 37.5 MP and knowing its high ISO limitations.

And then start crying about that in social media, saying that it doesn't cut it anymore, casting doom scenarios and doubt about the company's future, etc...

What the heck dude!  Do you really expect anybody to take that seriously?  Enough said.

[peterv]

Geez, this thread, which should never have been born in the first place, is dying a slow, painful death.

FWIW, I've been working with my S2 now for two years and I'm very content. I'm not worried about FF competition.

[rsmphoto]

Yeah, me too. I use the S system as a pro shooting interior/exterior arch exclusively. Couldn't be happier with the S system for the last two years. Have used lots of systems - over the past 15 years using (digital) Nikons, Canons along with Hasselblads , and before that, myriad 4x5's.  They were all fine actually, at the time, but for me now, the tool of choice is the S hands down. Look, I'm in not one to be constantly questing the next bleeding edge of digital chip development, nor do I need ever more mp or DR. Rather, for me it's much more about the lenses, as it was in the view camera days, and the "look" of the file created. So, I prefer this camera that for me reliably delivers superb, malleable MF raw files - if needed, rapidly -  with a rock solid weatherproof system, that never crashes tethered, and has great, fast professional support when needed.  The camera is a great tool.

Richard

[Chris Valites]

Yeah, me too. I use the S system as a pro shooting interior/exterior arch exclusively. Couldn't be happier with the S system for the last two years. Have used lots of systems - over the past 15 years using (digital) Nikons, Canons along with Hasselblads , and before that, myriad 4x5's.  They were all fine actually, at the time, but for me now, the tool of choice is the S hands down. Look, I'm in not one to be constantly questing the next bleeding edge of digital chip development, nor do I need ever more mp or DR. Rather, for me it's much more about the lenses, as it was in the view camera days, and the "look" of the file created. So, I prefer this camera that for me reliably delivers superb, malleable MF raw files - if needed, rapidly -  with a rock solid weatherproof system, that never crashes tethered, and has great, fast professional support when needed.  The camera is a great tool.

Richard

This is, in my opinion, what really differentiates Leica from Canon, Canon from Sony, Sony from whomever. Quality is not the only factor that can be used to evaluate gear (nor can price.) Otherwise we'd all be shooting with X digital back and nothing else. But even then, how do you define quality? Is it the image color accuracy? Moire suppression? Does the back crash when tethered?

Canon's coming out with something that has a similar resolution to the established medium format game, but offers different ergonomics and handling than many of the other options out there. Similar to that, the Leica S2 did the same thing when it was released as compared to the DF/Hasselblad/Contax options. Some people may simply need the resolution but also need the FPS. Their choice is pretty easy for Canon, whereas others could care less about the FPS abut need the widest dynamic range possible.

Having options is never a bad thing. Hell, it may force established players to innovate in order to regain/add new customers. The horror!