Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Digital Cameras & Shooting Techniques => Topic started by: John Camp on August 26, 2005, 01:21:12 pm
-
As a long time observer of companies and the way they work, I've found that many have an engrained culture that reaches from top to bottom that makes it very difficult to make decisions like this (to make third-party lenses), at least in a timely fashion. By the time they finally admit that something must be done, it's often too late -- gearing up a new set of lenses takes time and investment capital, and few venture capitalists really want to get involved with a sick company, especially when there are strong competitors in a limited market.
If Leica released a premium set of lenses at a premium price, how many Canon shooters would choose them, rather than a (cheaper) L lens? Some would, obviously, for reasons of either prestige or because they desire a particular look, but (1) ninety-nine percent of shooters wouldn't (couldn't) see much difference and (2) might be nervous about spending a lot of money outside their system for whatever tiny advantage might exist. The premium DSLR market is relatively small; the market for third-party super-premium lenses would be a tiny fraction of that. Not enough to support an entire industrial enterprise...
If Leica is going to survive as a camera company, something that was in doubt even before digital came along, they need to build, quickly, a super-premium camera, either digital range-finder or DSLR, which will in some ways out-match Canon and Nikon, just as film Leicas did. Making a few lenses won't cut it.
Here's what might work: A small (less than 1000 grams), handy, fully-professional 22-megapixel rangefinder with a set of lenses that provide extreme wide-angle and medium-range sharpness, extreme exposure qualities (one way or another, to what would be the equivalent of a sharp ASA 3200) with great dynamic range and low color artifacting. By Christmas. That's not impossible, though it may be unlikely...
Leica made great cameras, but they moved too slowly back in the 90s, and now they're stuck with the ramifications of that tardiness. Frankly, I think they're toast.
JC
-
Who are Ritz?
In all this talk about a digital Leica RF, has there been any mention of a B&W version?
The short lived Kodak B&W camera has been discussed in these columns, and it's advantages and potential are well known.With no internal Bayer array or IR filters resolution per pixel count is far higher than in colour setups.I assume noise would be reduced too.
If Leica wants to regain the sort of market it had last century, it needs a colour and a dedicated B&W camera.
Ability to use wide angle (Lietz)lenses , silent operation. fullframe around 20MP, low noise to say ISO1600; all this should be possible now.
If Leica would make such an instrument to its classic style-unobtrusive and beautiful, then the future of the company should be assured.
Oh yes, I'd like a really fast and accurate autofocus system as well.
I'd drink to that-and buy one
Cheers
Brian
-
Leica is already making lenses for third parties, including Panasonic.
The question isn't just whether Leica really seeks this business, but why Canon and Nikon would invite competitions to their lenses from superior lens makers.
-
Back in the early 1950's, US photojournalists were covering the Korean war. They were sending their film back to the USA, and the labs were asking "what kind of lenses are being used...the pics are super sharp". It ends up that many journalists were using Leica rangefinder bodies with Nikkor and Canon lenses (basically unheard of brands here in the USA at the time). So Leica isn't the only ones that made great lenses. Just a true bit of history!
Dave
-
Thank you Jonathan,
you´re speaking all what I can say too. I´m a professional and am well aware of the prices you have to pay for good equipment.
Leica is a superb TOOL for CRAFTING images...for good tools you
get what you pay for and yes, I can see the differences!!!
I just am tired of that matter so I hope nobody minds. Do the best
you can with your possibilities and everyone will respect that.
best,
Andreas.
-
Now if Leica had the inclination or wherewithal to produce its superb R series lenses in fully functional mounts for major DLSR camera systems such as Canon, they'd have a new source of revenue as well as enhanced market cache, relevance, and distribution channel penetration. Possible? Yes! Likely? Who knows?
(from the What's new-part of this website)
This idea from Michael would be a very intriguing development indeed, especially since it seems to be likely that in the future - because of superior sensor characteristics- lenses will be the limiting factor and not the camera's.... (see for example the threads on this forum about the wide angle lenses from Canon that are claimed to be not good enough for a FF sensor).
Just thought that peolple on this forum would like to exchange thoughts on this..
Regards,
-
And ditto Contax and the N series Carl Zeiss lenses for their SLRs. There may not be much of a market for the cameras, but there is for the lenses.
-
JC,
that's a very interesting view you're showing, and I must say it sounds logical. Though a bit pessimistic as well. If you think about it, Leica will possibly not be able to make enough money with lenses alone and neither will it manage the cultural shift needed to make new innovative products in such short notice. It just takes a different pace of innovation.
They seem to be a different kind of company: with craftsmen creating their products instead of assembly lines (this is how I like to imagine it anyway).
Toast you say...
It's just that in times like these we miss out a lot because the market is so harsh that there is no room, or at least no patience for real craftmanship.
There must be room for great brands like these. Or am I too naive here?
-
Ritz camera should buy leica. Wouldn't you want a Leica M-Ritz camera? :)
-
22mp? Digital M?
I better start saving money now.
-
Adding ultra-high quality 3rd party manufacturers, such as Leica or Contax to the market would be really nice. But.. I'm looking at the prices (at BH) of current Leica line-up:
50 mm f1.4 Summilux R MF - 2500 USD!!!
80-200 mm f4.0 Vario Elmar R MF - 2200 USD!!!
28-90 mm f2.8-4.5 Vario Elmarit R MF - 3700 USD!!!
Now these are the focal lenghts I would probably consider buying, but the price is OUTRAGEOUS! Leica and Contax are the best, no doubt about it, but tossing such amount of money for manual focus lenses.. I read somewhere that Leica stated they would not use autofocus system unless it's accurate
A quick look at Contax:
50 mm f1.4 Plannar T* AF - 300 USD (nice)
70 - 200mm f3.5-4.5 Vario Sonnar T* AF - 560 USD
24 - 85 mm f3.5-4.5 Vario Sonnar T* AF - 500 USD
I like the prices from Contax better :D
-
Yes, I know very well that I get what I pay for. Today, I shot some Storks flying in a circles with my 400$ Sigma 135-400 and when I loaded pics to PC I just cried because every shot was very soft thanks to my lack of skill and the fact that this lens is very soft at 400 mm.
Saying that, I rather buy Canon or Contax (if it was for Canon mount - without adapter of course) for 500 $ that " the same" Leica for 2500 $. I'm saying "the same" I'm sure I wouldn't justify the tiny difference between Can/Con and Leica on my 20D.
Concorde, if you own 1DsII for 8000$ and you're in demand for ultra-high-quality WA lenses, then I'm sure you can pay 2500 or 5000 for Leica (if it turned out to become a third party lens manufacturer), since you could pay 8 grand for camera only.
-
I am not sure it is a brand problem - Minolta manufactured lenses for Leica for a long time. I don't see a cry for Minolta optics. By why just Leica? Why not Roddenstock, Schneider-Kruzsnach, Fuji, Nikon, or a host of other excellent manufactures. The bottom line is most people won't pay for great optics. The idea that a lens is a lens is a lens is very common. People are more willing to put money into the body which is just a black box with a shutter - the bells a whistles cannot compensate for the quality of the image at the image plane.
In optics, you get what you pay for. Consumers are more interested in a great deal. Fortunately, there are enough (I hope) consumers that do value quality and can support manufacturers which produce excellent products. But in an economic world, the market will ultimately decide what is made and what is not.
-
(milanissimo: ever heard about economics?)
Gee, yes I have... :p at University of Economics where I'm studying (and I'm not kidding).
I would interpret that 1 series bodies with 3rd party lenses is like Ferrari with Fiat Punto engine. Period. Although, there are some lenses from 3rd party manufacturers, that are on par or even better than from Canon/Nikon/whatever. Take Sigma 70-200 f2.8. They're offering it for 750 USD (in a shop where I bought my stuff), whereas Canon 70-200 f2.8 (without IS) costs 2times more. Are you saying that person with a 1 series body and with Sigma has a lens that is 2times worse than Canon equivalent?
If you're lucky (or fortunate, or wise) enough to have zillion dollars at your disposal, then buy the best.
-
Gee, what a coincidence! So milanissimo I understand what
you mean :-)
Yes - it may be true that some 3rd party lenses produce equal
or better results than the original Canon or whatever else brands.
I just don´t have that sort of experience, since I go with the
"smartness" to have one line of manufacturer - so e.g. a Canon
body, a Canon lens.
Its not just a matter of money, its a matter of which products
work best together. So yes, if you have the money, its good.
But - most people wouldn´t notice if you use a sigma or tamron
lens - its just pixel peeping or so - the results should speak for
themselves. This is why I never add some imho distracting in-
formations like f stop or recording equip or so... just the picture,
the place and date. Thats it.
Like David mentioned it - its true that sometimes even Leica
lenses could be surpassed - but the 50´s are quite far away :-)
To be fair - a good friend of mine has had a big Leica R equipment
(quite modern) and is complaining the lack of build quality of his
Leica lenses!!! Two of them just felt apart on a trip...
best,
A.
-
Oh.. and last one thing.. can you actually see the difference in your amazing photos taken by amazing Leica camera with extraordinary Leica lens compared to other cameras or you are just pretending to see them? If you can, then it is great and you have great photographic tool and should be proud.
This quote can be summarized in two words, "sour grapes".
Yes, there is a difference, and yes it is visible in real-world photos. Do you honestly think professionals spend large amounts on equipment just for fun? Some do, of course, but most pros are on a budget just like everyone else and have to justify large expenditures with some kind of practical benefit.
-
OK, I said if you can see, then it is good. I'm also over this debate, since I'm not a pro, I can't understand it, never should have bothered anyway. :laugh:
-
I have said this for years, even before digital, as Leica's R series bodies, early on, left things to be desired functionally and ergonomically. Now with digital, and its increased demand for the highest quality and fuller coverage, it seems like a slam dunk, if Leica would get off their collective duffs and really think about what markets are out there. I would like to feel the focusing smoothness and the other Leica benefits on some of todays great digital bodies, many a "wet" dream would be satisfied for some.... :laugh:
-
I think Leica never´ll be toast.
They just got over with new fresh money - though I
must admit it is just for the time being -
since I´m from Germany I hear some news - they plan
to develop a digital M camera - somewhere in 2007 (this
was before they announced the new financial developments)
so I guess with that fresh money they may start earlier.
Hope and let´s see!!
a digital M with about 16-22 MPix would be a real knock-out
camera!!!!
best,
Andreas.
-
to milanissimo:
What can I say?? Such shortsighted opinion...
you get what you pay for - its that simple.
A.
-
I agree with Anonymouse,
Most people focus on the body, not the lens. Sometimes I see people
with a big 1-series Canon body and a Tamron or Sigma lens...well
you just shake the head. Its like buying a Ferrari with Fiat tyres...
I own a Leica MP - its a super grand camera - and of course a
Leica lens too. Yes, very expensive - but you know you have
got quality which will last generations (hopefully). Simply a matter
of meeting someone´s expectations.
Leica could make lenses for Nikon or Canon mounts - but
they don´t have a high lens output (milanissimo: ever heard
about economics?) and I doubt they ever will do that. But since
they seem to recover from the financial problems - who knows?
As MR often says - we´re living in interesting times!
best,
A.
-
I am not sure it is a brand problem - Minolta manufactured lenses for Leica for a long time. I don't see a cry for Minolta optics. By why just Leica? Why not Roddenstock, Schneider-Kruzsnach, Fuji, Nikon, or a host of other excellent manufactures. The bottom line is most people won't pay for great optics. The idea that a lens is a lens is a lens is very common. People are more willing to put money into the body which is just a black box with a shutter - the bells a whistles cannot compensate for the quality of the image at the image plane.
In optics, you get what you pay for. Consumers are more interested in a great deal. Fortunately, there are enough (I hope) consumers that do value quality and can support manufacturers which produce excellent products. But in an economic world, the market will ultimately decide what is made and what is not.
I agree, I have a nicer lens (canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS yadda yadda) than i do camera (300D) and it makes all the difference, at least for the kind of shots i take. I couldn't do 1/2 the stuff I do if I had a 1D Mk II and one of those $100 70-300s.
-macgyver
-
I just don´t have that sort of experience, since I go with the
"smartness" to have one line of manufacturer - so e.g. a Canon
body, a Canon lens.
That's really cool. I wish I had done so. But wait. Should I buy this lens:
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews....&page=1 (http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=8&sort=7&cat=27&page=1)
instead of this?
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews....&page=1 (http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=98&sort=7&cat=37&page=1)
Like I said, if you're fortunate enough to toss 1100USD for Canon L 24-70 f2.8, then it's fine. We, who are as poor as a church mouse and wanted their body to last a couple of years (I know, I'm so dumb..) must go with the cheap lens for the starters. And as you say you have "the smart rule" of Canon body-Canon lens then I should rather bought the first lens and got shitty results. Instead, I bought second and get very nice results for the given prize (I can't complain that it focuses slowly, it has a flare when shooting against sun...).
And if we get back to original topic (Leica as a 3rd party manufacturer), I suggested that another great company in photographic history - Contax would be wise to enter the market as a 3rd party manufacturer, because they have produced one of the best (if not best) glass and the price was not as outrageous as Leicas.
And back to one of your comments: you have a Leica camera with Leica glass and you know it will last for generations. Are you saying that .. say.. Canon 17-40 L will vanish or.. disintegrate in 10 years by simply using it? I think no.
Another thing. "they don't have a high lens output". God, I said "ultra high quality". I don't know if you are Vill Blates or aonther zillionaire, but I expect lens for 2500 dollars would be something for really demanding professionals, not for someone who just saves like mad for his 600 dollar Canon 17-40 L.
Oh.. and last one thing.. can you actually see the difference in your amazing photos taken by amazing Leica camera with extraordinary Leica lens compared to other cameras or you are just pretending to see them? If you can, then it is great and you have great photographic tool and should be proud.
-
OK, I said if you can see, then it is good. I'm also over this debate, since I'm not a pro, I can't understand it, never should have bothered anyway. :laugh:
Seeing the differences isn't hard at all. It does not require that you're a professional. It just requires that you take some time and look at the pictures more than superficially.
If all you're ever going to do is to print to small postcard size or 640x480 pixel web images, then chances are that only huge differences will be obvious, and especially in contrast.
What scared me, was that some of the differences are obvious already on the LCD review on my 20D, without zooming in. One of my eye-openers was the impressive performance of the Canon EF 135mm f/2L, a lens I still do not own.
For the record, I'm not a professional. I'm a hobbyist. And I'm spending money on the more expensive glass because even with my very limited experience, I can tell the difference.