News from Leica? (1 Viewer)

[tenex]

If your current product isn't selling, isn't that a good reason to develop (R&D) new ones?

Technical question: how are you replying to a post of mine that doesn't exist?

As to "funding" vs "motivation", I see what you mean but equally, at such a point Leica (being essentially a boutique brand otherwise) might just give up on clawing back market share.

Incidentally, I too may be switching now to Swaro after 20+ years with Leica, though to SLCs, so not for "innovation" per se. (It's funny, I remember years ago trying an early EL and thinking it was very nice, except for the weird open bridge...)

 

[lmans66]

Leica has always been about quality in my mind, more so than innovation. They seem to have a tendency to not over-extend themselves. IE...and this is in camera lens; Leica will not always have the Fstop equal to what others might have, but Leica knows that in order to go from F2 to F1.8 or 1.4 etc, you lose sharpness to the edges, so they just don't go that way. Other lens manufacturers will play the game of going to a step or two from that of Leica but suffer from edge sharpness. Now that is an example with their lens brand, but I feel they do much the same across the board with bins etc.

 

[The BulbMogul]

Leica has always been about quality in my mind, more so than innovation. They seem to have a tendency to not over-extend themselves. IE...and this is in camera lens; Leica will not always have the Fstop equal to what others might have, but Leica knows that in order to go from F2 to F1.8 or 1.4 etc, you lose sharpness to the edges, so they just don't go that way. Other lens manufacturers will play the game of going to a step or two from that of Leica but suffer from edge sharpness. Now that is an example with their lens brand, but I feel they do much the same across the board with bins etc.

Leica's 50MM F/0.95 Noctilux is a work of art.. so is the 75MM noctilux...

 

[Paultricounty]

Leica's 50MM F/0.95 Noctilux is a work of art.. so is the 75MM noctilux...
View attachment 1459980

Leica's 50MM F/0.95 Noctilux is a work of art.. so is the 75MM noctilux...
View attachment 1459980

It sure got quiet here.

So Zeiss has conquest & SF, swarovski has EL & NL (ok Habicht’s, but get no respect) and Leica has Trinovid HD, Ultravid, retros, Noctivids and Geovids. Seems like a pretty good lineup to me. Boutique, maybe.

 

[Conndomat]

It sure got quiet here.

So Zeiss has conquest & SF, swarovski has EL & NL (ok Habicht’s, but get no respect)) and Leica has Trinovid HD, Ultravid, retros, Noctivids and Geovids.

???

Zeiss SF, SFL, HT, Conquest, RF, Pocket.
Swarovski NL, EL, SLC, Habicht,, EL Range, CL

Andreas

 

[dries1]

So much glass, so little time and money, unless it is Dennis.

 

[Paultricounty]

???

Zeiss SF, SFL, HT, Conquest, RF, Pocket.
Swarovski NL, EL, SLC, Habicht,, EL Range, CL

Andreas

Andreas,

Lol, I knew as soon as I hit post I left a few out, especially the EL range, was hoping no one would notice. ✌🏼.

Oh and no more SLC’s (unfortunately).

Paul

 

[Richard D]

Andreas,

Lol, I knew as soon as I hit post I left a few out, especially the EL range, was hoping no one would notice. ✌🏼.

Oh and no more SLC’s (unfortunately).

Paul

56mm SLCs are still in production in 8, 10 and 15x

 

[mwhogue]

56mm SLCs are still in production in 8, 10 and 15x

Yes! And let's be realistic and thankful for what we have in terms of currently produced bins. What SLCs would you pick above the 56 mm iterations in an imperfect world?

Mike

 

[Troubador]

Technical question: how are you replying to a post of mine that doesn't exist?

As to "funding" vs "motivation", I see what you mean but equally, at such a point Leica (being essentially a boutique brand otherwise) might just give up on clawing back market share.

Incidentally, I too may be switching now to Swaro after 20+ years with Leica, though to SLCs, so not for "innovation" per se. (It's funny, I remember years ago trying an early EL and thinking it was very nice, except for the weird open bridge...)

Haha! Perhaps I have a time-machine and can navigate back to a time when your post did exist. Or, its more likely that I am a moderator and can see deleted posts!

I take your point about Leica being 'boutique' and seemingly more interested in issuing collectables rather than mass-market products.

I owned one of the original Swaro ELs (developed by a team led by Gerold Dobler, now working for Zeiss. Go to: The Birth of the Original Swarovski EL ) and really liked it. It was superior to the Dialyt I had at the time (which lacked phase coatings) and handled beautifully due to the open bridge. But within a year it developed an annoying fault with the focuser and a trip back to Absam only improved matters rather than solving the problem so I moved on.

SLCs are definitely fine binos so I am sure you will enjoy them.

Lee

​

 

[fazalmajid]

So much glass, so little time and money, unless it is Dennis.

TheBulbMogul’s two Noctiluces cost more than all the Swarovski, Zeiss and Leica alphas combined with a Nikon WX thrown in for good measure…

No wonder Leica is not investing that much in sports optics yet churning out record profits.

 

[dorubird]

I really like Leica optics (lenses and binoculars) because they are some of the best. (the best?)

off topic:
But Leica M cameras are very niche and another discussion. The Leica M cameras did not touch the brilliant quality of the Leica lenses! In camera world it all boils down to customer preferences and smart marketing! Having an optical viewfinder with parallax error in the 21st century seems masochistic to me. Practically, you can only use 35mm and 50mm lenses on the M series cameras (but man, don't get too close to the subject if you want to frame correctly!). A 24mm or a 90mm lens is a pain to frame correctly on M camera. Of course, you have an electronic viewfinder on the LCD on the back, but then why do we opt for the M camera and not for Leica SL, Sony alpha or Fujifilm, which have perfect electronical viewfinder framing and an instant focus? We opt for the red dot on the M camera only because brilliant quality of the Leica lenses, and because we are nostalgic for the analog days, cleverly induced by Leica marketing. But then the wisest thing is to use an old analog/ mechanical device like the M6 directly!! The digital device that imitates the analog seems unproductive in practice. It's like you really like a mechanical watch but you use a quartz replica of it! It is not a truly analogue camera, and this without owning the advantages of the digital one! In the latest Leica camera models, this nostalgia it's not just limited to design but is taken to a "paroxysm": remove back LCD, photograph black and white only, remove the auto focus system, remove as many useful buttons as possible etc....all this with a price increase!!! All this is only smart marketing for nostalgics. And by the way, the Leica M cameras are enormous, contrary to the general impression that it would be small and portable. Leica M camera are almost like a brick in size and shape!!!! Almost the same volum as Sony a7 series and much, much bigger than Olympus, Sony A7c or some Fujifilm models. Put them next to each other and we will be amazed by the volume differences.
back topic:
Leica binoculars, on the other hand, are superb because they have superb optics just like any Leica photo lens... optics is Leica's specialty!

 

[The BulbMogul]

TheBulbMogul’s two Noctiluces cost more than all the Swarovski, Zeiss and Leica alphas combined with a Nikon WX thrown in for good measure…

No wonder Leica is not investing that much in sports optics yet churning out record profits.

Ohhhhh my do not for the the new 90MM also..

 

[The BulbMogul]

I really like Leica optics (lenses and binoculars) because they are some of the best. (the best?)

off topic:
But Leica M cameras are very niche and another discussion. The Leica M cameras did not touch the brilliant quality of the Leica lenses! In camera world it all boils down to customer preferences and smart marketing! Having an optical viewfinder with parallax error in the 21st century seems masochistic to me. Practically, you can only use 35mm and 50mm lenses on the M series cameras (but man, don't get too close to the subject if you want to frame correctly!). A 24mm or a 90mm lens is a pain to frame correctly on M camera. Of course, you have an electronic viewfinder on the LCD on the back, but then why do we opt for the M camera and not for Leica SL, Sony alpha or Fujifilm, which have perfect electronical viewfinder framing and an instant focus? We opt for the red dot on the M camera only because brilliant quality of the Leica lenses, and because we are nostalgic for the analog days, cleverly induced by Leica marketing. But then the wisest thing is to use an old analog/ mechanical device like the M6 directly!! The digital device that imitates the analog seems unproductive in practice. It's like you really like a mechanical watch but you use a quartz replica of it! It is not a truly analogue camera, and this without owning the advantages of the digital one! In the latest Leica camera models, this nostalgia it's not just limited to design but is taken to a "paroxysm": remove back LCD, photograph black and white only, remove the auto focus system, remove as many useful buttons as possible etc....all this with a price increase!!! All this is only smart marketing for nostalgics. And by the way, the Leica M cameras are enormous, contrary to the general impression that it would be small and portable. Leica M camera are almost like a brick in size and shape!!!! Almost the same volum as Sony a7 series and much, much bigger than Olympus, Sony A7c or some Fujifilm models. Put them next to each other and we will be amazed by the volume differences.
back topic:
Leica binoculars, on the other hand, are superb because they have superb optics just like any Leica photo lens... optics is Leica's specialty!

Nice little write up you just posted and quite true. I do have both of the Leica SL's and sure easier to get out then the rangefinders for me..

 

[pm42]

Having an optical viewfinder with parallax error in the 21st century seems masochistic to me.

Because you do not know how to use a rangefinder.

Practically, you can only use 35mm and 50mm lenses on the M series cameras

I must have missed something because I use lenses from the 15mm to the 135mm.
The history of photography also proves you wrong.

A 24mm or a 90mm lens is a pain to frame correctly on M camera.

Once again, you are confusing your limitations with a general rule.

Of course, you have an electronic viewfinder on the LCD on the back, but then why do we opt for the M camera and not for Leica SL, Sony alpha or Fujifilm

Because they have only the electronic viewfinder and not the rangefinder. With a M you have both.

We opt for the red dot on the M camera only because brilliant quality of the Leica lenses

Not at all. Voigtlander make excellent M mount lenses these days. And other manufacturers make great lenses for different mount. Nobody will ever tell the difference when looking at a picture, especially with digital cameras.

cleverly induced by Leica marketing.

Yes, sure, we are all so stupid that we spend 8000€ or more in a camera because of the marketing.

But then the wisest thing is to use an old analog/ mechanical device like the M6 directly!!

What make you thing we do not do both?

It's like you really like a mechanical watch but you use a quartz replica of it! It is not a truly analogue camera

Ah, the watch analogy, something incredibly common and not relevant at all.
Do you shoot pictures with your watch? It is a tool?

Leica binoculars, on the other hand, are superb because they have superb optics just like any Leica photo lens... optics is Leica's specialty!

And yet, Swaroski and Zeiss are at least as good.

 

[tenex]

I was thinking that cameras produce permanent evidence in a way that binoculars don't, and that might explain some difference here. But maybe not.

I shot film until 2014 and fully understand the attraction of Leicas, but couldn't afford to follow it into digital cameras, so now I use Nikon and am perfectly happy. I never even would have bought the original Noctilux which was a highly specialized artistic tool, because I'm not that sort of artist and know it. For envy's sake, can we see a few examples of the distinctively unique results of these fine lenses, instead of photos of their boxes? (Luxury watches, cars, "homes", yachts, all this sounds exactly the same every time...)

Actually the nice thing about Leica binocs is that they're still somewhat affordable (and not obsolescent), so I'd really like to have seen more effort put into them.

BTW, for Swaro the SLC 42 would be the obvious one to still be making besides the 56; it would also be nice to see a 30 that's better than the CL. The alpha market today seems to be fragmenting into an assortment of oddly different models, rather than consistent lines. (Is that a Gen X/Y/Z thing?)

 

[The BulbMogul]

I was thinking that cameras produce permanent evidence in a way that binoculars don't, and that might explain some difference here. But maybe not.

I shot film until 2014 and fully understand the attraction of Leicas, but couldn't afford to follow it into digital cameras, so now I use Nikon and am perfectly happy. I never even would have bought the original Noctilux which was a highly specialized artistic tool, because I'm not that sort of artist and know it. For envy's sake, can we see a few examples of the distinctively unique results of these fine lenses, instead of photos of their boxes? (Luxury watches, cars, "homes", yachts, all this sounds exactly the same every time...)

Actually the nice thing about Leica binocs is that they're still somewhat affordable (and not obsolescent), so I'd really like to have seen more effort put into them.

BTW, for Swaro the SLC 42 would be the obvious one to still be making besides the 56; it would also be nice to see a 30 that's better than the CL. The alpha market today seems to be fragmenting into an assortment of oddly different models, rather than consistent lines. (Is that a Gen X/Y/Z thing?)

You are not required to take a single click with any lens to prove anything to anyone else for there knit picking. You also do not have to justify "ARTIST" blah blah blah to own these pieces in mention. If your referring to "My Boxes" I also happen to have what is in those boxes also..

 

[The BulbMogul]

Because you do not know how to use a rangefinder.

I own 3 of them and have yet to figure out how to use it..

 

[The BulbMogul]

Yes, sure, we are all so stupid that we spend 8000€ or more in a camera because of the marketing.

That will almost buy you the M11 Rangefinder Body..

 

[The BulbMogul]

I was thinking that cameras produce permanent evidence in a way that binoculars don't, and that might explain some difference here. But maybe not.

I shot film until 2014 and fully understand the attraction of Leicas, but couldn't afford to follow it into digital cameras, so now I use Nikon and am perfectly happy. I never even would have bought the original Noctilux which was a highly specialized artistic tool, because I'm not that sort of artist and know it. For envy's sake, can we see a few examples of the distinctively unique results of these fine lenses, instead of photos of their boxes? (Luxury watches, cars, "homes", yachts, all this sounds exactly the same every time...)

Actually the nice thing about Leica binocs is that they're still somewhat affordable (and not obsolescent), so I'd really like to have seen more effort put into them.

BTW, for Swaro the SLC 42 would be the obvious one to still be making besides the 56; it would also be nice to see a 30 that's better than the CL. The alpha market today seems to be fragmenting into an assortment of oddly different models, rather than consistent lines. (Is that a Gen X/Y/Z thing?)

You want to see the watches with or without the boxes ..? Patek, Breguet, IWC..?