Next step of Leica?

A few months ago I had a meeting with people from Leica. I was shown a mock up of a camera. It was genuinely intriguing. They are thinking long and hard about the way forward. It's not all doom and gloom. Having said that, they came up with one proposal that was so weird it bordered on the imbecilic.

In the "old days" Canon and Nikon readily matched or beat most Leica optics. They abandoned rangefinders because both professionals and amateurs wanted SLRs, and, not being dummies, they wanted hinged backs.

Nikon D300, D700, various current and upcoming Canons, several Sonys, and Pentax K20D all beat R9 in most respects, full frame or not.

Leica is doomed because their pricing structure is such that people can not afford them.

M8 with with various sorts of problems and poor reliability? Sure it is nice, but I thought 2000 @ for my M6`s was too much. $5000 is insane.

I have given up hope of seeing a R digi that I can afford. I`ll not spend $10000 on a product from a company on shakey financial footing.

All they have to do is make a reliable R digi body with a full frame sensor that takes my R lenses. This can not be to hard, can it? What is so hard about a digi cam? It does not have to be better than Nikon, just as good as.

In the mean time, I am collecting Nikon glass and am well on my way to a substantial system.

Leica is doomed because their pricing structure is such that people can not afford them.

Exactly. Give us a body in the $2500.00 range, make it at least as reliable as and entry level Nikon or Canon dslr, and you'll have a good platform that will have people spending money for your excellent lenses.

The Leica problem is arrogance. Just go to Solms and meet the managers, they still think they're worth a premium over all other camera manufacturers because of the fine craftsmanship involved in their cameras.

Yes, they do make fine instruments, for years that did mean a qualitative difference, but now, in the digital age they have to realise that they need more than a nice solidly made body. The body also needs to be reliable in the field and not crap out regularly.

They need to give potential buyers something that gives them the most from their excellent lenses. This means they need to develop a FF sensor that extracts as much detail and other fine qualities as possible from those lenses. The body has to be true to the M philosphy of ergonomic simplicity, quick handling, small size and quiet. Yet it also has to meet modern expectations such as high, noise free ISO levels, which can also be directly changed on the body.

Ploughing through a menu to change the ISO is just not acceptable. They were told this on all forums way before the M8 came out, but ignored the advice, thinking they knew best. Arrogant disaster.

They also need to find a way to get a much larger, better screen on the back, with a well thought out live view and flexible histogram display. They might even think about articulating the live view screeen.

Reliabilty issues must also be fixed if anyone is going to have any confidence in their products again. So they need to cooperate with people who know far more about sensors and electronics than they do and they need to listen to them - especially when it comes to quality control.

Make one more mistake whether it's over design or reliability and Leica may well become a nostalgic memory.

How many people do you think would buy a Leica DRF if it didn't look and feel just like an M3? If it didn't use every LTM or M lens ever made? Leica can't innovate unless it can get out of the M3 box.

I think then lens mount is the only thing they HAVE to keep. If they made something at the right quality and price point, they could get away from the exact M form factor if they wanted to. It's a risk though.

I agree with Josh - they've done it before, after all. How about an affordable M-mount 'CL-D' made by/with a suitable Japanese partner? As long as their only M offering is 3x the price of a Nikon D300, the potential market is always going to be small. It's not as if the cost can be amortised over several decades any more - camera technology has advanced enormously quickly over the last five years, and there's no sign of it slowing down (you can hardly give away a D100 today). And the other traditional entry point to the Leica system, the secondhand market that made a decent M6 as affordable as a new F100 a few years back, doesn't really help with the M8 - there's no bottom rung of the ladder within the reach of many potential users (and future customers for the new gear).

The real problem is that Leica has to rely on someone else for the sensor.

The sensors improve at such a rapid pace, that it's silly to expect your camera body (essentially the sensor) to have a meanful lifetime of greater than 4-5 years. If you look at industry wide pixel counts since 1999, the "average" pixel count of digital sensors has doubled every 4-5 years.

Further, when you look at the industry leaders (such as Canon), their flagship products have sensors pixel counts double the industry average.

For example, in 2002, the "average" camera sensor was 5 mp, the top of the line Canon was 11 mp, in 2007, the average camera sensor was 10 mp, the top of the line Canon was 21 mp.

I have a feeling leica will evolve into a optics only company, providing lenses for the "disposable" camera/sensors that Panasonic makes. Perhaps that has happened alread?

...i wonder how the Leica revenue breaks down. It would not surprise me to find out they make more money from selling lenses to panasonic, than from M8 sales.

"...and, not being dummies, they wanted hinged backs."

You mean like the one on the Nikon F? Oh...wait a minute, the back on the F isn't hinged and comes completely off the camera so you're standing there with a camera in one hand and the back where ever you can hold it so it doesn't drop on the ground....yeah, that hinged back....

Leica's customers seem to give them a hard time about modernizing the M, but don't seem to be so irate when they put out a Leica branded Panasonic joint venture. Maybe the solution is something like the high end Leica point and shoots, but with the same sensor as the M8. And then if they could just sneak M lenses onto it ... Welcome to the next generation.

I don't think it has to look like an M. I would like it to be reasonably solid in terms of reliability and I'd like it to sell for under $2000. But it can be manufactured by Panasonic. I might even be willing to live with a new lens line if the lenses were kept under $1000 which might be possible if they were also made by Panasonic to leica formulas.

Many of you have suggested making an "affordable" version of something along the lines of what they already make.

But just where is digital progressing to? I'd suggest that we already are nearing the limits of what's possible, affordable, and actually desired by the public. There's only so many features you can put into one camera body, too many and it becomes too cumbersome and too bothersome to actually pick up and use.

I have a friend who's been an Air Force mechanic for decades. He says the pilots are really complaining about the increasing complexity of the aircraft systems and how overloaded they are, even those with a weapons officer in back. That's why so many future fighter designs will be pilotless, since the stress of combat is lessened if your neck is not on the line managing the enemy and your own complex systems. Maybe the same thing will happen to street photography. Some days I'd love to send the Robo-Leica out there and control it from a big monitor with lots of neat levers, switches, wheels, dials and guages. Whatever happens to Leica happens. There's enough old and current Leica gear around to keep me happy until the last robowar ends it all.

A really sublime point, Orville! Now, we have to shave with B-movie ancestor's razor blades and try to push the m8 against the sparring ropes, if we really want to understand their mission! I'll stick with my rather mythological gear meanwhile... have practically anything I need...confirmed.

A really sublime point, Orville! Now, we have to shave with B-movie ancestor's razor blades and try to push the m8 against the sparring ropes, if we really want to understand their mission! I'll stick with my rather mythological gear meanwhile... have practically anything I need...errrrm, everything!

There's only so many features you can put into one camera body, too many and it becomes too cumbersome and too bothersome to actually pick up and use.

That's the point. The M8 isn't as feature laden as an entry level dslr yet sells for roughly 10-times the price of one.

There's only so many features you can put into one camera body, too many and it becomes too cumbersome and too bothersome to actually pick up and use.

How many cameras that have too many features have you used? Just wondering, because I shoot all the time with a 1DMk3, which has a lot of stuff, most of which you set once and never touch again. The big difference with shooting any standard manual camera is changing the ISO on the fly. Other than that, it's all done well before shooting.

Let us know what you've used and in what way it is too cumbersome and bothersome to pick up.

He says the pilots are really complaining about the increasing complexity of the aircraft systems and how overloaded they are

All the pilots I have chatted with, military and civilian, complain about how boring it is because everything is done on auto. The exact opposite...

But flying a fighter jet and taking a photo are two completely different activities with two completely different end results. It's like comparing apples and horses, not much in common there.

"There are a lot of suspicions that the R10 or M9 would have 16mp sensors and fixed the bugs."

And it (a M9) will likely cost $16,000. The Leica of the future must be "top-of-the-line" in all aspects.....

The real problem is that Leica has to rely on someone else for the sensor.

... which hasn't been much of a hindrance to Nikon, which before the D3 was basically reliant on Sony for their sensors. The problem has already been stated - Leica is run by a group of arrogant, mouth-breathing retards who think that leaving an M3-esque removable baseplate on a modern-day $5,000 digital camera is "cute." Until these cretins grow some brain cells, Leica won't be around to see the end of the decade, at least as a camera manufacturer.

I'll name my mechanic; his name is Alphonse Messado and is currently stationed in Afghanistan, working on the A-10 Warthog. He is in fact my brother-in-law. And flying a military plane in combat is in no way automatic. Airplanes are one of my pet interests, especially combat jets.

My $.02 worth - I had a Leica back in the late sixties that was stolen by a Vietnamese "cowboy" on a moped. Went to Canon and haven't had anything else, or wanted it. Now have a 40D and some decent lenses. Got curious over the Leica M8 ads spread all over photo.net pages and went to B&H to look. So - $5,000 for the body. $3800 - $5500 for bare minimum, basic lens set. These iconoclasts are done, toast. With the best they have to offer, you can no longer look at a photo and say, "Ah, made with a Leica...."

I think it would be good for Leica to start marketing lenses. I feel Leica would be very successful selling lenses for Nikon, Canon, Pentax, and Sony mounts. They wouldn't have to be AF (It would be nice) but CPU'd to offer ttl metering would be a must. Zeiss was wrong not putting CPS's in Cosina made lenses when Cosina clearly has the ability to accomplish the task.

I've been using Leicas (M3, M4, M6, M7) toghether with Nikons (F2, F3, FM2, F5) for many years when shooting film. Have loved the Leica M lenses for their quality and feel. Some of them are, I think unsurpassable, like the Noctilux or the Summilux 35/1.4 aspherical. But it was not only the lenses, it was the whole M system that was great. Being able to shoot unnoticed, silently, in very dim light could be unique. On the other side I've always loved Nikons and Nikon lenses as well: I now shoot with a Nikon D3 and a mix of new and old Nikon lenses, plus some Zeiss ZF, and am happy with it. Indeed one year ago I bought an M8, believing I could use it as I was using my M6: I sold it after few months, completely dissatisfied for at least three reasons: 1) it's noisy, expecially for that hateful bzzz when the shutter is cocked. 2) poor overall image quality when compared to cameras that cost less (Canon 5D, Nikon D300, ecc.) 3) complex in use, unreliable, and not dependable upon (weird colors, need of Uv filter, unreliable white balance, ecc.) Some of the complains could be lessened if it costed one third of its price, but anyway it is not what I need. I'm also sure that the first one (Zeiss?) that comes out with a rangefinder costing less than $ 2500 and using M mount lenses, with 12MP and quality comparable to D300 or 40D will have success.

Yeah, I'll buy Leica lens for my Canon dSLR if I can afford it even if it is bit pricey than the competition.

"Many of you have suggested making an "affordable" version of something along the lines of what they already make.

But just where is digital progressing to? I'd suggest that we already are nearing the limits of what's possible, affordable, and actually desired by the public. There's only so many features you can put into one camera body, too many and it becomes too cumbersome and too bothersome to actually pick up and use."

We could arrive in the next few years (or sooner) at the point where resolution is topping out for a given sensor size. But there will be other innovations that could still be worth buying, such as dynamic range, low noise, and so on. So it's not a foregone conclusion that soon the camera manufacturers won't be able to offer us anything worth buying.

And one of those things CAN be better user interfaces (consider the success of iPod). The Minolta 600si was a milestone for SLRs and we have better easier cameras as a result. They will figure out how to decide what functions to put on a DSLR (or a DRangefinder) and which ones not to, and how to design the interface, and maybe they'll do a better one.

And then there's the "programmed obsolescence" of connection standards and digital film standards and file formats that would cause a digital camera to become unusable long before the actual parts wear out. Which is why I think Leica's better off with a well made Panasonic body rather than spending the extra money to make a metal body that will long outlast the camera's useability.

I may not agree with all of Leica's decisions, but the M8 is real and it's here. No one else has had the guts to do such a thing except for Epson. As for the prices, just look at the USA->Euro exchange rates over the years: You can thank the current occupant of the White House for that.

"He says the pilots are really complaining about the increasing complexity of the aircraft systems and how overloaded they are, even those with a weapons officer in back."

They were saying the same thing back in the Vietnam era. They would just start turning off systems. I am an old Air Force Avionics Tech.

I use a modern DSLR along with older cameras. I use it much the same as my older cameras. It has an OFF/On switch. It has a function switch. It has an ISO switch. I use the Ron Propeil system. I set it and I forget it. Don't let the camera's automation take control.

Jeff S, they're very expensive everywhere in the world. Try buy one in the UK and you'll see what I mean. You guys over in the US have it good when it comes to prices of camera gear, which I think is even more true considering income and cost of living.

Surely the problem is that cameras are doomed - not just Leica. Phones are doing almost everything now so why buy a camera. It's probably the end of Nikon and Canon and Leica et al. The only survivor in my view will be enthusiasts using film, but I don't know for how long. It seems to me that top quality film cameras have a future in amatuer hands - and there's always the collectors propping up the market.

I've been using my Leica M2 since 1970 and it's still going strong. Have handled an M* several times but won't be buying a digital M until the shutter noise is greatly reduced. One way to reduce the cost of a Leica M is to eliminate the LCD. Shoot only RAW, add auto ISO and most Leica shooters would be good to go. Controls could/should all be analog. If you really need to see your images before uploading them to your computer, you could use a pocket size hard drive with a 3-4 inch LCD. When travelling, I often shoot 4-6 rolls of film a day, process them when I get home, make contacts several weeks later, make enlargement weeks or months later, and exhibit the prints 6-12 months later. Tell me why I need to chimp every frame or even every hour.

Extremely complex devices can be made intuitive (e.g. the iPhone) or not (e.g. the #^&%@^ Windows Mobile phone my company pawned off on me). If a device's capabilities are intrusive it's simply a case of that particular product being badly designed.

Robert Gordon wrote: "Tell me why I need to chimp every frame or even every hour."

To be sure that you haven't lost detail in the important highlights.

The LCD probably adds 20 dollars to the price of the camera.

Surely the problem is that cameras are doomed - not just Leica. Phones are doing almost everything now so why buy a camera.

Twaddle. Phones take crappy photos, as the laws of physics say they must. The people who used to buy disposable cameras will use cell phones, which has nothing to do with the SLR market.

Mark - Freinds and family are using their digital cameras for the last time. They have acceptable pictures from their phones/Hps. Of course some will want better pictures - larger pictures - but these can be printed by any home computer.

Grumble, grumble, grumble.

The Leica M8 is to my mind a really great camera, if you ignore the shutter noise (not all that important). It may be improved with a better sensor when that becomes practical. The lenses will eventually be improved for digital capture, but this not uniquely a Leica challenge.

For the price it is fine. For highest quality you have to go to MF digital and that is very much more expensive.

Stop grumbling, make pictures and get the best from a unique image-making machine.

One way to reduce the cost of a Leica M is to eliminate the LCD.

I'm sure you'll find great camaraderie amongst members of Leica's current leadership - especially the one with a woody for baseplates.

No, the way to reduce the cost of a Leica M is to a) have it competently designed, manufactured and QCed by people who know what they're doing, for example by Panasonic in Japan; and b) change Leica's business model from dependent on selling a few to the very wealthy (or stupid) to selling as many as possible to new photographers entering the hobby or profession who want a quiet, quality, reliable alternative to the dSLR. They went in the right direction with the relatively affordable but still high quality Summarit lens line. Time to put the remaining foot in the water.

Leica's forte is not electronics. Never has been, likely never will be. Instead of allowing arrogance, vanity and pride to endanger the survival of the company, they should stick with what they know (optics) and let the professionals (their existing Japanese business partners) worry about the rest.

I`m with Josh. The only thing all Nikons have in common is the F mount. Why a digital Leica must fit into the M3 box? Nobody become depressed because the D3 doesn`t look like a F3.

I`m owner of Leica lenses and cameras. I didn`t bought a M8 for two reasons: 1. So expensive, and 2. Sensor issues (crop factor, need of filters, etc.)

I`m willing to pay even $3000 for a 12Mp FF quality sensor with no clumsy issues like the need of filters. It could be the M9. Why not?

Ok, I can live with the filters... but not without a FF sensor and a price over $3000.

The Leica M8 is to my mind a really great camera, if you ignore the shutter noise (not all that important).

Maybe not to you. But it's about 25% of the reason why most people like to use Leica Ms, the remaining quarters being the relatively small size, the rangefinder viewing system, and access to the M lens lineup. Maybe heritage and vanity factor in there somehow but those aren't nearly as important as the others to most real photographers. For five grand (body alone) you can bet your ass I want the whole pie. But then the problems with the M8 go way beyond shutter noise, don't they?

For the price it is fine.

No, it isn't. Not when you can get a superior product for less than 1/3 the price. I just bought a USA warrantied, brand new in box Canon 5D a month ago. After instant $300 rebate, it was $1899 at the usual big retailers. I found it from a fleaBay retailer for $1799, free shipping, because it was being split from a kit (24-105/4L). And then because I used the new Live.com search promotion with the Microsoft discount in conjunction with PayPal's Buy It Now, I'll be getting $250 cash back in 30 days, which brings the total price paid to $1550.

$1550.

For a full-frame, 12.8MP body that gets me access to some of the finest AF lenses currently made, warrantied by a company with a fully trained and stocked repair presence in this country (in fact Canon Irvine is about a 45 minute drive from where I live). And you're paying $5000 for what? A 1.3x crop body with questionable support (last I heard, Leica Germany is the only place to have any substantial M8 repair done), questionable reliability and stupid design issues. On top of that, you get to shell out $100 for an IR blocking filter for each lens you own. Good deal, yeh?

$1550. $5000. You'd have to be either Forrest Gump retarded to not be able to figure this one out, or Bill Gates rich to not care.

For highest quality you have to go to MF digital and that is very much more expensive.

We're not asking for the highest quality. We are asking for a basic level of quality and reliability comparable to entry level Japanese dSLRs. The Leica digital rangefinder doesn't have to beat the Nikon D3. If it had the image quality and reliability of my old Nikon D70 I'd be happy - and that sucker was only $1K new back in the day.

and get the best from a unique image-making machine.

Oh, it's unique, all right. No argument from me there.

The end of Leica has been prophesied since the M5. They're still here, they're still making good cameras, including the M8, and excellent optics. This is the doom and gloom forum so go open a window and let in some fresh air, take a deep breath and go out and take some photographs with what ever you have.

The M8 is for computer operators and for those wearing pinky rings.

It's really difficult predicting where cameras will go in the future. I know one thing must happen. In digital cameras the interface has got to be improved to the point that amateurs and professionals don't have such a steep inital learning curve. I get asked all the time to "tell me how I did this to it, and how do i get out of this." I remember recently there was one autofocus (not sure it was digital) that had an emergeency button you could press to return it back to the factory defaults no matter how you had screwed up the settings. I'm a real techno nerd, but when it comes to cameras I'm all in favor of ruggedness and simplicity. I don't want to read a manual for the first 6 months of use. I really wish some ex-Apple interface designer would create a camera OS that the majors would adapt that would encourage photographers to explore their camera's amazing capability without intimidation. Some folks will never understand what's the big deal as they flip their way through difficult systems, while most others basically leave these machines on one setting for fear of "mucking up the works." That's the point. Technology is supposed to help and not hinder the ordinary person. It is not designed only to empower the technocrat. If somehow Leica would get out of their current mind set and innovate like Apple and make the complex down to earth, people would pay the higher prices for their so-called superior German engineering.

Perhaps Fang is unaware that people who own and use both the Canon EOS 5D and the Leica M8 almost always prefer the image quality of the M8:

George Lottermoser
Henning Wulff
Tina Manley

The inherent limitations of the viewfinder does not help to create any new customer demands.

And the bottom plate? Those are the problems of the M8? For a few years before its release all people on this forum were begging for was the same M body with that beautiful viewfinder and a digital sensor. Now they've got it, but the problem isn't the basic body design, it's the price, reliability, and mediocre high ISO performance, not the bottom plate or viewfinder.

Because of those issues I wouldn't buy one, but give it some credit, at least it still beats Canon or Nikon dslr's for compactness and sweet smooth manual focusing lenses. I think they'll fix the performance issues; unfortunately I can't see the price ever being reasonable.

Orville, if I can make my way through modern digital camera interface, most people should be able to. Tend to agree with Jeff- you set it and forget it, but the options are there if you find it useful to change them... although I will admit, without a manual handy it has taken me a few minutes a couple times to figure out how to get my 5D's self timer off after accidentally setting it. But I hate my cellphone interface more.. ;)

In digital cameras the interface has got to be improved to the point that amateurs and professionals don't have such a steep inital learning curve.

My wife uses a camera with five minutes of training. My son taught himself to use a digital camera with no manual. Everyone I know shooting actually goes out and shoots, rather than thinking there is a steep learning curve.

I don't want to read a manual for the first 6 months of use.

I read the manual for my 1DMk3 for all of two hours. It didn't seem too hard for me.

snark alert

The only adjustments I make while shooting with my dslr are ISO, aperture, and exposure compensation. Each done in a second - while shooting one-handed. Super easy...

I would like to see a survey with respect to the number of non M8 owners who continually bash the camera

I'm sure many of you already know it, anyway read http://web.mac.com/kamberm/Leica_M8_Field_Test,_Iraq/Page_1.html

Brad, that's about what I do too, the interface on these digi's are not difficult if you just shoot with them. I can do all I need with my Nikon with my eye to the grindstone as it were. But I really agree with Ray and have said it before, many here were clamoring for the digital M and then when it got here just started bagging on it. As far as I can see it has some problems, but the chief problem is it's just for whatever reason, it priced beyond what the market will bare.

Perhaps Fang is unaware that people who own and use both the Canon EOS 5D and the Leica M8 almost always prefer the image quality of the M8:

...all of which I've never heard of. Can you name at least one person in the caliber of Michael Kamber who can provide a credible opposite view, with unretouched photographs to support that view? Doesn't even have to be a 3-time Pulitzer nominee or associated with one of the most venerable journalism institutions in the world, like Kamber is.

A list of rank amateurs who hang out in gear forums just isn't very compelling, sorry.

I have just bought an Olympus E-3 that I use with the Pana/Leica Summilux D 25m 1.4. I love this combination. I think the lens has one shotcomming - it is not as robust as the Olympus lenses.

Personally I would be happy if leica started designing more primes for the 4/3s format. I also see the market for a couple of cameras: - a 4/3s camera optimized for live-view (i.e. without a mirror) (The benefit would be faseter live-view operation) - a small stripped down pro-level camera made to be used with pancaces.

A manual focus 4/3s lens would also be nice - but not very forward-looking I am afraid.

Fang, the three I listed are all working professional photographers. That you haven't heard of them means absolutely nothing. Ms. Manley for example routinely works in remote areas of central america where her M8 was recently drenched in a downpour and continues to work perfectly.

There have been a number of massive M8 threads on Lightstalkers, where most of the users are full time shooters. The overall opinion seems to be a big thumbs down for the M8, although a couple of people are happy.

The price is just ridiculous for something that may or may not work, depending on its mood.

Ouch. That Michael Kamber review is devastating.

If Leica needs an assist with interface design, they need look no further than their Leicasonics. Panasonic is very good at it. My FZ30 has any control one might need on the body on the body (except for changing ISO, but who does that with a Matsushita chip camera?)

The problem is one has to access the EVF or LCD to see the settings. But it is possible to design a camera otherwise:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/f4.htm

I had an M6 ttl and sold it and regret it. But I don't think I'll ever spend that much money on a camera again.

I have no idea what Leica's next step will be, but I know that whatever they come up with will be priced for the few pros who prefer rangefinders and an army of dentists, lawyers, doctors and other wealthy amateurs.

What we need, as rangefinder enthusiasts, is what nobody in the industry has successfully produced: a full frame digicam with good Zeiss, Leica, Canon or Nikon glass but at an affordable price. Even $2,500 is too expensive. A small, -$1,500 camera with a fixed lens, full frame (or close), the ability to shoot raw, and the ability to capture blacks as blacks and not magentas would sell very, very well.

[URLs in signature removed. Violation of Photo.net policy]

"Leica's forte is not electronics. Never has been, likely never will be. Instead of allowing arrogance, vanity and pride to endanger the survival of the company, they should stick with what they know (optics) and let the professionals (their existing Japanese business partners) worry about the rest."

Yes, this seems completely sensible.

Most of what El Fang says makes sense here. Leica has to compete in reliability and robustness, and only the Japanese have the right approach to electronics reliability. They also need to come up with an affordable solution to the Full frame problem, since this maximises the advantages of their lenses. The price advantage of the Canon D5 is far too compelling for most people and Leica ignore it a their peril.

At least Zeiss went the right way with their rangefinder - concentrate on design excellence and get a good Japanese company to build it to keep the price down. If only they would hurry up and bring out a FF digital version with high level quality control. If they do Leica will be gone.

"They also need to come up with an affordable solution to the Full frame problem, since this maximises the advantages of their lenses"

If affordability is an issue for the body, why isn't it for new M lenses? An affordable FF digital M body means selling them to present owners of M lenses or selling them to buyers of used M lenses (and their prices will rise if there is an affordable Leica FF digital M). None of that will sell many new M lenses.

The FF digital M market may be too small for even Leica to profit from. They should do some market research, if they haven't (and it appears they have not).

This is my idea to save the beloved Leica M. Basically, all of the M series backs are about the same. If Leica or any third party vendor can come up with a data back that has a digital image sensor built in, I think you'd have a new Leica revolution. I've seen some really small digital cameras these days. I don't think the technology is beyond us. A light sensor is thin, so is a micro memory, and you can stick the battery in the film compartment. The M8 will never hold it's value. On the other hand, older Ms have. So let's make them digital. Thanks

People kept complain about affordability. I agree especially in the last 3-4 years we have seen the price went up at least 30% plus. However, if you are selling Leica M, you can get your money back. Unless you are totally against traditional films.

I bought MP and M7 few years ago brand new, paid around $2,100 each. I can put these on ebay or rangerfinder forums to get all my money back. If I am lucky, I perhaps can make some money. Tell me one other camera can do that.

Few hundred rolls later, I like it more every time. So if you want to get back to basic, Leica is a must-have. Digital is only for work.

...all of which I've never heard of.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence; perhaps if you sought you might find.

Can you name at least one person in the caliber of Michael Kamber who can provide a credible opposite view, with unretouched photographs to support that view? Doesn't even have to be a 3-time Pulitzer nominee or associated with one of the most venerable journalism institutions in the world, like Kamber is.

Ashley Gilbertson also used M8s in Iraq, and came to conclusions quite different from Kamber's.

Bruno Stevens used it on assignment in Iran.

Konstantin Manos of Magnum uses an M8 for some of his work; Thomas Hoepker and Simon Wheatley, also of Magnum, use M8s too.

David Alan Harvey uses one (not surprisingly, as he's a long-time Leica shooter).

Soldiers are using M8s in Iraq too; here's one.

Tina manley inadvertantly testing the M8's water-tightness

"I bought MP and M7 few years ago brand new, paid around $2,100 each."

That was a great bargain. In 2003 B&H Photo's price for the M7 was $2495.

Do you think you can get your money back on an M8 Mervyn as you hope to with your earlier M's? The answer is no. The M8 doesn't share Leica's legacy. Since this thread is on the future of Leica, I would just like to point out that not many people want to buy an unreliable camera 'to be a part of photographic history' The M8 has done more harm to the Leica image that perhaps may never be corrected, even if Leica brings out a decent camera. That really leaves Leica only two options - either to make affordable cameras with features comparable to the nikons canons and pentaxes, or to become a lens manufacturer like Zeiss

A leica M8 submerged for several minutes, and it still works fine? No, this doesn't pass the smell test at all...

I said unretouched photographs. C'mon, Michael Kamber's done it.

Listing articles and links presenting pictures that have been professionally and extensively Photoshopped pre-press isn't a valid counterargument. Also: "From the second I started shooting in Iraq, I was thrilled. The M8 is light, unobtrusive, quiet, and tough. Using it is virtually the same experience as shooting with Leica film cameras, right down to the base plate you need at least one fingernail to open" This is a guy who LOVES the baseplate. I stopped reading right there, since he'd probably also love a pseudo rewind crank that makes an air-raid sound when you turn it, no doubt.

Most real photographers would rather spend their time shooting than sitting in front of the computer post-processing. Kamber has shown, using side-by-side comparisons of unretouched pictures, that M8 files require an inordinately large amount of processing to look anywhere near as good as files coming straight out of cameras costing half as much or less. $1550 vs $5000 aside - how much is your time worth to you?

In the meantime, I'll throw this out there: a grab from a Nikon D70, unretouched jpg straight out of the camera. It was shot at ISO 1600, with a 70-200/2.8 VR at 170mm, hand held, auto white balance. EXIF states 1/90s at f/2.8. I'm not even going to embarrass you by posting something from a modern-day Rebel, or god forbid, my 5D. The D70 was released in 2004 and can be bought on fleaBay for $350 today.

Anyone care to post an unretouched M8 jpeg, shot at ISO 1600 under artificial light? Because we all know that cameras perform similarly at base ISO under direct sun, and Leica is the so-called "king" of available light, right?

Right?

Fang, if jpg files are your measure of quality then there's really nothing left to discuss. We're not even on the same planet.

Fang, if jpg files are your measure of quality then there's really nothing left to discuss. We're not even on the same planet.

On this planet of yours, have you discovered how to display proprietary RAW files, straight out of the camera, on the internet? If so, do enlighten me.

"The M8 is for computer operators and for those wearing pinky rings."

Yes but it's a diamond encrusted pinky ring and a Mac Pro.

Fang if jpg files are all you're going to make with your camera then I'm sure your 5D will do fine. Pat yourself on the back for making such a wise purchase decision.

i shoot documentary work on a pair of m8's. i'm not sure what constitutes a "real photographer" but i have an iso 1250 image that had been converted to b+w via the channel mixer, slight levels and re-sized (converted to jpeg). all of it took about 5 minutes.

http://not.contaxg.com/document.php?id=22192&full=1

I don't shoot JPEG because I've never encountered a camera whose onboard JPEG converter is as good as the worst RAW converter I can get for the Mac. Nevertheless, for purposes of comparison with the blurry, muddy shot you posted, El, Here's a shot out of the M8. DNG, converted by Lightroom. No sharpening, no color-correction, no "healing", no spotting, no curves, no levels. The extent of Lightroom adjustment was crop to 8x10 and export to 300dpi JPEG. This one's ISO 160, with flash.

The M8, as you might know if you'd bothered to read the specs, doesn't shoot at 1600; it shoots at 1250 or 2500. I don't use those ISOs; I don't have to because I'm not limited by slow lenses. I do, however, shoot a lot at ISO 640 under low indoor light. Here's one of those, at 1/60.

Again, no sharpening, no "healing", no spotting, no curves, no levels. I think I corrected this one a bit for color temperature in Lightroom, since it was shot in mixed flourescent/tungsten light.

I have a friend who worked at the Ginza Leica shop in Tokyo for a few months last year. She told me that the upper brass stressed to them over and over in meetings that "Leica is LUXURY".

To get to the Ginza Leica shop yesterday I walked past a shop with a $250,000 Ferrari in it. Across the street a guy was waiting in a Bentley. When all is said and done, it will be that Leicas have to do with photography as much as Rolexes do for telling time. But so what?

I love my MP to pieces (almost literally) but I don't think for a second that it makes me a better photographer. (That's what my Mamiya 7 is for)

It's not like camera companies operate out of some gracious allowance to allow people to create their Art as opposed to simply make money by selling cameras, and even if that is how Leica likes to sell their product, how can that possibly affect all the H8TRZ here?

Canons are going to be cheaper, and sure, like a Toyota their service centers might be closer. But even if there isn't a Jaguar dealership where you live, chances are some of your neighbors still might want to (and can afford to) buy one. How can this fact possibly get people worked up?

Do people who rag on Leica owners here on Photo.net also go to Porsche forums and rag on people for liking their 911s, when actually they could all just drive a Camry for a lot less?

Now, if a dude with a Porsche gets all uppity about how great he is for owning one, that's different. What you do then is just walk a little slower through the crosswalk while he is waiting to make a left turn. But other than that, there is no reason to care how the rich spend their money, on watches, cars, or cameras.

That's what my Mamiya 7 is for

You speak the truth there, John. A friend of mine needed photos of her paintings with good color accuracy last week, so (despairing of digital) I hauled out the Mamiya 6 and some EPP - EPN being discontinued :-(

The transparencies are just breathtaking. Makes me wonder why we're screwing around with all these electronics...

Leica's real problem is they stay in existence by trying to stay within a niche, yet the niche they occupy is that of deliberately not innovating too far beyond the classic M3. If they innovate they may lose touch with the fan base, yet the fan base is ever shrinking. In short their business model is a trap.

They seem to survive these days by selling their name for use by Panasonic. I am sure also the leica lensed Panasonics involve at most some peripheral involvment in lens design by leica with the main design and manufacturing done by Panasonic.

jeez man, "the rich and uppity" leica owner thing again. there are photographers using them, real photographers that write grant applications, shoot 7 days a week, spend 10-12 hours a day in working conditions with sweaty notepads and overstuffed bags that shoot with m8's. no we are not in iraq or have pullitzer prizes BUT we do use them. this constant "real photographers don't use m8's" or "dentists, lawyers and folks with more money than brains" thing is just plain wrong. i pay my mortgage with cameras... i happen to use m8's and like them. i am so far from "rich" it would make your head spin. can we separate "i don't dig on the m8" from "real photographers don't use an m8" please?

"Though the magenta casts were annoying at times, the problem isn't that bad, and it's corrected easily enough in Photoshop."

This is from Ashley Gilbertson's review. If the problem is easily fixed in Photoshop why are people buying filters?

Lots of people used Jamie Roberts' color profiles to compensate for IR color shifts with the M8 before the filters were shipped. It didn't fix all the problems, but it was fine for many images. I shoot all my M8 photos with the filters; skin tones and foliage colors are hard to get right without them.

for purposes of comparison

You posted 160 and 640 ISO shots for purposes of comparison to an ISO 1600 shot? What was the point of that?

I don't have a vertical to post for a comparable size to the above posted photos, but I can tell you that 5D RAW files shot at 3200 are not to the point of being perfect, but they are very sweet. M8 doesn't compete at all in that zone. I would imagine it's a great advantage to most photojournalists to have useable photos at that speed. Makes a few more hours of the day available for shooting..

You posted 160 and 640 ISO shots for purposes of comparison to an ISO 1600 shot? What was the point of that?

I suppose his point was that the $5000 M8 needs to be shot in RAW at ISO 640 or lower to beat an ISO 1600 jpg from a 2004 dSLR that you can now buy for $350.

That's great! If you prefer the D70 over the M8 then you are the luckiest person in the world. You can get the camera for 15 times less money.

El Fang, Congrats! You posted a photo (a nice grab shot, BTW)! :)

I think the gist of this thread is the price for the camera. No one complained this loudly when Epson R-D1 came out. Those who wanted it and could afford it just bought it.

I am sure when a R-D2 comes out it will be very expensive and will not get trashed like the M8.

I am all for a cost competitive (one that can relate to a current DSLR, price wise) M-mount DRF. I don't care if Cosina or HP make them.

Leica can not and will not.

After having read all this thread I think no answer given yet matches Chris' text.

""The M8 is for computer operators and for those wearing pinky rings."

Yes but it's a diamond encrusted pinky ring and a Mac Pro."

touche!

This would be an interesting discussion. But unfortunately, it was high jacked again by people who don’t own but still loath the M8. There are many professional and amateurs out there who use like the camera, despite some shortcomings, and who prefer it, for various reasons, over a DSLR. They are not all stupid.

As to the future of Leica, I know as much or little as others on this thread. However, I believe Leica is doomed if it tries to compete with Nikon of Canon on price as they will never reach their sales volume and thus will always on the basis of a higher costs. That does not mean that price is irrelevant and that Leica should not look hard to reduce (development) costs. But I don’t think price should be the focus of Leica. A professional and many amateurs are willing to pay a few extra thousand in order to get the product they need or want for their job of hobby.

Thus, I think Leica has to compete on quality. The quality of their glass, both for the M and the R is undisputed, and a fairly solid group of customers are willing to pay very high prices for this glass.

As regards the M body, while the majority of professionals and amateurs prefer SLRs, there is a solid customer base for a DRF, many of which have yearned for a digital M at a time when most believed a digital M would not be feasible. The M8 then showed it is feasible and some are enthusiastic about the M8 while others were disappointed. So there is room for improvement, as there is with basically any camera. The improvements of the M8, however, should not touch the basic concept of the M camera, in particular the simplicity of its use. Indeed, it is precisely for the simplicity of use, its relatively small size, and the fact that due to first rate glass it delivers outstanding pictures, that people buy M cameras (film and digital). In fact, the most important improvement would be better high ISO performance. All the rest are details, some of which are arguably desirable (such as direct ISO dial). Full frame, a nice as it would be, is not essential, and would in my view not worth an extra few thousand.

As regards a digital R. having never used a Leica SLR and the R glass, I will not speculate. However, it seems crucial that any digital R allows the use of existing glass.

Fang, 0. Others, 1. I was enjoying the fight, but then Fang went ahead and shot his foot off by posting a JPG. And, not a very impressive example, either. Herr's right: "different planet." And, i'm not advocating the M8. I'm just saying that no competent photographer should be basing an argument on JPGs.

But, Mr. Blakley, i gotta take exception to your comment, as well: "The M8, as you might know if you'd bothered to read the specs, doesn't shoot at 1600; it shoots at 1250 or 2500. I don't use those ISOs; I don't have to because I'm not limited by slow lenses. I do, however, shoot a lot at ISO 640 under low indoor light. Here's one of those, at 1/60."

The first sentence is essentially moot. One should be able to make comparisons between cameras, even if Leica chose to use a different set of ISO 'standards.' And, i'm not sure who you believe IS limited by "slow lenses." The Canon 5D was being compared. Canon has a 24/1.4, 28/1.8, 35/1.4, 50/1.2, and 85/1.2. On the whole, it's more like Leica that is limited by slow lenses.

The trouble with all these posts is that they mostly confirm that camera electronics are still in the middle phase of development. They are complicated which is why they go wrong. they are are sensitive which is why they go wrong and they are not yet robust enough which is why almost all essential electronic systems have back-ups. Film cameras are already as robust and foolproof as can be and if made to the highest quality will not let you down. Nikon,Canon,Leica and everyone else has the same problem with electronics - just check my computer software !. The problem is that Leica have always tried to produce quality above the rest but in electronics they can't do that because no one has yet made foolproof software. Every single person I know with a digital camera has had problems. Almost none of my friends ever had a problem with their film camera.

One should be able to make comparisons between cameras, even if Leica chose to use a different set of ISO 'standards.

One should, in other words, be able to make comparisons between apples and oranges? All in all, I'd rather make pictures than comparisons - so I posted pictures. You may choose to compare or not as you like. Speaking of which, Ray, it's awfully bold to ask what the point of an apples to oranges comparison and then turn around immediately and offer no photograph at all as your contribution.

As a non-dslr/M/R owner (I'm happy as a clam [whatever that means] with my IIIf) and have no investment in this dispute, I do wonder why Leica didn't produce a FF R dslr, but a crop M. There's the proven market for dslrs and it's not cutting edge technology so no major R&D required (Japan, Inc has done all the heavy lifting for converting film slr designs to digital). Leica's several partners in Japan and the US have experience producing dslrs.

I think producing the M8 was a brave decision (to be heard in the voice of Sir Humphrey Appleby).

I agree about the need of Raw files to make comparison, but as far as I am concerned, the jpegs I get from my D3 are really impressive (maybe due since it's a 5K$ camera), and it's the first time I can use (sometimes) straight jpegs out of the camera. Most part of my pictures are taken in low lights (that's why I've always been using Leica M cameras): I don't want to blame the M8, I've only said that it has not met my (maybe too high, but I had shelled out 5K$...) expectations, and that I don't consider it worth its price. Today, I shoot in low light with D3 and Zeiss ZF 50/1.4 (great lens) at 1600 or even 3200 iso, with good results similar (similar, not equal) to 400 iso BW film (after proper conversion). With the M8 I've never been able to get past iso 640 to have a satisfying result, and a Summilux 35/1.4 (to roughly match the 50mm focal length) is a nightmare of an expense (also secondhand). And, as I said in my previous post, the M8 makes a sound far louder than my previous M7, and closer (even if different) to the D3)...

Wow.

I'm glad I shoot NIkon. They're so much friendlier over there in the nikon forum. ;-)

>>> But I don’t think price should be the focus of Leica

That makes a lot of sense, so let's look at other areas that are worthy of improvement...

Yes, the lenses are great. But what counts is image quality as it comes off the memory card. From what I see, there are other choices that produce far better quality.

How about performance? Battery life, fps, high iso, robustness of build, etc?

How about ergonomics? LCD size, shooting one-handed (and changing ISO, aperture, exposure compensation), changing the battery and memory card, etc

How about customer support? A friend needed to send his 1DIII in for adjustment. They emailed him a free shipping label, and he had his cam back in 5 business days. You see a lot of 2 month ordeals with M8s. Will a pro tolerate that, or even an ordinary shooter that expects great service commensurate with the camera price?

How about company commitment to reaching better levels of performance timely. The two name brands have done astonishing well here - hitting ISOs up in the 12000+ range, fast fps, outstanding AF, great battery life, etc. Leica has innovated with scratch-resistant LCD glass and dampened shutter for an extra $1,800.

It seems the only thing Leica is offering that excels over others is the rangefinder experience.

Oh dear we're going wrong again. Leica is a luxury product - like a Porsche, like a Rolls Royce, like a Prada handbag, like a St.Laurent gown. It is not an everyday commodity. Porsches do some things very well but other features are beaten hands down by a Ford or a GM - like ride comfort. People buy Leicas for what they offer. Even from the outset in 1925 most people thought the Leica far too expensive and anyway a Tessar could give the same quality. Leica will always sell providing they offer what the customer wants and it isn't necessarily what most people on this forum want. Most Canon and Nikon users have never had or tried a Leica so they swear by their own product just as do Ford and Datsun owners.

Brad wrote: "But what counts is image quality as it comes off the memory card"

So you're only interested in jpg files? That's like taking your film to Wal-Mart for developing, except that Wall-Mart gives you your negatives back.

>>> So you're only interested in jpg files?

Who said anything about JPEG? No, image quality in the same way that a film negative shows the image quality coming out of a film camera. That doesn't mean jpeg.

Somebody brought up lens quality being great. No doubt about that as I pointed out above. But decoupling that from the camera means little. It's what comes off the card that counts, not what makes it through the lens mount. There's a sensor and a lot of electronics in between.

I think your description above is pretty accurate, Brad, though I'd argue with the "far" in your statement that other choices provide "far better quality". Certainly at high ISOs, both Canon and Nikon perform better. Build quality is not as robust as prosumer DSLRs either, and ergonomics, while "very good" to my taste are decidedly "manual" compared to today's DSLRs. And customer support from Leica is frankly pretty bad right now.

The image I get has qualities I don't get out of DSLRs I've tried; in particular in light which is low but contrasty I prefer the look of the M8 files, and the lack of AA filter produces a sharp image of a sort I find it hard to duplicate with files created behind an AA filter. But these are largely matters of taste - I agree with you on the main point, which is that the lenses and the rangefinder handling are really the reasons one would choose the M8, and having made that choice you do have to live with compromises in other areas.

I don't see the R system's future to follow the paths of other SLR manufacturers in being replaced by or transitioned to an AF system. It's inherently manual focus. Many people using AF systems in fact prefer the "good old" MF bodies with split-image screens and really large viewfinders. This is a niche Leica can fill. Otherwise they'd be better advised to put their proven R lens kits in high quality AF barrels with Canon EF mount.

Or maybe they should do both. I bet Leica could sell lots and lots of their R lenses as full-featured EF mount versions (i.e. with ultrasonic AF and in-lens aperture actuators). Maybe they should better invest their expertise here instead of playing catch-up with others. After all optics is what they know best, and they still have the mechanical and electronics expertise that would be required to build first-class AF lens barrels that are at least on par with the build quality and handling of Canon's L series. Imagine an L series barrel, or even a step above, with Leica optics.

Mark - Freinds and family are using their digital cameras for the last time. They have acceptable pictures from their phones/Hps. Of course some will want better pictures - larger pictures - but these can be printed by any home computer.

If they find the photos from their phones "acceptable" then it's safe to assume they would have found the results of disposable film cameras acceptable as well. And that has nothing to do with the SLR (or Leica rangefinder or any serious camera) market.

"Film cameras are already as robust and foolproof as can be and if made to the highest quality will not let you down."

Pros used backups for their film camera just like they do now with their DSLRs.

Don E,

Yes it it was indeed a very brave decision by Leica.

It reminds me that I have to get out my Yes, Prime Minister DVD's. It is much better to watch than current TV.

The Intel Approach:

Intel wasn't always king of the computer chip nor was the manufacturer of the chip highly valued by consumers. In the 80s computer chips were just a part of the overall computer, but Intel found great success in marketing directly to the consumer with their "Intel Inside" campaign.

Leica could easily partner with several camera companies whose optics are not well established (Sony?). Many consumers aren't really aware that the quality of the lens matters. All they focus on is the number of the megapixels. So the lens manufacturers need to raise awareness of the importance of the quality of lens by marketing directly to consumers. Ads on the National Geographic channel shouldn't be too expensive and should hit a more targeted audience. Additionally ads on other stations targeting mothers who want quality pictures of their children would be another great idea.

A lesson from Coca Cola

Both Coke and Pepsi profited well off the Cola Wars in the 70s and 80s. While they were both fighting over the pie, the size of the pie kept getting bigger. A little Ziess- Leica competition would be a good thing for both of them.

Christopher,

you wrote: "Leica could easily partner with several camera companies whose optics are not well established (Sony?)". As you sincerely noticed, Leica already is in a partnership with Panasonic. Sony closely works with Zeiss. You might take a look at their latest ZA series DSLR lenses - Zeiss AF lenses exclusively available for the Sony Alpha mount. Zeiss also builds manual focus lenses with Nikon F, Pentax K and M42 mounts. That's why I propose Leica might build ultrasonic AF lenses with Canon EF mount.

correct me if i am wrong but didnt leica release a 4/3 mount dslr?

"didnt leica release a 4/3 mount dslr?"

Digilux 3
Clone of a Panasonic, major components made by Olympus.

Marc B - Yes but those film backups were voluntary - electrnic backups are normally there because they have to be.

Yes but those film backups were voluntary - electrnic backups are normally there because they have to be.

Complete nonsense. Over the years, I've had numerous problems with mechanical cameras, during the course of normal use, that put them out of action. The only problem I've ever had with a digital camera was also a mechanical problem (reflex mirror coming off).

Mike - Lucky you - you are unique IMHO

There's nothing unique about my experience. Mechanical devices, when used frequently, wear and sometimes break. A friend of mine replaced his early digital SLR after about four years because he was going to need a second new shutter--the first two had worn out. The sensor and other electronics all worked as well as when they were new.

Always having a backup isn't a recent development among professional photographers. Backups for film equipment are just as essential as backups for digital equipment. Leica's development and quality control issues with the M8 were not caused by an inherent lack of reliability of electronic equipment.

Johannes Bohnacker - the partnership is only one piece, and its something that has been mention before. My main point is that they need to raise awareness of how the quality of the lens effects pictures.

If you surveyed people who were about to buy a camera, and you asked them to rank the attributes that were most important to them, you would likely get the following result (#1 being most important)

1. # of megapixels
2. Look & feel of camera
3. Camera brand
4. Size of LCD screen
5. Zoom ability

Lens quality wouldn't even make the list of what most people think about. It's not the consumer's fault because no one has ever really advertized about it's importance. Look at this ad for a Panasonic Lumix DMC, with a Leica lens. The fact that it has a Leica lens isn't even mentioned anywhere in the ad except as a part of the photo of the camera.

I bet if you had a mirror product, with a Holga lens instead of a Leica, for $5 less, most people would buy the Holga. They wouldn't even pay $5 more for a Leica.... because they don't know. Leica (and Zeiss) need direct to consumer advertising to increase how much people value the camera lens.

so whats wrong with them developing the digilux 4? there are plenty of lenses available and the cameras are very easy to use. (i have an oly e-500 and e-520)

i think the sales people are to blame in part for pushing megapixels. i blocked an upsale the other day when i randomly went to the electronics store and talked to a lady who did her research then the salesman tried to get her to buy a different cam for 200+ more dollars because it had more megapix, long story short, she bought the one she researched. what ever leica decides to do, they need to drop their prices by about a third or more.

What leicaphiles want:

1. Camera brand

2. Look & feel of camera

3. Full Frame

4. # of Megapixels

5. Full utilization of M lenses

"Mike - Lucky you - you are unique IMHO"

While I think this conversation has dwindled into the typical "I think Leica is lame and expensive (and I wish I had one)" vs "I think Leica is great and wonderful (and I have to defend my purchase)" drivel. I will add that my digital experience has been no more or less worse than my film experience in terms of things going wrong. Things went wrong with film cameras/film/labs things go wrong with digital cameras/memory/computers.

Murphy's Law doesn't care about digital vs film.

Josh - Sorry you feel like that as we are touching on an area where Leica need to be involved. I have owned and run businesses selling Mercedes-Benz, Porsche, Rolls-Royce, Bentley, BMW, Honda, etc.etc. In almost every case our customers were not 'normal' in the high volume sense, but intensely critical of service. The price did not affect what they bought but who they bought it from. This is the Leica scene. They want reliability, service, and highest quality. The performance of the vehicle our customers chose was personal but was always one of the marque's models. Many Leica buyers probably don't look at Canon or Nikon as options. Pros of course are a different matter but then chauffeurs and taxi firms don't run Porsches or Mercedes- Benz in the main. We enthusiaists take a somewhat different view comparing features of cameras that are not directly compeititive with each otherbut Porsche buyers don't look at Mazdas.