Yes, history has shown that Leica is still successfully making and selling rangefinder cameras, while Nikon is not.
And Leica's many attempts at an SLR are pretty much history. Leica's first digital cameras were pretty dismal, too.Yes, history has shown that Leica is still successfully making and selling rangefinder cameras, while Nikon is not.
I will not debate historical fact of which I do not have first hand knowledge. I will let Nikon battle out the facts.Not really - at least from his account, David Douglas Duncan simply found the 50mm and longer Nikkors to be better than the Leitz glass he had available to him at the time. From what I can tell from the available material today, at that point in time the feeling seemed to veer towards Leica having the better cameras (for the end user) and Contax the better lenses. Nikon essentially split that difference by making their lenses available in L39 - and by giving DDD an appointment to try out the lenses (apparently Canon were too busy to let him visit and try their lenses). I don't think price ever came into it - but performance did.
+1 The demise of the Summarit line of lenses is proof of that.Yes, I believe you are right.
I'd bet money that Leica will outlast Nikon. Nikon has a lot of competition whereas Leica really has none.
... Leica's first digital cameras were pretty dismal, too.
First cameras sold in retail under Leica label were made by FujiFilm and then Panasonic. Leica Digilux line.
Yea!!! Like five hundreds MP, M-A per year...
Yet, Nikon oversold Leitz, Leica Camera AG. On lenses and on cameras. In terms of history, Leica rangefinders cameras were ditched for Nikon SLRs.
Where are some old good names for street photos with Leica. While the more common, commercial rest of photos was, is taken by Nikon and else.
And Leica's many attempts at an SLR are pretty much history. Leica's first digital cameras were pretty dismal, too.
If anyone builds a budget M camera, it will be Cosina. And I'd like to see that.
Selling 500 MPs a year at a profit is making Leica more money than Nikon selling zero. It actually must be much more than that if you figure the number of shops throughout the world that sell Leica, and their allocation. But still.
Also, all the camera manufacturers are dumping SLRs and going to mirrorless in the near future.
Seeing that Leica has been mirrorless since, what, the 1930s?, it seems that they were right all this time. Nikon should have stuck with the RF seeing that the SLR has ultimately proven to be a failure from a business perspective.
Right, those are the inexpensive Leicas. Leica still charges you extra to misspell the manufacturers name and attach a red dot to the front plate. Leica has some of those in its current lineup for those who want an inexpensive Leica.
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1428270-REG/panasonic_dc_lx100m2_dc_lx100_mark_2_digital.html
797 USD currently.
1295 USD for exactly the same camera, but under Leica label.
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1445092-REG/leica_19116_d_lux_7_digital_camera.html
500 USD more for just a label.
I sort of can't believe there are no film cameras in production from Voigtlander. How hard could it be to find someone to make shutters?
If someone were willing to make them, I am sure the price would depend on the quantity ordered. How many do you need? How much would setting up a production line cost? How much would the design, production, and assembly cost of all the other parts be? How much are you planning to sell the camera for?
I sort of can't believe there are no film cameras in production from Voigtlander. How hard could it be to find someone to make shutters?
Until digital mirrorless came along, a rangefinder camera was only good for a narrow range of focal lengths. Specialty lenses (macro, fisheye) and long telephoto lenses such as those used for sports and wildlife photography really are only practical with an SLR.So they did the right thing and stuck with the rangefinder/mirrorless cameras.
I would say wide angle lens are MORE practical on SLR. I 've been usin 21mm and 15mm on Leica/Bessa for a while with no problem and really enjoy them, they are pretty usable on rangefinder. Can't comment on telephoto and macro since I don't usually use them..Until digital mirrorless came along, a rangefinder camera was only good for a narrow range of focal lengths. Specialty lenses (macro, fisheye) and long telephoto lenses such as those used for sports and wildlife photography really are only practical with an SLR.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?