They have not made a wide in a while.
They have not made a wide in a while.Sure but the 28/2.8 Biogon will deliver image quality in spades same as the Elmarit. I have not personally used the current 28/2 Ultron but the word is, it's incredible. Leica just doesn't seem to make a wide that I'm aware of that hasn't been met or exceeded by CV or ZM. I shot CMS20II with my 21/1.8. Ultron and the detail was fantastic. I hear the 21/1.4 is even better.
The 35/1.4 Summulix FLE has the edge over the 35/1.5 marginally. The ZM 35/1.4 is best of all but the size is a real problem IMHO.
In general I'd say when I use my RF, I get sharper images than when I use my F2. I'd say it's just much easier to focus an RF, and of course there being no mirror slap you have much reduced vibration. There is a noticeable improvement every time.
So is it true that rangefinder designers have more freedom to use more rear elements than SLR designers...?
Without superior optics the camera is nothing. I found that nothing feels like a Leica M camera than any other 35mm camera including SLRs.
Personally I'm of two minds. I find their luxury strategy, frankly a little gross. I mean their 50/1.4 is $4500 bucks. If you take the red-dot of it all out that's just laughable. I feel like we're all better off that Leica is making 3 different film cameras, but then again all of them are in that laughable price range...and there are plenty of stories of questionable construction.
I can tell you what's great...finding a mint M4-P and using the CV classic line lenses. The 50/1.5II, 35/1.5, 28/2, 21/3.5...all world class optics for a relative steal. I use the 35/1.5, 50/1.5II, and 21/1.8 and I am very happy. On my F2 I use the 55/1.2 and 40/2. You could say I'm quite smitten with Voigtlander lenses. I just wish they'd bring back the Bessa III aka GF670.
The point was that Leica M lenses are not Zeiss lenses. They're Leica lenses. I say that as someone who most often has a much cheaper Zeiss (Cosina) lens on my MP.
Regardless of cost to produce , what is the market willing to pay? 35mm is very popular compared to 2 1/4 to 4x5 or larger.
On a side note, taking a photograph with either M lenses, or SLR lenses, you are dealing with a foot print issue of 24mm x 36mm . Vs. everything that is bigger. I seriously can’t take seriously the cost issues of M lenses when all I get is 24 x36 . AFAIK 35mm is a very weak format, however very popular!!!!
Quote" I seriously can’t take seriously the cost issues of M lenses when all I get is 24 x36 . AFAIK 35mm is a very weak format, however very popular!!!!Quote
I think you are being quite cynical, I would love to own a Leica again. The last time and did so was perhaps 35 years ago. It was a 3G fitted with probably the 1st version of the F2 Summicron and had 'been around' i.e. it was a bit battered! I have yet to find a camera that was/is easier to get along with and compared to modern SLR's a lightweight. The results it gave me with that Summicron are perhaps the best images I can remember. Unfortunately they are well above my price range at todays level.
The 24x36 image size almost perfectly fits the European A4 paper size which is sold by Ilford. Of course you don't have to stick with the set format of the original image, you can crop and print to your hearts content to your hearts content and this I think is why it has become the normal format. The largest I can print due to the area in my dark room is 12x16 but when cropped was at least as big as a 20" long print with little loss of quality
Sure but the 28/2.8 Biogon will deliver image quality in spades same as the Elmarit. I have not personally used the current 28/2 Ultron but the word is, it's incredible. Leica just doesn't seem to make a wide that I'm aware of that hasn't been met or exceeded by CV or ZM. I shot CMS20II with my 21/1.8. Ultron and the detail was fantastic. I hear the 21/1.4 is even better.
The 35/1.4 Summulix FLE has the edge over the 35/1.5 marginally. The ZM 35/1.4 is best of all but the size is a real problem IMHO.
In general I'd say when I use my RF, I get sharper images than when I use my F2. I'd say it's just much easier to focus an RF, and of course there being no mirror slap you have much reduced vibration. There is a noticeable improvement every time.
Leica is ultra-low volume, high-end, luxury/aspirational brand. It's a whole lifestyle, hotel in Wetzlar, beautiful people, history, wonderful products, legacy, Leitz invented 35mm photography
It's a Wonderful Life!
Not sure where you got that information. I cannot find any source that verifies LVMH's ownership of Leica AG at any time.
Cosina Voigtlander is making absolutely beautiful lenses for rf. Brass, black paint, chrome, beautiful glass and coatings
Another Wonderful Life!
Maybe, but more importantly, rangefinder lens designers don't have to worry about avoiding a swinging mirror close to the film plane, so short focal length lenses can be both simpler and closer to the film itself.
Leica M lenses could easily be less expensive than they are, if they used less expensive materials and were designed and manufactured to wider tolerances.
But that would be inconsistent with the market they wish to serve, so they don't do that.
If they did want to do that, and to match them up with lower quality cameras, perhaps they could increase sales volumes, and therefore achieve some price advantages out of some economies of scale.
It is similar to cars. GM could make relatively inexpensive Cadillacs, and sell them out of bare bones dealers, if they wanted to.
But they don't want to.
Upon closer examination, it looks like you are correct.
Hermès owned a 36.2% stake in Leica Camera, characterized as a "friendly" acquisition:
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/hermes-flies-from-struggling-leica-qhqqzdcqfh3
While Hermès managed to avoid control by LVMH:
https://www.economist.com/business/2020/09/12/how-hermes-got-away-from-lvmh-and-thrived
For a time, there was collaboration between Leica and Hermès:
Most reviews I have seen Leica beats Zeiss in the corners.
Eh you're ignoring the clear luxury mark-up. If their tolerances were so tight there wouldn't be so many posts about problems with recent M-A and M6 redux bodies. Leica could have actual QC and customer service that matches their prices, but they don't want to.
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?