[Leica] Leica implications about future developments

[Frank.Dernie at btinternet.com (Frank Dernie)]

It is no different from upgrading a Canon EOS 1Ds or Nikon D3x though,  
certainly not at UK prices. These are the cameras with which -I-  
compared the M9 and chose to buy. There is nothing about an Olympus E3  
or Canon EOS50 which makes it comparable to a Leica M9 from my  
perspective.
I see how attractive being able to upgrade the camera innards would  
be, but I do not see it as practical in an engineering sense, and the  
similarly priced full frame high resolution cameras from other makers  
are not upgradeable either.
I repeat, I for one would -not- buy an upgradeable camera if it was  
bigger or much heavier than the M, and at present it would have to be,  
in the future perhaps, it would be more expensive too, naturally.
FD

On 31 Oct, 2009, at 00:14, Lawrence Zeitlin wrote:

> Steve,
> Before the M8 was introduced, Leica discouraged the possibility of  
> digital
> cameras meeting Leica quality standards. After the M8 was released,  
> Leica
> made statements that a full frame Leica was impossible and that we  
> should be
> content with a 1.3 multiplication factor. Further the magenta blacks  
> were a
> feature rather than a liability and were necessitated by the  
> elimination of
> an IR filter in the reach for higher B&W picture quality. This is a  
> classic
> case of discouraging consumer expectations of product improvement in  
> the
> hope of encouraging sales of present products. Leica's precarious  
> financial
> situation a few years back prompted the company to deny that the M8  
> was a
> stopgap camera, a way station on the route to a full frame digital  
> camera
> that could make full use of Leica lenses. Perhaps someone remembered  
> the sad
> case of the Osborne portable computer, the first computer that was  
> small
> enough to lug around on an airplane. The Osborne Portable, about the  
> size
> and weight of a large portable typewriter was reasonably popular and  
> sold
> well. The company then released plans for a new model, the Osborne  
> II, which
> would be smaller, lighter and more powerful. Immediately sales of  
> the older
> computer ceased as customers postponed purchases to wait for the new  
> model.
> Cash flow stopped and the company went bankrupt. Leica was, and  
> probably
> still is, in the same position. It could hardly say "Our new M8 is  
> pretty
> good but we have a full frame digital camera in the final development
> process. But buy the M8 now so we have the funds to finish work on  
> the M9."
> So they misdirected, and lied a bit. It is standard business  
> practice to let
> customer believe that the current products are the best of all  
> products in
> this best of all worlds.
> If you don't believe that Leica strongly implied that a full frame  
> Leica
> digital was impossible, check the LUG archives of a few years back.
> Remember that I am not knocking the M9 as an excellent camera. I  
> wish I had
> one. But it is not the be all and end all of photographic  
> instruments. Leica
> has, through its design approach, mandated that customers will have to
> replace the entire camera body to realize forthcoming improvements in
> technology. That might be OK if the camera body was in the $1000 to  
> $2000
> range like the Nikon D300, the Olympus E-3, or the Canon EOS50, but  
> at $7000
> a pop it's a bit of a stretch.
> Larry Z
>
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information