Talk:Leica Camera

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Companies Portal
This article is within the scope of Companies WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of companies. If you would like to participate please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the assessment scale.

Contents

[edit] Leica wikipedia article

[edit] Page too big?

This page is now 35kb of text, and beyond the warning size. While some articles benefit from being longer, I'm not so sure this one does. Perhaps some parts of the article need to be broken off - I'm thinking especially the list-type content. While I could justify sections for each Leica type, listing e.g. all the minor variations of M cameras, or all the lenses - that seems to be the job for other articles. Any thoughts on this? Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 02:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not too big for a list, but you could prefer splitting it in a main article and a list of products. --Marc Lacoste 21:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Would it be okay to seperate M and R cameras into two different entries? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.89.33.43 (talk) 08:19, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Renaming

Given that Leica is now just a brand for three companies, shouldn't this page be renamed to Leica Camera AG? --Marc Lacoste 21:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Agree (after 446 days of no replies). I'll make the move now. +mt 17:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Leica lenses on Panasonic

The page mentions the controversy of whether the Leica branded lenses on Panasonic cameras are true Leica lenses if only designed by Leica but manufactured by someone else. What it doesn't mention is that there is some suspicion that some of these lenses were not even designed by Leica but just off the shelf parts from someone else. For example the Leica lens on the Panasonic DMC-LC5 (and the Leica Digilux 1, which was basically the same camera) was believed to be a Canon part, it was certainly mechanically identical. The "same" lens was also branded as Carl Zeiss and fitted to a Sony digicam.

I you have sources for this, carry on. Rama 21:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Leica products quality

"In addition, it had an innovative rubberized shutter that was virtually indestructible and made the camera quieter than any mechanical camera before or since."

Leica marketing is good :

  • leave your M3 in the sun without a lens cap and you have a serious chance to get hole in your shutter.
  • the Leica isn't the most silent camera, many central shutter cameras are more silent, try an Olympus XA for instance.

Ericd 15:24, 16 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Lens coating was patented and used by Zeiss first. Ericd 20:55, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)

The Canon 0.95 was faster than the Noctilux 1.0. Ericd 08:16, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)

While the Canon f0.95 (ca. 1970, I believe) was marginally faster, it was virtually unusable at its full aperature. The lens suffered from severe coma and noticeable loss of definition at its full aperature. The Leica Noctilux is fully usable at f1.0 and its image quality, while not as good as the f2.0, is very good for this speed of lens.

You're right, the Canon f/0.95 is known as very bad however it remains the fastest production lens for 35mm. IMO all this glass is too expensive to get half a stop more than an excellent Minolta Rokkor-PG 58mm f/1.2 ;-). Ericd 23:00, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

The Canon f/0.95 lens was indeed unsharp at maximum aperture but at least it was available. However, I do believe that Zeiss had an f/0.7 lens in one of their lens catalogs in the 1970's or 1980's. I do remember seeing this. MurderWatcher1 at 2:26 p.m. NYC time (my Wikipedia button bar isn't working) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MurderWatcher1 (talk • contribs) 18:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

What's the deal with the link to the trumpet herald on this page? (noise-to-signal

Canon .95 unusable at full aperture? Sadly, lots of people on photo.net would disagree. Those people would disagree with the rest that state that neither lenses look good wide open, with bad bokeh... (Gently apologizes to the Noctilux on the MP in the camera bag) Jdos2 02:16, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

You're mostly right. Most lenses are unsharp wide open. Good, nice or pleasant is a matter of of taste... Some people like the (not fast) Kodak Vest Pocket anastigmat. Too my taste the early Super-Takumar 50/1.4 is unsharp but beautiful, however I'm reluctant to use it because it's seriously radioactive... The 50/1.4 MC Rokkor is sharp at 1.4 but the hexagons in the background are ugly, on the other hand the earlier SR-7 58mm/1.4 is unsharp but very nice IMO. Ericd 21:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe Pentax was the first company to use multicoating on consumer lenses.

Hey big news about the leicas comming up: http://www.dpreview.com/news/0606/06061001leicamdlenses.asp SNx 00:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Well a great new... They increased the costs of their lenses by 2$ but still aren't able to show us a digital M prototype... Excuse me but while I wish to age as well as my recently acquired 1935 IIIa (a desesperate cause...), I'm definitely not an absolute Leica fan. Ericd 21:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Should there not be a section (and a reference in the opening para) to Leica bonoculars ? Velela 08:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC) - just noticed the single line item but I don't thinnk that this does this part of the business justice - Leica binoculars are beconing one of the more popular glasses for ornithologists and others.Velela 08:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Leica Microscopes ? Ericd 16:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Eric, I have seen the Leica M8, the digital M, in early May when I was on a tour through the Solms factory. At this time it was at a wide-spread trial with photographers all over the world.

The body will be presented 5 weeks from now and -unlike the DMR in 2004- it will be ready for sale at this time. 89.51.84.45 19:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I personally am quite looking forward to the M8.
to go back to Eric's commentary above - yes, we should cover non-camera Leica stuff somewhere (here or elsewhere). The leica camera business is now separate from the microscopes and stuff, but formerly one company. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

--Hiteshpatel 1 10:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)n.n.n.n;n,,mm
Superscript textSmall Text

Block quote

{| class="wikitable"

|- ! header 1 ! header 2 ! header 3 |- | row 1, cell 1 | row 1, cell 2 | row 1, cell 3 |- | row 2, cell 1 | row 2, cell 2 | row 2, cell 3 |}

[edit] Microscopes

Isn't leica a major manufacturer of microscopes.... - Zephyris Talk 21:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notable photographers...

Maybe we should restrict this section to people who actually were *photographers*. Not who happened to take a photograph or two on holiday. For instance, notwistanding the admiration that one could legitimately bare for HM Queen Elizabeth II for her courage during the Second World War, I fail to see what sort of mark she left in the history of photography. It's not like her article starts with "Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary; born 21 April 1926) is a British photographer...". Rama 06:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] See further than cameras.

Leica is also a maker of ultra-luxury binocular telescopes (Ultravid, Trinovid, Duovid) that cost an arm and a leg. 82.131.210.162 10:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree, I was surprised not to see the same detail given to the binocular/spotting scope range (current and past) particularly as this is the centenary see http://www.leica-camera.us/culture/history/100_Years_Leica_Binoculars/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rowan203.219.20.190 (talk) 04:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Turning Leica into a disambiguation page

After moving Leica to Leica Camera, it might make sense to turn the Leica page into a disambiguation page (rather than keeping it as a redirect to Leica Camera), and correct the links to those pages. As explained here, the three companies are more-or-less independent, and only share the brand name. Agree to convert it to a disambiguation page? +mt 23:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)