Talk:Leica Camera/Archive 1

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)


 * So, someone called "AlphAlphA" removed most of the content of this page in October 2008 and everybody agrees with that? FWIW, I don't.  I thought the page had a lot of useful information before this edit and I'm missing it.

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. + m t  17:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

I'm pretty certain that Panasonic/Leica cameras were not the first to implement optical image stabilization on their digital cameras. I'm pretty sure that this Olympus was the first: http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/C2100/C21A.HTM. AFAICR, Panasonic wasn't even in the digicam market until 2001. In any case, the Olympus C2100 was the first digicam with OIS built in. (Sorry, noob: Don't know how to have it stamp my edit with my user name. I'm user detchells.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Detchells (talk • contribs) 02:46, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

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 text Small Text Block quote

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

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)

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)

Medium and other format enlargers Leitz Focomat IIc: Something is missing in the following text about this enlarger. "Only very slender enlarging lenses will for the IIc helicals."AlphAlphA (talk) 18:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Hint: It came with this modification. --Cyfal (talk) 21:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

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? + m t  23:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Writing style
I am adding a tag about the writing style of this article. I consider a number of elements to quite quite problematic. For instance:
 * "quite esthetically pleasing-they have the unmistakably honest look of fine machinery designed be an engineer rather than a stylist": "quite esthetically pleasing" is an indication of nothing more than the personal taste of the writer. "(...) engineer rather than a stylist" is a bizarre judgement of value.
 * "The Leica M3 is considered a design miracle for its combination of simple appearance with functional flexibility": by whom? Either this is a direct quote and must be referenced, or it has nothing to do here.

I also have recurrent problems with people like Elisabeth II being listed as a photographer. Rama (talk) 06:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I deleted the peacock terms, but not Elisabeth II. I removed the tag. --Cyfal (talk) 23:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Uhhhh...M8 anyone?
This article needs some updating! And cleanup in general. Micahmedia (talk) 08:58, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The M8 was lost at some point. The article most certainly needs refurbishing. It has a strong tendency to spin into a collection of anecdotes, to feature ridiculous lyrical language, and to turn into a list of lenses. Rama (talk) 10:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * What about the M10 camera? Works like a view finder and digital film look camera. The price whooo $8,000.00 for the based model other model are $10,000 and up. Buying a D-lux 4 for simple shooting but the M10 is the Rolls Royce of camera's. For that price it should be made in Germany. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.205.229.251 (talk) 22:52, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Corporate ownership
Does anyone know the history of the company over the last few years - found this at http://www.letsgodigital.org/en/news/articles/story_3973.html-" Leica will continue with capital increase : Leica Camera AG has achieved a settlement out of court with four plaintiffs in the actions for avoidance, among them Leasing- und Handelsservice Heinrich GmbH (Hettstadt) and EO Investors GmbH. Their actions for avoidance of the capital measures resolved by the General Meeting on May 31, 2005, which had been the subject of the ad hoc announcement of July 15, 2005, have been settled with mutual agreement. The remaining fifth action for avoidance had been brought in an unlawful way. It is expected that the procedure will be closed without further proceedings. Leica Camera AG will publish the invitation to subscribe for the capital increase in the electronic Federal Gazette without delay." Would seem has been major restructuring, but totally unclear.93.96.148.42 (talk) 03:14, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Article focuses on cameras, but the story of the company's quiet resistance to the Third Reich during WWII is the most interesting part of the story. Leica quietly saved numerous German Jews by sending them abroad as "sales representatives". Members of the Leica family suffered horribly for this. This needs to be part of the story. See http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/feb/10/secondworldwar.germany. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paytheline (talk • contribs) 22:22, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Badge engineered panasonics
As far as I can discover, panasonic made cameras and lenses are rebadged as leicas, have added text to this effect, but hard to establish the facts - think they try to mystify it!93.96.148.42 (talk) 03:34, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

A red link has been created based on the following.....
http://www.leica-microsystems.com/home/ --222.64.222.202 (talk) 10:59, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Title
This article is titled "Leica Camera," but it seems to be about Lecia cameras. The initial sentence is: Leica is a camera produced by, or under licence of, a German company of the same name. Should this be "A Leica is a camera..." and should the page be titled "Leica cameras"? Wakablogger2 (talk) 04:59, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Where to put the other Ernst Leitz Products?
Is this article about the Leica Camera AG, or the Leica camera?

Several comments above note that other optical devices such as enlargers, microscopes, and so on were produced by Ernst Leitz, Wetzlar. With splitting up the firm - and the wikipages - there is no obvious place for these products.

The best may be to create an Ernst Leitz GmbH article. In this article, the main development of the firm would be presented. The main products of the three current companies would get extended treatment there. In the Ernst Leitz article, they would be mentioned only briefly, and referred to the respective main articles.

As of now, it is highly unsystematic. --Trinitrix (talk) 12:17, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Leica manufactured in Portugal
A fact just puzzling me. Saw a link on the Internet saying that manufactured by Leica cameras were made ​​in Portugal, found it very odd, since the págian Wikipedia says nothing about it. Checking on the internet, I found a link that confirms even if the cameras are manufactured in the country. vide and vide Pablodiego15 (talk) 10:37, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Stock exchange listing
The edit of 2013 November 8 18:28 by 58.177.52.7 removed Leica Camera AG's ticker symbol fwb: LCA1 and replacing it with. Might anyone have a source we could cite for that? 50.181.30.121 (talk) 21:38, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

&ldquo;§&rdquo;, &ldquo;#&rdquo;, and &ldquo;&amp;&rdquo;
I've reverted a recent edit which changed this:

to this:

with the edit summary
 * replaced symbol "§" by appropriate word "and"

My guess is that the author saw the &ldquo;§&rdquo; symbol in the rendered text of the section hatnote, interpreted it as a typo of &ldquo;&amp;&rdquo; to be fixed, and then changed the &ldquo;#&rdquo; symbol, which seemed to be in the same position in the article wikisource.

I've reverted that good-faith edit because
 * 1) it broke the &ldquo;main article&rdquo; link in the section hatnote;
 * 2) the &ldquo;§&rdquo; symbol is generated by the template used, not by the content of this page, and so cannot be changed here;
 * 3) &ldquo;§&rdquo; does not mean &ldquo;and&rdquo;, it means &ldquo;section&rdquo;, and the template uses it correctly (see Section sign).

I'm writing this here, rather than as a brief edit summary, because I wanted the previous editor to know the details of why I reverted their good-faith contribution.

Unician &nabla; 01:42, 23 May 2014 (UTC)