Micro Four Thirds & Leica M Mount

[HiredArm]

For the first, I agree completely: this is something that people often forget.

For the second, I disagree completely. Not many people can afford a Rolls Royce or a Bristol either. Does this mean that Rolls Royce and Bristol should bring out 'econobox' mini-cars?

Where are you going to save the money on a 'second string' Leica?

If it's built to Leica standards, in Germany, with interchangeable lenses and a coupled rangefinder, it's not going to cost much less than a 'real' Leica.

If it's built more cheaply, it won't feel like a Leica and it probably won't last as long. In other words, what would there be to make someone choose a cheap Leica instead of a ZI or Voigtländer? This would destroy brand loyalty, not build it.

You can forget about building in China or elsewhere. Reworked point-and-shoots are one thing; the M brand is another. In Leica's own words, "If we started building somewhere else because it's cheap, we'd be dead in a year. Part of what people are buying is a tradition of German engineering. This is especially true in India, Russia, China..."

To those who disagree with this analysis, I suggest that you do what Dr. Kaufmann did: buy the company, and try doing it your way instead of Leica's.

Also bear in mind that the USA is currently a rotten market for Leica, because of the extremely feeble dollar. It is in their interest to listen to as many nationalities as possible, not just Americans, in order to spread the market as far as possible.

Cheers,

R.

While I respect your opinion I will have to respectfully disagree with some of it. I think the main barrier that people are overlooking is that less expensive doesn't have to mean cheap. I suggested that Leica stay in the $800-$2000 price range for the body or a kit of one or two decent lenses for a starter pack. That's hardly cheap when you consider most people purchase digicams for a small fraction of that price($200-400.) For instance although it's not up to M standards, the D-Lux 3, is very capable of taking great images for around $600. There is plenty of evidence of this all around the internet on people's personal galleries. No one really expects it to beat a M at 1/10 of the cost but if that smaller sensor is capable of that, imagine a slightly larger sensor with much better optics. I guess the main point is that introducing a "lower end" product will not kill the "halo" of the company - the M system. If anything it will push the M and make it a more recognized system in a world of dSLR's.

Canon and Nikon both make their bread and butter off of the lower end of the prosumer market when it comes to dSLR systems. The D300/700, D3, 5D and 1D series remain as the "halo" of those respective companies although they are certainly attainable by many. The Digital Rebels and Dx0's serve as gateways to the higher systems. They are a necessary evil if you will from the business side of things. I'm not suggesting Leica has to follow exactly in those footsteps but brand recognition is certainly very important for a business.

To use your car analogy, Rolls Royce will probably never offer a $50,000 car for many reasons (alot has to do with them being owned by BMW) but if they did it certainly wouldn't be cheap. Would it be as nice as a Phantom? Of course not but no one would expect it to be at 1/10 of the cost. Consequently though Rolls Royce are designing a "lower end" product (that'll sell for 150K- 225K) to compete with the Bentley Continental GT/ Flying Spur and AMG products that'll slot between the BMW 7 series and the Phantom. This is mostly to continue to grow the brand and expand the "near exotic" portfolio. The Phantom will still be the "halo" but it drives enthusiasm more when people can see a tangible object versus just hearing, reading, and seeing it in a store, print, or the internet. It's my opinion is that it would do Leica well to drive the brand with a prosumer model that is done right. If nothing else M users (and DSLR users who want something smaller without a huge hit in optics) may buy into it as a backup when the M isn't needed or as a second camera.

 

[Ray Nalley]

Well, since Kaufman has said that a full-frame M is not in the cards and the M8 is likely not the camera that will allow a sensor upgrade anyway, perhaps this 4/3's thing is their next direction. Photokina will be interesting.

 

[georgef]

For the first, I agree completely: this is something that people often forget.

For the second, I disagree completely. Not many people can afford a Rolls Royce or a Bristol either. Does this mean that Rolls Royce and Bristol should bring out 'econobox' mini-cars? R.

I understand your point Roger: LEICA is a niche market company and maybe it does not want to cater to a "lower" market; however, BRISTOL is only there because of its eccentric ownership (certainly not the sub-par, circa 1940's technology cars), and ROLLS ROYCE, well, it now belongs to BMW....🙄

 

[Wiyum]

I don't mean to be obtuse (honest!), but I still haven't heard anyone make even a hollow argument explaining why:

a.) A Leica Micro4/3 camera would need to be "cheap" and why it couldn't be small, dense, all-metal, feature manual controls and feel good in the hand like an M-Leica does; why lenses couldn't be optically superb, feature all-metal construction, and be reasonably fast; why said body couldn't cost $2000 and said lenses couldn't cost $400-$800.

b.) Granting the premise that (a.) is possible, why would such a product be damaging for Leica, a company in need of a revenue source, with a fair amount of products (C-Lux, D-Lux, Digilux) that currently tarnish the Leica name more than the proposed product would, both in terms of the quality they deliver and in their qualitative resemblance to the top-tier Leica products?

I'm of the opinion that everyone participating in this debate is reasonable and intelligent, so I'm genuinely curious to hear either of these points disputed beyond the "that product would tarnish the hallowed Leica name and suddenly render the legendary M bodies and lenses valueless by virtue of association with it." I just don't see how that could be the case, especially in light of most of Leica's current digital lineup.

 

[infrequent]

@wiyum - you see common sense like that often is not obvious. leica continues to be defined by its past and nothing kaufmann has said and done suggests otherwise. apparently the fanboys like it so as well.

so in short, leica could do it, but they won't. thats why they are conspicuous in their absence from the announcement. panasonic is prolly just interested in POS P&S. olympus is the only hope for a serious camera system using this tech.

 

[Ray Nalley]

Leica isn't in a rush to add manufacturing capacity or new employees, so it doesn't look like they are planning on making any such camera themselves. Which leads to the conclusion that they would rely on a partner to make it. And while I suppose Panasonic could make a $2,000 camera that meets this criteria for Leica, it wouldn't be a Leica. And it would still sell in limited numbers. I just don't see what Leica can do beyond continuing to rebadge Panasonic P&S cameras that allows it to compete in the current market place.

 

[sepiareverb]

A new factory to make them could be part of the reason this won't happen. Rebadging Panasonics doesn't make cameras of the same quality as a Leica- regardless of how much one believes otherwise Leicas as we know them are expensive to make. They are made in a small shop much by hand not a robotic assembly line factory. To come up with the factory & tools and software to churn out a camera that could cost $1500 would likely require a pretty big investment that they'd not see returned quickly. Designing a line of high quality lenses can't be so simple, and manufacturing them at low enough cost to sell at $800 would require more investment in automated machinery.

My 2¢

 

[Roger Hicks]

BRISTOL is only there because of its eccentric ownership (certainly not the sub-par, circa 1940's technology cars)

Dear George,

Have you ever driven one?

And are you aware of the current Bristol Fighter?

http://www.bristolcars.co.uk/BristolFighter.htm

Not many road cars in the 1940s could top 200 mph...

No, I've not driven a Fighter, but I have driven (and been driven in) others. 'Sub-par' is NOT an accurate description.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

While I respect your opinion I will have to respectfully disagree with some of it. I think the main barrier that people are overlooking is that less expensive doesn't have to mean cheap. I suggested that Leica stay in the $800-$2000 price range for the body or a kit of one or two decent lenses for a starter pack. That's hardly cheap when you consider most people purchase digicams for a small fraction of that price($200-400.) .

No need to be respectful!

$800-$2000 (GBP 400-1000) IS unrealistically low for a luxury marque like Leica. In fact, the lower end is less than a Zeiss Ikon. Are you really saying that's realistic?

Breakfast this morning was a magret de canard stuffed with foie gras (a small celebration). I drank a sparkling Saumur with it, because I can't afford Bollinger.

But I don't suggest that Bollinger should make cheap fizz under the Bollinger label to hook me on the stuff. Good champagne is hellish expensive, about 10x the price of the everyday sparkling wine I drink, BUT, when I drink good champagne I can see where the money goes. Likewise, when I use a Leica, I can see where the money goes. What I don't need -- in fact, what nobody needs -- is a Bollinger label on a drinkable Saumur, or a Leica label on a usable Voigtländer.

Fortunately, second-hand Leicas are a lot more attractive than second-hand champagne. Those who can't afford new can therefore buy second-hand AND find out what a real Leica feels like.

Cheers,

R.

 

[bottley1]

Roger, when you are pissed, can you tell the difference between a leica and a bessa?😀 and do you care? 🙂

 

[Roger Hicks]

Roger, when you are pissed, can you tell the difference between a leica and a bessa?😀 and do you care? 🙂

If I'm sober enough to hold a camera, yes I can tell the difference, and yes I care. I'd rather have an MP than a Bessa, the same way I'd rather have Bollinger than Saumur; but equally, I'd rather have what I can afford.

But I seldom get particularly drunk any more. As Dr. Johnson said, "A man who exposes himself when intoxicated hath not the art of getting drunk."

Cheers,

R.

 

[HiredArm]

No need to be respectful!

$800-$2000 (GBP 400-1000) IS unrealistically low for a luxury marque like Leica. In fact, the lower end is less than a Zeiss Ikon. Are you really saying that's realistic?

Breakfast this morning was a magret de canard stuffed with foie gras (a small celebration). I drank a sparkling Saumur with it, because I can't afford Bollinger.

But I don't suggest that Bollinger should make cheap fizz under the Bollinger label to hook me on the stuff. Good champagne is hellish expensive, about 10x the price of the everyday sparkling wine I drink, BUT, when I drink good champagne I can see where the money goes. Likewise, when I use a Leica, I can see where the money goes. What I don't need -- in fact, what nobody needs -- is a Bollinger label on a drinkable Saumur, or a Leica label on a usable Voigtländer.

Fortunately, second-hand Leicas are a lot more attractive than second-hand champagne. Those who can't afford new can therefore buy second-hand AND find out what a real Leica feels like.

Cheers,

R.

To each his own opinion but I would fear if Leica DID NOT make obvious business decisions in the interest of the company. If they don't eventually the shareholders will. I mean most of them would like to see greater returns for sure. Just because something is made in Asia doesn't mean it has to be made of plastic or other flimsy materials. It could be made of magnesium or aircraft grade aluminum. The labor there is cheaper and while it would cost a bit more I think people will still pay more for perceived additional quality. They could also build it (or contract it to be built under strict parameters) in the USA since the Euro is stronger than the dollar and still make out okay.

Of course the other possibility is that they can, or will be, absorbed by a larger company ironically "for business reasons." I guess we would be back at square one in my suggestions though - the M remains the "halo" and a lower end (or prosumer) system designed to hook people on the brand will be introduced. Someone else will just capitalize on the Leica name and the Leica afficionados will still be upset about what is and isn't a real Leica.

 

[dazedgonebye]

No need to be respectful!
Breakfast this morning was a magret de canard stuffed with foie gras (a small celebration). I drank a sparkling Saumur with it, because I can't afford Bollinger.

I feel for you buddy.
My bannana this morning was overripe and I didn't have time to stop for coffee. 🙄

 

[Roger Hicks]

(1) If they don't eventually the shareholders will. I mean most of them would like to see greater returns for sure.

(2) Just because something is made in Asia doesn't mean it has to be made of plastic or other flimsy materials. It could be made of magnesium or aircraft grade aluminum. The labor there is cheaper and while it would cost a bit more I think people will still pay more for perceived additional quality. They could also build it (or contract it to be built under strict parameters) in the USA since the Euro is stronger than the dollar and still make out okay.

(Numbers added for ease of reply)

1: Most of the shares are held by Dr. Kaufmann, and he's the man who makes the decisions. If other shareholders wanted to sell out so that he controlled ALL the shares, I think he'd be even happier.

2: As you say, everyone is entitled to their opinion. Yours is very different from mine. Mine, on the other hand, is very close to the prevailing view inside Leica.

I know at least one company in the USA that could make cameras to Leica standards. But I also believe (as do most of the people at Leica) that it would be commercial suicide.

Of course, we'll see who's right in the long run. But as a guide to what is actually going to happen, I place more credence in what I hear at Leica (especially from Dr. Kaufmann) than in what I read on the forums.

Cheers,

R.

 

[HiredArm]

(Numbers added for ease of reply)

1: Most of the shares are held by Dr. Kaufmann, and he's the man who makes the decisions. If other shareholders wanted to sell out so that he controlled ALL the shares, I think he'd be even happier.

2: As you say, everyone is entitled to their opinion. Yours is very different from mine. Mine, on the other hand, is very close to the prevailing view inside Leica.

I know at least one company in the USA that could make cameras to Leica standards. But I also believe (as do most of the people at Leica) that it would be commercial suicide.

Of course, we'll see who's right in the long run. But as a guide to what is actually going to happen, I place more credence in what I hear at Leica (especially from Dr. Kaufmann) than in what I read on the forums.

Cheers,

R.

Well for me it's not about who is right or wrong so much as it is I would HATE to see a business who begrudgingly holds its sole values over survivability fold. It's great to have the core values and direction but to survive you have to balance between doing what it takes to remain relevant (read: profit margins) and catering to developing wants of consumers. I guess this comes from my business nature though.

I personally only own Leica binoculars (which are outstanding.) For cameras I began looking at the D-Lux 3 (and other upmarket P&S) as I needed something that was more portable than my Canon dSLR's for when I travel and for my website. Image quality doesn't have to be overly great for website pictures but I would like to have the option for personal photos. I did look at M8's and was a bit enamored by the rangefinder as it's the first one I've ever tried. It was a bit larger than I wanted (for my purposes) and more than I really wanted to spend for essentially a "travel camera." It's something I would potentially trade all my Canon gear towards later (once they get all facets of the electronics side right) but a high end camera isn't my main priority right now. I personally would like to have a compact digital rangefinder with interchangeable optics at a reasonable price (read: prosumer price.) Maybe that's too much to ask from anyone right now who isn't rolling in profits.

That said I wish Leica the best either way and I certainly hope they are around as an independent company in the future. I fear they probably won't be if they continue in the current niche market only attitude.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

Roger, when you are pissed, can you tell the difference between a leica and a bessa?😀 and do you care? 🙂

I don't think alcohol will make a Bessa "a hot babe". If anything looks "hotter" when you are drunk, I'd like to know the brand (of alcohol)!

Last time I ever got drunk was almost two decades ago...so who knows if I want to try that brand anyway 😀

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

Breakfast this morning was a magret de canard stuffed with foie gras (a small celebration). I drank a sparkling Saumur with it, because I can't afford Bollinger.

Could you spell that in cheeseburger terms? A lot of people don't care what they chew, as long as it's a super-sized $2.99 combo!

 

[georgef]

Dear George,

Have you ever driven one?

And are you aware of the current Bristol Fighter?

http://www.bristolcars.co.uk/BristolFighter.htm

Not many road cars in the 1940s could top 200 mph...

No, I've not driven a Fighter, but I have driven (and been driven in) others. 'Sub-par' is NOT an accurate description.

Cheers,

R.

Agreed Roger, I have not. As a car enthousiast (to a limited degree) I can only listen to other people's comments and numbers on certain unobtainable ones; as a matter of fact, the BRISTOL company has more in common with LEICA than I thought: It is exclusively made for the luxury market, it has sourced an engine made by a mainstream company, it costs more than most other as-well-performing supercars (including the offerings from ferrari, porsche, lamborghini) and it relies on the wealth of a niche market.
The fighter is a nice car, albeit a matter of personal taste on whether it is a good looking one. "Sub-par" was reffering only to what else is available for the price -again, in context with the thread.

My main point was, however, whether or not the idea of LEICA not venturing into a newer market is viable for its future, compared to what else is out there...like ROLLS ROYCE per se.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Well for me it's not about who is right or wrong so much as it is I would HATE to see a business who begrudgingly holds its sole values over survivability fold.

We are of one mind on this -- but perhaps (in the Californian idiom) we are coming from different directions. And perhaps (I wist not) there are European and American directions.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Agreed Roger, I have not. As a car enthusiast (to a limited degree) I can only listen to other people's comments and numbers on certain unobtainable ones; as a matter of fact, the BRISTOL company has more in common with LEICA than I thought: It is exclusively made for the luxury market, it has sourced an engine made by a mainstream company, it costs more than most other as-well-performing supercars . . .

I do not think we differ much here. The nub is that more people can afford a $3000-$5000 camera than can afford a $400,000+ supercar, and cameras are quicker, cheaper and easier to build, so Leica sells about 200-500 times as many cameras per year as Bristol sells cars. Leica also has a great deal more 'support' business with lenses than Bristol has with maintenance and uodates. Both can however stay in business, without too much compromise, without cheapening the product.

Inevitably, I've known many more Ferrari and Rolls-Royce owners than Bristol owners: Ferrari and Rolls-Royce are quite common next to Bristol. But most of the Bristol owners I've known are like Leica owners: they keep their cars/cameras for quite a long time. A durable supercar is worth quite a premium in some buyers' eyes. Enough buyers, in fact, to keep Bristol in business, with modest profits.

Cheers,

R.