BJP / Photokina 2012: 'Leica will never release an affordable M camera'

[jsrockit]

"Leica will never release a below-£1000 compact camera, its managers revealed, after it unveiled a £3900 entry-level M. BJP talks with CEO Alfred Schopf and product manager Stefan Daniel."

Read more:

http://www.bjp-online.com/british-j...r-release-an-affordable-m-camera-managers-say

 

[Jamie123]

Saw that yesterday already and wondered why nobody posted it earlier.

I actually think their justification makes a lot of sense.

 

[hipsterdufus]

That's fine. It's kind of nice of them to remove anyone's hopes that they're ever going to release an affordable camera. Now, those users can move on.

 

[loquax ludens]

Is M-E the same as M10? I didn't think so, but I haven't been following. The reason I ask is that the article linked in the op says "Schopf's comments come as Leica reveals that the M-E will replace the M9 and M9P cameras in the next two weeks." That makes it sound like the successor to the M9 is the M-E, but I thought that successor camera was the M10.

 

[anselwannab]

Yes, but here's the problem. It takes $17,000 to get what I would call a 'basic' Leica set-up. $7000 for the 'M' and $10,000 for a 28mm, 50mm and a 90mm lens. That's a lot of fricking money. The main issue I see is that you limit yourself because the barrier to entry is so high- basicaly $10k for the first picture. I know that Leica does OK but I think the issue is if they had a base line for people to enter on that lowered the barrier to entry would they do better.

I think the biggest issue is that their camera models are so basic now, there is no real way to strip cost out of them. While they have 'tiered' their lens offerings. They seem not to have been able to make a Summarit line of bodies that would parrallel their development of the Summarit lenses, which seem to run about 1/3-1/2 the price of the alternatives.

Maybe 1000BP/$1600 camera is really too much to ask for from Leica, I think that a $2500-$3000 CL isn't too much of a stretch. It would help to get people into M camera and systems. I don't see it happening soon, but as technical progress is made, I would entertain a M9 equivelent in a few years hitting that price point. In five years, who knows what whiz bang stuff will be in the top of the line Ms.

 

[swoop]

Is M-E the same as M10? I didn't think so, but I haven't been following. The reason I ask is that the article linked in the op says "Schopf's comments come as Leica reveals that the M-E will replace the M9 and M9P cameras in the next two weeks." That makes it sound like the successor to the M9 is the M-E, but I thought that successor camera was the M10.

This is Leica's logic behind the name change. The M is the new camera. And the M-E is essentially the M9. Leica removed the numbers because they don't want people thinking one camera is better than the other. That the M10 is better than the M9. They want to sell two different cameras. Not an old model and a new model. So they removed the number scheme. The M is the camera with all the "latest" features like live view and video." and the M-E is the camera for Leica/rangefinder purists.

 

[loquax ludens]

Thanks swoop, I can understand that. So how will they differentiate between the M and its successor, or the M-E and its successor, without triggering that "new camera is better" thinking?

 

[Jamie123]

Yes, but here's the problem. It takes $17,000 to get what I would call a 'basic' Leica set-up. $7000 for the 'M' and $10,000 for a 28mm, 50mm and a 90mm lens. That's a lot of fricking money. The main issue I see is that you limit yourself because the barrier to entry is so high- basicaly $10k for the first picture. I know that Leica does OK but I think the issue is if they had a base line for people to enter on that lowered the barrier to entry would they do better.

I think the biggest issue is that their camera models are so basic now, there is no real way to strip cost out of them. While they have 'tiered' their lens offerings. They seem not to have been able to make a Summarit line of bodies that would parrallel their development of the Summarit lenses, which seem to run about 1/3-1/2 the price of the alternatives.

Maybe 1000BP/$1600 camera is really too much to ask for from Leica, I think that a $2500-$3000 CL isn't too much of a stretch. It would help to get people into M camera and systems. I don't see it happening soon, but as technical progress is made, I would entertain a M9 equivelent in a few years hitting that price point. In five years, who knows what whiz bang stuff will be in the top of the line Ms.

If you call a camera with three lenses a 'basic set-up' what would be an 'advanced' set-up? I would argue that a basic set-up is a camera with one lens (probably 35mm or 50mm).

If you think $2500-3000 for a CL type camera isn't too much of a stretch, think again. Look at the Sony RX1. That's a FF Point&Shoot with a fixed lens and no optical finder and it sells for $2800. And that's from a big company like Sony, which is exactly who they do not want to compete with.

 

[MartinP]

One of the reasons behind the 'M' name is probably just that the plain number scheme works fine when there is a decade between models (slight exaggeration, but only slight) but now there will presumably be incremental updates on a 'digital' timescale, meaning annually or so. It lowers the marketing pain-barrier for new features basically.

In discussion, we will see something like 'M (2012 model)' - or perhaps the internal model-code will be used, 'M - model 240'. This is why people have likened the change to that made by Apple with their product-naming conventions a while ago (I should say that I own no Apple products, or digital Leicas, and nor am I likely to do so.)

 

[lynnb]

Yes I saw this article last night and given Leica's positioning as a premium product I can understand their reluctance to "enter the shark pool" and compete on price with an entry level body.

But I don't agree with them, simply because it's my understanding that the sale of lenses is the way to maximise profits. That seems to be the business model of Canikon. I think that if Leica introduced a new, compact CL they would tempt a lot of people who want Leica lenses and would like an entry level Leica body to mount them on.

Sony's new RX1 full frame with Zeiss 35/2 fixed lens is showing it's possible to produce a CL-sized, quality FF camera. The RX1 will sell for $2,799. It's a very attractive camera. If it sells well, it will highlight an opportunity missed for Leica.

As Anselwannab said, if Leica sold a digital FF CL for around $3k it would encourage a lot more people into the highly desirable M-system lenses. Not having such a body limits the market for the lenses. If Sony follows up the RX1 with an interchangeable mount and a range of quality Zeiss lenses, Leica may find themselves more and more dependent on the boutique market. Personally I don't think that's a safe long term strategy.

Edit: Jamie, your post appeared while I was typing.

 

[ChrisN]

Technically there is very little difference between a CLE-sized rangefinder and a Leica M7 or MP. Leica can't bring these (M7 and MP) film cameras to the market at less than $5k and maintain a stable business in their chosen niche. How can anyone expect Leica to produce a digital rangefinder with traditional Leica features, quality and reliability for less than the cost of their last film cameras? It just doesn't make sense.

We were spoiled for a long time with cheap second-hand film M bodies and cheap prices on excellent Leica lenses. That phase ended when Leica introduced the M8, and the supply of cheap lenses dried up as happy M8 users drove prices up to realistic levels (and beyond). The M9 continued and reinforced that trend. The days of the "affordable" Leica M system are over.

 

[anselwannab]

Technically there is very little difference between a CLE-sized rangefinder and a Leica M7 or MP. Leica can't bring these (M7 and MP) film cameras to the market at less than $5k and maintain a stable business in their chosen niche. How can anyone expect Leica to produce a digital rangefinder with traditional Leica features, quality and reliability for less than the cost of their last film cameras? It just doesn't make sense.

Agreed, when I was looking at lens prices I noticed an M7 is $4995. That means that we are getting a FF sensor on the ME for $500. I could understand if the CEO of Leica were reading the complaints about the price of the ME and he screamed "We're giving you digital for free!!!".

The other way to look at it is that Zeiss sells its IKON for $1600. Now the Ikon is no M, but it is good quality camera. That is why I like the CL comparo. I really like mine, but it is no M5. The question is if Leica is hurting itself by not having an intro system or would they be more hurt by a sub-M quality camera diluting their brand. It is a far easier decision to keep the current system rather than take the risk and change. We'll see how it shakes out as Sony takes that sub ME area around $3000. Will that choke off Leica>

 

[Keith]

I think it's a good idea for Leica to stay out of the shallow end of the pool ... there's way to much competition in that market currently and they should leave it to the manufacturers who are already there.

They have a unique product with the new M and I think we can now just about guarantee that no one else is going to bother making a 'genuine' digital rangefinder. The chances of them making anything similar to the new Sony full frame but with an M mount are pretty remote in my book.

 

[tele_player]

Well, maybe not THAT much

Well, maybe not THAT much

Realistically, a 'basic' 28/50/90 wouldn't be Summicrons. Elmarit 28 and Summarit 50 and 90 would total about $5600 new. Still a lot, but about half the price of the Summicrons.

Just my opinion - no offense intended.
-Robert

Yes, but here's the problem. It takes $17,000 to get what I would call a 'basic' Leica set-up. $7000 for the 'M' and $10,000 for a 28mm, 50mm and a 90mm lens.

 

[ChrisN]

Agreed, when I was looking at lens prices I noticed an M7 is $4995. That means that we are getting a FF sensor on the ME for $500. I could understand if the CEO of Leica were reading the complaints about the price of the ME and he screamed "We're giving you digital for free!!!".

The other way to look at it is that Zeiss sells its IKON for $1600. Now the Ikon is no M, but it is good quality camera. That is why I like the CL comparo. I really like mine, but it is no M5. The question is if Leica is hurting itself by not having an intro system or would they be more hurt by a sub-M quality camera diluting their brand. It is a far easier decision to keep the current system rather than take the risk and change. We'll see how it shakes out as Sony takes that sub ME area around $3000. Will that choke off Leica>

Regarding the bolded question: I think Leica do their recruiting via a very different strategy - by reputation. Canon, Nikon etc recruit at the consumer P&S level, and try to entice customers to maintain brand loyalty as they progress through to the amateur/enthusiast level. Leica attracts new customers through their reputation for superb quality and their proven history of performance and use by great photographers. With this stance they don't need an entry-level consumer grade product - in fact it would only hurt their reputation. For many the price tag is proof of admission to an exclusive club.

 

[semordnilap]

I don't think Leica could make a full frame DRF for less than they are, but I think they could produce a less expensive, $3,000-$3,500 crop sensor rangefinder that would bring more people into the system. Obviously they don't want too, and they have their reasoning about diluting the brand, etc. Will someone else do it? I sure hope so... but I'm speaking as someone who is really brand agnostic–I just like RFs, and I like digital. Hopefully Leica's success will encourage Zeiss and/or Cosina to make a digital Ikon.

 

[Adanac]

One could argue the new Leica M provides the company with a hedge of sorts, against competitive attack. They've done all the work to produce an EVF only camera. An electronic viewfinder-only camera would be simpler and cheaper to produce.

Maybe they have already, hidden in some design bunker, produced a Leica E (elektronisch) version of the Leica M, similar in all respects except for the viewfinder mechanism. If they can spend the time making a one-off Apple inspired design, surely they could lay the ground work for a design to be rolled out in case of competitive emergency.

Once upon a time I felt that if Leica didn't bring out a digital camera cable of supporting RF lenses well - but not tied to the rangefinder as a view finder and focussing mechanism - then someone else would. Chief among those who might has to be Ricoh, the only current company to have made a M lens compatible digital camera. Whether Ricoh has any wind left in its GXR sails to take on such a challenge, who knows, but it is certainly within the realm of possibility.


Since Leica have stated they won't go there, isn't that a green light for others? A live-view EVF full frame M lens compatible camera could likely be marketed for under $3,000. I'd buy one.

 

[Godfrey]

... A live-view EVF full frame M lens compatible camera could likely be marketed for under $3,000. I'd buy one.

A live view camera ... certainly. What costs all the money in the Leica M body is the optical-mechanical coupled rangefinder. And the custom sensor.

I don't want a live view only camera. I want an RF camera, and I like having the LV option. 🙂

 

[Hosermage]

Can't say I'm surprised. If I can barely find an old M6 for under 1k, how can I expect Leica to provide a brand new digital version for that much? If they did, the product that they can release will probably be crap and ruin their good name. Anyway, cheap Leicas, isn't that what used market are for? How about a used M8 for $1500 as an entry level M? It's too bad that they no longer have some parts for the M8.

BTW, I buy all my stuff used, had no problems. *knock on wood*

 

[Adanac]

Godfrey,

Certainly a live view camera isn't for everyone, just as a rangefinder (rangefinder only) camera isn't for everyone or for all purposes.

As I'm one ex film shooter still holding on to my RF lenses in the hopes of seeing what I describe above, and as I've met others in the same boat, I imagine we are not alone. We might even be... legion. 🙂

PS: As of the new Leica M, the cost of a "custom sensor" might be debatable. We've no idea what the value-add CMOSIS provides. They are not a fabrication house but a design house. It may even be a Sony fab that produces the sensor.

Various makers have their own special sauce added on top of stock Sony (or other) sensors, customizing the final sensor package for their own camera and lens implementations. Even with such customizations plenty of mass produced products, finely made or otherwise, come out at reasonable price points.

Leica is a small lot maker producing a largely hand made product that has some custom optics. That's what I assume the gross margin pays for, rather than an extraordinary percentage for customized sensors.

Put another way, the new M is the same price as the old M yet includes much more circuitry, firmware, integration points, and so on. It is only logical that the new sensor is much closer to commodity pricing than ever before.