Another apology

Fred

Fred

Feline Great
Local time
9:20 PM
Joined
Mar 22, 2005
Messages
929
Location
Chippenham Wiltshire England
View My Gallery
Here I go again so apologies in advance.

Now please don't take the following as a pop at any member here, it's just my view only from a lot of reading of different threads over the last year from someone who shoots all sorts of RFs and will openly discuss the short falls and benefits of them all.

I read the following on another thread, I have to agree with its' sentiment to a point as well, but it did make me think.

"I hope they (Zeiss Ikon) sell 10000 more and take a big enough chunk out of leica to make leica sweat a bit then come out with a sub 2000 dollar rangefinder..."

It is a very good point that I can agree with to a degree. It's what can be taken from it that worries me a tad. I Can't help feeling that Leica were sweating well before the ZI, the fact is other manufacturuers including CV are also fighting for an arguabley dwindling RF market.

If Leica or CV or ZI goes TU then I'm sure there would be a small cheer from those who hate them for being expensive / cheaper / etc or for other reasons. Just remember once they've gone, they are gone.

The fact is that to build stuff by hand is very expensive. I use Bessas (R and L) and love em, I also shoot with an M7 and love it, I'd really like a ZI but have enough cameras (please not more GAS). All of these cameras and associated lenses are better than I am anyway.

I certainly do not rejoice in the possible loss of yet another fine camera manufacturer. I for one still mourn the passing of fine names like Bronica and Mamaiya and XPAN. Add Minolta and Konica to that also.

I just cannot understand the logic in a fine RF forum like this one for anyone (who may or may not be a member) who would wish the demise of another one of 'their own'. I guess I have trouble with all this brand snobbery that is rife among other forums. Lets take photo's and have fun. Lets talk about gear as well, be it bodies, lenses or darkroom.

Good photos are achieved with practice and not purchase as I have found to my cost over the years.

It's all just kit at the end of the day. Some bits may last longer than others and some may be able to take the heavy knocks of a pro better than others. Like SLRs' it's all relative.

Enjoy the end result, even if it's not from film.
 
Hey, I agree with you, and I don't even have a Leica.

I see the same thing with film. Some folks hate Kodak with a passion, wish for their demise. Like that won't hurt all of us. Whatever!

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks
 
I have no fear that Zeiss will push Leica into the abyss.

They are sweating, but I think they will come out somehow. They have already made some wise choices in partners - Olympus and Panasonic.

If they maintain a decent niche, we'll see them for years to come. Remember BMW at one time (recent years) was 3% of the car market worldwide. Also take a look at Apple.
 
i would agree with you.
we are here to promote rangefinder use and the love of the machines and to wish any of them ill, seems, unthoughtful.

i believe that many think leitz is getting rich on large profits and therefore could lower the price if they wanted.
from what i have read, it is not the materials or design etc. that keeps the price up so high, it's the salary and beneifts for the workers and the government regulations that are killing leica.

one reason zeiss went to japan for manufacturing was to keep the cost down and the materials etc, high.

joe
 
I don't know folks. Unless there is a future dash towards Leicas for their timelessness by ZI users, this has to be cost Leica some sales.

Quality built rangefinder cameras that use film isn't a large market place.
 
Fred said:
<snip>
"I hope they (Zeiss Ikon) sell 10000 more and take a big enough chunk out of leica to make leica sweat a bit then come out with a sub 2000 dollar rangefinder..."

It is a very good point that I can agree with to a degree. It's what can be taken from it that worries me a tad. I Can't help feeling that Leica were sweating well before the ZI, the fact is other manufacturuers including CV are also fighting for an arguabley dwindling RF market.

If Leica or CV or ZI goes TU <snip>Enjoy the end result, even if it's not from film.
Click to expand...

Fred: I disagree with a couple of what I think you hold as premises.

First, IS it a dwindling market? While the market for film cameras may seem to be dwindling (OK, OK, it's clearly not what it was, but what are the recent trends? What about the last 18 months?), how do we know that the market share for RFs is dwindling? I agree it's not what it has been in the past, but here we have Leica, Zeiss & CV still manufacturing and selling RFs. How many analog SLR makers are left? What are the unit sales volumes for RFs? It would be interesting to see the numbers. I'm not saying I know what is the volume of RF sales (both new and used), but let's base our statements on facts, not speculation.

Secondly, the statement you quoted in no way inferred that the member wanted Leica to go TU, which is how you have framed it. What? The intent was for good ole competition to get Leica into the more moderately priced market, thus expanding choice. Whether that's likely or even desirable is a whole different discussion.

In short, I didn't see that post as Leica-bashing at all.

Bill: Agreed regarding the reference to Kodak. And my neighbours thank you.
 
Last edited:
I can't speak from data, so this is speculation. But it would seem to me that not all Zeiss sales would take away from Leica sales. Perhaps some. But Zeiss and Voigtlander RF's intentionally inhabit different price points. I suspect that they capture a lot of the market that would otherwise buy a Leica, except they cannot afford one or choose not to spend that much on a camera.

Yes, some folks who would have coughed up the dosh might buy a Zeiss instead, but some are attracted into a market they might otherwise would not be able to enjoy.

Still, the 'in your face, Leica' attitude is a bit offputting.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks
 
Trius said:
Fred: I disagree with a couple of what I think you hold as premises.

First, IS it a dwindling market? While the market for film cameras may seem to be dwindling (OK, OK, it's clearly not what it was, but what are the recent trends? What about the last 18 months?), how do we know that the market share for RFs is dwindling? I agree it's not what it has been in the past, but here we have Leica, Zeiss & CV still manufacturing and selling RFs. How many analog SLR makers are left? What are the unit sales volumes for RFs? It would be interesting to see the numbers. I'm not saying I know what is the volume of RF sales (both new and used), but let's base our statements on facts, not speculation.

Secondly, the statement you quoted in no way inferred that the member wanted Leica to go TU, which is how you have framed it. What? The intent was for good ole competition to get Leica into the more moderately priced market, thus expanding choice. Whether that's likely or even desirable is a whole different discussion.

In short, I didn't see that post as Leica-bashing at all.

Bill: Agreed regarding the reference to Kodak. And my neighbours thank you.
Click to expand...

Regarding film camera sales (Japanese made):

http://www.cipa.jp/english/data/silver.html

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks
 
OT but anyway, Bill it isn't about 'hating' Kodak (hate is a very strong word and one which IMO should not be used lightly), it is about investing in product from a company with a limited commitment to traditional materials. Kodak's CEO came out and said 'Film is dead'. Ilford came out and said 'We plan to be the last man standing in bw materials'. I know who instills more confidence and whose product I will buy, and it ain't Big Yella.
 
I don't hate Leica or Kodak but my prognosis is not too bright.
I can understand people wishing a cheper Leica but I don't see a need for Leica to make a cheaper M. It wouldn't help them much and they may lose more revenue from people who buy them for the status value than they gain from customers buying them for their usability.

With the Bessa, ZI and Leica there is choice enough.

There is only a very small market for cameras I can't call high end anymore but realy like to use 🙂
 
bmattock said:
Still, the 'in your face, Leica' attitude is a bit offputting. Best Regards, Bill Mattocks
Click to expand...

Sadly, some people are not able to select their brand without slamming the competition. I'm a Leica man myself but I also wish ZI well and hope they are successful. There's room for more than one or two quality cameras in the marketplace and it would be a dull world if we didn't have choices. Be thankful that we have enought different cameras to be able to select what fits our needs best. We all benefit from competition as it makes manufacturers strive to improve their products.

Walker
 
It has been my observation that Leica cameras are underpriced for the product they provide, and they are fortunate that some people have enough disposable income to purchase their products.

We often (and I mean most of us) spout off about 'the good old days' of camera quality, versus the can't-be-fixed junk made today (mostly digicams, of course). But the simple fact is that we consumers are paying about the same money for a camera as we were in 1963. Say $300 to $400 for a consumer-grade camera with some added features - not a full-on dSLR. But that $300 or $400 was a couple week's pay - or more - for the average Joe. Now it is not. We don't want to pay 'more' but in fact we're paying much, much, less.

Labor costs are sky high nearly everywhere, especially for skilled workers and artisans. We even decided long ago that a person who puts doors on Fords for thirty years deserves a decent income, a house, college for the kids, and a decent retirement. OK, I'm hip. But that means Fords cost a lot nowadays. We accept that - but not for cameras. We'll pay $25K for a modern mom-n-pop mobile, when a similar car in 1963 was $2500.

I learned the same lesson when I used to collect vintage watches. High-end well-made mechanical are still available - but they cost upwards of $5000 for a really good one. Get it? Good stuff costs money - a lot of it. But percentage-wise, not a lot has changed - just that we've lost the economies of scale, since so few are made now compared to then.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks
 
Trius, thankyou for your comments. you views are very valid. The quote of another thread (member not named) was the thread that made me think thats all. It was not a pop at any particular manufacturer just a post that made me think a little. The leading apopolgy was intended to cover that. Sorry if I have offended anyone, it is not intentional.

My words on the RF market should have been put into better perspective, the RF market is predominantly film based which overall has seen a declince ober the last year or so, the SLR film market as you correctly point out has suffered greater reduction.

The post was not intended to address any specific RF manufacturer bashing but was intended to be more generic.

Sorry for the confusion.
 
doubs43 said:
Sadly, some people are not able to select their brand without slamming the competition. I'm a Leica man myself but I also wish ZI well and hope they are successful. There's room for more than one or two quality cameras in the marketplace and it would be a dull world if we didn't have choices. Be thankful that we have enought different cameras to be able to select what fits our needs best. We all benefit from competition as it makes manufacturers strive to improve their products.

Walker
Click to expand...

I agree with Walker and if it's not cameras then it's lens brands and even then it becomes f.stops and then it's ASPH v Non ASPH. Like Tony (and Fred!) said at the top of the thread it's all just kit and we buy what we can afford to suit our needs - which are all individual. I think a bump for the Holga is called for.
 
would it be indelicate for me to let people know that my brand new zm 50/2 was delivered today.

must be record time, 3 days from cq to nowhere!
i'm only mentioning this as further proof that there is a market for new gear too😉

joe
 
bmattock said:
Labor costs are sky high nearly everywhere, especially for skilled workers and artisans. We even decided long ago that a person who puts doors on Fords for thirty years deserves a decent income, a house, college for the kids, and a decent retirement. OK, I'm hip. But that means Fords cost a lot nowadays. We accept that - but not for cameras. We'll pay $25K for a modern mom-n-pop mobile, when a similar car in 1963 was $2500.
Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks
Click to expand...


When I began studying economy we analysed what a VW Beatle 1303 would cost in 1990 if production would be the same as in 1981 when they stopped it.

It was eye opening! The Beatle was designed for certain production methods and you couldn't change those without redesigning the entire car.

At 1990 wages a VW Beatle made in Germany would have cost some 35,000 DM, then around $20,000, today it would be closer to 35,000 Euro!
A car without propper heating, no airconditioning, no power stearing, no anti skid brakes, no airbags, no nothing at more than twice the price of a VW Golf/Rabbit with twice the horsepower at 2/3 (less than half in winter) the fuel consumption and all the bells and whistles one expects from a car today.


Leica Ms are very special and a comparison to hand made mechanical watches is not too far if not spot on. But what is the use of a mechanical watch if not as some sort of jewlery?

Back in the 80's we used the long wave time signals broadcasted by agencies using atomic clocks to syncronise our crypto systems, we had a timeframe of two seconds to catch the signal, no mechanical clock I saw was acurate after one or two month at sea.


How acurate is a mechanical Leica shutter compared to a much cheaper electonic shutter in a current (d)SLR?
One day my d60s shutter will fail and the replacement costs some 250 Euros, that's not too far from a Leica shutter repair. The difference is, when my dSLR shutter fails it may be unrepairable due to lack of spareparts and I might not want to repair it because I can get a better camera for not much more 🙂

A Leica will be repaired because it's a Leica and a 20 year old M6 is as usable as a brand new MP
 
back alley said:
i would agree with you.
we are here to promote rangefinder use and the love of the machines and to wish any of them ill, seems, unthoughtful.

i believe that many think leitz is getting rich on large profits and therefore could lower the price if they wanted.
from what i have read, it is not the materials or design etc. that keeps the price up so high, it's the salary and beneifts for the workers and the government regulations that are killing leica.

one reason zeiss went to japan for manufacturing was to keep the cost down and the materials etc, high.

joe
Click to expand...

At least they are looking out for their employees. Some see that as a sign of integrity.

Why does Cosina feel it's necessary to stamp "Germany" on the back of their MIJ CV cameras? Does it make the camera feel more like a precision instrument ? Does it increase the value to the consumer? 😕 We all know "Voigtländer" is now just a name.

Does anyone know how many man-hours are needed to make an M7 and what the average hourly rate of pay is for a Leica Camera AG factory worker? Does Leica Camera AG still manufacture products in Canada?



R.J.
 
bmattock said:
I can't speak from data, so this is speculation. But it would seem to me that not all Zeiss sales would take away from Leica sales.
Click to expand...

I'm one of those. I always regarded Leica as being probably brilliant but probably far too expensive for me to carry everywhere. Then the Zeiss came out & I got fascinated by the RF principle. I had never used one. I decided to start my foray into RFs with a Zorki and added a Leica iiic in the meantime. But if I go for a new M mount body, it'd be a Zeiss, not a Leica. (As for a second hand, it'd be an M3.) So I got attracted to the whole RF scene by the Zeiss announcement & by their current offering. A new customer to the scene, not one taken away from Leica.

EDIT: anyway, isn't Leica's biggest competition the used market of their own cameras ?


Peter.
 
Socke said:
When I began studying economy we analysed what a VW Beatle 1303 would cost in 1990 if production would be the same as in 1981 when they stopped it.

It was eye opening! The Beatle was designed for certain production methods and you couldn't change those without redesigning the entire car.

At 1990 wages a VW Beatle made in Germany would have cost some 35,000 DM, then around $20,000, today it would be closer to 35,000 Euro!
A car without propper heating, no airconditioning, no power stearing, no anti skid brakes, no airbags, no nothing at more than twice the price of a VW Golf/Rabbit with twice the horsepower at 2/3 (less than half in winter) the fuel consumption and all the bells and whistles one expects from a car today.


Leica Ms are very special and a comparison to hand made mechanical watches is not too far if not spot on. But what is the use of a mechanical watch if not as some sort of jewlery?

Back in the 80's we used the long wave time signals broadcasted by agencies using atomic clocks to syncronise our crypto systems, we had a timeframe of two seconds to catch the signal, no mechanical clock I saw was acurate after one or two month at sea.


How acurate is a mechanical Leica shutter compared to a much cheaper electonic shutter in a current (d)SLR?
One day my d60s shutter will fail and the replacement costs some 250 Euros, that's not too far from a Leica shutter repair. The difference is, when my dSLR shutter fails it may be unrepairable due to lack of spareparts and I might not want to repair it because I can get a better camera for not much more 🙂

A Leica will be repaired because it's a Leica and a 20 year old M6 is as usable as a brand new MP
Click to expand...


They quit making the Mexican Beetle in 2003. You could buy a new one for $7400 in 2003.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0730/p07s02-woam.html

You know the name of the person who drew this sketch, don't you?
1.art



R.J.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom