bmattock
Veteran
I am not anti-labour, but sometimes labour is its own worst enemy. Companies like Leitz may want to automate some operations - only to face stiff opposition from workers who fear being made redundant (and rightfully so). This has been a problem since the industrial age began (witness the history of the word 'sabot'). But if the factories cannot modernize, cannot streamline operations anc make operations more efficient where possible, then they sometimes find that they cannot survive as a going concern - and then everyone loses.
I am old enough to remember visits to Chicago as a child with my father - we sometimes rode in elevators that had 'operators'. Did they do anything? No, they announced the floors and pushed the buttons. But the union was strong - and the cost of finished goods was a little higher as a result. The companies that still employed elevator operators had to sell their buildings and move to single-floor buildings or install escalators before they could 'retire' the workers who pushed the buttons.
I don't claim to have any answers - but I am glad Leitz has been able to survive and keep their standards high. I cannot afford their goods, but I hope to own one someday.
As to mechanical watches and what good they are - some would argue that keeping time is the least of the things a high-end mechanical watch does. It represents much in terms of history, connectedness with our roots, and even serves to remind one that tempus fugit, momento mori.
My 1903 Elgin pocket watch has outlived the man who made it, my grandfather, my father, and it may survive me. Some things man makes are worthy of keeping past the lifetime of their creators.
I am old enough to remember visits to Chicago as a child with my father - we sometimes rode in elevators that had 'operators'. Did they do anything? No, they announced the floors and pushed the buttons. But the union was strong - and the cost of finished goods was a little higher as a result. The companies that still employed elevator operators had to sell their buildings and move to single-floor buildings or install escalators before they could 'retire' the workers who pushed the buttons.
I don't claim to have any answers - but I am glad Leitz has been able to survive and keep their standards high. I cannot afford their goods, but I hope to own one someday.
As to mechanical watches and what good they are - some would argue that keeping time is the least of the things a high-end mechanical watch does. It represents much in terms of history, connectedness with our roots, and even serves to remind one that tempus fugit, momento mori.
My 1903 Elgin pocket watch has outlived the man who made it, my grandfather, my father, and it may survive me. Some things man makes are worthy of keeping past the lifetime of their creators.
ErnestoJL
Well-known
I´m not a Leica fan, however I´m sure that it would be really bad if Leica stops making cameras.
If the guys at Leica should start to sweat, I´m sure it was when Zeiss announced the Contax back in the thirties, but not when CV launched the Bessa and ZI the ZM. They are obviously targeted to a different market, what in fact makes more possible choices, or at least the possibility for many people to get into the M system at a lower initial cost.
I agree that this is a photography forum, and that anyone of Us has it´s favourites, however this is no reason to wish bad luck to any camera company, it would revert at last against Us if we do so.
Dad allways said to me : boy, don´t spit upwards... it may fall back in your eyes....
Ernesto
If the guys at Leica should start to sweat, I´m sure it was when Zeiss announced the Contax back in the thirties, but not when CV launched the Bessa and ZI the ZM. They are obviously targeted to a different market, what in fact makes more possible choices, or at least the possibility for many people to get into the M system at a lower initial cost.
I agree that this is a photography forum, and that anyone of Us has it´s favourites, however this is no reason to wish bad luck to any camera company, it would revert at last against Us if we do so.
Dad allways said to me : boy, don´t spit upwards... it may fall back in your eyes....
Ernesto
RJBender
RFF Sponsoring Member
Andy K said:
I really don't like Kodak but I hated it when they introduced their KODAK Picture Maker kiosks in Kmart stores approximately 10 years ago. People were using the kiosks to copy portrait and wedding proofs and the store personnel weren't doing anything to stop it.
I thought is was funny when Kodak selected Dennis Rodman to promote their Advantix camera. In the ad, Rodman said he was going to be good so he'd get a new Kodak camera for Christmas. (Dec 1996) LINK
The camera mustn't have been good enough for Rodman. A month later he was suspended and fined for kicking a cameraman in the groin during a game. LINK
R.J.
VinceC
Veteran
I think Zeiss Ikon and Cosina camera bodies are primarily competing with the USED Leica market, which doesn't really cut into Leica sales. Leitz for a long time said their primary competition was their own used cameras. I think I've even seen forum threads with names like "Used M6 or New ZI?" Doesn't hurt when these cameras have slightly better features.
Probably close to the same for lenses, except that CV is also doing quite a lot of innovating there ... instead of going after some kind of borderline nonsensical perfection of sharpness, they're producing great real-world sharpness coupled with really interesting designs like super-fast 28s and 35s and superwide 12s and 15s. These remarkable lenses in turn have revived -- to an extent -- the entry-level affordable bodies.
As Bill Mattocks pointed out, Leicas actually aren't that expensive ... you're getting 1950s height-of-industrial-age quality at 1950s premium prices. In 1955, these old cameras we love to buy for a few hundred dollars cost the equivalent of $3,000 or more in real-dollars after inflation.
What's really killed Leica in the marketplace the past decade is that their volume sales depended on the very well-to-do casual photographer who insisted on the finest camera and lenses money could buy, then went about taking snapshots. That customer, for film cameras, has pretty much gone. He or she can buy a new top-quality digital with a cavalier design to keep stowed in a $5,000 handbag. Film required more of a learning curve and was more prone to user error. The digital gizmo is more dashing and simpler to handle.
Probably close to the same for lenses, except that CV is also doing quite a lot of innovating there ... instead of going after some kind of borderline nonsensical perfection of sharpness, they're producing great real-world sharpness coupled with really interesting designs like super-fast 28s and 35s and superwide 12s and 15s. These remarkable lenses in turn have revived -- to an extent -- the entry-level affordable bodies.
As Bill Mattocks pointed out, Leicas actually aren't that expensive ... you're getting 1950s height-of-industrial-age quality at 1950s premium prices. In 1955, these old cameras we love to buy for a few hundred dollars cost the equivalent of $3,000 or more in real-dollars after inflation.
What's really killed Leica in the marketplace the past decade is that their volume sales depended on the very well-to-do casual photographer who insisted on the finest camera and lenses money could buy, then went about taking snapshots. That customer, for film cameras, has pretty much gone. He or she can buy a new top-quality digital with a cavalier design to keep stowed in a $5,000 handbag. Film required more of a learning curve and was more prone to user error. The digital gizmo is more dashing and simpler to handle.
Last edited:
Bertram2
Gone elsewhere
Socke said:
Now it is enuff choice , yes. And they cannot turn this evolution back. But that Mr. K could establish himself so easily and successfully and that even Zeiss found another nice seat beween Leica and CV is solely Leicas fault. RF market was the Leica market, and either they simply did not know that it exists or they simply did not find it worth while to deal with it , I mean this part of the RF market which is now served with CV and ZI products.
Curious when the next price increase will be announced for the M Leicas. What else could they do to survive ? Digital M ? If it is something like a Leica version of the RD-1 for $ 7000 it won't help much to survive. No clue what their plan is, the time will tell us.
Bertram
RJBender
RFF Sponsoring Member
VinceC said:
$3500 today (Leica M7) would have been worth $480 in 1955.
http://oregonstate.edu/Dept/pol_sci/fac/sahr/cv2005.pdf
R.J.
Bertram2
Gone elsewhere
VinceC said:
This hits the point perfectly, when these kinda customers were gone ( the burst of the new economy bubble had an effect too) Leica got in serious troubles. From the new-buyers market now only the collectors are left, not enuff tho to keep the company running .
Bertram
VinceC
Veteran
>>$3500 today (Leica M7) would have been worth $480 in 1955.<<
My point. I think Leica Ms sold in the $400 range. My Nikon RFs sold in the $300 range, and they were very pricey compared to the Canons, which is why there are so many more Canon RFs than Nikon RFs.
My point. I think Leica Ms sold in the $400 range. My Nikon RFs sold in the $300 range, and they were very pricey compared to the Canons, which is why there are so many more Canon RFs than Nikon RFs.
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
Fred: Thanks; I sorta knew what you meant, but I was a bit confused.
Anyway, I'm so unrealistic I'm still waiting for Maitani to come out of retirement and to design a film M-mount RF with an optional digital back. Along with the OM-D, of course.
Anyway, I'm so unrealistic I'm still waiting for Maitani to come out of retirement and to design a film M-mount RF with an optional digital back. Along with the OM-D, of course.
RJBender
RFF Sponsoring Member
RJBender
RFF Sponsoring Member
Trius said:
In the meantime, these Olympus E Series Four Thirds 4/3 Lens Adapters look interesting:
http://www.cameraquest.com/adapt_olyE1.htm
R.J.
RJBender
RFF Sponsoring Member
VinceC said:
In that 1954 ad, the M3 came with a f/1.5 lens and the dealer offered easy financing with no interest. $3500 gets you a M7 body without a lens.
R.J.
W
wlewisiii
Guest
RJBender said:
That's a fun ad. Is there any more to it? I'd be curious to see comparative prices of Nikon, Canon, Kodak & Argus
camera from that time. It's also interesting to note that the Speed Graphics were not cheap cameras either... it's easy to forget that these days.
William
RJBender
RFF Sponsoring Member
RJBender said:
I forgot to mention the 30 day free trial, lifetime guarantee and free shipping.
R.J.
Last edited:
RJBender
RFF Sponsoring Member
wlewisiii said:That's a fun ad. Is there any more to it? I'd be curious to see comparative prices of Nikon, Canon, Kodak & Argus
It's also interesting to note that the Speed Graphics were not cheap cameras either... it's easy to forget that these days.
William
Here's the rest of Dowling's ad and an ad for the NEW M-3 from the same issue.
R.J.
Attachments
W
wlewisiii
Guest
Thanks, I appreciate it. Looking at the various prices, I can see why the Contaflex kept Zeiss afloat for so long... :bang: :angel:
As another interesting point of reference, Mr. Gandy has an ad from 1938 on his web site. http://www.cameraquest.com/prices38.htm Though _that_ Contaflex was a whole different wierdness
William
As another interesting point of reference, Mr. Gandy has an ad from 1938 on his web site. http://www.cameraquest.com/prices38.htm Though _that_ Contaflex was a whole different wierdness
William
RJBender
RFF Sponsoring Member
wlewisiii said:Thanks, I appreciate it. Looking at the various prices, I can see why the Contaflex kept Zeiss afloat for so long... :bang: :angel:
As another interesting point of reference, Mr. Gandy has an ad from 1938 on his web site. http://www.cameraquest.com/prices38.htm Though _that_ Contaflex was a whole different wierdness
William
The 1938 Contax III with f/1.5 Sonnar for $298 would be $4,138 in 2005 dollars.
The 1938 Leica G with f/2 Summar for $170 would be $2,361 in 2005 dollars.
R.J.
doubs43
Well-known
RJ, I'm waiting for an M3 body exactly like the one shown in that ad...... $490 on ebay earlier this week.
I see in the Dowling ad that the Exakta VX with Schneider lens cost more than the Leica IIIf with Summacron lens. The Exakta was a fine camera but the Leica has kept it's value much better.
Walker
I see in the Dowling ad that the Exakta VX with Schneider lens cost more than the Leica IIIf with Summacron lens. The Exakta was a fine camera but the Leica has kept it's value much better.
Walker
R
RML
Guest
But... when is Leica finaly going belly up?
RJBender
RFF Sponsoring Member
doubs43 said:
Walker,
I like my Exaktas and one of these days I'm going to send for the rebuild manual that you mentioned on another thread.
With prices falling, it's very tempting to buy as much gear as you can.
R.J.