Erwin on Leicas future

I am not convinced rangefinder is dead either. But the pricing certianly is. What eaiser way to kill a product than to price the body at $5K and then the lenses somewhere around $2K+ each. That really restricts the portion of the population that wants to buy one. A non starter for the vast majority of the camera buying public.
One direction would be a modernized camera, auto focus & auto exposure... not sure I can add anything here, but one component needs to be an entry vehicle. Start with a camera designed in Solms, made in the far east (body and lens) that is competitive with the DSLR's out there, and then allow a path via upgrades to a full blown M. This would attract the starving student but give them choices to step up to a level they can afford. All of these steps would co-exist... mix and match. Just off the top pf my head... 3 bodies $1.0-$1.5K entry --> $2.5-3K intermediate --> 5K full blown. Lenses that start at $500 Summacheap (Oh - My - Gawd), intermediate Summarit, then the others... but figure out a way to make them cheaper. I mean, I have money (not made of it) but cannot bring myself to $3.5K for a 28 summicron. That is why I buy used... excuse me, pre-owned.

I do not buy that this approach would hurt Leica's quality at the low end... CV's are very good lenses... add to it some Leica IP and my feeling is you could end up with a pretty decent lens.

Anyway... just my 2cents.
 
Olsen said:
The new Mustang is 'modern'? Don't you have modern cars over there? It has a stiff rear axle! It is a simple pick-up with a fastback design. It's an old fashioned car made at a factory with 70'-80' technology. In 2010 it will not meet EU emision standards...
Click to expand...

And they sell a lot of them.
 
I don't think there is anything "wrong" about mf RF camera. The price tag is certainly not for everyone but it does make sense if considering the quality and workmanship of leica optics. IMHO, the problem is how to get into consumer market. Canon lost huge chunk of market lto Nikon last year mainly due to it somehow ignored consumer market. Same thing to leica.
 
I don't think digital and RF are antithetical at all. Back in the early part of the 1900's there was this brand new, revolutionary recording technology... roll film...and Leica embraced it and ran with it. And contributed enormously to its success, obviously. I see no reason why Leica couldn't similarly embrace new technology while maintaining strong ties to its past. But IMHO Leica needs to think much further out of the [velvet] box than they have been. They need a Steven Jobs-like vision.

How far out of the box does Leica need to be thinking? I would say waaay out of the box. Just awkwardly shoving new technology into a traditional concept is not going to lift them out of a very small niche. Yes I realize that there are traditionalists who want to shoot the same they've been shooting for the last century, fine, I do that as well. These people (and I) need to realize that there is tradition and then there is corporate survival. I want Leica to stay alive. They can sell horses but they need to sell cars too.

My own predictions of what lies ahead: well first of all, I think the viewfinder concept has to go and will go within a decade. With it, the SLR concept will also vanish. There are already high res LCD screens that are far better than what is one the market now, which make high-def look quite poor. At some point, people will realize that these displays will achieve "transparency" in the sense that the photographer will be as comfortable looking at them as looking at the scene. Sound like sci fi but it is doable. Obviously, with that prospect comes a lot of new options that will not be of interest to RF traditionalists, but which will radically change the way photography is done at all levels. Above all, the SLR concept will completely disappear and be replaced by a more compact, less mechanical, rangefinder-like style.

That is my prediction, and I think it is ~10 years away. And yes, people will still happily be shooting manual focus M3s in ten years, good for them! But Leica cannot survive on camera technology that was introduced and refined in the last century; they will go down like a lead brick in shallow water if they don't realize this now.

I am in the business of working on optical/sensor/electronic technologies that are many decades out, and I tell you, the digital field is in its early infancy. Stay tuned. Camera companies that settle on any particular status quo will be driven out of the market very quickly.
 
Olsen said:
The new Mustang is 'modern'? Don't you have modern cars over there? It has a stiff rear axle! It is a simple pick-up with a fastback design. It's an old fashioned car made at a factory with 70'-80' technology. In 2010 it will not meet EU emision standards...
Click to expand...

By stiff rear axle, I think you mean a limited slip differential, which provides drive to both rear tires by locking the axle, which is a good thing for drag racing, which is a good feature for mustang owners, i gather. But I don't really know a lot about car mechanics, the plant where Ford builds mustangs nor it's emission levels.

The point of the analogy wasn't the virtues of the new mustang.
 
Back in the early part of the 1900's there was this brand new, revolutionary recording technology... roll film...and Leica embraced it and ran with it.
Click to expand...

And they need to do the same today!

The spirit of the Barnack Leica has to be embraced while letting go of its physical form if Leica is to survive. I'd like to have a digital M-mount body to give a platform for the 80 year's worth of lenses that are out there. But the rangefinder could go; the shape could go; all that is holy and sacred to the Leica faithful can go.

All the interest in cameras like the Ricoh GR-D and the new Sigma show there's a market out there for a good-quality digital camera that's NOT an SLR.

I didn't know I wanted an i-Mac until I saw the thing; I'd buy a camera that made me react the same way no matter who makes it.
 
sitemistic said:
I think he has nailed it. Rangefinder cameras are at the end of a long run. Leica has no future producing them.
Click to expand...
On a personal note, I came to this same conclusion in 1968 when I 'traded up' my Minolta Himatic 7 for a Pentax SLR. With a few notable exceptions, photojournalists were abandoning RF's for SLR's and all the photographers I chummed with were buzzed by SLR possibilities. I figured that, except for a few people who simply liked them, or enjoyed Leicas for their beautiful build, you only used a rangefinder if you couldn't use something better.

Of course I've changed my mind on that. We all have our callow youth. But I still think that period, starting with the Nikon F, marked the beginning of the end of popularity for the RF, except for specialized use, or within a subculture. The digital revolution is simply completing the process.

I'd love to have an affordable DRF. I simply can't see how it's economically viable for a company to successfully market a DRF when the concept of RF is so limited to most photographers. Is there a large enough niche market? I'm a doubter. If I'm proven wrong, please serve me crow-au-vin, then sign me up for one, if I can afford it.

Gene
 
sitemistic said:
Oh, there are a lot of used RF's out there and I think a lot of us will be using RF's for a long time. But that will not help makers of new rangefinders survive.
Click to expand...


rangefinders are and always have been a specialty camera, appealing to a rabid few who will accept their limitations to achieve the incredible images (seen in the M series lenses). I disagree that the RF is dead- the same comment was made in the 1970's when SLR's made their debut. It has been cooking along ever since. Some of the contributors of this thread are obviously SLR advocates, and are best served by staying in that camp. The prior comment about Leica M's not selling is more related to their high price, and the high price of Leica glass, more than a statement of the genre itself. Now with lower priced excellent lenses available (Zeiss and Voigt), others are buying the M8. The M8 has caused Leica glass sales to skyrocket, as seen by the "sold out" seen at B&H for the lenses. You are entitled to your oipinion about the death of RF, I don't agree.
 
I sensed deja-vu recently.

I rather see Leica company die before they consider AF for M bodies and AF M-mount lenses. nooo

I don't think I'd suffer much myself if Leica company goes away. I see M3 as camera which cannot improved better more. Especially ergonomics. I guess I need buy all Leitz lenses I need to try so I don't worry anymore about Leica or anything. Digital and SLR don't appeal anything ever at smallest. Fuji F30 is better way to go for my photography if I want some play with digital.

If Leica want to sell some cameras, they could consider a cheaper low end R camera with aps sensor from Panasonic. We know a lot people prefer automatic things.So sell some plastic crap with brand name for them and let real photographers continue using antic M cameras.

I would be more glad if Leica turned out to only lens manufacter like CV and Zeiss (with some exceptions for film bodies) if the competition with other players is too hard for selling bodies. Then after fifty years I can remember how Leica lived and can continue use lenses as usual.

No worries :angel:
 
By stiff rear axle, I think you mean a limited slip differential, which provides drive to both rear tires by locking the axle,
Click to expand...

No, he meant a "solid rear axle" which means that both rear wheels are connected to the same axle. When one wheel moves, so does the other. A solid rear axle makes for a good drag racer, but a lousy road car on all but the smoothest pavement.
 
kevin m said:
No, he meant a "solid rear axle" which means that both rear wheels are connected to the same axle. When one wheel moves, so does the other. A solid rear axle makes for a good drag racer, but a lousy road car on all but the smoothest pavement.
Click to expand...

I sold my last car with 'solid rear axle' in 1983, a 1978 model Opel. Have never had it since. They are uncomfortable and dangerous in certain situations.
 
You are entitled to your oipinion about the death of RF, I don't agree.
Click to expand...

Well, some people still think global warming is a myth, so there you go... :D

This site is full of diehard, true-believer enthusiasts, and that's great, but it doesn't mean much in the big scheme of things. Here's the crucial bit of info that makes all the difference: there is almost zero pro use of the M8. There was a small, but influential group of M-body users in the film days, but that's no longer true. Even among the pros who own one, the M8 is largely a 'hobby' camera; one they pick up for their own use, or to accompany the Canikon cameras that earn their livings.

Leica has no future unless they embrace digital and make innovative products that fill consumer needs. As others have said, if you want the "rangefinder experience" you can get that with a $500 M2 just as readily as a $3,000 MP or a $5,000 M8.
 
I sold my last car with 'solid rear axle' in 1983, a 1978 model Opel. Have never had it since. They are uncomfortable and dangerous in certain situations.
Click to expand...

The Mustang is still using some chassis architecture from the 1979 model. Which is a shame because their OHC V8's are beauties. The engines rival BMW and Mercedes, too bad the chassis is stuck in the 1970's... :bang:
 
I don't imagine Mustang GT or Shelby having solid rear axle.

I cannot believe that also cheapest modern Mustangs has such axles. If it is true, then I don't know what to say.. probably of chock
 
are we talking about the demise of leica or the demise of rangefinder cameras?

i don't see them as being the same thing.
 
kevin m said:
No, he meant a "solid rear axle" which means that both rear wheels are connected to the same axle. When one wheel moves, so does the other. A solid rear axle makes for a good drag racer, but a lousy road car on all but the smoothest pavement.
Click to expand...

Boy this is off topic ! But are the new mustangs sold with solid rear axles and not limited slip differentials ? And, would some people not find having a solid rear axle desirable ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom