slm
Formerly nextreme
sitemistic said:
Do you think Canon sells ~250,000 units of 1Ds a year ?
kshapero
South Florida Man
I like reading Erwin Puts for amusement purposes mostly. Witness the renaissance of RF's of late. CV, Zeiss, even Leica. They have prophesied the death of Saab for years, but I still drive them. These things are Always a niche and always a risk. A life I choose.
Tuolumne
Veteran
It makes it kind of hard to invest in new technology with such a small base to amortize against, especially if there are no other products that can use it. I think a full-frame M9 is a pipe dream against such a small number, especially since the higher selling price will probably mean even fewer units sold.sitemistic said:
Leica needs to completely re-think the RF ideal in the new digital world. Probably something like a well made (all metal body) small camera, all manual (intuitive controls), with an auto-focus VR capability while maintaining truly easy manual focus, and an all-electronic razor sharp LCD display, possibly with a heads-up display option. And an entirely new line of traditionally high quality, fast prime lenses.
This applies to dSLRs, too. an SLR isn't a mirror reflex box - that's just how it's implemented in an all mechanical world. A dSLR is a WYSIWYG interface - something every P&S digital camera has today. The so-called "real" dSLRs are actually hide-bound antiques in the new electronic world.
/T
P.S. And consider this: A display for manual focus that indicates continuously how close in or out of focus you are, as you approach the optimal focus point, while also displaying graphically the depth of field available at the currrent f-stop.
P.P.S. And who gives a fig about where it is made? It's time to put those German forest Eleves out to retire anyway.
P.P.P.S And an ecelctronic level to use for true horizontal with those wide angle lenses.
P.P.P.P.S. And a GPS option for real 21st century use.
Last edited:
dazedgonebye
Veteran
CameraQuest said:
I think that's an encouraging number.
How many would they sell at half the price?
jarski
Veteran
I thought about it. I think its good number for a camera in that price range, for a such small company. and what you think ?sitemistic said:
Last edited:
slm
Formerly nextreme
sitemistic said:
Actually, I re-phrase that. Do you think there are ~250K units of flagship cameras dslr's sold per year ? I guess that would mean Nikon + Canon.
I ask, cause if I take my estimate of 3-4% of buyers of mid range dslr would buy digital RF's and apply that to high end cameras, that would be about 250K units sold per year.
dazedgonebye
Veteran
sitemistic said:None. They would be out of business.
If they insist on building it in Germany and will not compromise on the "flagship" build...then yes.
Olsen
Well-known
tomasis said:
They have. I have even test driven one.
Tuolumne
Veteran
sitemistic said:
Numbers are always good to have, and according to Erwin, Leica's are down significantly. Not good after two years of all new product introductions. Heads will roll in that environment. After all, it isn't going to get better from here.
/T
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
Erwin's grammatically-challenged musings aren't the gospel for me. He may be knowledgeable on some things, but he speaks the truth about anything as much as Dr. Phil on the topic of Treasury Bond exchange (making him the "authority" on something doesn't by osmosis make him the authority on the other)Ken Ford said:
jarski
Veteran
sitemistic said:
ahem.. so, while waiting steam roller of Canon..my plan is to buy sharp razor just in case. in a mean time, there is nice Summarit I've been looking after in eBay (no, I dont paste the ID here
).
sitemistic said:None. They would be out of business.
Not necessarily, that's kinda the point of this thread.
A bigger number than 14k would result in lower costs, even if it were still made in Germany.
Nikon is making camera bodies in Thailand and lenses in China to get the costs down. There is no reason that Leica can't do the same thing.
If the M8 were $2000, something tells me the 14,000 figure would be significantly higher.
If I were writing the business plan, assuming the development funds were available, I'd set the goals as follows:
-- off-shore production
-- modern composite body construction (cheaper, lighter)
-- image quality and price target of the D300 ($1800)
-- 4/3 lens mount so as not to have to spend huge amounts (initially) on autofocus lens development
kevin m
Veteran
Well, it's true. 500hp and a solid rear axle.
To give Ford some credit, they DID put an independent rear suspension on one of their high powered Mustangs in the 1990's. but many buyers put an aftermarket solid rear axle back in. :bang:
A solid rear axle and a limited slip axle aren't the same thing, BTW. A limited slip refers to the differential unit and not the suspension.
Uncle Bill
Well-known
I would not kill the M7/MP there is just too much mystique tied into that platform, besides the tooling has paid for itself ages ago. I would keep it around as a legacy platform.
I think Leica made a huge mistake by putting all it's R&D Euros on the M8 I would have developed a digital R10 DSLR and make it so current R lenses can be used. I would then also make Leica branded lenses lenses in EOS, K Mount Nikkor F mount and Olympus 4/3 mount.
Leica is already selling re-engineered Panasonic products and I think it's a hard proposition because they look too much like Panasonic products. The real problem is they do not have the R&D budget like Canon, Nikon, Pentax and Olympus. The other fact you are manufacturing product in Germany, a high cost juristiction does not help plus with the US dollar down the toilet for the forseeable future, their biggest market can't afford the product. Re-open the plant in Midland Ontario perhaps?
I think Leica made a huge mistake by putting all it's R&D Euros on the M8 I would have developed a digital R10 DSLR and make it so current R lenses can be used. I would then also make Leica branded lenses lenses in EOS, K Mount Nikkor F mount and Olympus 4/3 mount.
Leica is already selling re-engineered Panasonic products and I think it's a hard proposition because they look too much like Panasonic products. The real problem is they do not have the R&D budget like Canon, Nikon, Pentax and Olympus. The other fact you are manufacturing product in Germany, a high cost juristiction does not help plus with the US dollar down the toilet for the forseeable future, their biggest market can't afford the product. Re-open the plant in Midland Ontario perhaps?
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
What makes me nervous about businesses' temptation of the "cheap China" dogma is that it's such a Wild West of Industry that many things that are made there don't last.digitalintrigue said:
While many would think that digital cameras are "disposable", some companies don't think of their products that way. It's not cheap to make things right and well, which is a number of notches above "good enough".
How many people buy cheap D300s?
sitemistic said:
dazedgonebye
Veteran
sitemistic said:
Does every ship have to be a flagship?
Build a Leica equivalent of an RD-2 with a few improvements and the current 1.3 crop sensor. Then, when you can, build a digital M9 with a full frame sensor and no compromise quality.
Olsen
Well-known
sitemistic said:
It is indeed the pro 1D-cameras that makes the day for Canon - that earns close to 70% of the operating profit of the whole camera business. - Look up their annual report statements. One profit driver is the many photographers migrating from other brands and buying lenses, flashes etc. Canon's camera division is more than twice the size of Nikon's and is 6 times as profitable.
If you look around in the camera industry it is Canon that is the real economical winner .
keithwms
Established
If I may be so bold... I think that some here are applying the logic that if Leica could produce a high-end film camera, and people would buy it at high cost because of its reputation and capabilities, then Leica must therefore be able to do the same in the digital sector.
I am afraid that this logic is completely wrong, and it goes ot the core of why some people like me -who actually like digital and film too- resent what the digital arms race has done to the camera marketplace. On the digital side, the upfront research / fab / tooling costs are enormous; they dwarf the research costs that used to go into bringing out a new film body. The sensor research alone is such an enormous undertaking that only a few companies like Sony can front that kind of capital. Defect tolerance has to be extremely high on these sensors, the architecture is very unforgiving.
If you break down the cost of the components in the M8, I will bet that the sensor eats up most of the profit. A sale of 14000 cameras is a colossal flop, sorry but it is so. At the very best you are looking at $50m raw profit from sales, but then subtract research costs and the expense of setting up the fabrication / tooling and then marketing... I wouldn't be surprised if the M8 was a net drain on the company. I am truly sorry to say it, but 14000 is a shockingly small number. If these were film cameras then they could eke out a profit from that (e.g. look at Cosina), but digital doesn't work that way.
Just imagine how much more expensive it would have been for Leica to bring out their first M-series RFs if they had to pay for all the film research that Kodak did when bringing out roll film! Kodak was a BIG company with massive quantities of cash to spend, that's why they could support groundbreaking research and push out new products.
I am afraid that this logic is completely wrong, and it goes ot the core of why some people like me -who actually like digital and film too- resent what the digital arms race has done to the camera marketplace. On the digital side, the upfront research / fab / tooling costs are enormous; they dwarf the research costs that used to go into bringing out a new film body. The sensor research alone is such an enormous undertaking that only a few companies like Sony can front that kind of capital. Defect tolerance has to be extremely high on these sensors, the architecture is very unforgiving.
If you break down the cost of the components in the M8, I will bet that the sensor eats up most of the profit. A sale of 14000 cameras is a colossal flop, sorry but it is so. At the very best you are looking at $50m raw profit from sales, but then subtract research costs and the expense of setting up the fabrication / tooling and then marketing... I wouldn't be surprised if the M8 was a net drain on the company. I am truly sorry to say it, but 14000 is a shockingly small number. If these were film cameras then they could eke out a profit from that (e.g. look at Cosina), but digital doesn't work that way.
Just imagine how much more expensive it would have been for Leica to bring out their first M-series RFs if they had to pay for all the film research that Kodak did when bringing out roll film! Kodak was a BIG company with massive quantities of cash to spend, that's why they could support groundbreaking research and push out new products.
slm
Formerly nextreme
sitemistic, i'm curious, out of the total market of flagship model cameras (Nikon + Canon) what do you think 7000 units represents ?