infrequent
Well-known
canon? don't they make copy machines?!
joachim
Convicted Ektachome user
Ade-oh said:
If Leica had offered these lenses in 2000, I am sure they would have sold. Cosina ate that lunch. Now in 2008 most people want digital at a price they can afford and no-one is offering a digital body these lenses are needed for - why buy these lenses
Tuolumne
Veteran
joachim said:If Leica had offered these lenses in 2000, I am sure they would have sold. Cosina ate that lunch. Now in 2008 most people want digital at a price they can afford and no-one is offering a digital body these lenses are needed for - why buy these lenses
I put them on my R-D1.
/T
V
varjag
Guest
Oh please. The assumption here is that Leica should outdo Canon or at least Nikon, like it was some self-justifying goal and criteria for camera perfection.
You all seem to want a camera with AF, plastics, high FPS and short lifecycle. Well then you have them already: stick to your DSLRs, and be proud of it.
You all seem to want a camera with AF, plastics, high FPS and short lifecycle. Well then you have them already: stick to your DSLRs, and be proud of it.
Tom A
RFF Sponsor
The glory days of rangefinder shooting were over in the 60's. There are still shooters who use them, but they are far and few between. What we have now are "amateaurs" who are using the rangefinder because they like it , not for commercial work. Film is not dead , but it is on a bit of life support!
Leicas main problem is that they have always been a historically important camera - it was the true first commercially succesful rangefinder (and yes, Contax was a close 2nd for a while). This created a demand that is still there - the collectors, hoarding small boxes filled with either obscure accessories or mintish cameras. This is also a reason why there is a substantial amount of these cameras left in functioning form. This also means that for an aspiring photographers who want to go retro - there are good, functioning cameras around at 1/2 or 1/4 price of a new Leica film camera. There is also a support network with service and parts to keep these artifacts operating long beyond a "normal" lifespan. The older Leica M's are well built and there is rarely a problem with them, so how do you convince the guy who bought his M3/M2 in the 50's to change for something that is marginally better and considerably more $ (even though he probably paid the eqivalent amount in 1957).
As for lenses. any M-lens from 1954 on does a credible job, sometimes it enhances the "retro" look but sometimes it is pretty close to the latest offerings. Why change?
For just about anything, digital is a good solution. You want to take pictures and either print or look at them on a screen. Digital is better. You shoot color - digital allows you far more leeway in correcting. Even monochrome images can be done with half decent quality!
However, there is a new wave of photographers emerging, usually digitally very savy, but also bored with a medium that is very much "hands off". You are not taking pictures- you allow the camera to perform a multitask operation and get good pictures (provided you have plowed through the 440 pages manual). These shooters want something that is "fun" and different. What interest me is that these shooters are interested in bl/w. It might be the "magic" of seeing a print coming up in the developer or holding a strip of film in their hand and looking at these reversed images.
The problem is that these are shooters who are doing digital photography for a fee. The rangefinder is for enjoyment and occasionally for a historical interest. They cant justify a $4000 body and $10 000 for a couple of lenses, however good these pieces are. They buy used or they go to CV or Zeiss for their lenses.
Mr Kobayashi very much revitalized this market 10 years ago. He produced a wide range of cameras and lenses that could be justified. Both his cameras and the lenses are selling well, not huge amounts but certainly not in dribs and drabs either. He has also recognized the "gear head" among us. Keep making new and interesting lenses and bodies at prices that we can afford and we will buy them. In less than 10 year he has produced lenses from 12/f 5.6 to 90/3,5 - he hasen't hit the 1mm between each lens, but he is pretty close! Zeiss followed suit with more expensive but still affordable premium optics and a great balance between price and performance. Leica kept shuffling their feet and came up with the F4 WATE for $5000!
Leica needs to a/do some house cleaning and reinvent itself. Yes the M8 answered the call for a camera that would have been a dream for many -IF it had been priced right. It also is a camera that was pushed out too fast - there were basic things with it that should have been fixed at production - not as a warranty repair.
B/ Leica needs to look at what the rest of the world is doing. The market for film based rangefinders is small, in fact it is miniscule - but it is there! Yes. a new expensive large sensor M9 would be a feather in the cap for Leica, but I think that the cost of developing it would obviate any profits made from it.
Will Leica survive - most likely as Dr Kaufmann seems determined to make a go of it, but it will require a new, improved and buyer attractive product line and they are going to have to deal with competition and recoginize that their day as the sole "premium rangefinder builder" are over.
Cameras like the Zi with its brillant rangefinder, the Bessa R4M with its 21/25/28 finder, lenses like the 35/1,2, 21/4,5 ZM and the new 35/1,4 SC shows that there is a market out there, but it is also a smart group of buyer. Why pay 5-6 times more for something that might be equal to what the other guy is selling!
Yes. Leica has made two absolute stunning lenses in the last decade - the 50f1.4 Asph and the 75f2 Summicron and it will not be easy to improve upon these two, but for the rest of the line-up, I rather spend less and get more from the other guys and a $4000 MP is not in my books. I have enough M's to last several lifetimes and if I spend money on a Leica product again - it will have to have one hell of a WOW factor to go with it (and that does not include a 50mm f0.9 lens either).
Long live M2's
Tom
Leicas main problem is that they have always been a historically important camera - it was the true first commercially succesful rangefinder (and yes, Contax was a close 2nd for a while). This created a demand that is still there - the collectors, hoarding small boxes filled with either obscure accessories or mintish cameras. This is also a reason why there is a substantial amount of these cameras left in functioning form. This also means that for an aspiring photographers who want to go retro - there are good, functioning cameras around at 1/2 or 1/4 price of a new Leica film camera. There is also a support network with service and parts to keep these artifacts operating long beyond a "normal" lifespan. The older Leica M's are well built and there is rarely a problem with them, so how do you convince the guy who bought his M3/M2 in the 50's to change for something that is marginally better and considerably more $ (even though he probably paid the eqivalent amount in 1957).
As for lenses. any M-lens from 1954 on does a credible job, sometimes it enhances the "retro" look but sometimes it is pretty close to the latest offerings. Why change?
For just about anything, digital is a good solution. You want to take pictures and either print or look at them on a screen. Digital is better. You shoot color - digital allows you far more leeway in correcting. Even monochrome images can be done with half decent quality!
However, there is a new wave of photographers emerging, usually digitally very savy, but also bored with a medium that is very much "hands off". You are not taking pictures- you allow the camera to perform a multitask operation and get good pictures (provided you have plowed through the 440 pages manual). These shooters want something that is "fun" and different. What interest me is that these shooters are interested in bl/w. It might be the "magic" of seeing a print coming up in the developer or holding a strip of film in their hand and looking at these reversed images.
The problem is that these are shooters who are doing digital photography for a fee. The rangefinder is for enjoyment and occasionally for a historical interest. They cant justify a $4000 body and $10 000 for a couple of lenses, however good these pieces are. They buy used or they go to CV or Zeiss for their lenses.
Mr Kobayashi very much revitalized this market 10 years ago. He produced a wide range of cameras and lenses that could be justified. Both his cameras and the lenses are selling well, not huge amounts but certainly not in dribs and drabs either. He has also recognized the "gear head" among us. Keep making new and interesting lenses and bodies at prices that we can afford and we will buy them. In less than 10 year he has produced lenses from 12/f 5.6 to 90/3,5 - he hasen't hit the 1mm between each lens, but he is pretty close! Zeiss followed suit with more expensive but still affordable premium optics and a great balance between price and performance. Leica kept shuffling their feet and came up with the F4 WATE for $5000!
Leica needs to a/do some house cleaning and reinvent itself. Yes the M8 answered the call for a camera that would have been a dream for many -IF it had been priced right. It also is a camera that was pushed out too fast - there were basic things with it that should have been fixed at production - not as a warranty repair.
B/ Leica needs to look at what the rest of the world is doing. The market for film based rangefinders is small, in fact it is miniscule - but it is there! Yes. a new expensive large sensor M9 would be a feather in the cap for Leica, but I think that the cost of developing it would obviate any profits made from it.
Will Leica survive - most likely as Dr Kaufmann seems determined to make a go of it, but it will require a new, improved and buyer attractive product line and they are going to have to deal with competition and recoginize that their day as the sole "premium rangefinder builder" are over.
Cameras like the Zi with its brillant rangefinder, the Bessa R4M with its 21/25/28 finder, lenses like the 35/1,2, 21/4,5 ZM and the new 35/1,4 SC shows that there is a market out there, but it is also a smart group of buyer. Why pay 5-6 times more for something that might be equal to what the other guy is selling!
Yes. Leica has made two absolute stunning lenses in the last decade - the 50f1.4 Asph and the 75f2 Summicron and it will not be easy to improve upon these two, but for the rest of the line-up, I rather spend less and get more from the other guys and a $4000 MP is not in my books. I have enough M's to last several lifetimes and if I spend money on a Leica product again - it will have to have one hell of a WOW factor to go with it (and that does not include a 50mm f0.9 lens either).
Long live M2's
Tom
chikne
Well-known
digitalintrigue said:
Oh my!!! What a horrible and repugnant thing to say.
kshapero
South Florida Man
There are alot of people on this thread who have way too much time on their hands. present company included.
Very well said, as usual, Tom.
And therein lies the issue...there just aren't enough buyers for new Leica glass, when there is plenty of inventory of used, and an economical alternative like CV, and a middle-price line by Zeiss.
They have no choice but to get the manufacturing costs down significantly. This may be repugnant to some, but this is about survival. (How about building in North America? At least they'd be on the other side of the currency exchange problem.)
What would make people buy new Leica glass? They'd first have to re-invent the rangefinder (miracle number one) and they'd have to have a new line of autofocus lenses at reasonable prices (miracle number two.)
Will Kaufmann open his check book, or will he simply decide it can't be done and get value for the name and whatever IP?
And therein lies the issue...there just aren't enough buyers for new Leica glass, when there is plenty of inventory of used, and an economical alternative like CV, and a middle-price line by Zeiss.
They have no choice but to get the manufacturing costs down significantly. This may be repugnant to some, but this is about survival. (How about building in North America? At least they'd be on the other side of the currency exchange problem.)
What would make people buy new Leica glass? They'd first have to re-invent the rangefinder (miracle number one) and they'd have to have a new line of autofocus lenses at reasonable prices (miracle number two.)
Will Kaufmann open his check book, or will he simply decide it can't be done and get value for the name and whatever IP?
Last edited by a moderator:
BillBingham2
Registered User
Leica's key lies in focusing on what they do best and stop trying to be like everyone else. What they do best is glass, follow that with a real digital M.
> Bring out a wide range of Leica glass in Nikon, Canon and 4/3s mounts. Keep it manual focus to reduce the cost of retooling. Do not go autofocus, it is not a strength right now.
> Kill the R body line but keep parts around.
>Make a digital M with five controls on it. Shutter Speed Dial, Shutter Release, ISO Dial, On/Off and JPG or RAW/JPG. Have a meter like say the M6ttl and make the body strong. Bring out finders that challenge Pres K, ZI and Nikon. Forget the rest of the electronics, do the rest on a PC or a Mac. Make the camera simple and elegant to use but last 10 years of real heavy use. You can price this camera at $2500 because people will buy it. The M8 does too much in camera making it way to fancy and hard to produce. Match the output of your sensor to real film.
The M8 is trying to fight the DSLR solutions on their own playing field (features that could be done on a PC/Mac) and loosing. Move the fight if you want to win. Simple and elegant is a fight the others are not ready for. Nikon could fight it, but Canon will not, they are too mass market focused. Let Nikon fight it, there is enough market. Tom is right, the rangefinder's day was long ago. The Nikon F trounced it for many reasons. BUT, that does not mean that there is no market for Elegant Simplicity. That my friends is why the M2 will live forever.
B2 (;->
> Bring out a wide range of Leica glass in Nikon, Canon and 4/3s mounts. Keep it manual focus to reduce the cost of retooling. Do not go autofocus, it is not a strength right now.
> Kill the R body line but keep parts around.
>Make a digital M with five controls on it. Shutter Speed Dial, Shutter Release, ISO Dial, On/Off and JPG or RAW/JPG. Have a meter like say the M6ttl and make the body strong. Bring out finders that challenge Pres K, ZI and Nikon. Forget the rest of the electronics, do the rest on a PC or a Mac. Make the camera simple and elegant to use but last 10 years of real heavy use. You can price this camera at $2500 because people will buy it. The M8 does too much in camera making it way to fancy and hard to produce. Match the output of your sensor to real film.
The M8 is trying to fight the DSLR solutions on their own playing field (features that could be done on a PC/Mac) and loosing. Move the fight if you want to win. Simple and elegant is a fight the others are not ready for. Nikon could fight it, but Canon will not, they are too mass market focused. Let Nikon fight it, there is enough market. Tom is right, the rangefinder's day was long ago. The Nikon F trounced it for many reasons. BUT, that does not mean that there is no market for Elegant Simplicity. That my friends is why the M2 will live forever.
B2 (;->
Tuolumne
Veteran
BillBingham2 said:
I like the simplicity, but it really must have an LCD. Chimping is one of the main advantages of digital. I know there are a few people here who think otherwise, but there are so few that you would just kill off a good idea with a bad implementation.
/T
Tom A
RFF Sponsor
I should add that part of Leicas problem was that their cameras were simply too well built. They did fix that problem with the M8!
chikne
Well-known
jbf said:
1337 H8xx0r
larmarv916
Well-known
Let's talk about other major issue that Leica seems to have totally missed the boat on.....supporting the creative passion of it's customer base. Now Iam not talking about a few hand chosen "pro's" that the editors or art directors of Leica own publications including the failed "Leia World". There are 2 or 3 groups of people who ascribe to dramaticly different assement of Leica's problems.
But a common thread is that Leica has not really embraced the common average users creative enjoyment that produces "prints" per say. I spent several hours talking to Leica staff on several levels and much of the frustration that "they" the workers in the marketing & sales seem to represnt is that to much of Leica marketing is controlled by or directed by the Advertising Agencies outside Leica.
Large amounts of money clearly appeared to have been wasted on preaching to the Leica "Chior" and not on attracting new converts, regardless of what level Digital or Film. If my memory is correct Chiat & Day most recently came up with another wasted advertsing concept. The Leica magazines got almost no distribution and yet they are on every news stand in germany. A marketwhere Leica is failing badly.
Yet to hear marketing people in Solms talk the major focus is on the North American market ??? These same people when confronted with how do they account for why every program they launch fails to reverse the declining trend.
Just are not sure. Iam not going to put out the names of people I talked to in September 07. But the internal production people are really making every cost saving effort and really embrassed by the M8 problems.
I watched as they repriced unsold inverntory that would be shipping the USA and listened to the explaination of how even with repricing they were losing profit margin.
Inside any company there are accounting games that get played but at the end of the day......if you are not selling enough units. Your losing money.
Back to the Lack of Customer interest.
Leica should have and still needs to demonstrate to prospective buyers that anyone can produce better images and enjoy a more rewarding life long relationship.
Leica's idea to make "bling" cameras at the behest of Hermes was a disaster.
Also that Leica will support the growth and development of it's customers similar to how APPLE has recreated it's customer interaction. The only bright spots on the retail front for Leica are at the new concept Berlin and Tokyo stores.
I personally suggested that they go to ALL direct or company owned stores like APPLE. More service and training seminars and also they could actually drop sales prices......and still keep the current profit margin that they factory has when it ships. As the dealer mark up has never benefited Leica's bottom line.
If you do not think that having the factory go to direct sales like Apple,,,you only need to look at what a success one our friends in the automotive industry is gaining. Ferrari began this program when the dealers were not getting the job done and has stronger sales and also much better customer confidence.
Yes Leica needs to keep developing new products but better interaction and support of clients also gives people a way to allow "prospects" to get a hands on apperciation of Leica and know that it is just not a "good luck charlie" mass market relationship.
Sadly there is a glass wall between the internal staff , workers and the "Alpha" class members of Leica's management. The top tier do not want to have any data or information or discussion that does not agree with the iscolated view of the world....a Commom problem in many compaines , but very typical of OLD EUROPE business people.
Best Regards to ALL......Laurance
But a common thread is that Leica has not really embraced the common average users creative enjoyment that produces "prints" per say. I spent several hours talking to Leica staff on several levels and much of the frustration that "they" the workers in the marketing & sales seem to represnt is that to much of Leica marketing is controlled by or directed by the Advertising Agencies outside Leica.
Large amounts of money clearly appeared to have been wasted on preaching to the Leica "Chior" and not on attracting new converts, regardless of what level Digital or Film. If my memory is correct Chiat & Day most recently came up with another wasted advertsing concept. The Leica magazines got almost no distribution and yet they are on every news stand in germany. A marketwhere Leica is failing badly.
Yet to hear marketing people in Solms talk the major focus is on the North American market ??? These same people when confronted with how do they account for why every program they launch fails to reverse the declining trend.
Just are not sure. Iam not going to put out the names of people I talked to in September 07. But the internal production people are really making every cost saving effort and really embrassed by the M8 problems.
I watched as they repriced unsold inverntory that would be shipping the USA and listened to the explaination of how even with repricing they were losing profit margin.
Inside any company there are accounting games that get played but at the end of the day......if you are not selling enough units. Your losing money.
Back to the Lack of Customer interest.
Leica should have and still needs to demonstrate to prospective buyers that anyone can produce better images and enjoy a more rewarding life long relationship.
Leica's idea to make "bling" cameras at the behest of Hermes was a disaster.
Also that Leica will support the growth and development of it's customers similar to how APPLE has recreated it's customer interaction. The only bright spots on the retail front for Leica are at the new concept Berlin and Tokyo stores.
I personally suggested that they go to ALL direct or company owned stores like APPLE. More service and training seminars and also they could actually drop sales prices......and still keep the current profit margin that they factory has when it ships. As the dealer mark up has never benefited Leica's bottom line.
If you do not think that having the factory go to direct sales like Apple,,,you only need to look at what a success one our friends in the automotive industry is gaining. Ferrari began this program when the dealers were not getting the job done and has stronger sales and also much better customer confidence.
Yes Leica needs to keep developing new products but better interaction and support of clients also gives people a way to allow "prospects" to get a hands on apperciation of Leica and know that it is just not a "good luck charlie" mass market relationship.
Sadly there is a glass wall between the internal staff , workers and the "Alpha" class members of Leica's management. The top tier do not want to have any data or information or discussion that does not agree with the iscolated view of the world....a Commom problem in many compaines , but very typical of OLD EUROPE business people.
Best Regards to ALL......Laurance
kipkeston
Well-known
Cool. I just stopped by. I read Tom's big post. His description was exactly accurate for me. I'm 23, tired of the dslr, read the new yorker, wanted something new, fell in love with b/w, couldn't see why I'd spend cash on new leica when the m6 and Zi are readily available. Anything new from leica is completely inconceivable for me considering the options.
Olsen
Well-known
giellaleafapmu said:
....which cameras w/optics at half the price of the M8 produces 'better pictures....?
My experience is that the M8/WATE combo is better (sharper) than Canon's 1Ds II/16-35 mm 2,8L II - two combos costing about the same.
1)
It is the experienced photographer, amateur or pro, that 'finds out' that the rangefinder system makes sharper pictures. This because AF does not and modern SLR cameras has not good enough focusing screens for exact manual focusing anymore.
2)
No camera system has such a wide range of 'excellent optics' as the Leica M system. Now that we all can click ourselves all the way to 100% in PS we are all optical experts with the tools to explore just this.
3)
The M8 is a very light, compact and descrete camera system compared to the 'real' competitors, of which most of them, can't produce the excellent results resolution-wise, anyway.
Sonnar2
Well-known
Look back 50 years. LEICA is making mainly the same products as they did then. So the main competitor of new Leicas are old Leicas, and this is their main problem.
What was making CANON and NIKON fifty years back, and what do they now? They recognized how the markets have changed, moreover, they drove the markets to change. And they have the funds to do so (money for R&D). LEICA rode the retro-wave since they started the M4-2 in the seventies. They did it to survive, whereas Nikon relaunched their S3/SP just for fun, tradition and marketing. Just to show it's still possible.
Will Leica will survive with the same strategy the next 50 years? No. If no radical change in products can be done, they will not survive for five years, because CV and Zeiss are also grazing on the "traditional" market niche. One of the less radical changes that needs to be done is ceasing production of film cameras.
With some rights it can be stated that the last real innovative product of Leica was the M3/M2. Perhaps Leica is the only company in the world who could survive 50 years without true innovation. At the price of bad shrinking...
-Frank-
What was making CANON and NIKON fifty years back, and what do they now? They recognized how the markets have changed, moreover, they drove the markets to change. And they have the funds to do so (money for R&D). LEICA rode the retro-wave since they started the M4-2 in the seventies. They did it to survive, whereas Nikon relaunched their S3/SP just for fun, tradition and marketing. Just to show it's still possible.
Will Leica will survive with the same strategy the next 50 years? No. If no radical change in products can be done, they will not survive for five years, because CV and Zeiss are also grazing on the "traditional" market niche. One of the less radical changes that needs to be done is ceasing production of film cameras.
With some rights it can be stated that the last real innovative product of Leica was the M3/M2. Perhaps Leica is the only company in the world who could survive 50 years without true innovation. At the price of bad shrinking...
-Frank-
Olsen
Well-known
Sonnar2 said:
Frank,
Look at the Canon 5D. Isnt that 'practically the same product' as the EF of 1970...?