Erwin on Leicas future

[back alley]

I just can't get into my Canon G9. I don't have a M8 to compare to, but in form it reminds me of my CL. The shutter lag and all the other stuff going on is just too much. Shooting the G9 is like trying to shoot skeet with a ping-pong gun, you have to be way ahead of any kind of action shot. That and it reall is, to me, a 6mp camera that gets upsized to 12mp. At anything beyond iso80 it is blurring everything.

Maybe two possible avenues. Fixed lens prime cameras, 35, 50, 90. Or real zooms for the M mount. Didn't some of the Canon RFs have variable zoom rangefinders?

try the grd in snap mode...no lag.

 

[splitimageview]

Well, there certainly a lot more than 'one or two Voigtlander' although most were thread mount.

They started with the 15mm, for about $350. What did Leica do? Nothing

Then it was the 12mm. What did Leica do? Nothing.

Then there were the 21, 25, multiple 28s, multiple 35s, 40, multiple 50s, 75....how many more are needed before it becomes a flood?

How many posts are there in the 35/1.4 Nokton thread? Over 550! How many threads are there, comparing Biogons to Summicrons?

You can't tell me people aren't attracted to a 35/1.4 for $559 when the equivalent Leica is 6 times as much...

Meanwhile, Leica can't seem to ship the 28/2.8 at all...but they do offer the WATE for what, 5 grand?

Finally, about 9 years after the first Cosina, they decide to respond with the Summarit line. And Lee gets canned for the flop.

Need I say more?

 

[Athos6]

Just to chime in, I'm in Leica's target audience, and I would never buy one when, for the price of one Leica and lens, I can get 4 or 5 Bessa's and Lenses over time, as they come out with new models or when one breaks down (or I break it ). Not even mentioning that when placed on a wall, my D200 will produce a picture as good as a M8. Basically, for what they bring to the table, I would only pay a slight premium over what I would pay to get a Leica. I think the Contax G2 was something I'd look into before the M8. IMO

 

[BillBingham2]

Fred,

Never buy a Sony computer for the same reason. They are very consumer oriented and sssslllllooooowwww!

emraphoto,

Please do not get me wrong, there are LOTS of stuff that right now is wrong with Leica. Some parts of the Leica service/sales group around the world are sub optimal. Service costs way too much, often takes way to long and has spotty quality.

I do not know if they have anything like NPS used to be, perhaps still is but Leica needs it. They need to support the folks who will plunk down globs of money for great stuff and make money with it. Some of the M8 upgrade was moving towards that.

B2 (;->

 

[Tom A]

For once Tom I'm going to have to disagree with you. The 24mm Elmarit is a totally outstanding lens, one of the best I own, anything but old or weird - and yes I own the 75mm Summicron.

As for the 15mm Voigtlander, it's great value for money, but don't ever pretend that's it's comparable in image quality terms to the 24 or 75mm Leica lenses.

Steve, I am not saying that the 21 or 24 are bad lenses, I had both of them for about 8 years. I never warmed to the 24 although it is a very sharp and contrasty lens and in my opinion better than the 21 Asph. What I am saying is that leica never took these lenses further. They are now "old" and some of the problems that has plaqued the Leica Asphericals are still there. Prone to flare, big and heavy and of course ludicriously expensive. Once I got the 21/25 ZM lenses i got rid of the Leica counterparts. No drop in quality and less "Out damn flare spot, out".
I have friends at Leica and we have talked about these things. They bemoan the slow process in adopting new technology, the design delays and the highly conservative attitude among the decision makers.
We should also remember that probably 70-75% of all Leica lens sales are used - the new sales are not that "hot". Lenses like the Noctilux sells in quantities of maybe 200-250/year and that ain't much sales.
The Zeiss and VC line of lenses is not huge by mass market sales standard, but they outsell Leica by a considerable volume. Some of the buyers of these lenses would have bought used Leica lenses, but for the same amount or even less money they get brand new, modern optics with the latest in glass and design.
Leica is a "luxury" brand and there will always be people who buy these products. It is the same for cars, watches, "vintage wines" etc. As long as the economy hums along all is fine, but if we are headed for a recession, this will affect it.
Leica has to recognize that the big market is in the used market and if they can tap into that with an effective service and refurbish of used items and the resell them. If I could get a rebuilt, warrantied M2 converted to black paint at the factory for $1700-1800 I would snap it up. If the Elmarit 21/2,8 with the scuffed front element could be revitalized for $ 200-250 It would go there.
The fact that it took them 4-5 month to ackowledge that my first 35/1,4 Asph had serious problem and even after they fixed it, it still was not a $2-2200 lens - it was barely a $200/ lens. In the end they gave me another one and though it flared less than the first one. I never trusted it and got rid of it.
Initially the Zeiss/CV/Konica were trying to catch up to Leica, both in volume and quality. The situation is now reversed and Leica is scrambling to hang in there!

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

The lesson is that a company selling consumer technology which fails to innovate is doomed to failure, however good their original product was.

So, Microsoft's days are numbered, eh? They haven't come up with an innovation since...well, the let's-buy-them-out-because-we-don't-have-the-brains-to-compete-from-scratch strategy.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

So to sum up the thread so far: Leica is not Canon and thus deserves to die.

Correction: Leica is not Nikon and thus deserves to die.

 

[Ade-oh]

So, Microsoft's days are numbered, eh? They haven't come up with an innovation since...well, the let's-buy-them-out-because-we-don't-have-the-brains-to-compete-from-scratch strategy.

Well let's see what happens to them in 50 years if they still haven't come up with anything new.

On a related note, why do people take these discussions about Leica so personally? Just because it's a failing company with a bad business model, doesn't mean the cameras aren't good or that people are stupid for buying them. I'm a Leica fan, but times change and business moves on and there's no special reason why Leica should survive if it can't or won't compete.

Oddly enough, having just done a quick mental tally, the only camera I own which is in current production - including my DSLR and p & s - is a Leica MP. Who'd a thunk it?

 

[Ronald_H]

This situation has been going on for decades now. Leica missed the boat in SLRs, auto-focus, and digital.

The M8 is a wonderful technical tour de force, but it will be obsolete in 2 years. If there are enough people out there who want to buy $$$ for sensor upgrades to keep Leice afloat is debatable.

Rebranding Panasonics, no matter how good they may be is not the solution. Going into the marketplace battling Canon and Nikon is not very likely either.

So what's left? Personally I think Leica must rethink EVERYTHING they do.

The camera I miss most in this day and age, is a compact with a low noise sensor and a decent (interchangable) lens. You simple cannot buy one anymore. The Fuji -31fd was a great compromise but has succumed to the megapixel race.

But the new kid on the block, the Sigma DP1? Now THAT's a promising camera. But Sigma is a niche player. Leica is too, but on another level.

Leica and Sigma should share the development of a DP1 based, APS-C sensored compact with interchangeable lenses. Not an SLR, not a rangefinder, no matter how much the purists will howl. A good screen with zoom functionality (Nikon D3/D300) and interchangable optical (zoom)finders will do the trick. What they shouldn't do is making a Sigma version and a much more expensive but no more capable Leica. What they COULD do is making a capable Sigma version (maybe with a fixed lens only), and a more capable Leica, with metal body, weatherproofing and the like. Style it like a Leica A if you must.

THAT would be a Leica for the new Millenium. Small, inobtrusive and capable of really good results, as Leica's are, but not f*cking expensive and obsolete. And for God's sake, manufacture it in such a way that you can price it sensibly. I was thinking about the prices you would pay for a mid range SLR and primes. If it says 'made in China' on the bottom, do you REALLY care? My Nikon D200 was made in Thailand after all.

That I would buy and I think that would sell. There isn't anything like that on the market right now.

 

[PJRiley]

I prefer to stay away from these type of threads, but I'll offer my opinion. I just received my beautiful M6TTL. It is in mint condition. I am a pro photographer by trade but, I've never handled anything like this camera.
That said, when I took the plunge and bought the M6, I also bought a Voightlander lens. Leica lenses will never be within my budget and I accepted that from the beginning. But, having heard all my shooting life that the lenses are more important than the camera body (in any format), I have often wondered how Leica has survived with the obscene price of their glass.
For me, RF photography is about stepping back from the 'get the shot right now' premise of digital (with all its wonders, for sure) and improving my 'craft' as a photographer. But, digital is here to stay, and Leica needs to realize it is what has made almost everyone on the planet take up 'photography.'
A footnote: My Leica arrived securely packed in a box, shipped from the US. The box had a huge bash in the side as if someone stomped on it. I opened it, dumped out the packing material and opened the Leica box. The plastic display box had a piece snapped off. I was certainly apprehensive, because pre-sale photos showed no damage to the box. I knew this was an in-tansit episode.
Took out the camera. Tested everything I could think of. Everything works.
God only knows what happened during shipping. But, the camera is fine.
That is Leica.

 

[Ade-oh]

My local dealer told me he makes £4.60 from each Eos 400d he sells. That's a pretty minscule mark up on a £400 camera. He told me he makes more on the memory card and a camera bag. I'm amazed there are any local camera shops in business

Me too, and it's a great shame. I'm lucky in that I live in central London, so it isn't too difficult to find the specialist dealers for Nikon and Leica and so on, but there's nowhere particularly close to me which sells a wide range of film or developing materials so I buy almost all of that stuff online.

 

[Ronald_H]

Ronald, digital Leicas are immune from becoming obsolete. Digilux 1's, with terrible image quality (IMHO), shutter lag into next week, noise reduction that turns photos into watercolor paintings and which take a week to write a raw file, still sell for over $300 on eBay. I suspect there will always be a market for the M8, and that they will likely still bring several thousand dollars each five years from now.

I probably underestimated the 'Leica mystique', although I'm fascinated by it. I should not fall into the 'generalize from self' trap. I would never buy an obsolete digital Leica. I would however buy a nice user M2 or M3... because I know the results will be as good or better than my last generation analogue SLR stuff... in the situations I find myself in.

Besides all that, I just want one. That I admit too

 

[giellaleafapmu]

I have a 5D and an M8. The M8 is the better camera IMHO.

Maybe, still I don't think there is really a clear difference for most real life use and a EOS 5D + 50mm lens costs 2100US$ + 310US$ = 2410US$, where a Leica M8 body only costs
5500 US$ and a Leitz lens is no cheaper than some 1500 US$ (I don't want to go check precisely but I guess 28mm lens goes for some 1600US$ and 35mm for just a tad less than 1500US$), for that difference in price one would expecty a bit more...

Also, I don't have the M8 (still I have seen pictures taken with the camera) but I heard a lot of different opinions from different people and all seem to agree that if a difference exists it is small (either way) and that both produce pictures which are already too good for most (all?) applications. Again not quite enough for a product which costs more than three times more than the EOS 5D.

I guess that similar analysis based on top of the line Nikons would be similar.

GLF

PS
Of course I like Leicas and I hope they will survive but a look to their strategy let me think otherwise.

 

[BillBingham2]

I sort of agree.....

I sort of agree.....

Erm, not to start a completely off-topic war, but MS have come up with plenty of innovations. Some of them very important to users - consider DirectX grahics for example.......

The IT industry is riddled with carcasses of great products that were innovative but were squashed by MS (e.g. Banyan Vines) in marketing that MS learned from IBM and took to a new level. DirectX pales in comparison to the graphics engine in Pink, the almost OS that never saw the light of day. Tablet PCs came from ideas started at Wang Labs and other places they have raided for patents. Do not confuse open source for access to some of the APIs. Microsoft is against open anything other than our pocket books.

MS has innovated something, in the same way Al G. created the Internet, MS has created the Open Source movement.

Just for the record, on my Intel MacMini I run the Mac OSX, Windows 2000 and XP and Linux. VMware Fusion ROCKS!

B2 (;->

 

[nemjo]

Hi there...

That semileica (to the left) brought me here to RFF.
I think it's still a good camera - and a pity, that both Panasonic and Leica abandoned that way. (The 4/3 L1/Digilux3 are different)

BTW are there any 2/3 sensor cameras on the market?

nemjo

 

[giellaleafapmu]

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.

No, it is just a discussion on whether one of the top brand of the type of camera to which this forum is devoted has any chance to survive.

As for wanting a camera with AF, plastics, high FPS and a short lifecycle I don't think anyone wants that. However the short life is now a fact due to the continuous advance of technology and within the short life one would like to have a camera capable of producing images of better quality than a camera which costs 1/3 of the price...

In any case, it is not this forum which will do anything. If, as it is probable, Leica will keep their line with no changes as they did in the last...uh...40 years at least, put on the market overpriced products and give a bad service to their clients then almost certainly the company will not survive. We shall perhaps be a bit sad for a day or two, then go out with our screw mount camera made 70 years ago and have fun while anyone who needs a camera for a living will carry on doing what almost certainly does now: use a plastic DSLR (plastic? top line DSLR are not plastic!) with 20pt autofocus able to take 11FPS to take consistently pictures which pay their bills.

GLF

 

[splitimageview]

Back to Erwin's conclusion: "Current market trends do indicate that the RF concept is doomed. "

I agree that the RF concept is doomed, but only in terms of how Leica is approaching it.

The question is, does Leica have the (a) funding and (b) desire to change their long-standing mindset and (c) the vision to re-invent the RF into something more modern, as an alternative to the dslr?

Nikon and Canon are adding a gazillion bells and whistles to their products in an effort to constantly one-up each other. I believe there is a market for products that go light on bells and whistles, so people can get back to photography instead of having to read a 400 page manual to figure out their new gadget.

The product probably can't be made of an M-style magnesium shell with brass top and bottom plates. It would have to be composite material. Maybe the shell is made in Asia, and assembled/tested in Germany, to get the costs down.

No, we don't need 6 frames per second, Active-D lighthing, etc. I wouldn't even care if the camera produced JPEGs in-camera; just give me RAW. But autofocus is probably required.

It will take a Steve Jobs-like visioneer to decide which bells are required, and which are not.

If this can be done, and for a reasonable price (i.e., under $2k) I think Leica is back on the road to profitability.

 

[Olsen]

A pickup that will kick the ass of some European sports cars costing ten times as much and you don't have to have a spare while ones in the shop like the European exotics........ and the M8.

But it does'nt.

My car, - to take just one example - a Audi Quattro 2,0T - five door station wagon, has just as much power - 200 HP DIN - as the small engine Mustang, with half the engine displacement, less CO2 emissions, four wheel drive (continous), 4 wheel independant suspension, electronic stabilisation, the most advanced ABS on the market, 6 airbags, 6 shift manual gearbox, and - electrical adjustable leather seats, DVD navigation, computerized maintanance etc. etc. - goes just as fast and is cheaper.

 

[Tuolumne]

But it does'nt.

My car, - to take just one example - a Audi Quattro 2,0T - five door station wagon, has just as much power - 200 HP DIN - as the small engine Mustang, with half the engine displacement, less CO2 emissions, four wheel drive (continous), 4 wheel independant suspension, electronic stabilisation, the most advanced ABS on the market, 6 airbags, 6 shift manual gearbox, and - electrical adjustable leather seats, DVD navigation, computerized maintanance etc. etc. - goes just as fast and is cheaper.

And you think all that makes it better? I'll take a stick shift, hard ridin', gas-guzzling, chest impaling Good ole' American Hot Rod over your effete, auto-everyting, no thinking, sissy protected, European do-everything-but-steer automobile any day!

/T

 

[Olsen]

Cannot judge this as I don't have the 1Ds II but even if true this does not prove much, I did not say that no camera is more expensive and produce worst pictures...

- But I have. And I have compared the 1Ds II with 16-35 mm 2,8L v the M8 w/WATE. The Leica is far better!

Mmmmh, I don't have a proof but in real life I don't see a difference you can sell. You are probably right if you speak lines per mm about one of the picture you can get with both system still both can produce pictures which are even too good for most application and for the other (still-life, products, food) I wouldn't use any of the two systems anyway.

The difference is significant and can be seen at lesser blow ups than 100% in PS.

Don't get me wrong, I like rangefinders and I do like the M8, still it is a retrofit which might be all-right but not at the price...again real life is a proof of that.

GLF

The price of the M8 - in dollars - is a problem. - Much thanks to the democratically elected US government. That can't be blamed the Leica managment...