Erwin on Leicas future

sitemistic said:
Huge numbers of people would buy rangefinders if Leica would just sell them for $2000 instead of $5,000."

VC is selling rangefinders for $500 and huge numbers of people are not buying rangefinder cameras. All the anecdotes in the world aren't going to change that reality.
Click to expand...

Pessi-mistic, you have a penchant for taking bits and pieces of other's positions, addiing your own color, and using it as a quote. This is disingenuous.

Where did the term "huge numbers" come from? Who originally used that phrase? Can you point to the original post, please?

Fact is, no one has said "huge numbers." That's your words, not anyone elses.

The quote was "under $2k would put Leica back on the road to profitability." Maybe indeed this would result in "huge numbers" but that's not the way it was stated, or implied.

In addition, the "under $2,000 rangefinder" also had other non-trivial particulars attached to it; namely, it would have to be a re-invented, modern rangefinder created by someone with vision. I.e., not what's available today from anyone, and certainly not a $500 film rangefinder.
 
Since all of the companies that now make rangefinder bodies are either private, or do not break out their RF numbers, no one here has any facts to base their arguments on. In fact, I don't understand how even CV makes money on rangefinders, and neither does anyone else, becuase they aren't saying. So, everything we say here is just speculation. Given that, I don't see why one man's speculation is any better or worse than another's. So, go for it guys - have fun!

/T
 
sitemistic said:
I stand corrected. Small numbers would buy rangefinders if Leica would just sell them for $2,000 instead of $5,000.
Click to expand...
And there's nothing wrong with that. Not every market has to be gigantic. What's important is we (consumers) have the choice.
 
Tuolumne said:
Since all of the companies that now make rangefinder bodies are either private, or do not break out their RF numbers, no one here has any facts to base their arguments on. In fact, I don't understand how even CV makes money on rangefinders, and neither does anyone else, becuase they aren't saying. So, everything we say here is just speculation. Given that, I don't see why one man's speculation is any better or worse than another's. So, go for it guys - have fun!

/T
Click to expand...
Well I speculated that 3-4% of potential mid priced dslr buyers would either opt for a digital rf in the same price range, or eventually own both, in response to sitemistic's request for quantitative numbers of a market size. There was no response.
 
sitemistic said:
Well, perhaps you should ask Leica what's wrong with that. :)
Click to expand...
Well, based on the 7000 M8's sold per year, and what that actually represents of "flagship model" digital cameras sold in total, maybe there isn't anything wrong.
 
sitemistic said:
I stand corrected. Small numbers would buy rangefinders if Leica would just sell them for $2,000 instead of $5,000.

There. I have corrected my misstatement.
Click to expand...

Still not accurate, but I'll give you credit for one minor attempt. ;)
 
DelDavis said:
Well, I'd be willing to bet that the stock Audi would beat a stock Mustang (GT?) around a track. Never drove either, just vaguely know the specs, so it would be a gamble.
Click to expand...


The Audi wouldn't make it to the first turn, it would be in the pits for repairs, like the M8. The Mustang would blow it off the road. :D
 
sitemistic said:
We know how many M8's Leica sold. That's not a secret, apparently.
Click to expand...

That's not even half the story. And who knows if it's even true. You need the financials to tell the story. Anybody got those?

/T
 
sitemistic said:
We know how many M8's Leica sold. That's not a secret, apparently.
Click to expand...
Yes we do. And from a gut feeling, 7000 units per year sounds like a bigger piece of the $5000+ camera market size than we might realize. Whatcha think ?
 
sitemistic said:
Several people would buy rangefinders if Leica would just sell them for $2,000 instead of 5,000. How's that?

nextreme, 7,000 Flagship models might be fine for Canon or Nikon, they have lots of other cameras to sell. But if all you've got to sell is the flagship, it's going to sink pretty fast if you only sell 7,000 a year.
Click to expand...

Maybe you can't live on selling only flagship models, but if 7000 units represent a big chunk of that market segment, that would seem to indicate digital RF are players in that market, are a "healthy" product. No ?

And what do you think of my 3-4% estimate ? How many 20D's and D200's (I guess D200) were sold (not that those two alone represent the mid priced market)? If a mid priced digital rf occupied 3-4% of that market, do you think it would be enough to sustain it ? Again, IMO I do think it would be enough (and really, 3-4% is conservative).

And one more question. Wouldn't you own both yourself ? I would think that on certain assignments, something of a RF form factor with a couple of lenses might be better suited for that particular assignment.
 
back alley said:
you wont win with sitemistic.

smug is as smug does...
Click to expand...

Yes, I should have exited this thread like I did the DrLeo thread. Or the M8 shutter re-use thread. Still waiting for a reply to that one!
 
sitemistic said:
nextreme, honestly, I have no use professionally for a rangefinder. I can do anything with a 5D that I can do with a rangefinder. The expressed "advantages" of a rangefinder simply mean nothing in my work.

The 5D will focus better and faster than I can, and it can focus any lens, from my 14mm to my 600mm, and it will do it in total darkness if I need it to. I've shot the 5D in every thing from manufacturing facilities to hospital operating rooms, from churches to football games, and the sound of the shutter has never been an issue. I'm never "stealth" with a camera, so small is not an issue. I'm 6'2" and 230 pounds, so the cameras weight isn't a first consideration.

I love to shoot with rangefinders. Do so a lot for personal stuff. But they are simply not useful to me in my professional work.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. But even more importantly is having the choice. Right now, we (consumers) do. And I want even more choice. That's a healthy photography market.
 
back alley said:
you wont win with sitemistic.

smug is as smug does...
Click to expand...
I thought I did. :D

[Edit]
I'm not trying to "win". Just trying to figure out why he seems to bash the M8 & Leica.
 
Last edited:
Nextreme, your point is a good one. Apple lived on 3-4% market share for a long time. The media painted it as Everyone Else 97, Apple 3. They all preferred to paint doom and gloom about Apple, because it was chic.

The real story was that Everyone Else consisted of several players, most of which were no bigger than Apple was, or not much bigger.

If 3-4% is conservative, say 6-10 may be the real figure. That's pretty significant. It would be difficult for one maker to grow their business by that much, by taking away business from others. But in theory it could be done, if one had a product no one else had...the Magic Modern RF. Then one wouldn't be growing by chipping away at your compeitors by adding megapixels or fps or other bells and whistles but by offering something entirely different.

None of this is about 'winning' per se. But it sure would be nice to at least have a fair discussion where comments aren't twisted out of context in an attempt to justify one's own position. Leave that to the politicians.
 
digitalintrigue said:
Nextreme, Apple lived on 3-4% market share for a long time. The media painted it as Everyone Else 97, Apple 3. They all preferred to paint doom and gloom about Apple, because it was chic.

The real story was that Everyone Else consisted of several players, most of which were no bigger than Apple was, or not much bigger.

If 3-4% is conservative, say 6-10 may be the real figure. That's pretty significant. It would be difficult for one maker to grow their business by that much, by taking away business from others. But in theory it could be done, if one had a product no one else had...the Magic Modern RF. Then one wouldn't be growing by chipping away at your compeitors by adding megapixels or fps or other bells and whistles but by offering something entirely different.

None of this is about 'winning' per se. But it sure would be nice to at least have a fair discussion where comments aren't twisted out of context in an attempt to justify one's own position. Leave that to the politicians.
Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more.

Cheers !
 
dazedgonebye said:
I guess I could actually tie that back to the original topic by relating it to camera choices...but that sounds like too much work.
Click to expand...

And I guess my initial question to Tuolomne was more an attempt to elicit some kind of internal reflection about his vaguely hostile characterization of a particular vehicle, and by extension its driver. I have no interest in comparing performance of automobiles.
 
There must be some sort of industry trade magazine or something that tracks unit sales, so all this can be put into perspective.

Assuming the 14,000 figure for the M8 is accurate, it would be nice to know how many D2x (or any $5k dSLR) were sold in a given time frame, for reference.

But raw numbers only tell part of the story. Porsche comes to mind...they sold about 100,000 cars in 2006 and made over 7 billion euros. GM sold nearly ten million units in 2007 and lost money.
 
DelDavis said:
And I guess my initial question to Tuolomne was more an attempt to elicit some kind of internal reflection about his vaguely hostile characterization of a particular vehicle, and by extension its driver. I have no interest in comparing performance of automobiles.
Click to expand...
You people are a riot. My comment was entirely a joke. Entirely. Let me say that again - entirely.

/T
P.S. And what are you? The RFF thought police? (joke...joke...joke)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom