willie_901
Veteran
Very well written and thought out splitimageview.
One thing about Porsche, while they deserve credit for their evolution, they had a strong business partner in VW. Porsche Automobil Holding SE owns just over 50% of VW.
Canon, Fujifilm, Pentax, Panasonic and, of course, SONY have diverse product lines that generate cash flow to sustain photography. Olympus has a strong medical life sciences and industrial imaging business. Leica and Nikon can't depend on non-photography products for significant cash flow support. (Yes, I know Nikon and Leica also sell non-photography products too.)
Leica needs a partner.
One thing about Porsche, while they deserve credit for their evolution, they had a strong business partner in VW. Porsche Automobil Holding SE owns just over 50% of VW.
Canon, Fujifilm, Pentax, Panasonic and, of course, SONY have diverse product lines that generate cash flow to sustain photography. Olympus has a strong medical life sciences and industrial imaging business. Leica and Nikon can't depend on non-photography products for significant cash flow support. (Yes, I know Nikon and Leica also sell non-photography products too.)
Leica needs a partner.
ChipMcD
Well-known
These are good points. I'm done with digital Leicas and will probably get rid of my M9. I've got good solutions for color in my Nikon and Olympus cameras, and as good as the lenses are, the quality difference is not enough to justify the cost of the Leica digital bodies, at least not for me. Fortunately, I still shoot film, and so I can continue to enjoy that Leica glass with my M3 and MP bodies. Another poster suggested that Leica might focus on glass, rather than full cameras, as Zeiss has. I hope that it does, because it does make some sweet lenses.
Dante_Stella
Rex canum cattorumque
Cameras depreciate the fastest from new to used on day one. Holding a camera to the point the market price is relatively stable is the way to defeat this (the Leica cost of ownership in years 4 and 5 is very low). Dumping a camera quickly is the way to get hosed.
That said, Leica's pricing seems to operate on two levels. One is the theoretical list price (which need not be respected so long as that is not advertised). The other is the limitless supply of lower-priced "demos," which vastly outstrips the stated reasons why they exist. Has Leica used hundreds of M 240s at trade shows? Highly, highly doubtful. If you bought a demo, depreciation would be a non-issue.
Dante
YYV_146
Well-known
Even if I use the same camera over 10 years (which I won't because it's not a viable way to stay competitive in either commercial or personal work), the Leica M depreciation costs ~$750 per year. This is assuming that the camera works for ten years with no need of repair or service. If it breaks in year 4-9, costs are going to go up.
Making the more reasonable assumption of purchase and resale in 3 years, my estimation is that depreciation is upwards of $1,200 per year. I can afford the latest and greatest digital body every year, then sell it on the cheap side, and still take a smaller hit.
Emile de Leon
Well-known
Leica just needs to find more rich customers..or..lower their pricing..
Maybe a diamond studded Leica M..with rubies on all the buttons..and an emerald or 2 for spice...yeah...that's the ticket...sapphire anyone..?
Maybe a diamond studded Leica M..with rubies on all the buttons..and an emerald or 2 for spice...yeah...that's the ticket...sapphire anyone..?
VertovSvilova
Well-known
As my brother (an activist lawyer who fights unethical corporate types, polluters, and other ne'er-do-wells) says, "you need to fight fire with fire." Probably the best way to address the 'system' is to learn it well and fight it from within. It might not seem like it (there's not a lot of media coverage) but there actually are quite a lot of young people out there doing a lot of work behind the scenes trying to keep the 'system' in check.
noisycheese
Normal(ish) Human
I am at a loss to understand the umbrage some folks take over Leica's prices - while there are clearly several cameras that are much more outrageously priced, to wit:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/893188-REG/Hasselblad_H5D_40_DSLR_Camera.html and
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/893191-REG/Hasselblad_H5D_50_DSLR_Camera_With.html and
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1034017-REG/hasselblad_h_3013668_h5d_50c_dslr_camera.html and
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produ...3013707_h5d_50c_multi_shot_medium_format.html
and http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/893195-REG/Hasselblad_H5D_60_DSLR_Camera_With.html
Why the blind rage over Leica M lens and body prices while Hasselblad gets a free pass?? It makes no sense.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/893188-REG/Hasselblad_H5D_40_DSLR_Camera.html and
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/893191-REG/Hasselblad_H5D_50_DSLR_Camera_With.html and
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1034017-REG/hasselblad_h_3013668_h5d_50c_dslr_camera.html and
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produ...3013707_h5d_50c_multi_shot_medium_format.html
and http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/893195-REG/Hasselblad_H5D_60_DSLR_Camera_With.html
Why the blind rage over Leica M lens and body prices while Hasselblad gets a free pass?? It makes no sense.
noisycheese
Normal(ish) Human
Perhaps a growth rate of 10x was unrealistic, given the current product lineup. Growth is good - to a point.
When growth for the sake of growth becomes a company's prime reason for existing, its sine qua non - trouble is pretty much inevitable.
Leica does not need to try to eat Nikon and Canon's lunch,, and they are certainly not going to do it with their current product portfolio.
If they want to challenge Niko-anon, they are going to need to start spewing out $1300 to $2300 DSLRs and $300 to $1200 lenses at the rate of 100,000 per day, like Niko-anon does. Those DSLRs and lenses would obviously be built down to a given price point, making them LINOs, Leicas In Name Only.
Leica is what it is. They need to just be the best Leica they can be and not try to be the General Motors of camera makers.
Making a billion dollars profit every five seconds should not be their prime directive. That is nothing other than the path to destruction.
Pioneer
Veteran
Camera brands around the world are suffering. Sales have dropped off the proverbial cliff. Even though Leica has been doing somewhat better this does not mean that they do not have similar problems.
Investment companies need returns. They live and die on those returns. They are all trying hard to beat the Dow and the S&P. Of course, as we all know, no one does that very long.
These investment companies need their returns to improve. So they pressure their investments to improve. Leica is under pressure anytime their sales for the current quarter drop below the sales from the previous year's quarter.
Investment companies need returns. They live and die on those returns. They are all trying hard to beat the Dow and the S&P. Of course, as we all know, no one does that very long.
These investment companies need their returns to improve. So they pressure their investments to improve. Leica is under pressure anytime their sales for the current quarter drop below the sales from the previous year's quarter.
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
The problem however is that the former General Motors and Fords of the camera industry are rapidly shrinking, into a niche of yet uncertain size. A niche within a niche might turn out to be too small for Leica.
Even if the collapse should only affect the compacts and bottom end DSLRs, the current licensing model will contribute much less to Leica's income than it did back when Panasonic still were selling millions of compacts with Leica branded lenses.
Manuel Patino
Established
I don't think one can compare Leica with an automobile manufacturer. It's just not the same thing unless it's a brand like Ferrari, Bugatti, Etc.
One only "needs" a beat up old used car to get from A to B. From that point up it's a mixture of desire for expensive, exclusive brands or perhaps for the exceptional professional, the best tool for the job.
If capitalists buy Leica for fast bottom line, quick profits above all else, they will probably kill the camera side of the company. However, if Leica continues to make excellent (albeit expensive) playthings for some and great tools for others, it will continue to thrive.
Yes, I do agree that the Leica prices are very high. I had to swallow hard to buy my (used) M240 and the 5of1.5 Lux. But really, my MFT Olympus great is not really "cheap" either. Sure, Leica could probably sell more cameras for half the price, but probably not twice as many....
Another thing is the iPhone issue. First of all, the iPhone is no camera. It cannot replace any half decent camera for real photography work. Sure, for the average Facebook user and selfie shooting teenager or exhibitionist, the smart phone is quite good. But lets not forget. Cheap it is "not". An iPhone or similar costs many hundreds of dollars plus thousands of dollars in yearly fees... For texting, phone and communications, they are pretty good, but aside some exceptional cases, who can seriously consider shooting an assignment with an iPhone? Or even some personal shooting to print?
Maybe digital photo cameras will lose much of their market share, but I doubt that iPhones will supplant them completely. At least not for me.
One only "needs" a beat up old used car to get from A to B. From that point up it's a mixture of desire for expensive, exclusive brands or perhaps for the exceptional professional, the best tool for the job.
If capitalists buy Leica for fast bottom line, quick profits above all else, they will probably kill the camera side of the company. However, if Leica continues to make excellent (albeit expensive) playthings for some and great tools for others, it will continue to thrive.
Yes, I do agree that the Leica prices are very high. I had to swallow hard to buy my (used) M240 and the 5of1.5 Lux. But really, my MFT Olympus great is not really "cheap" either. Sure, Leica could probably sell more cameras for half the price, but probably not twice as many....
Another thing is the iPhone issue. First of all, the iPhone is no camera. It cannot replace any half decent camera for real photography work. Sure, for the average Facebook user and selfie shooting teenager or exhibitionist, the smart phone is quite good. But lets not forget. Cheap it is "not". An iPhone or similar costs many hundreds of dollars plus thousands of dollars in yearly fees... For texting, phone and communications, they are pretty good, but aside some exceptional cases, who can seriously consider shooting an assignment with an iPhone? Or even some personal shooting to print?
Maybe digital photo cameras will lose much of their market share, but I doubt that iPhones will supplant them completely. At least not for me.
airfrogusmc
Veteran
They just need to keep making a camera that people can't get elsewhere like the MM. It is the only FF B&W only rangefinder at any price. And Leica M is the same price as top of the line Canon and Nikons so they are no more expensive than thsoe two and there in really no competition because the other two do not make a rangefinder.
skibeerr
Well-known
MikeDimit
Established
A century ago Leica made a revolution in photography. It is time for a new one. How about they produce a scanner with 50 megapixel resolution? I do not get it. As a whole digital megapixel race is about to put more and more pixels in 36*24mm or less matrix and look at them with better and better software. It is like making a contact copy from a negative and convince everybody to buy better magnifying optical glass and when that technical advantage is worn out to produce some electronic miracle microscope to see better that tiny 36*24mm matrix. I am dreaming of an electronic "photographic paper" . Same process as in wet lab but instead of wet paper I would use electronic sheet and the result will PS or LR or whatever.
YYV_146
Well-known
If you have ever used a Hassy MFDB...they are completely different cameras compared to anything Leica has ever made, and Canon and Nikon as well for that matter. They are special tools for special purposes, of which there really isn't any viable, cheaper alternatives. The prices are so high because demand is low, and photographers who can afford to use these in commercial capacity won't care if it's $3,000 or 30,000.
I can get better output than a digital M from many cheaper bodies.
Colin Corneau
Colin Corneau
And that's why almost every camera manufacturer is in decline.
Kwesi
Well-known
Jack Sparrow
Well-known
You're comparing to MF cameras that are (arguably) more likely to be "used professionally" and probably also written off, tax-wise. Chances are there's a pool of photographers using such equipment also.
That's not to say Leica M cameras can't be used professionally, but let's get real for a moment. More likely it'd be the S System. Compare THAT to Hasselblad.
nightfly
Well-known
Buy Konost or stick the M inards and mount into the T body (which seem like what Konost is essentially doing) and make a more affordable line.
Get rid of the sub full frame stuff.
Stop putting your name on Panasonic point and shoots.
If you want to be high end, be high end. You're living off the equity of your brand, don't dilute it.
Have a line that is a pure function with a modern T like body and a heritage line for rich people that like the status and retro look. Charge a premium for it but basically make one set of innards and two bodies and wrap the premium one in rare animals and the foreskin of rhinoceros and charge more money for it (lord knows you've got this down).
Get some cameras in the hands of respected photographers and have them pimp for you.
Most pros abandoned rangefinders for SLRs 5 decades ago. You're not getting them back in quantity but your Magnum kinda guys are who you want to keep the mystique alive.
Get rid of the sub full frame stuff.
Stop putting your name on Panasonic point and shoots.
If you want to be high end, be high end. You're living off the equity of your brand, don't dilute it.
Have a line that is a pure function with a modern T like body and a heritage line for rich people that like the status and retro look. Charge a premium for it but basically make one set of innards and two bodies and wrap the premium one in rare animals and the foreskin of rhinoceros and charge more money for it (lord knows you've got this down).
Get some cameras in the hands of respected photographers and have them pimp for you.
Most pros abandoned rangefinders for SLRs 5 decades ago. You're not getting them back in quantity but your Magnum kinda guys are who you want to keep the mystique alive.
Sparrow
Veteran
... if only Leica realised that is all about what Ned wants eh? ... we could have sorted this out years ago ...
... sorry Ned
... sorry Ned