Just posted on fb:
Every time that Leica starts to issue special models of the M-series one is inclined to become suspicious about the state of the Leica company. There was a peak in M6 special models at the end of its commercial life and there is now a peak of special models of the M9 and M cameras. The recently announced change of CEO is another indication that the Leica company is not in the feel-good-shape that the new headquarters in Wetzlar try to convey on the visitors.
Some time ago I wrote about the smartphone-menace to mainstream photography and Leica tried to counter this trend with the Leica T. I was alone in noting that the T was not a smart product (the rest of the world gave the camera the usual designations of ‘milestone’, ‘innovative’, ‘brilliant’ and so on. Words are easy to employ! Now there are serious indications that the sales of the T are not as hoped for.
I was also almost alone in noting that any M (with whatever specifications) has a limited sales appeal for a limited group of persons, not necessary photographers and that sales of M cameras after a peak will inevitably drop. This is a marketing and engineering problem, because the double goal of preserving the DNA of the CRF and creating a totally new and modern CRF is like squaring the circle. The Fuji X-series has some success, undoubtedly, as a modern version of a classic CRF, but lacks the true DNA of the Leica CRF.
The smartphone has almost killed the compact digital camera and in this segment the D-C-V and X series of Leica are the obvious victims. Add to all of this the tremendous success of Apple’s iPhone 6 and the recent campaign by Apple to promote the photographic capabilities of the ‘6’ and it is clear that the compact digital camera will be extinct in the near future. Many observers have remarked that the main problem of the current generation of high quality digital cameras (dSLRs and dCRF) is the fact that modern electronics are embodied in traditional ‘analog’-camera bodies that are not easy to use for the iPad and smartphone generation. It is indeed preposterous that you need to wade through hundreds of pages of manual for a product that only should need a few very simple actions to work.
Compare the Leica M-A with the Leica M and you see what I mean.
When Leica announced the intention to grow tenfold it was clear that the then current range of products was not suitable as a platform to support such an ambitious goal. Not only the product portfolio, but also the company’s infrastructure, organization and culture were not suited to accomplish this goal. It is one to build a larger factory, buy new machines and hire additional people, but it is two to make it happen. Captain Kirk and his Vulcan companion might be able to achieve this, but for mortals it is a different story.
The string of problems that have erupted from the Leica factory are an indication that the combination of fast product introduction and higher production levels cannot be handled with good success, at least not by a company with the Leica-Solms heritage. I am sure Blackstone has observed these events with growing concern and has acted as any investor who looks exclusively at the return on investments would have done. I am also sure that this (the ambitious goals) is the reason why Hermes pulled out of the company after discussions with Lee.
In discussions with Leica personnel, there is ofter a reference with the Porsche analogy. Porsche started as a high-quality low volume niche producer and managed to evolve into a high-quality-high volume special product manufacturer. Leica seems to want to follow the same route, but lacks one distinctive commodity.
This is for the next story.
Every time that Leica starts to issue special models of the M-series one is inclined to become suspicious about the state of the Leica company. There was a peak in M6 special models at the end of its commercial life and there is now a peak of special models of the M9 and M cameras. The recently announced change of CEO is another indication that the Leica company is not in the feel-good-shape that the new headquarters in Wetzlar try to convey on the visitors.
Some time ago I wrote about the smartphone-menace to mainstream photography and Leica tried to counter this trend with the Leica T. I was alone in noting that the T was not a smart product (the rest of the world gave the camera the usual designations of ‘milestone’, ‘innovative’, ‘brilliant’ and so on. Words are easy to employ! Now there are serious indications that the sales of the T are not as hoped for.
I was also almost alone in noting that any M (with whatever specifications) has a limited sales appeal for a limited group of persons, not necessary photographers and that sales of M cameras after a peak will inevitably drop. This is a marketing and engineering problem, because the double goal of preserving the DNA of the CRF and creating a totally new and modern CRF is like squaring the circle. The Fuji X-series has some success, undoubtedly, as a modern version of a classic CRF, but lacks the true DNA of the Leica CRF.
The smartphone has almost killed the compact digital camera and in this segment the D-C-V and X series of Leica are the obvious victims. Add to all of this the tremendous success of Apple’s iPhone 6 and the recent campaign by Apple to promote the photographic capabilities of the ‘6’ and it is clear that the compact digital camera will be extinct in the near future. Many observers have remarked that the main problem of the current generation of high quality digital cameras (dSLRs and dCRF) is the fact that modern electronics are embodied in traditional ‘analog’-camera bodies that are not easy to use for the iPad and smartphone generation. It is indeed preposterous that you need to wade through hundreds of pages of manual for a product that only should need a few very simple actions to work.
Compare the Leica M-A with the Leica M and you see what I mean.
When Leica announced the intention to grow tenfold it was clear that the then current range of products was not suitable as a platform to support such an ambitious goal. Not only the product portfolio, but also the company’s infrastructure, organization and culture were not suited to accomplish this goal. It is one to build a larger factory, buy new machines and hire additional people, but it is two to make it happen. Captain Kirk and his Vulcan companion might be able to achieve this, but for mortals it is a different story.
The string of problems that have erupted from the Leica factory are an indication that the combination of fast product introduction and higher production levels cannot be handled with good success, at least not by a company with the Leica-Solms heritage. I am sure Blackstone has observed these events with growing concern and has acted as any investor who looks exclusively at the return on investments would have done. I am also sure that this (the ambitious goals) is the reason why Hermes pulled out of the company after discussions with Lee.
In discussions with Leica personnel, there is ofter a reference with the Porsche analogy. Porsche started as a high-quality low volume niche producer and managed to evolve into a high-quality-high volume special product manufacturer. Leica seems to want to follow the same route, but lacks one distinctive commodity.
This is for the next story.
kbg32
neo-romanticist
The distinctive commodity might be a forward thinking CEO/managerial staff. I just hope they don't fail like Kodak did.
MCTuomey
Veteran
Leica's digital RFs are probably just a stop-gap measure in what appears from the long view as their inexorable decline in camera relevance that started decades ago. The problem now is the same one from the 70's. Not enough buyers willing to stake their photographic aspirations to Leica's expensive cameras. Leica may have to migrate eventually to the Zeiss model: glass, glass, and more glass.
skibeerr
Well-known
I love Leica M and it's glass but...
No bigger company wants to touch m mount digital rf, shows how niche Leica is. If the numbers where there it would have happened.
So only one player sets the price, no problem if the quality is there.
See film cameras and lenses. Never touched a digital Leica.
The thing that annoys me the most is the empty marketing spin Leica spouts, reading their Blurb turns my stomach.
The Guy responsible for this is going to lead the company .... :bang:
No bigger company wants to touch m mount digital rf, shows how niche Leica is. If the numbers where there it would have happened.
So only one player sets the price, no problem if the quality is there.
See film cameras and lenses. Never touched a digital Leica.
The thing that annoys me the most is the empty marketing spin Leica spouts, reading their Blurb turns my stomach.
The Guy responsible for this is going to lead the company .... :bang:
noisycheese
Normal(ish) Human
I don't expect Leica to go down the tubes - if they can survive the upheaval of early 2005, I think they will be resourceful and resilient enough to overcome the current challenges which seem to be much less threatening than the situation in early 2005 was.
uhoh7
Veteran
Very interesting post. Link is down so I wonder if he has reconsidered LOL
Anyway I don't plan to fret much about Leica future. I just enjoy the present.
Anyway I don't plan to fret much about Leica future. I just enjoy the present.
fireblade
Vincenzo.
.........."When Leica announced the intention to grow tenfold it was clear that the then current range of products was not suitable as a platform to support such an ambitious goal. Not only the product portfolio, but also the company’s infrastructure, organization and culture were not suited to accomplish this goal."
This ^^^^.
This ^^^^.
Harry Lime
Practitioner
I purchased a demo 240 a while back a good price and here is my personal take on Leica. For the record I'm coming up on 20 years with the M series.
a) they have completely priced themselves out of the market. I know that manufacturing costs in Germany are high, but even that does not excuse the pricetag Leica is asking. Their customer base has become the 1% and the problem with that is that there are few professional photographers and artist in that tax bracket. How many Leicas are being purchased as status symbols or expensive gifts? The problem with that trend is that your prodcut becomes a fashion item and like all trends eventually falls out of favor.
b) from a technological standpoint the M series is in desperate need of a more sophisticated metering system. Digital is very unforgiving. If you miss exposure by a stop you may totally clip your highlights. This was almost impossible to do in the days of negative film. I used to shoot my film M bodies in total confidence in all lighting conditions and fast moving situations. I don't feel that I can trust the 240 like Tri-X or my D600 and have been burned on several occasions in fast moving situations where the light changes drastically. And please don't tell me not ot blame my tools and all of that. I've been shooting for over 25 years with manual cameras and mastered that skill a long time ago. The M series needs a matrix metering system reading off the prism system of the RF unit. Maybe Leica should spend some money on R&D instead of these stupid special editions.
I'm getting to the point that I will probably go back to shooting Tri-X in my analog M bodies and get a Fuji X100T or D750 for color work. Which brings me to point C
C) I can't afford to hold on to the 240 for an extended period, because like all electronics it depreciates rapidly with age. All digital cameras have this problem, but there is a big difference between a $2000 camera depreciating over 3-4 years and a Leica M at $8000. I'm not wealthy enough to ignore that fact.
www.felidigiorgio.com
a) they have completely priced themselves out of the market. I know that manufacturing costs in Germany are high, but even that does not excuse the pricetag Leica is asking. Their customer base has become the 1% and the problem with that is that there are few professional photographers and artist in that tax bracket. How many Leicas are being purchased as status symbols or expensive gifts? The problem with that trend is that your prodcut becomes a fashion item and like all trends eventually falls out of favor.
b) from a technological standpoint the M series is in desperate need of a more sophisticated metering system. Digital is very unforgiving. If you miss exposure by a stop you may totally clip your highlights. This was almost impossible to do in the days of negative film. I used to shoot my film M bodies in total confidence in all lighting conditions and fast moving situations. I don't feel that I can trust the 240 like Tri-X or my D600 and have been burned on several occasions in fast moving situations where the light changes drastically. And please don't tell me not ot blame my tools and all of that. I've been shooting for over 25 years with manual cameras and mastered that skill a long time ago. The M series needs a matrix metering system reading off the prism system of the RF unit. Maybe Leica should spend some money on R&D instead of these stupid special editions.
I'm getting to the point that I will probably go back to shooting Tri-X in my analog M bodies and get a Fuji X100T or D750 for color work. Which brings me to point C
C) I can't afford to hold on to the 240 for an extended period, because like all electronics it depreciates rapidly with age. All digital cameras have this problem, but there is a big difference between a $2000 camera depreciating over 3-4 years and a Leica M at $8000. I'm not wealthy enough to ignore that fact.
www.felidigiorgio.com
Emile de Leon
Well-known
They are too fkn expensive...Leica cut its own throat...
trisberg
Established
This is pretty close to my own experience although I had an M9 that I recently sold. I agree with all three points you made, and I do like my new X100T
.-Thomas
john_s
Well-known
The problem here is that a special edition costs almost nothing to make over the standard model: just a few bits of text on the body, an announcement of the limited numbers, maybe a slightly different finish, etc.
I'm very happy with my film M cameras (they are the most ordinary ones that exist). I don't have the courage to face the digital Leica scene. Nikons are for that.
Kwesi
Well-known
This bit of " conventional wisdom" seems to come up quite often here on RFF.
1- A used film MP sells for about $2500. That's about 50% off its new price even its only a year old. Obviously film cameras are not immune to depreciation.
2- a digital M will easily last for 10 years. At that point haven't you got your money's worth out of it?
I don't understand this irrational fear of depreciation.
Sparrow
Veteran
Firstly ... what the executive-board say to their Merchant bankers and the press (as I understand it the investors have preference shares as well as almost half the ordinaries) and what they say to each other could well be quite different
Secondly ... just because the directors write the budget, and get the management accounts each month don't imagine they know exactly what's going on, they won't ... and it's not as simple as all about the bottom line ... it's the top line they look at, miss the sales budget for three consecutive months and you'll attract lots of interest from the moneymen, one just needs to provide them an excuse even if you're showing a profit and generating cash
Lastly ... Merchant bankers and venture capital always enjoy change, as do the analysts not to mention the lawyers, they make their money during change. So if they get half a chance they'll flog off their gran just to drum up a bit of trade for there mates and have something to brag about in the pub later ...
Secondly ... just because the directors write the budget, and get the management accounts each month don't imagine they know exactly what's going on, they won't ... and it's not as simple as all about the bottom line ... it's the top line they look at, miss the sales budget for three consecutive months and you'll attract lots of interest from the moneymen, one just needs to provide them an excuse even if you're showing a profit and generating cash
Lastly ... Merchant bankers and venture capital always enjoy change, as do the analysts not to mention the lawyers, they make their money during change. So if they get half a chance they'll flog off their gran just to drum up a bit of trade for there mates and have something to brag about in the pub later ...
Timmyjoe
Veteran
There is a whole series of jokes disparaging the law profession, "Did you hear about the lawyer who . . .?" and "What do you call a busload of lawyers going off a cliff?" As mean spirited as those jokes are, I think replacing lawyer with merchant banker or venture capitalist, and then making the jokes far more mean spirited, would be totally justified.
Just sayin'
agfa100
Well-known
You may have forgotten with the Porsche analogy, there was a time when things were not good at Porsche and they talked to Toyota about their production issues. Toyota came in and told them what they needed to change and the rest is history. Not with the product but how to build it and make a profit.
My take on Leica is the product is the issue plus the production problems and QC, plus now the money side is not happy also. Maybe they should go the Zeiss way, lenses, lenses, lenses. But if I was so smart, why am I so poor.
My take on Leica is the product is the issue plus the production problems and QC, plus now the money side is not happy also. Maybe they should go the Zeiss way, lenses, lenses, lenses. But if I was so smart, why am I so poor.
Sparrow
Veteran
... good and bad in every profession ... mine has become a personal friend over the years (solicitor) and bankers are ethical on a personal level, but the system changes in the 1980s and 90s don't really give them much chance to demonstrate it these days, even at my lowly SME level ... as the joke goes
Q ... how can you tell the difference between a none-executive director and a supermarket trolly?
A ... sometimes a supermarket trolly has a mind of its own
ColSebastianMoran
( IRL Richard Karash )
Article mentions the Leica T, a model unknown to me, not meeting it's sales targets.
Looked it up. It's a mirrorless ILC. With an 18-56 f/3.5-5.6 lens, it's $3600 today at B&H.
Looked it up. It's a mirrorless ILC. With an 18-56 f/3.5-5.6 lens, it's $3600 today at B&H.
Yep, even in Leica terms it is priced about twice as high as it should be...
airfrogusmc
Veteran
Harry, I feel your pain but all of this digital stuff has a shelf life. As far as price goes I remember the time when Leica M was more than twice the price of the top of the line Canons and Nikons. Now Leica M is about the same. This digital gear is all insanely expensive and it will all die at some point in time and will not have the longevity of an all mechanical camera.
But the way I look at it is I have been shooting with my MM for over 2 years now and over 30K images. Those are all images I may or may not have made. In that time i have had 2 one man exhibits and I was in a juried show. These are all image I probably wouldn't have made.
I have had more trouble with all 4 of my Canon DSLRs by 2 years and 30K than I have with my MM. Which is in my opinion Leica's finest digital camera and a camera that is a real alternative.
The lenses you will not loose money on. Leica bodies are like all other DSLR bodies and will loose but not at the same rate you loose with say Canon or Nikon when they come out with a new flavor of the day.
I buy a camera to shoot with not as an investment. And if I can get 100K+ out of it then it's a tool and I made a lot of images and got a lot of enjoyment from it. For me it is worth the price to find a tool that fits the way I see and work so well.
ChrisLivsey
Veteran
You think Leica digital is bad for depreciation?
2008 Hasselblad H3DII 39 body only £21,502.50
2015 e-bay sales around £3,500, those asking £5,000+ don't sell.
And yes, rumours are Hasselblad "could be doing better".
2008 Hasselblad H3DII 39 body only £21,502.50
2015 e-bay sales around £3,500, those asking £5,000+ don't sell.
And yes, rumours are Hasselblad "could be doing better".